To get things started I’ll state my most controversial views.
- I think J.K. Rowling is alright. And that by definition I’m what some would call a “TERF”.
I think there are fundamental differences between men and women, and how one feels doesn’t really change that. Personality traits and mental illness do not change biology.
-
I’m an atheist. I’m not convinced of any deities, but that’d be pretty cool to find out if there were any, or any deep answer to the universe for that matter.
-
Climate change is a real and present danger, But there’s fuck all I can do about it from an individual standpoint right now.
-
Aliens seem like a very real possibility with all the seemingly credible sources lately but I’m not convinced. My best guess is that it’s an intentional thing to mess with other countries.
-
I’m nearly a free speech absolutist. I think one should not be afraid to voice their views. And that censorship only hurts human progress.
-
The main controversy surrounding this instance, lolis. I don’t care what people beat it to as long as no one is being harmed. Drawings don’t have emotions, bodies, or rights.
deleted by creator
If all the arguments have truly been made and it’s not worth discussing to you, that assumes two of three points.
-
That we both have heard every argument.
-
That one or both of us don’t care about the underlying facts of the “winning” arguments.
-
That we don’t understand an argument, or more.
#1 seems to be unlikely. So a good point.
#2 I think isn’t likely. My whole thing is that truth trumps emotion, and I assume you also care about that. Some people don’t, but in good faith of argument I assume this to be true for most if not all people.
#3 seems very likely. Either I don’t understand something that you do, or vice versa. And that’s why groups like this exist. To close that gap.
I totally agree that people have a right to dress or talk how they want to. I also agree people have a right to do what they want to their own bodies as well.
Self expression is king IMO.
I don’t understand how not feeling comfortable in your own skin isn’t an illness. It seems more likely that instead medicine and science has been corrupted by agendas, as shown in the grievance studies where untested and falsified studies that were sympathetic to certain views were rubber stamped as truth. No fact checking behind them.
Homosexuality is pretty cool biology wise. The markers that predetermine it are predictable in the womb and seem to be an actual evolutionary trait. Which I was really surprised to learn. If something proves transgender stuff is similar, that’d be very interesting.
I don’t endorse harming people for being trans. It’s messed up that people have done that in the past, and that some still do. There needs to be a better collective understanding of this topic.
As for aliens, I agree space is pretty vast. It’s improbable we’d ever find any.
Homosexuality is pretty cool biology wise. The markers that predetermine it are predictable in the womb and seem to be an actual evolutionary trait. Which I was really surprised to learn. If something proves transgender stuff is similar, that’d be very interesting.
The physiological differences between men and women are dictated by the ratios of specific types of hormones during development: estrogens for female traits, androgens for male traits. The handful of genes responsible for these mutate reasonably commonly with fairly neutral effect, but more significant mutations can cause inequal development of male and female physiology. Mutations to the srY gene, a keystone of gender expression, can also cause these sorts of effects.
Some examples of such effects include:
- Individuals with XX chromosomes, but male physical features, caused by the srY gene migrating to an X chromosome
- Swyer Syndrome, where an individual has XY chromosomes, but the srY gene migrated to the X chromosome. This causes them to develop female physical features, but nonfunctional gonads—this means they will not naturally experience puberty, among other issues. (The normal treatment is hormone replacement therapy, because the problem is that their gonads aren’t able to produce the right hormones on their own.)
- Androgen insensitivity syndrome, wherein male physiology, especially sex organs, only develops partially or not at all.
Additionally, hormones are spread around by regular, chaotic fluid dynamics, and fetuses don’t grow in a vacuum, but rather inside a sac inside another person who is producing their own hormones. Therefore, it’s rather unlikely all parts of the body will actually receive equal ratios of androgens and estrogens - which can lead to, for instance, the brain developing in a structure and exhibity measurably more like the ‘typical’ female brain structure despite the individual’s physiology being overall male. There have been actual brain scans done of transgender individuals that identify this, AFAIK.
I don’t understand how not feeling comfortable in your own skin isn’t an illness.
I’d like to probe this with examples of other things that can be reasonably accurately described as some version of “not feeling comfortable in your own skin” (I’d like to be clear that these are examples for you to assess this idea with—I think there are reasonable arguments for and against these being illnesses. What I’d like to know is if these examples that would reasonably be considered an illness under that definition actually align with what you think an illness is?):
-
Is disliking being overweight an illness? What about being underweight?
-
If you’re born missing a limb, is it an illness if you want a prosthetic?
-
If you don’t like your voice, is wanting to do voice training illness? What about greying hair? Or hair loss?
From another angle, given the problem is a mismatch between mind and body, is changing the mind (i.e. the person) better than changing the body? Even in terms of simple capabilities, changing the body is much easier and more doable for modern medicine than changing the mind. We’ve been developing antidepressants, for example, for 50 years, and they still can cause depression as a side effect.
I appreciate the level of detail you’ve brought into this. It’s been a while since I’ve been able to discuss this with someone who’s actually done their research on sex.
To answer your questions. Casually disliking being overweight or underweight is not an illness. Being severely obese or severely underweight are illnesses that can be treated by proper exercise and proper nutrition.
To compare it to gender dysphoria though, you’d have to be severely obese, or severely underweight, and believe you are the other one that you physically aren’t. If I weighed 400 lbs but believed I was actually a starving person that’s underweight, for example.
For the prosthetic limb example. Wanting an object to assist oneself isn’t an illness.
For the voice training one. Wanting to improve oneself through training, diet, exercise aren’t illnesses.
You’re right that changing the body does seem easier.
To compare it to gender dysphoria though, you’d have to be severely obese, or severely underweight, and believe you are the other one that you physically aren’t. If I weighed 400 lbs but believed I was actually a starving person that’s underweight, for example.
This… isn’t analogous. Being aware of and unhappy about the mismatch is specifically what makes it a dysphoria.
The questions were less about me getting your answer but more about pointing out how general the definition you gave was, and probing if your actual intended meaning was that vague. From looking at other comments, though, it looks like you did give someone else a more specific definition of what you meant:
I’m talking about the kind of uncomfortable that makes people consider surgery as the only alternative to suicide. I would consider that an illness.
Firstly, I’d like to point out that just HRT is both not surgery and sufficient for many trans individuals.
But, let’s say someone is extremely overweight, and they’ve been prevented from using regular methods (i.e. dieting and exercise), so their only option is surgery. If prevented from undergoing the surgery, don’t you think that depression and potentially even suicide are possible outcomes. Would this scenario, hypothetical though it may be, not also meet those requirements?
Now, let me tell you about Lipedema, a condition where large amounts of fat builds up on the legs. Regular diet and exercise methods can help with some symptoms, but cannot stop or reverse the condition. Liposuction (a fat-removal surgery), however, works—although it’s not a permanent fix yet and still can damage the body in the process. It fairly commonly can result in depression.
In a more general sense, “feeling uncomfortable in one’s own skin” is such a vague descriptor that it plausibly covers basically any nonlethal condition that can negatively affect an individual’s quality of life.
Can you elaborate on how feeling oneself is different than one actually is, is different than oneself feeling different than one actually is?
I might be misunderstanding you.
I don’t understand how not feeling comfortable in your own skin isn’t an illness.
To offer an alternate perspective here, I think labeling common parts of the human experience as an illness is an issue in and of itself. It reduces them to a problem to be solved, which, at least in personal experience, isn’t a productive way to approach ‘mental illness’. You can exhaust all the fixes, all the solutions, do everything right, and if it didn’t work? It’s easy to give up. And it encourages a poor way of looking at others, too; people aren’t made of pieces that can be separated out, they’re a single whole that can grow in different directions.
All that’s not to say people shouldn’t seek help and do all the things if they’re hurting, or that there aren’t also positives to giving your problems a name, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a good thing. And to that end:
Like you say people should have a right to talk how they want and treat their own bodies how they want, and I believe people should be able to decide what and what isn’t a problem with themselves. It’s not anyone’s place to say what another adult should and shouldn’t see as something they need to fix. Plus, it’s not like the illness label is applied to all instances of feeling out of place in your body; someone uncomfortable with how tall they are, or short they are, ugly they are, etc etc isn’t considered to have a mental illness by anyone.
Anyway, all that being said, insofar as gender is a social construct it’s not one I particularly support or think is beneficial to society. I think it does more harm than good both in self image and in our image of others. In that way I don’t like how transsexuality reinforces the social framework, even though it does encourage fluidity within the framework. Still, to me, calling it an illness is too far into applying one’s own values to others. People are like oobleck, push and they’ll push back; be still and open to change and so will they.
(I should’ve been a little more clear. Not just feeling uncomfortable in ones own skin. I feel uncomfortable in my own skin all the time depending on the circumstance. I’m talking about the kind of uncomfortable that makes people consider surgery as the only alternative to suicide. I would consider that an illness.)
That is an interesting perspective. It seems totally subjective. Is that what you’re getting at? That what is considered healthy and unhealthy is up to the individual to decide and not whether they meet an objective common standard?
I think an adult has the right to decide what they want treated, but whether or not they’re Ill has to be based upon an external standard or else it’s circular. If I cut off my leg and I’m bleeding out, but insist I’m fine and that this is normal and will go away like a nosebleed, is that a safe assumption? Can I decide what’s actually healthy or not? Or just whether or not I should get help?
I like the oobleck example.
Yeah, that’s the main part of what I’m saying.
But what if that cut-off leg was bitten by a venomous snake? Or it had necrosis? You’re implying cutting off a leg is objectively unhealthy, but there are cases where the opposite is true.
I guess I would consider gender dysmorphia - I think that’s the right term? whatever the trans feeling is called - an illness, in that I doubt many (any?) people who identify as trans would consider it an enjoyable positive; but I don’t think the same can be said about transsexuality as a whole. To use your leg analogy, I would argue the illness is whatever mentally or physically drove someone to cutting off their leg, be it necrosis, schizophrenia, whatever - cutting off the leg (i.e. identifying as trans and/or physically transitioning) could be either a symptom or a cure depending on the individual case. Granted, it may be more likely to be the former statistically, but that doesn’t make it fair or helpful to call those who truly find peace and happiness in their choices ill.
I think the usual term is gender dysphoria. I’ve only ever heard of dysmorphia in relation to self body image issues like hairloss or weight.
I’m implying cutting off a healthy leg is unhealthy. If the leg has necrosis then yeah the healthiest thing to do is to remove it. You seem to understand that as well as I.
I’m not saying one size fits all. I’m saying there’s an objective standard of what’s beneficial to one’s continued existence, and an important factor is balance with quality of life.
I’m saying there’s an objective standard of what’s beneficial to one’s continued existence, and an important factor is balance with quality of life.
Could you expand on this? I’m not sure what you mean.
To put away the confusion. Do we both agree that there is a generally common state of well being that is considered healthy? That health is not entirely subjective and that there are common variables for human well being? I.e. putting your hand in lava is not beneficial?
-
-
Don’t really care what the artist has for political opinions, the culture war has poisoned our lives and I wish the genie would go back in its bottle.
-
Agnostic, maybe spiritually Christian/non-denominated. Somewhat following Pascal’s Wager, although in the grand scheme of things it probably doesn’t matter. Not a fan of thinking about death tbh. If He denies me for not spending my every waking moment praising His name while still trying to follow the basic tenants of being a good Christian, He’s not a very nice God. And if I pick wrong, how was I to know?
-
Climate change is happening, I don’t know if it’s anywhere as big of an issue as people make it out to be. As a 1st world countryman, I expect things to be less good, not necessarily bad. I do feel bad for the less prosperous who are going to get absolutely fucked if large scale droughts and other calamities occur though. I’ll do my part to try to reduce my footprint, but I agree, as individuals there’s only so much you can do.
-
I don’t believe there are aliens, and if there are, they can’t leave their solar system. We are likely one of the only industrialized species in the universe, and I’ll be long dead before we ever see any signs of another if they do exist.
-
Agree
-
Agree. Idgaf about lolis, I definitely don’t seek them out. Like some other fringe tastes, if it pops into my feed while I’m seeking other things out, if it scratches the itch of what I’m actually looking for and doesn’t focus on the other wrong parts too hard or push the envelope too much, I can probably ignore it enough to get my fix.
-
1* Absolutely agree. I mean, honestly, I wouldn’t generally be an ally of Rowling. But she’s been a feminist her whole life AFAIK and now, from her perspective suddenly men dress up as women and are back in control. It must be maddening. Somewhere down thread someone said “trans is not a mental illness”. Well, the medical community punked out and called it a “medical issue” or some such noncommittal language but it’s clearly a disorder. There are lots of different dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the only one where the rest of the planet is expected to participate in the delusion. And before someone says I’m full of hate or something, I’m not. To assume that is to assume the mainstream “solution” is the correct one. I feel like instead of helping people we’re telling them they’re perfect as they are… while they go on killing themselves because they’re not. And no, science most definitely has not proven or even suggested that doing the surgery helps with this.
2* Not an atheist.
3* The climate moves around a bit. Is it getting warmer right now? Seems to be. Are we responsible? Maybe. I have 2 issues though: one, the main people bringing it are not trust worthy. They depend on grants to not have to get another job so they’re vested in drama. And their predictions are literally never right. In the past they made absolutely outrageous claims that didn’t come anywhere close to true so I’m skeptical. The second reason is: if it’s really as bad as some claim, why doesn’t the government actually do anything? Making me drink my soft drink via cardboard isn’t going to “save the planet”. Making companies stop producing trash that has to be thrown away and repurchased every couple of years would do a much better job but no one anywhere talks about that. If it’s really going on and we’re really interested in stopping it, why do all the “solutions” just make the middle class poorer but don’t actually address the problem or cost the rich anything (in fact they generally get richer from it).
4* There may be aliens or may not, it doesn’t matter either way. The universe is too large and we’ve never managed to get a signal out of our own solar system. If there is anything out there it would never find us and even if it could, their solar system could be moving away from ours faster than the speed of light anyway. We may not be along but we may as well be.
5* Agree on free speech. I find the current desire for censorship very bizarre. How many times must we learn that having “taboo” things you can’t talk about is a bad road to go down? Does anyone have any examples of anything made better from censorship (and here I don’t mean over 5 minutes, I’d prefer at least a century if not more to prove it)? Because I have plenty of examples of things catastrophically damaged because of it.
6* I’m against pedophilia in any form.
As for the atheist part, there’s historical confusion as to what that means because of how religions use that term. Might as well be synonymous with devil worshipper, despite the contradiction.
Atheism is a lack of a belief. It’s not belief that there absolutely isn’t any. If I tell you I have a pumpkin from 2007 still in my freezer you don’t know for a fact that I don’t, or even that I do.
Same for gods, I don’t know that they exist, or that they don’t. I’m agnostic on the matter. Agnostic atheist is the term generally referred to this.
As for climate, the government not doing something isn’t proof it isn’t a real issue. Governments fuck up a lot with neglect.
But peoples careers being in the balance, sure, I can see that as being a potential conflict of interest. I do think the science behind it stands up for itself though. Past a certain global average temperature, parts of the food chain start dying and it starts to fall apart.
Sure the world has always changed in temperature, but everytime it gets this high things start dying irrevocably fast. There’s a good reason they’re called extinction events.
I was purposely terse with my religious response, I was not attacking anyone or their use of the term. I’m simply stating that I’m not an atheist.
Well, the science is what’s at issue. Climate science isn’t really a hard science. They have some data and it looks like some big increases. But I think there may be far too many variables for us to be certain about the conclusions. That doesn’t mean I think we should do nothing. I do what I can but I think the place to be looking is at the companies. It really doesn’t matter what a few countries in western europe (where I live) do: USA, China and India will produce far more than we could ever undo by being carbon neutral or even negative. And we can’t force those countries to change via threats or complaining. The way to get them to change is change how business works. And since no one is, and all we actually do are mostly useless virtue signalling, I hope the climate scientists are wrong because otherwise we’re screwed.
My mistake. I misunderstood you.
I hear you, and I agree. Not much we can do other than changes in how we do business. We’re a capitalist society and profit drives it all.
- I don’t know nor care to know enough to have an informed opinion of her. That said, she just strikes me as an opportunist more than anything. So mostly I find people getting bent out of shape over her amusing, since it feels like she’s mostly only been relevant because of the controversies in the first place.
- I suppose I’m agnostic? I’m down for whatever the answer ends up being really. To me the existentialist spiral doesn’t seem any more fulfilling than any other -ist spiral, so I mostly just don’t put much thought into it.
- Probably, but that does feel a bit defeatist. That, and the consumerist lifestyle is still pretty inextricably linked to the actual big polluters. But enacting any sort of grassroots change feels like it’s going to get harder the longer internet exists, really. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- I subscribe to perspective that we’re simply early - that we can be the aliens to later intelligences if we’re able to somewhat sustainably get off this rock. My main concern with #3 is how it could impede things to this end. Relatedly, I feel like humanity is more likely to become intergalactic locusts than become sustainable enough to occupy earth for a significant portion of its remaining lifespan. Sure, colonizing other planets probably means finding solutions to at least some modern resource issues, but I’m sure we’ll find new and interesting resources to deplete in the process.
- I agree in principle, but that closing statement feels too absolutist. I think it’s extremely muddied to compare the value of subversive and unsubversive (subservient?) communities that crop up around censorship compared to what would exist in its absence. Framed a different way, I think there’s been lots of creative and technical works borne of pushing against limitations, sometimes even self-imposed (think of retro games and the like). And to me, censorship is no different from any other type of limitation for me to judge it as necessarily bad from a post-hoc perspective.
I suppose my view is similar but maybe not quite the same: I think people shouldn’t be afraid to push against the boundaries of acceptability - both out and in. And while I personally think that should usually fall more on “out” than “in”, I accept that’s not really my call to make in most cases.
For an additional nitwit nitpick take - censorship is pretty broad. How does this extend to military secrets or organizational secrets in general? As a TERF, do you have thoughts on what should be available in a school library? I’m assuming “nearly” does most of the lifting for this stuff, but may as well poke.
Relating back to the second sentence of your #4 a bit, from a state level I feel like censorship is becoming old-hat. Disinformation seems so much more… lucrative? by comparison. - Appreciated.
edit: I was missing an arm on the shrug. Some things never change.
Huh, your perspective on 5 is interesting. I don’t think I 100% agree but I’ve really never looked at censorship in that way. Some nice food for thought, thank you!