Transgender - Why is it even a thing?
- Thread starter Lerxst
- Start date
- Status
I don't know what made you feel this way.
But your view appears to be of the kind that is one formed by one of not understanding what it is like.
Have you ever been depressed? or felt in some way where everyone gives you terrible advice like: "Just don't feel that way", "It's all in your head", "Its just a phase"?.
How about a burnout ? Where people tell you something like: "oh that sucks, but just ignore it", "It's all in your head", "You're just lazy"
They're all words of people who do not understand... Please read your post, what does it sound like to you?
Could you take into consideration the possibility that perhaps you don't know what it is like, and have formed an opinion that is based on not knowing what it is like?
You say that it doesn't happen in nature. If you ask this question to a bird, can that bird tell you that he/she fails to identify with the sex he/she was born with?
Even if you do not believe it possible right now, please consider to at least attempt this... Imagine how you would feel.
How you would feel if it was not about some dumb statement but an actual conclusion to an internal conflict you've been having all your life. The conclusion being that you are not the person that you see in the mirror. That somehow, you were born in the wrong body. How would you feel Lerxst? How would you feel... if that was you.
Your post doesn't really come off as that of someone who has tried to imagine what it is like before forming an opinion about this.
I think that perhaps before forming an opinion about people or a "subject of discussion" you're kind of obligated to try to understand them or the subject first.
And if you already do... then maybe you should consider the reasons this subject makes you this upset and see what you can do to no longer be/get upset about it ?
To the rest of you, perhaps Lerxst has his own reasons for feeling this way, and none of us knows them. We can share our own feelings about the subject and feel strongly about other peoples opinions. To some here... I believe it's wrong to flame people for giving their opinion, that's uncool too.
But hey that's just my opinion.
But your view appears to be of the kind that is one formed by one of not understanding what it is like.
Have you ever been depressed? or felt in some way where everyone gives you terrible advice like: "Just don't feel that way", "It's all in your head", "Its just a phase"?.
How about a burnout ? Where people tell you something like: "oh that sucks, but just ignore it", "It's all in your head", "You're just lazy"
They're all words of people who do not understand... Please read your post, what does it sound like to you?
Could you take into consideration the possibility that perhaps you don't know what it is like, and have formed an opinion that is based on not knowing what it is like?
You say that it doesn't happen in nature. If you ask this question to a bird, can that bird tell you that he/she fails to identify with the sex he/she was born with?
Even if you do not believe it possible right now, please consider to at least attempt this... Imagine how you would feel.
How you would feel if it was not about some dumb statement but an actual conclusion to an internal conflict you've been having all your life. The conclusion being that you are not the person that you see in the mirror. That somehow, you were born in the wrong body. How would you feel Lerxst? How would you feel... if that was you.
Your post doesn't really come off as that of someone who has tried to imagine what it is like before forming an opinion about this.
I think that perhaps before forming an opinion about people or a "subject of discussion" you're kind of obligated to try to understand them or the subject first.
And if you already do... then maybe you should consider the reasons this subject makes you this upset and see what you can do to no longer be/get upset about it ?
To the rest of you, perhaps Lerxst has his own reasons for feeling this way, and none of us knows them. We can share our own feelings about the subject and feel strongly about other peoples opinions. To some here... I believe it's wrong to flame people for giving their opinion, that's uncool too.
But hey that's just my opinion.
Last edited:
I honestly cannot relate to them either. I feel like a person and don't associate with a sex or gender really. I don't see myself as a man or woman. I almost find it easy to invalidate their needs solely based on the fact that I cannot imagine having ever needing these things to the degree they seem to need them and at the consequences they would face to obtain them. Still, it is wrong for them to have any consequences for any decisions they make that have no real effect on anyone else particularly the judgement they face from so many people.
Part of my inability to relate to them is that I don't connect my identity to what I wear or look like. What I wear is strictly to influence others or stay warm and has never been about expressing myself. I view people as personalities and don't really see personalities as strictly gender driven but as a result of society and personal preferences and beliefs. Whether I have a penis or vagina seems so irrelevant. For this reason I am tempted to feel like they are making a big deal over nothing but the reality is that everyone finds different things important and if I am too quick to invalidate what they need and find important then cannot anyone do the same to me?
To me the difference between a man and women is strictly your sex organ and everything else is just a personality that is not connected to gender what so ever as I see all people the same but different, unique to the individual. I can be a man or women and still do everything I love and enjoy and have all the same beliefs, skills, and preferences so why would I need to be either?
Part of my inability to relate to them is that I don't connect my identity to what I wear or look like. What I wear is strictly to influence others or stay warm and has never been about expressing myself. I view people as personalities and don't really see personalities as strictly gender driven but as a result of society and personal preferences and beliefs. Whether I have a penis or vagina seems so irrelevant. For this reason I am tempted to feel like they are making a big deal over nothing but the reality is that everyone finds different things important and if I am too quick to invalidate what they need and find important then cannot anyone do the same to me?
To me the difference between a man and women is strictly your sex organ and everything else is just a personality that is not connected to gender what so ever as I see all people the same but different, unique to the individual. I can be a man or women and still do everything I love and enjoy and have all the same beliefs, skills, and preferences so why would I need to be either?
Last edited:
When I think about all that I understand about identity and who I am or what I want to be, when I consider all my experience in all my self seeking and outward looking at others and how they define themselves...
I see them as idealizing a gender and making it have meaning. They give a gender an identity of what they want to be in the way that I want to be a parent and they strive to be that and wish to share that with others. I want to believe that this is who I am. We contribute attributes to these identities of genders and jobs. We create an image in our head of so many things and so many possiblities and yet I realize after all my need to be this thing that it isn't really this thing that I wish to be not as others understand it. It isn't really being a parent that defines me. What defines me is my need to strive to the attributes that I gave to the idea of what a parent really is. I can adopt these attributes and be what I wish to be and never be a parent as disappointing as that at first may be.
Perhaps all transgenders are are people who want to be this idea they have of a what a gender is and all the attributes they believe they gender contains. Perhaps they never realized they already have those attributes within them waiting to come out and it is not contingent on being this gender but only striving to be what it is they wish to be.
I see them as idealizing a gender and making it have meaning. They give a gender an identity of what they want to be in the way that I want to be a parent and they strive to be that and wish to share that with others. I want to believe that this is who I am. We contribute attributes to these identities of genders and jobs. We create an image in our head of so many things and so many possiblities and yet I realize after all my need to be this thing that it isn't really this thing that I wish to be not as others understand it. It isn't really being a parent that defines me. What defines me is my need to strive to the attributes that I gave to the idea of what a parent really is. I can adopt these attributes and be what I wish to be and never be a parent as disappointing as that at first may be.
Perhaps all transgenders are are people who want to be this idea they have of a what a gender is and all the attributes they believe they gender contains. Perhaps they never realized they already have those attributes within them waiting to come out and it is not contingent on being this gender but only striving to be what it is they wish to be.
i am expressing absolute zero tolerance here for hateful prejudice and anyone who thinks they dont have to face recrimination or take responsibility for denying and bashing the subjective feeling worlds of others on the basis of sex, gender, sexuality, or any combination of those things.
or for that matter, any other choice or experience or preference that is entirely personal and subjective.
Hi Invisible
Can i just ask if, when you say 'choice' here that you make a distinction between say something that feels innate like say homosexuality or transgender or even personality type and something that has an intellectual aspect to it for example religious choice or political persuasion?
What i mean to say is that we all know it is wrong to criticise someone on the basis of for example their skin colour because it it intrinsic to that person
I would also see things like homosexuality and transgender as intrinsic to a person rather than a 'choice' if you see what i mean and as a result those things are kinda sacrosanct and not to be questioned, because they are an aspect to a person and people around them should seek to accept that aspect
But if its someones religion or politics it is slightly different because a large part of these are about ideas
I know that religious people feel something spiritual innately and as a result i see that as sacrosanct and worthy of respect but at the same time it is experienced by people of all religions and also people who do not identify as religious so i don't think that innate spiritual sense is particular to a religion
So the religious aspect (ie the trappings laid around the spiritual sense by man) is in my opinion open for questioning
So for example if people started to say that they felt they needed to sacrifice people to their gods i would question that IDEA, but i would not question their belief in a transcendent power of some kind
So for example if you say online that you think christianity as we know it was created by romans for example the Piso family, from pre-existing ideas and then pushed onto the people of the empire as a state sanctioned religion, it might offend some christians but nevertheless if it is true people should be able to freely discuss such things
Can you see the distinction i'm trying to make?
I think @Peppermint is asking if Lerxst and Grayman are questioning if transgender is innate or if it is an idea (that is then open to being questioned)
One of the things about MBTI I find difficult is that as an INFJ i do not always gel with society but i have no outward marker of any innate quality (like skin colour) that might indicate a reason for that that would then allow me some leeway and understanding from people. So INFJ's as a minority and INFJ males as a minority of a minority are not afforded any protections on the basis of their innate quality whereas gay people or people of different ethnicity are
In fact you can even see people pretending to be INFJ or mistakenly trying it on as if it is a label, little understanding that INFJ's are going through a particular experience in society that may at times have been difficult for them and perhaps they don't appreciate people invalidating that experience
This same process of going through a difficult experience due to being a minority of some kind applies to all the groups above but the difference is that where an INFJ or a person of a certain ethnicity cannot change that innate aspect about themselves (only society can change to accomodate them) things like religious choice (how you CHOOSE to engage with the innate spiritual sense) and political choice (our political persuasion might be affected by innate qualities though) are things that people have some control over
Am i making sense?
I personally wouldn't question someone over being transgender because i believe its likely to be an innate thing to that person (it might have physical as well as psychological aspects to it) but i might deconstruct religions or political persuasions
I sure do, brother! Please elaborate more about this feng shui S&M grasshopper business?
Yeah I can play a member of the Mafia on INFJ forum and a high warlock priestess on wow. Lets merge fantasy with reality what could go wrong!... People whom can't separate fantasy from reality are certainly a blight upon humanity.
I agree completely with these sentiments, I think it is very typical of most INTP. Clearly this topic incites much defensiveness among INFJ. With that cold calculated approach I presume they really hate gay people.
I have no problem with Lerxt giving his opion and discussing the topic -- it's the hateful manner in which he broached it that I do have an issue with.
Like, I have no problem with what Greyman says, and can actually relate to a lot of it. An example of someone who just doesn't get it, but is a respectful human being.
What I don't get is why you need to be able to biologically justify something to not see people as less worth. Why is someone to be seen as less worth and susceptible to hate crime for identifying as something different, regardless if it is man-made or has biological basis?
Hi
First of all i would be careful with the words 'hate crime' because these are very open to abuse by power
If you understand how the law works and how media works it is all about the WORDING
So lets say that an authoritarian government wants to control its population it deems anything that is against the government to be 'hate crime' or 'thought crime' or 'extremism' or 'terrorism'
Can you see what they did there?
What the public needs to be able to do is to discuss things freely and openly
So even though it might seem insensitive of lerxst to say what he has said YOUR freedom is still built on the foundation of his right to say that because there may come a day where YOU want to say something and you will not want it to be illegal to say it
Do you understand?
So please feel free to criticise lerxsts ideas and views but please be careful with the authoritarian rhetoric about 'hate crimes' and so on
If we want to be able to live in a free and open society where we are able to evolve our thinking we MUST be free to criticise IDEAS
So this thread is about transgender and some people are debating (i think) about whether or not that is an idea or something innate) but religion is a set of ideas which are handed down from one generation to the next; a person is not born with their religion, it is given to them by society (they are born with an innate spiritual sense however)
So in case any people meaning harm on society create or edit a religion to put harmful things in it (eg an idea that all people of another belief system should be eradicated) we MUST be free to question those ideas
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] while I do agree with you on the term hate crimes, im pretty sure the term is ok to use when it comes to transgendered people.
Unless being raped in a school changing room or being pinned down while people try to shove stuff up you ass doesn't qualify.
Unless being raped in a school changing room or being pinned down while people try to shove stuff up you ass doesn't qualify.
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
Maybe I should be clearer when I speak. I was not addressing [MENTION=2890]Lerxst[/MENTION] , but rather using you in the general sense. When I say hate crime I mean it in the sense of physically hurting someone, e.g. on the basis of gender identity. Freedom of speech is a touchy subject, but that is not what I'm trying to get at here.
Maybe I should be clearer when I speak. I was not addressing [MENTION=2890]Lerxst[/MENTION] , but rather using you in the general sense. When I say hate crime I mean it in the sense of physically hurting someone, e.g. on the basis of gender identity. Freedom of speech is a touchy subject, but that is not what I'm trying to get at here.
Raping someone is a crime.....you don't have to pre-fix it with the word 'hate'
I don't have any issue with transgender people or gay people, they do me no harm; i wish them all the best...i wish them health and happiness in their life
Religious people on the other hand......if for example they start being emotionally manipulated by ISIS videos into calling for some sort of armageddon 'clash of the civilisations' with islam and manage to vote that into effect through their power as a voting block so that they then drag all of us into a nuclear world war 3 then i have an issue with that
I can't really see transgender people sucking us into world war 3
I do think transgender people should be afforded the same protections as the rest of us not to be physically harmed, but if you start talking about 'hate' then where does it end?
Whose 'hate' is the one enshrined by law?
The nazis backed up their hate with their law
Please be vigilant against this happening again
If you raped or hurt the person because the person is transgendered, it's a hate crime.
Edit: Merriam-Webster definition of the word:
"any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation)"
'Hate' is not a physcial thing...it is an emotion
You can legislate against physical hurt but if you legislate against emotions then how do you prove the emotion existed?
For example to be convicted of murder in the UK you must have the physical element: the 'actus reus' (ie the killing of someone) and then you must have the mental element: the 'mens rea' (the intent to kill someone)
If you did not intend to kill someone and it was an accident then you will be convicted of 'culpable homicide' rather than 'murder' and likely face a much lesser charge; they will then look at your level of negligence for example
But if you start accusing people on the basis of what you think or claim is going on in their heads then you can start convicting them of ANYTHING at ANYTIME and believe me there have been countless dictatorial governments throughout history who would love to have that power because it enables them to stifle dissent, but dissent is our basic human right when we feel oppressed
I don't think freedom of speech is a 'slippery subject' i think people should be free to say what they want. The danger comes when they start acting on it
An example would be when the jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky defended the right of a person to question the number of jews killed by the nazis. The zionist propaganda machine started demonising the guy and calling him a 'holocaust denier' and an 'anti-semite' for questioning the official figure of '6 million' jewish deaths and chomsky said the guy had a right to speak even though he didn't like what he was saying
The zionist propaganda machine then branded chomsky a 'self hating jew' for defending freedom of speech
But here is the thing about freedom of speech....it applies to everyone not just the views we want to hear, otherwise one group could completely control all public discourse and by doing so might block access to the truth
Things need to be discussed as its through discussion that various pieces of information and viewpoints are all poured into the melting pot from which a new position can be arrived at
If you and I disagree with something we might each want the other to shut up but you and me might have seperate peices of information that might actually help the other to understand the situation better. So we might disagree and we might even end the discussion disliking each other but if we have shared information then we may have found or moved closer to a truth
if however the parameters of the discussion are controlled by anyone group then the truth can be left out in the cold
And what they define as 'hate' or a 'crime' can be changed at anytime because they control the law
So rape we all know to be wrong, but a person should be free to think what they like. But equally if they verbalise their thoughts you have a right to question those thoughts
But definitions are how they control us
So for example the FBI has defined anyone who says that the US government should never have gone off the gold standard as an 'extremist' and as such they might be subject to heightened surveillance or even harrassment by the state
So ideas of hate crimes and thought crimes is how the state manages to extend its powers into our affairs whilst at the same time heightening suspicion amongst the populace (getting us to all ironically to hate each other! Divide and rule)
Please understand that definitions and the law are not written in stone...they are mutable and changed by powerful people all the time
Natural law is a seperate thing
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
I said it was a touchy subject, not a slippery subject. I'm for freedom of speech, and as you I'd draw the line at acting on it. There are levels of speech however where neo-nazi parties propagate hurtful and unwelcoming messages where the lines between acting and speaking ones mind will look bleaker. I say touchy because I think it is a solution with its own problems.
I feel like this discussion got blown out a bit of proportion, but I get your concern. I was not trying to define hate crime, but rather addressing what I meant with the problems I have with consensus towards what we don't identify with (my first post).
I said it was a touchy subject, not a slippery subject. I'm for freedom of speech, and as you I'd draw the line at acting on it. There are levels of speech however where neo-nazi parties propagate hurtful and unwelcoming messages where the lines between acting and speaking ones mind will look bleaker. I say touchy because I think it is a solution with its own problems.
I feel like this discussion got blown out a bit of proportion, but I get your concern. I was not trying to define hate crime, but rather addressing what I meant with the problems I have with consensus towards what we don't identify with (my first post).
Last edited:
Ok and i'm saying to you that maybe you should forget any touchiness on the part of freedom of speech and start defending it strongly
You should do this imo as well as realise that this discussion is not out of proportion by looking at the bigger picture of what is going on in our societies at the moment and thereby realising that this stuff is very pertinent at the moment and that the orwellian language such as 'hate crime', 'thought crime' and 'pre-crime' is all coming form the state and that orwell warned us about this kind of thing in his prophetic novel '1984'
Don't feed the beast...it will only get stronger!
Instead feed freedom of speech and thought as you will need them in the times ahead
- Status