what is a woman ?

[questionreality]

8 hours ago, Talinn said:

So where's the possibility that a kid takes a puberty blocker for two weeks and then drops it, deciding he or she isn't trans? Is this a scary possibility? It seems like you have some inherent fear of puberty blockers due to the media narrative around them, not because they're inherently very bad for children.

There are toxic LGBT obsessed, narcissistic weird parents that might actively want their child to be trans and try to brainwash them into becoming trans, I'm sure they exist. But they're outnumbered 5 to 1 at least by parents who abhor trans people, who frankly want to see us dead in some corner of their mind. There's real fear to the process of coming out in virtually every trans person, because they think their family will react poorly.  A lot of people won't even bother coming out. The amount of hate you get for being trans frankly feels slightly higher than whatever portions of society encourage you to be yourself.

Again, who is encouraging anyone to transition?

If a trans child even has supportive enough parents to let them go on  puberty blockers (even after extensive deliberation and thought, careful planning), chances are just as good that they'll go on puberty blockers as they'll brood in some version of depression, not doing anything about the gender dysphoria. Of course social contagion is a problem, but it's just statistically impossible that *every* trans youth who thinks he or she is trans' first impulse is "let's go to the pharmacy and make my LGBT friendly parents go get me some puberty blockers!"

Something non-trans people don't realize is that it is usually a loooong process. If your mind was playing games with you and you're not really trans, chances are good that you'll stop yourself from doing real and serious damage. Because it's not uncommon for it to take 10+ years.. The very length of the process filters peoples out, not to much the money involved.

Why are people allowed to drink, drive a car and go to the army only at a certain age? Do you really believe that kids should just so easily be able to transition at such a young age?

And how do you not see that a portion of the kids who are confused, are not really trans, and just need some therapy for example? 

Until you start to understand these concerns, you will not get much support from ordinary folks for your cause. So start to understand, because as I see it, you make no effort to, but expect others to understand your position.

 

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

Out of the 73-million kids in the United States under 18... how many kids in the US do you believe are on puberty blockers? On HRT? Having top surgery? Having bottom surgery?

I'll give you a hint. It's a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point.

If you want the numbers... you can check out this Reuters article...

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/

 

The numbers have doubled from 2020 to 2021. And 40,000 kids is still a lot overall, compared to when there was practically no kids transitioning, period.

The numbers are only growing, and it is a concern for many people.

[questionreality]

14 hours ago, Forestluv said:

One ability is to be intellectually aware of a model in which one mode of cognition can see and understand other modes of cognition. It is another ability to actually be fluent in that mode of cognition. There are trade-offs for different modes of cognition. I've paid some large prices in my life to gain that ability. As well, I've lost abilities in the process. . . With the cognition you utilize, you are able to relate to things in ways I am no longer able to do. I can see that. Similarly, with the modes of cognition I utilize, I am able to relate to things in ways you are unable to do. Yet you cannot see that. 

One of the blocks to expansion is being immersed within a particular mindset. There are both advantages and disadvantages to that.. . . There are lots of dynamics that keep a mind contracted, such as attachments and identifications. For example, if I said that you are speaking English right now and are not fluent in Mandarin - I predict that you would be OK with that. You would be aware that your cognition utilizes the English language and there is awareness that there is another language, Mandarin, that you are not fluent in. Yet if said that you speak Blue/Orange and are not fluent in Yellow, I predict you would have a very different response. 

 

I totally disagree that you can be fluent in such things as stage yellow, because it is too abstract, subjective, and also relative - in comparison to being fluent in language.

And to understand and to relate to other modes of cognition requires a higher level of empathy, and total detachment from your own ideas/beliefs. It also helps to speak to different people with different perspectives, and to genuinely be interested in their perspectives, and fears. 

It's really not that complex, but as always, you are trying to over-intellectualize things  

[Leo Gura]

18 minutes ago, questionreality said:

And how do you not see that a portion of the kids who are confused, are not really trans, and just need some therapy for example? 

But therapy IS a big part of gender affirming care.

You act as though kids are given free hormone pills at school.

And it's not like the right wing has any desire to fund free therapy for trans kids. The only therapy the right would support is telling kids they are whatever sex they were born as and anything else is wrong. Any other kind of therapy would be called "grooming kids".

So your position is not in good faith. It does not come from a genuine desire to help kids, but to reinforce a dogmatic binary worldview which is held as absolute.

Edited August 13 by Leo Gura

[questionreality]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But therapy IS a big part of gender affirming care.

You act as though kids are given free hormone pills at school.

And it's not like the right wing has any desire to fund free therapy for trans kids. The only therapy the right would support is telling kids they are whatever sex they were born as and anything else is wrong. Any other kind of therapy would be called "grooming kids".

They are still given access to hormone pills much easier than they should be able to get.

And as kids, I don't think they should be making such life changing decisions either. (drinking, driving and going to army, among other things is not allowed for example)

A good compromise between left-woke and right would be to not give them any hormones period, and actually provide them therapy/support until they are of legal age to make that decision.

 

Edited August 13 by questionreality

[Consept]

25 minutes ago, questionreality said:

The numbers have doubled from 2020 to 2021. And 40,000 kids is still a lot overall, compared to when there was practically no kids transitioning, period.

The numbers are only growing, and it is a concern for many people.

The numbers are low relative to how many kids within that age group, however they have risen as you say. There are 2 potential answers for this 1. Social contagion ie kids are seeing it and want to try it 2. It's now more acceptable so kids who always would've felt they were trans are free to pursue it or look into it. 

Probably it's a combination of both

[questionreality]

US is a very strange place in that regard. Kids are not allowed to walk by themselves on the street to school (in Europe it's a normal thing to see) or be by themselves without adult supervision, yet they are allowed to take hormones and to transition! 

[questionreality]

2 minutes ago, Consept said:

The numbers are low relative to how many kids within that age group, however they have risen as you say. There are 2 potential answers for this 1. Social contagion ie kids are seeing it and want to try it 2. It's now more acceptable so kids who always would've felt they were trans are free to pursue it or look into it. 

Probably it's a combination of both

Exactly right, and that is the big problem. The fact that it is being promoted as normal, and you have other kids seeing/wanting to try it is fucked up.

What people fail to understand, is that a lot of the people on the left (who are not woke) also heavily oppose this.

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, questionreality said:

A good compromise between left-woke and right would be to not give them any hormones period,

But this position contradicts our best clinical science, so it doesn't make sense.

You want us to ignore clincial science just to pander to your biases and prejudices about gender to make you feel comfortable.

[questionreality]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But this position contradicts our best clinical science, so it doesn't make sense.

You want us to ignore clincial science just to pander to your biases and prejudices about gender to make you feel comfortable.

 

On 8/12/2024 at 3:49 AM, Leo Gura said:

That's the power of the myth of "science".

 

So when science does not support your biases, you dismiss it as myth, but when it does, you use it to support your position.

How convenient?

And no, choosing not to give hormones to kids has nothing to do with biases/prejudices about gender.

The only bias/prejudice here would be against age, but we also have that when it comes to drinking, driving, smoking, etc.

 

 

Edited August 13 by questionreality

[Davino]

Just had a very interesting insight.

The way women argue between each other and the way men argue between each other is very very different.

They are two distinct schools of warfare. I invite you to notice it next time and to contrast it. Maybe I'll post some representative videos here.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, questionreality said:

So when science does not support your biases, you dismiss it as myth, but when it does, you use it to support your position.

How convenient?

Absolutely! I cherrypick science to weed out the shit. This is not a bug, this is crucial to avoid self-deception.

And you should not confuse meta-scientific matters with distrusting of what appear to be solid clincial results.

Quote

And no, choosing not to give hormones to kids has nothing to do with biases/prejudices about gender.

The only bias/prejudice here would be against age, but we also have that when it comes to drinking, driving, smoking, etc.

These are totally different things.

Gender dysphoria is a disease-like condition that warrants treatment, whereas drinking and smoking are just bad habits which no one needs.

Kids aren't suffering from not having access to alcohol and tobacco. Kids are not commiting suicide from lack of drinking and smoking.

Your whole approach here is non-clinical and non-therapeutic because you are not interested in the substance of the issue, you are interested in defending a cultural attachment.

You are not even asking or wondering: What is empirically the best method to help reduce the suffering of trans kids? You already assume you know even though you did zero clinical work.

Edited August 13 by Leo Gura

[questionreality]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Absolutely! I cherrypick science to weed out the shit. This is not a bug, this is crucial to avoid self-deception.

And you should not confuse meta-scientific matters with distrusting of what appear to be solid clincial results.

These are totally different things.

Haha, no it's not different. You cherrypick science that confirms your own biases, just like everyone else does.  

And if these same studies were to show otherwise, you would be the first one to dismiss them.

You might think that you are different (or special), but you are not in this regard.

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Gender dysphoria is a disease-like condition that warrants treatment, whereas drinking and smoking are just bad habits which no one needs.

Kids aren't suffering from not having access to alcohol and tobacco. Kids are not commiting suicide from lack of drinking and smoking.

The reason why I mentioned driving, alcohol, nicotine, serving in the army, etc is not to equate them, but to point out the seriousness of the decision.

And if you don't trust your child to be left alone with adult supervision, to drink, to drive, etc, how can you trust them to make a sane decision that will impact their entire life in the future?

So far there has not been evidence to show that children as committing suicide in significant numbers due to gender dysphoria, so not sure where are you even getting this from.

Perhaps you should consider the amount of kids that regret later in life that they transitioned? 

 

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Your whole approach here is non-clinical and non-therapeutic because you are not interested in the substance of the issue, you are interested in defending a cultural attachment.

You are not even asking or wondering: What is empirically the best method to help reduce the suffering of trans kids? You already assume you know even though you did zero clinical work.

Accusing me of not being interested in the substance of the issue, just shows your attachment to this ideology that you hold and wanting to defend it.

Cherry picking science and then telling me that my approach is not scientific is also beyond funny.

Until you start being consistent and non-contradictory yourself, you are in no position to tell anyone else when it comes to being empirical or not. 

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, questionreality said:

So far there has not been evidence to show that children as committing suicide in significant numbers due to gender dysphoria, so not sure where are you even getting this from.

Perhaps you should consider the amount of kids that regret later in life that they transitioned? 

You can easily find clinical statistics on all this. And they are not in your favor.

Your position is unscientific. Not from above, but from below. You don't even know the science that has been done on this phenomenon.

The science could change in the future, but you don't even know the current science, so your position is unserious.

Edited August 13 by Leo Gura

[questionreality]

45 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You can easily find clinical statistics on all this. And they are not in your favor.

Your position is unscientific. Not from above, but from below. You don't even know the science that has been done on this phenomenon.

The science could change in the future, but you don't even know the current science, so your position is unserious.

Even if what you say is true, it does not mean that giving them hormones and transitioning is the answer.

Edit: by doing a quick google search, i see that there are some studies that show the increase risk of suicide.

Which is not the same as what you are claiming to be: that gender dysphoria is leading to many kids committing suicide.  

Your position actually cannot be serious by default, because here you are claiming my position is unscientific, while dismissing science as myth in other cases.

And no, you are not avoiding self-deception by cherry picking science, you are just as prone to it as anyone else. I have seen it time and time again from you.

Edited August 13 by questionreality

[Davino]

While contemplating on this I was thinking on the car analogy. How many pieces of my car I can change so that it keeps being the same car?

Are there pieces that define gender? Or is it a global emergence from all pieces? Or both?

[Talinn]

5 hours ago, questionreality said:

Do you really believe that kids should be allowed to transition at such a young age?

I mean  you can just go to the Wikipedia page of Jazz Jennings.

She'd been allowed to transition immediately and didn't suffer at all because of it.

Now think about it, does it seem likely that Jazz is the only child who is this happy about transitioning? Do you expect her to de transition or think she shouldn't have made those 'big adult decisions'?

Children aren't as stupid as you think, they can KNOW some things about themselves, but because you only think of confused troubled teens on Tumblr you think they can in no instance know anything about themselves. You took the 'children are stupid" line way too far...children are still human beings, and while they need GUIDANCE, their wishes should still be respected to some extent in such personal and intimate matters.

You think it should be logical that we should regret transitioning because YOU couldn't imagine transitioning.

Now blend the caution you have surrounding this issue with the awareness that people like Jazz exist,

Not everyone is like Jazz, but there's some really clear cut cases.

[Forestluv]

5 hours ago, questionreality said:

I totally disagree that you can be fluent in such things as stage yellow, because it is too abstract, subjective, and also relative - in comparison to being fluent in language.

I'd say that's true in one context. It's fair to say that a mind cannot be "fluent" in yellow because of yellow's fluidity. A language is a structured set of rules and meanings - yellow is not. As stated above, yellow's fluidity involves abstraction, subjectivity and relativity that is not bound to a structured set of rules like within a language.

So here is one of the components of a Yellow mindspace: it's fair to say Yellow cognition is NOT like fluency in a language. It's ALSO fair to say that Yellow cognition IS like fluency in a language. A Yellow mindset is very good at comparing (similarities) and contrasting (differences). It can also transcend apparent paradoxes since it can see truths within multiple perspectives. In this case, seeing that Yellow cognition is both not like fluency in a language AND like fluency in a language.  (And Yellow seeing this within Yellow is a form of metacognition, also a component of Yellow).

Also, I would point to a distinction between speaking of something and speaking within something. We can speak of abstraction and relative, yet that is not necessarily utilizing abstraction and relativity within the ideas. We can define what abstraction "IS". Yet that is distinct from expressing abstraction abstractly. It would be like someone defining a piano, yet not actually playing a piano. If an alien asked "what is a piano?". We could define / describe all the components of a piano - that is one context. Or, someone could simply sit down and start playing the piano. BOTH are valid descriptions / expressions of a piano, yet they also have distinctions.

Again, I'm not suggesting abstraction has more or less value than concrete thinking. Both have advantages and disadvantages. My mindspace is based within forms of abstraction, which grants me abilities - yet it causes all sorts of problematic challenges for me in a practical sense. About 90% of people are primarily concrete thinkers that default to mindsets of "true or false", "agree or disagree" and they subconsciously define what a thing "is". That can have practical value, yet my mind doesn't work like that at all. It's very challenging for me to communicate with 90% of the people in society. For me, concrete thinking takes a lot of work. I also find it boring and frustrating. It feels like I'm trapped within a cage.

Relative to this thread: we could try to create a concrete definition of what a woman "is". A concrete definition would point to physcial aspects such as genitalia and chromosomes. This could have practical value in society, yet it's also limited. There are also aspects that aren't concrete. This thread is interesting to me as I observe abstract ideas trying to be communicated to concrete mindsets. 

 

Edited August 13 by Forestluv

[Leo Gura]

59 minutes ago, questionreality said:

Even if what you say is true, it does not mean that giving them hormones and transitioning is the answer.

That's not for you to decide, but for them and their therapists and doctors.

How dare you tell every kid in the country what is best for them! You don't know. That's the whole point. Yet you want to dictate your opinions on others.

[questionreality]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not for you to decide, but for them and their therapists and doctors.

How dare you tell every kid in the country what is best for them! You don't know. That's the whole point. Yet you want to dictate your opinions on others.

Haha, way to put words in my mouth and assume things that I didn't say! So conscious of you (oh the irony).

You either don't want to understand what was my point or just too intellectually lazy to, I will not repeat myself again.

And again, here because it is to your benefit you give the doctors the benefit of the doubt, yet in other times you would shit on scientists, doctors, etc.

 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, questionreality said:

And again, here because it is to your benefit you give the doctors the benefit of the doubt, yet in other times you would shit on scientists, doctors, etc.

There is no contradiction in my position.

Everyone is free to see a doctor of their choice for whatever condition they have. No doctor is forcing anyone to do anything.

You, on other hand, want to tell 70 million kids what is best for them.

Edited August 13 by Leo Gura