Are we talking about the actual concept or idea of “tran-gender”?
Or, are we talking the methods by which this idea is put about into the public discourse, and in what way it is portrayed?
I’m not sure I’d call it a transhumanism revolution. It’s not new. Nothing ever is. It used to be called Manichaeism:
Different Manichaean factions came to very different conclusions. Either the body was evil and had to be subdued by extreme asceticism, or it was to be exalted which led to gluttony and excess, or it could engage in any kind of depravity as it was a sideshow and inconsequential in the life of the soul. The unifying principle was that the body was not an intrinsic part of a human whole, but the lesser member of a duality.
Rarely do I disagree with something as strongly as this article. The body is a sideshow, essentially meaningless. True reality is in the mind, exalting the body is a perversion. The various emotions he describes are simply fleeting manifestations of desire as all emotions are, meaningless and irrelevant just like the body here one day and gone the next, why exalt what is transitory? Desire is the tomb of karma and human bondage. Only noetic insight is important, the soul is thought. It is noetic but shackled to matter/desire.
Trans people exist, it’s a reality simply the soul in transition from one gender to another as part of a series of reincarnations.
That’s where the Manichees went wrong too.
And debasing it a virtue? How can such a philosophy motivate humane treatment of others?
Sounds like Hindu fatalism.
On the contrary, our own perceptions tell us we are material beings. Why should we doubt them?
Id say the latter to include the manner in which compassion for people who find themselves living such lives, as well as a willingness to ensure that such persons are afforded societal recognition and respect, is being used to push/blur the boundaries of what it means to be a human being…with little thought for possible ramifications of same.
IMO if the definition of what it means to be human is to be decoupled from any material considerations, the door is then wide open to effortless definitions/labellings of sub-obtimalism being applied to certain human sub-groups.
Its not by chance that most genocides are preceded by a ‘de-humanising’ of the groups ear-marked for extermination ie ‘cockroaches, leeches, rats’ etc. In a world where humanity is no longer defined on the basis of someone being human in the material physical sense of the word, what would in fact constitute a definition of ‘human’ beyond the application of a subjective standard by whoever happens to have the position and power to apply such a standard?
I never heard of this before.
Yes and they’ve every right to exist. But what makes them Trans is their identification as a gender other than the one they were born into physically. They tend to display this through outward displays in the form of clothes etc and often in attempts to change their material form.
Surely these acts in and of themselves demonstrate the importance of the material to such persons? Surely without the material their identity would remain little more than a personal fantasy? Indeed, does the act of transitioning or adopting the clothes or mannerisms of the opposite gender not itself stem from desire? Otherwise they would surely be content to engage with the concept mentally??
Surely material experience informs thought and informs understanding of the universe to include unarticulated knowledge and law contained therein? Surely the inner world is very much linked to the outer and vice versa? Even the Budha lived a material life prior to his attainment of enlightenment…presumably said material life informed his spiritual journey somewhat?
I don’t know what your issue with Manichaeism is. I’ve never heard anything particularly negative about it, at the time that religion was very widespread. My understanding is that we don’t know much about it and I’ve never come across anyone I would consider an authority on Manichaeism.
I never said that you should debase the body, but you shouldn’t give it priority. The body disappears, it’s transitory.
You can’t perceive most of the things that make you human. Humans are partly material but try to perceive a human emotion with one of the five senses or point it out in a material sense.
All this stuff is a spectrum, it’s a continuum not binary. Most trans people are simply a mixture of masculine and feminine. Third gender if you will. It’s a farce to declare yourself ‘a woman’ if you have some surgery.
I think the material is important to trans people. It is important to most people.
I’d argue the noetic informs the material, so the material is simply a reflection of deeper realities but a limited one, that is transitory. We experience this everyday when we move. The will to move is immaterial however there is a material result.
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. Just because an immaterial will directs a material action, it does not prove that the material is in any way unreal or less real.
I find this article by your favourite person Ken Wheeler to be very interesting. I personally find his argument convincing you might disagree.
The material, is simply a reflection of a deeper immaterial reality. He describes it as similar to the principle of duality. In this case the material reality is the point or the attribute of an indistinct immaterial reality (the line). Projective geometry is a door through which to grasp this.
His argument is that this is also symbolised in the 1/phi ratio in which the two are are incommensurate (sharing no common features).
This is symbolised on the lower plane by space and matter. Space is the indistinct, matter the distinct, the two are incommensurate. However the ratio or interplay of the two creates our material reality, which is simply a lesser image of a similar process one level higher. See his article on Plato’s divided line for more detail on this.
He uses the semi koan “one is to phi as phi is to one” to define this, which is basically identical to the principle of duality “point is to line as line is to point”. If you can grasp what that means you’re on the right track…
The basic idea is that a point or a line don’t exist independently. They are actually the same thing just human perception creates a duality where none exists. It’s not possible to place a point without first drawing a line to that point, it is not possible to draw a line without starting from a point. The two are the same thing we just don’t comprehend it that way. In a similar sense one cannot exist without phi. They are principle and attribute.
Phi is in fact a material representation of the ratio of 1 (the principle, monad) with 1 (the attribute, mind) and the interplay of the two. Again point and line is a way to grasp this. What we see on the material plane as the 1 to phi ratio is a material representation of this deeper reality but a lesser image of it too. Again this is represented in the Fibonacci sequence in which the first two numbers are one and one. Ken describes this as 1 (monad), 1 (mind), 2 (space), 3 (matter), 5 (man/mixture). The interplay of the original principle and attribute create the entire world in a similar manner to how the point and the line alone create all of projective geometry and the many forms found within it.
This stuff isn’t easy and Ken I think purposely obfuscates. Doesn’t help that everything you’ve ever been thought is opposed to this line of reasoning but there it is. The ‘problem’ is that reality is constantly trying to create the definite as an attribute of the indefinite yet it is using its own indefinite substrate to do this which essentially is impossible hence why everything dissolves away eventually. The symbology of Plato’s divided line gives a good representation of this.
I think the universe consists entirely of Custard, which manifests itself with the appearance of all sorts of other things.
By this I mean, of course, actual physical Custard. The ideal Custard, rather than being the true essence of Custard, of which the physical form is just our imperfect impression, is, rather, an abstraction, describing, but not being Custard.
Of course, when I write of Custard, I don’t mean custard. That is just a particular manifestation of a combination of the manifestations of Custard. Although custard is of course, ultimately Custard, it is the grossest simplification to think that custard, or even the idea of it, comes close to capturing the ideal Custard, much less Custard itself.
Of course, the ideal custard (rather than the ideal Custard, or even the ideal of custard) is pink custard. It’s one of the great mysteries of life, why pink custard is so much more interesting than yellow custard, despite tasting just the same.
As for whether Custard is pink or yellow, well, that would be an ecumenical matter.
I didn’t quite get to the end of the first page of his introduction – the one where he accuses everyone else of having “intellectually barren minds”, of being “fool scholars” and “intellectual gutter rats”, of “scholastic bastardry”, and “one idiot agreeing with another idiots idiocy”. Life’s too short to entertain arrogant a-holes like KW.
Uh huh … sounds like Plato’s Cave with extra fancy words bolted on to make it sound rigorous. However, one knows from past experience that KW doesn’t do rigour, just obfuscation.
Ah yes, the inevitable descent into meaningless gobbledygook.
Another favourite of KW – the use of simile as if it actually means something in itself. “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it”. Jesus didn’t say the kingdom of heaven is a pearl. It is like a pearl exactly to the extent that both are considered valuable. But KW’s simile falls flat. The point and line don’t create projective geometry except under vary particular rules of construction. If you’re not going to tell us how this is similar to some other thing, then you haven’t told us anything at all. You’ve just uttered meaningless gobbledygook, which is what KW basically does at every hand’s turn. Personally I’m pretty sure he’s mentally unhinged, but I don’t much care either way.
Uh yeah, whatever.
I’ve always considered that one of life’s great mysteries. How can custard powder be pink when dry, and yellow when wet. Like many of life’s mysteries that I encountered before the age of the interwebs, I’ve never thought (until now) of Googling it. So now I know (from Yahoo Answers): “it’s dyed with annatto, a fruit pigment that is pink dry and yellow when wet”. Even Scientific American (or at least the bit of it I can see before the paywall kicks in) tells me: “Custard powder is often coloured with a blend of tartrazine yellow or quinoline yellow food dyes, mixed with sunset yellow. In solution with water, these colours are true to their names, but in their pre-dissolved solid phase the sunset yellow portion is more orange-red, and this colour tends to dominate.”
And this brings me to another of life’s great mysteries. How are so many people oblivious to this trick of non-explanation? At least as far back as Voltaire, he used to laugh at medical students being taught that sleeping powders worked “because of their dormative powers”. It doesn’t become an explanation just by adding fancy words (like Sci Am does above, as does dkin’s pal Ken Wheeler). It seems to me that an explanation must always be in terms of a more general or unifying principle. Simply piling on the verbiage doesn’t add anything.
P.S. About the custard, I’m not that confused. There are lots of cases where the colour of a particulate material is determined by how it refracts or scatters light, while it does something different in solution. Table salt is a simple and common example. But the details, when it comes to custard, elude me. MoC … aren’t you a materials guru?
Well this was a prophetic thread eh ?
I don’t think there’s a single sentence in the Irish Times report that doesn’t contain either something suspicious or highly bizarre.
The Head of an Advocacy Group for transgenders (which doesn’t publish its accounts or exact funding sources on its website ? ) was commissioned (by someone, following some unknown selection process and in preference to an independent person doing so? ) to report (to cabinet no less ! ) on addressing a loophole in legislation (not actually a loophole, by loophole we mean a barrier ! ) on transgenderism. Surprisingly the advocate for transgenderism recommended easier access to transgenderism (total shock to whoever commissioned the report !) This will move away us away from “legalism” (rigorous time consuming process boo !) to “administration” (quick box ticking exercise yah !)
Under the existing legislation, children under the age of 16 are currently prohibited from accessing gender recognition, while teenagers aged 16-17 must go through a medical and psychiatric process before changing. (Much too sensible, down with this sort of thing !)
The report recommends that all children under the age of 18 should be allowed to change their gender if they have consent from both parents.(My body my choice ! I know I can’t legally drink yet but damn it I should be able to access gender recognition. services ) Courts should only get involved if mental health is in question (isn’t mental health reasons the justification that advocates use for transgenderism, therefore isn’t mental health always in play anyway ?) The report also contains a recommendation to produce a straightforward process if the child wishes to reverse that decision at a later stage in their life (the decision will be “straightforward” but the actual reversal anything but!) The Irish Times understands the report also recommends the State recognise those who identify (by identify we mean cause as much trouble to other people about their private life as narcissistically possible !) as neither of the male or female genders
currently, those who identify as non-binary are required to declare as the gender assigned (we’re not just talking rare genetic cases, if Georgia Salpa (remember her !) wants to believe she was wrongly “assigned” she can too !) to them at birth.
Ms Doherty is understood to have been contacted by a number of groups (advocates perhaps !) seeking change in this area in recent weeks and is willing to examine the proposed changes (she’s not “examining them” she’s taking them to cabinet !?)
Campaigners have consistently called for changes to the law to allow for parental consent for 16 and 17-year-olds and restrictions on those under 16. They have to be assessed before hormone and other follow-up treatments.Minister for Health Simon Harris is understood to be examining if that system should be maintained and is due to meet with various groups over the coming weeks to assess the need for change.
So the State picks up the tab for this ‘I was wrongly assigned’ charade ? I think I know what children who can’t get treatment for Scoliosis need to do. They need an advocacy group to convince Minister Harris they were assigned the wrong spine at birth. Then he’ll jump to help
Fine Gael are a long way from Liam Cosgrave, Toto
Does anyone keep stats on the changing prevalence of transgenderism? One of the joys of life is having all the seasons of University Challenge available on youtube as playlists. Anecdotally, I was noticing that having transgender individuals on teams has become quite a lot more common. (Obviously they’re not identified as such, but they generally stick out like a sore thumb). Would gel with the stats that the prevalence among younger cohorts is rising fastest.
Indeed, I hear Una Doolally has joined the party, she is to be Minister for Defence and Lesbians in the next government
The numbers are rising, I have a friend who is a teacher in the UK, she claims that they are seeing clusters of transgender children in certain schools, usually with one or more teachers who did gender studies courses, its almost as if its easy to brainwash children
Same in Sweden, numbers rising year on year, instead of asking questions the fools celebrate the whole thing