Actual medical / physical transgender characteristics is about 1 in 300 / 500. Depending on race / ethnicity. Its a genetic thing. So not really changing over the decades. The more common form that is so high profile in the media at the moment is a straight up mental disorder. Always part of a broad spectrum disorder. Given that less than 2% of the population are not heterosexual and its not that common in the homosexual population, maybe 1 in 20/30 based on what I’ve seen in San Francisco over the years, its still not a common disorder. I’d say TV’s, who are usually straight no matter how camp they act, outnumber trannies at least 5 to 1. Those who actually go through the sex change operation tend to have very high institutionalization / suicide rates. Which is why you almost never see older trannies while you see lots of older TV’s. Trannies are usually dead after 10 to 15 years. Jan Morris is very unusual.
In real life trannies tend to be sad, very fragile and rather pathetic people and the recent media glorification of the disorder is actually very cruel and does them a huge disservice. What they actually need is compassion, understanding and treatment if at all possible for their various mental illnesses. Its not a normal state of mind and not one that should be encouraged or glorified in any way because it rarely leads to any long term mental stability or equanimity. Usually a sad life of mental anguish with a sadder end.
Just a personal observation based on watching by this stage three generations of trannies come and go. The current cohort seem to be the most mentally unstable of the lot.
Ken gives shocking explanations. It’s not my problem you don’t understand what he is saying.
Can the point exist without the line? If they can’t does it not mean they are inseparable/part of a greater unity? Can a human exist without a head?
As a result if you have a line you must have a point. They can’t exist independently. Can light exist without dark etc. As such material reality is predicated on an incommensurate noetic reality. Projective geometry/principle of duality is simply an irrefutable mathematical representation of these facts, that have a much broader domain of application.
Can you put forward any concrete reasons why he is wrong or do you simply attack his character?
The principle of duality you are referring to (at least initially) is specifically a formalism in analytical geometry. I don’t think it has anything to do with humans existing without heads, or light existing without dark (which is semantic nonsense). I see it as another example from a long line of bait-and-switch approaches like “Tao of Physics” or “quantum philosophy”, which make outrageous leaps from a rigorous academic subject to some crackpot’s pet theory of everything… hoping that a gullible subset of the audience won’t notice the switch. In KW’s case this is compounded with sentences that are several hundred words long and badly punctuated, and loaded with endless deliberate obfuscation. He simply has nothing sensible or useful to say.
It’s kind of ironic talking about attacking his character, when every one of his own screeds that I’ve ever seen started out by accusing his non-believers of “scholastic bastardry” and worse. He’s definitely a charlatan, through and through. He’s probably also completely batshit crazy. But no, I wouldn’t try to unpick his argument sentence by sentence because it is designed to be impenetrable. It would be like trying to unpick Finnegan’s Wake. I’m just not that interested in “where it is nobler in the main to supper than the boys and errors of out-rager’s virtue”.
Sky News are running a very interesting 20-minute news package on transgenderism which I presume will run several times today/this week. Well worth a watch. It follows a number of people at various stages of transitioning and documents their struggles. It follows the same effort in England as is proposed here (mentioned up thread) to change the laws on gender recognition so that anyone can basically self-certify with a minimum of red tape. Then it covers the feminist and gay groups who are vociferously opposed to liberalising transgender rights. It covers safeguarding issues in situations like hostels, refuges and prisons. There’s a funny-serious prank where women strap on beards and attempt to enter a male bathing area, to highlight their concerns over transgender women doing something similar to them.
Projective geometry defines many interesting irrefutable mathematical constructions. The line at infinity for instance. This is a non material object yet mathematically it exists somewhere beyond euclidean space. The simple fact that point and line are linked irrefutably by the principle of duality, having identical properties yet are simultaneously incommensurate. His argument is that this is symbolic of a much deeper relationship that is all around us. Can matter exist without space?
That’s not an argument, it’s an assertion. And it’s completely backward. You can model physical things mathematically, and then use mathematical properties of the model to make predictions, which you can then test. You cannot start with only mathematics, and use it to predict features of the real world. Well, you can, but it has rarely ended well. Francis Bacon must be rolling in his grave.
I don’t think it’s a “sampling issue” at all. I appreciate you live at the Hell Mouth when it comes to this sort of thing, and have been living with it a long long time. But in little old Ireland it’s quite a change that’s occurring. The person who regularly served in me in Boots last year was a woman trying to live as a man with the name badge “Rufus”. It’s all downright strange.
All your points about mental health are well made. It’s sad but not at all surprising to see the Cultural Marxists movement use the suffering of disturbed people to further their agenda of societal destabilisation
It’s an attempt to explain something that is hard to grasp, humans don’t perceive things this way. Projective geometry is the tool to use to gain the insight that is all.
If you start with two lines, where they meet you get a point and if you have two points you join them to create a line. Everything has its dual.
They both represent the same thing but in different ‘modes’, one is an indefinite representation the other is a definite representation of the ‘point/line’. They are inseparable however and part of a greater unity. It is only discriminating human perception that divides them.
In the same way the noetic is the indefinite representation of material reality, the two are inseparable. It’s simply a function of reality that every principle must have an indefinite attribute (but they’re the same thing, like a human and emotion cannot be separated). In the case of matter it is space.
The noetic is the attribute of a deeper principle, the one etc. Wisdom is noetic insight due to the turning of the noetic away from the false principle of matter and towards the true principle.
Transgenderism is a class of psychological state called Body Dysmorphia.
Dysmorphia in their many forms - are one of the pillars of diagnosis of mental illness.
The others fyi are promiscuity, self-harm and a sustained pattern of unstable relationships.
If one or more of these are present it implies - with extremely high correlation - the presence of a psychiatricly disordered individual.
Trans genderism or gender dysphoria is not the same as body dysphoria
Certainly transgendered individuals have very high rates of depression and suicide attempts/completions
Some authorities feel this is due to how they are treated and not a primary part of their condition
I refer you to a study published in the Lancet in July 2016.
I don’t work in this area so I don’t have a strong opinion.
Not dysphoria, Dysmorphia.
Transgenderism is Dysmorphia
(Please dont try this nonsense again. It will propbably work with some of the Im-right-on-but-dont-read-too-closely-and-im-looking-to-be-outraged Pinsters, but it wont wash with me.)
Its likely the other way round; people with high rate of psychiatric disorders are likely to be ‘Transgender’ in an attempt to ‘escape’, dissipate or rationalise their distress.
They are in effect ‘hiding’ from the difficulties they have in the manner that ancient societies disguised children as other things at Halloween, by changing their ‘identity’.
Our response in ‘accepting’ their ‘identity’ merely underlines this as a ‘legitimate’ solution to their situation.
It abjures Mercy, Understanding, Love for the Individual and Forgiveness to wallowing and, by extension, legitimizing the misery and bile that was the cause of their distress as a group.
You seem to be proposing that a group exists because of how they are treated.
Isnt that putting the cart before the horse?
I’ll tell you what though, like Yogi, youre one of the more subtle and precise posters on here…
Thats all quite interesting but is of secondary concern to myself around this issue…and just to be clear, I couldnt care less what grown people do or dont do in terms of identifying as whatever they want.
My issue with it is firstly, what appears to be the encouragement of children to enter into/begin a process that will often result in them ultimately mutilating themselves. We have laws against female genital mutilation for example.
And beyond that, the corresponding suggestion that human beings may be defined as ‘human’ (or not as the case may be) on the basis of considerations other than the material (a frightening proposition in my opinion).
It partly exlains why I took a stance against the proposed amendment in the recent referendum on the 8th amendment. Consider the following…
In other words, in the opinion of some, the fact that the unborn did not experience "joys and sorrows, fears, hopes and expectations" as defined by people such as the interviewee in this instance, renderd it less than human to the extent that it may be ‘killed’ (the term she deliberately employs). Obviously people generally disagreed with my point around that issue discounting it on the basis of it being a ‘slippery slope’ argument. However a slippery slope it appears to be IMO.
With that in mind now consider a world where the definition of what constitutes a human being beyond the womb becomes (as above) a purely subjective exercise that excludes consideration of the material form. Consideration that bases itself solely on emotional subjectivity as per what is being proposed in the case of these Trans kids. In such a world what of disabled persons who cannot communicate fully? Old incontinent people? Poor illiterates? Are any such persons capable of experiencing the “joys and sorrows, fears, hopes and expectations” of the educated middle class woman from suburban London? And if not, does that make them less human? If not, why not?
Anyone who understands how our legal system works understands that once a precedent is established, various concurrent concepts may flow from there. In the case of these Trans kids, affording credence to subjective, non-material definitions of self could conceivably act as the precedent that paves the way for future much less compassionate approaches to other issues.
What was the shock? That his “authentic self” still looks like a woman? This sounds very unfair to the barber, and the problem is going to become more acute when Ireland and the UK soon make it possible for people to self-certify their gender with minimal red tape. I can’t see why any woman looking for a cheap haircut couldn’t just declare herself a man and go to a barber for a quarter of the price. Mind you, knowing how this country works, I can see prices for men quadrupling instead, in some kind of new unigender salons.