Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

It is still not much talked about but there are a significant proportion of trans-women who are autogynephiliacs. That is that they they get sexually aroused by the thought and image of themselves as the opposite sex.

I really wish you had not introduced this. Not the idea, but the vocabulary of J.K. Rowling's Sisters of Hatred. This subject is hard enough to discuss without introducing extreme (and hateful) views such as theirs.

Well, I don't know what this has to do with J.K. Rowling (or other gender critical feminists)...

It is the misrepresentation of trans-sexuality as "autogynephilia" (basically, the opposite of 'penis-envy': 'vagina-envy'). That, and that the views (and actions) of the Sisters of Hatred benefit no-one, especially not 'women'.

I haven't seen J.K. Rowling speaking about autogynephilia so I don't know what you are referring to exactly. But I don't think it's misrepresentation to say that some trans women are autogynephiliacs. A number of individuals have come out and admitted as much. What I want to know is why aren't more people talking about it?

[Lagayascienza]

Of course trans-women like their own vaginas. To be female is what they have always wanted. It's about feeling comfortable in their own bodies. If that is disconcerting for conservative religious killjoys who are already hung-up about sex, then too bad for them. The sexual abuse scandals involving clerics and preachers of the various Christian sects and other religions are never-ending and there for all to see. It's disgusting. But instead of getting their own houses in order they pay out on transexuals who at last feel comfortable in their bodies living happily in the suburbs with their nice new vaginas and breasts. FCS, leave other people alone! Go live your own life and let others live theirs. Sanctimonious, holier-than-thou hypocrites.

[Fried Egg]

Of course trans-women like their own vaginas. To be female is what they have always wanted. It's about feeling comfortable in their own bodies. If that is disconcerting for conservative religious killjoys who are already hung-up about sex, then too bad for them. The sexual abuse scandals involving clerics and preachers of the various Christian sects and other religions are never-ending and there for all to see. It's disgusting. But instead of getting their own houses in order they pay out on transexuals who at last feel comfortable in their bodies living happily in the suburbs with their nice new vaginas and breasts. FCS, leave other people alone! Go live your own life and let others live theirs. Sanctimonious, holier-than-thou hypocrites.

You are arguing with? Not anybody here, or the arguments people here are making...

[Lagayascienza]

I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. Who are you arguing with? Anyone here?

[Good_Egg]

But isn't the core of this discussion the difficult combination of feelings and facts?

As I understand the logic of Sculptor1's position, there is no difficulty. Brain-sex is a scientifically-proven fact. Whether any individual is male-brained or female-brained is an empirical fact, verifiable in principle by measurements from some sort of brain-scan. An inherent "sense of gender" exists - it is a mind's perception of brain-sex, analogous to that element of Windows software that informs the user of what hardware the system is running on.

Transmen and transwomen exist - these are people whose brain-sex and body-sex differ. And forcing upon them an idea of their brain-sex that is false is morally wrong, in the same way that forcing on others an idea of their body-sex that is false is morally wrong.

Where is the difficulty ? What feelings are you asserting as relevant ?

[Sculptor1]

But isn't the core of this discussion the difficult combination of feelings and facts?

As I understand the logic of Sculptor1's position, there is no difficulty. Brain-sex is a scientifically-proven fact. Whether any individual is male-brained or female-brained is an empirical fact, verifiable in principle by measurements from some sort of brain-scan. An inherent "sense of gender" exists - it is a mind's perception of brain-sex, analogous to that element of Windows software that informs the user of what hardware the system is running on.

Transmen and transwomen exist - these are people whose brain-sex and body-sex differ. And forcing upon them an idea of their brain-sex that is false is morally wrong, in the same way that forcing on others an idea of their body-sex that is false is morally wrong.

Where is the difficulty ? What feelings are you asserting as relevant ?

I think Pattern Chaser might be falling into the trap of a Cartesian Dualism which demands that the mind be whooly different from the body.
It pretends that feelings have nothing to do with physical realities. a sort of "its all in your head" sort of appraoch. We know this not to be the case. Take any drug, food, and the feelings that they produce are the result of physical changes. Nerves, hormones are phsycial responses. If we "feel" attracted to another this us oxytosin. Feel attracted to donut this is likely to be a response to the balances of insulin, Grehlin, Leptin, and cortisol. How we feel cannot simply be reduced to being "misguided", or "perverted" or some such social pressure. In the same way ideas such as "gluttony", and "sloth" have been used to pillory fat people, such ideas as "peversion" have been used to pillory anyone outside the hetero-norms.

He says "combining feelings and facts" as if that were the worth thing you could assume, when in fact it is exactly that trans and gay people "feel" the way they do makes the whole argument important. Because "feelings" are not incorporeal emphemera, but grounded in the physical facts of the neural network and the endocrine system.

The awareness of ones uniqueness and the social tragedy that you might be "different" is not ust a whim or a choice of the rational mind, its visceral.

[Fried Egg]

I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. Who are you arguing with? Anyone here?

Well, I did respond to a post you made on the last page but haven't seen any response from you...

It seems to me (from what you have said many times in this thread) that you have in your head a somewhat outdated caricature of the critics of transgenderism, with many of your laments directed at that caricature rather than addressing the real concerns people have these days.

I would guess that the vast majority of people are perfectly fine to "live and let live" with people's lifestyle choices - when it comes to adults. And it's not quite so simple when some trans-women are demanded unfettered access to female only spaces/sports. Who's rights take precedence?

I've no doubt that there are genuine "conservative religious killjoys" out there but I don't really understand why you keep focusing on them in this discussion?

[Lagayascienza]

I don't have any outdated caricature in mind. I know people like this in my own country and others. And it is from these hypocritical, conservative, religious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou types that the nonsense about homosexuality, transsexuality, etcetera emanates, along with most of the sex abuse scandals. These creeps should be free to believe their own nonsense, but leave other people alone to live their lives they way they see fit. And they need to be bought to heel in respect of their sexual abuse of children. Religious predators are a pox on humanity.

[Pattern-chaser]

I haven't seen J.K. Rowling speaking about autogynephilia so I don't know what you are referring to exactly. But I don't think it's misrepresentation to say that some trans women are autogynephiliacs. A number of individuals have come out and admitted as much. What I want to know is why aren't more people talking about it?

I don't think we can go farther with this particular fragment. "Oh yes it is", "Oh no it's not", is no benefit to anyone. But I find this dismissal of the humanity of trans women to be hateful. It seems you don't. I have no argument to prove you wrong, only my own feeling that it *is* wrong.

[Fried Egg]

I haven't seen J.K. Rowling speaking about autogynephilia so I don't know what you are referring to exactly. But I don't think it's misrepresentation to say that some trans women are autogynephiliacs. A number of individuals have come out and admitted as much. What I want to know is why aren't more people talking about it?

I don't think we can go farther with this particular fragment. "Oh yes it is", "Oh no it's not", is no benefit to anyone. But I find this dismissal of the humanity of trans women to be hateful. It seems you don't. I have no argument to prove you wrong, only my own feeling that it *is* wrong.

I don't see how it is a "dismissal of the humanity of trans women". Or how it is hateful.

Firstly I didn't say all trans-women, only some. Since some trans women have openly admitted this and written articles about it, I don't see how this can be denied. Now, it is probably largely impossible to estimate the proportion of trans-women that fall into this category and, given the stigma around this idea, I doubt we will be able to do anything other than speculate.

And I have made it clear that I don't think there is anything morally wrong with people being and living their lives as autogynephiliiacs. It might make people less amenable to the idea that they should have access to surgery and women's spaces but that doesn't mean that they should be hated.

But I can see how people wedded to trans-ideology will find this concept difficult to accept and discuss. Society though will have to overcome this reticence as the facts can only be ignored for so long.

[Pattern-chaser]

I find the position that this argument represents helpful, in a number of ways.

If it is true (and "plausible but not yet proven" seems accurate). then

- it takes away the feelings-vs-facts element of the debate.

[...]

But isn't the core of this discussion the difficult combination of feelings and facts?

As I understand the logic of Sculptor1's position, there is no difficulty. Brain-sex is a scientifically-proven fact. Whether any individual is male-brained or female-brained is an empirical fact, verifiable in principle by measurements from some sort of brain-scan. An inherent "sense of gender" exists - it is a mind's perception of brain-sex, analogous to that element of Windows software that informs the user of what hardware the system is running on.

Transmen and transwomen exist - these are people whose brain-sex and body-sex differ. And forcing upon them an idea of their brain-sex that is false is morally wrong, in the same way that forcing on others an idea of their body-sex that is false is morally wrong.

Where is the difficulty ? What feelings are you asserting as relevant ?

None. None, as such.

I commented on your apparent enthusiasm for reducing this complex issue to something more akin to a simple arithmetic calculation: "it takes away the feelings-vs-facts element of the debate". It seems to me that this issue cannot be meaningfully separated from fact, or from feeling; both seem essential. That's it. That's why I commented, and what I commented on.

Sorry if I was unclear.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think Pattern Chaser might be falling into the trap of a Cartesian Dualism which demands that the mind be wholly different from the body.

Not so. Or at least, not knowingly or deliberately.

The awareness of one's uniqueness and the social tragedy that you might be "different" is not just a whim or a choice of the rational mind, it's visceral.

You're talking to, or rather *about*, an autist — me — I have what you might call a "visceral" understanding of "being different".

[Sculptor1]

I think Pattern Chaser might be falling into the trap of a Cartesian Dualism which demands that the mind be wholly different from the body.

Not so. Or at least, not knowingly or deliberately.

The awareness of one's uniqueness and the social tragedy that you might be "different" is not just a whim or a choice of the rational mind, it's visceral.

You're talking to, or rather *about*, an autist — me — I have what you might call a "visceral" understanding of "being different".

In every bit the same way that I am different to you.
The question here would be - did you CHOSE to be autistic? If not then I have no reason the think that a person that was born a boy but identyfing as a woman also did not make that choice. And the same would allply to homosexuality and heterosexuality and every thing inbetween.
ONe you undearstand and accpet the innateness of your condition there is the ability to find the potentials, boundaries and limits of your programming.

[Sy Borg]

There will be men who are the very most masculine men around - the out-and-out machos. Likewise, there will be the very most feminine men - queens and trans (well, some trans). There will also be the most feminine women, the princesses, and the most masculine women, the butches and trans (again, at least some of them).

People at the extremes will have their view of themselves and sense of how they fit into society shaped by their innate characteristics. These are the people who genuinely feel a sense of gender. "Cis" people take their gender for granted. They only notice their gender identity if pushed to do something contrary to their sex. It's the same with race. If you're in a majority, you might not notice that you have a racial identity, but if you migrate to a place where you are a minority, then you will notice your racial identity more.

Thus, it's naive for critics (not so much here but other media) to claim that gender identity does not exist. It exists for most people like water exists for fish. Just because you don't notice something does not negate its existence. It just means you take it for granted.

Having said that, I have seen some YouTube videos featuring weird TikTokkers and that makes clear that, in some cases, autogynephila (or something like it) is going on. Blatant blokes in dresses and lippy, speaking in baritone. Its hard to understand why they'd do that to their lives but, hey, it takes all types.

[Good_Egg]

I think Pattern Chaser might be falling into the trap of a Cartesian Dualism which demands that the mind be whooly different from the body.
It pretends that feelings have nothing to do with physical realities. a sort of "its all in your head" sort of appraoch. We know this not to be the case. Take any drug, food, and the feelings that they produce are the result of physical changes. Nerves, hormones are phsycial responses. If we "feel" attracted to another this us oxytosin. Feel attracted to donut this is likely to be a response to the balances of insulin, Grehlin, Leptin, and cortisol. How we feel cannot simply be reduced to being "misguided", or "perverted" or some such social pressure. In the same way ideas such as "gluttony", and "sloth" have been used to pillory fat people, such ideas as "peversion" have been used to pillory anyone outside the hetero-norms.

The relationship between mind and brain is one of the deep difficult questions of philosophy.

My inadequate understanding is that the best-available explanation is in terms of "emergent properties". That in principle we can trace a causal pathway between chemicals in the brain and ideas/perceptions/choices/values in the mind, but in practice a complete causal explanation will always elude us due to the complexity involved.

So we have these two levels of explanation. Minds make choices that may be moral or immoral, hold values that may be noble or contemptible, perceive and part-perceive and misperceive, make inferences that may be valid or fallacious or incomplete. Whereas matter just is, following deterministic laws of nature. But somehow they are part of the same universe, with matter - as far as we can tell - being the cause of all mental phenomena.

That's the paradox we face.

I believe what you say about particular chemicals playing a causal role in particular mental events. And I see the temptation to doubt the reality of those aspects of mental phenomena that seem inconsistent with such a causal link.

But with two levels of explanation available the temptation is to pick and choose which level we apply. Ir's easy to paint actions we deplore as freely-chosen by those who should know better, and those we sympathize with as biochemically determined so that concepts of justification and moral responsibility simply don't arise. "My biochemistry made me do it guv" can be made to sound plausible, or not , by choosing a level of explanation at the level of mind or of matter.

Labelling feelings we approve of as "important" and "visceral", and those we disapprove of as irrelevant when set alongside the facts is just bias. Attributing free will where it suits us is a corruption of philosophy. We need to aim for truths that are more universal.