tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post192884827659959876..comments2024-02-25T22:43:04.662-08:00Comments on Crossdreamers: How post-structuralist feminism has become a weapon used to invalidate transgenderSally Molayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02015510914816971645noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-35050481889039771942014-02-17T11:53:37.494-08:002014-02-17T11:53:37.494-08:00I love the reference to philosophical hermaneutics...I love the reference to philosophical hermaneutics because it is the root of an open and honest debate. When one applies hermaneutics consistently it ensures that the belief system of the person interpreting his/hers/others life is from a principled position. The application of sound hermaneutics also gives you, the writer, the ability to always keep one foot firmly planted on the ground (metaphorically I mean in reality). Too much of the topic of transgender studies is unstructured opinion that fishes for and uses studies aimed at a particular desired outcome and opinion polls, it is helpful to know what other's opinions are but little more than an intellectual curiosity. <br /><br />Great article in the end, it's bookmarked and a keeper for sure!<br /><br />Jessie @ http://www.androgylicious.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-41495544263761701872014-02-13T05:34:08.202-08:002014-02-13T05:34:08.202-08:00@Elsa,
Thank you very much for your supportive co...@Elsa,<br /><br />Thank you very much for your supportive comments.<br /><br />I think the sharing of personal experiences and mutual support is much more important than philosophical debate.<br /><br />Love,<br />Debbie xxDeborah Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17251775114982350453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-33829341559317859102014-02-13T01:52:16.348-08:002014-02-13T01:52:16.348-08:00@Anonymous,
Please rephrase your objection in a m...@Anonymous,<br /><br />Please rephrase your objection in a more constructive, meaningful and respectful manner!Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-57587216210998253282014-02-12T21:20:27.712-08:002014-02-12T21:20:27.712-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-62365417688041362082014-02-12T15:46:49.013-08:002014-02-12T15:46:49.013-08:00@Deborah Kate
I read your recent thread on Crossd...@Deborah Kate<br /><br />I read your recent thread on Crossdream life. It was poignant, moving. I too have been brought to tears attempting to express my own inner feelings, and sense of self. <br /><br />The first time I was brought to tears by the realization of my inner self it was the first time I had been brought to tears about anything in many years, and when it started I couldn't stop. I cried for two days straight. I felt ninety years old, and was shaking by the end of it, and contemplated suicide because I was afraid that I wouldn't be able to stop. It was terrifying at the time, an emotional breakdown, but also a liberation and catharsis I can appreciate now as an emotional re-awakening. It is easier for me to feel now than it was before I accepted myself. <br /><br />My posts may seem strident, and reactionary, but this is because my philosophy of liberation, what I use to understand my inner experiences as true and real, what I use to define my femaleness is being called oppressive, and dismissive of just that which I hold dear. <br /><br />I suppose that I shouldn't just turn things around, and call the antithetical position dismissive and oppressive, otherwise I see that I'm just perpetuating that same feeling in others. Deflecting the feeling back on to those that accuse me. That isn't my intention. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00381702883992271891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-26742365113164976512014-02-12T14:23:03.126-08:002014-02-12T14:23:03.126-08:00I think an ideology that is dismissive of both sci...I think an ideology that is dismissive of both scientific evidence and subjective feelings is liable to be dangerous. Of course there are biases in interpreting evidence, but it is better to strive to minimise these than to reject evidence in favour of dense sophistry. <br /><br />Philosophy can question assumptions usefully. But to move from questioning to dismissing should require more than just philosophical rationalism (with the occasional carefully selected real world illustration). In practice the methodology is often ‘this is considered state of the art wisdom so we should accept it even if we can’t really fully understand it, let alone counter all the counter-arguments’. <br /><br />The first sentences I read by Julia Serano (in Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation) were ‘If one more person tells me that “all gender is performance” I think I am going to strangle them. What’s most annoying about that sound-bite is how it is often recited in a somewhat snooty “I-took-a-gender-studies-class-and-you-didn’t” sort of way.’ This really impressed me. It takes someone of Serano’s confidence to stand up the post-structuralists’ sense of superiority.<br /><br />It is very hard to know whether there is such a quality as inherent sex identity, but studying empirical research and, most of all, listening with an open mind to people describing their personal experience seems to me a better methodology than closing the book on account of fashions in philosophy.<br /><br />Debbie xxDeborah Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17251775114982350453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-65546669174282666412014-02-12T12:24:16.849-08:002014-02-12T12:24:16.849-08:00My take on psychology from an engineering backgrou...My take on psychology from an engineering background (and after taking a couple of psychology courses in college) is that it is manipulating statistics to come to whatever your conclusion fits your needs. You're better off finding what feels right for you and ignoring the rest.Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06742298653334993493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-53204765322007923122014-02-12T10:12:43.377-08:002014-02-12T10:12:43.377-08:00To be clear and explicit, I don't mean to be i...To be clear and explicit, I don't mean to be inflammatory, and at the heart of my reactionary remarks is the idea that idealism is someone more inline with, focused on, or congenial to the sciences -- which to me seems flat out on its face ridiculous. Idealism by its very nature denies the reality of the material, observable universe, and believes that reality is arrived at through thought, or language rather than actually looking at the bloody world. <br /><br />To do science is to implicitly, performatively accept materialism and empiricism. <br /><br />Even Kant denied the reality of the material world, and although he also denied that knowledge of the forms was possible, he did some through rationalist, and not scientific arguments, that only get off the ground after assuming that the world is unreal, and that forms exist. His argument against Plato still rest on rationalism, rather than empiricism, because empiricism isn't up to the task. <br /><br />This is the nature of the gulf between idealists and materialists, and to paint idealists as in a better position to do science seems ridiculous to me. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00381702883992271891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-52810808872536696832014-02-12T09:26:14.835-08:002014-02-12T09:26:14.835-08:00Again, you paint this in an opposite sense. Ideali...Again, you paint this in an opposite sense. Idealism is the rationalism, idealism is what is devourced from materialism and empiricism. <br /><br />Post-structuralism is counter-intuitive, because idealism appeals to our common sense, which as Einstein pointed out, is a collection of prejudices. <br /><br />Also, post-structuralism gets bogged down, in my view by an overblown attempt at self awareness. It isn't as if we can't use heuristics, prejudices, and generalities to bundle information just like idealists do, but then we have to wonder what the personal, psychological, and political significance of grouping is. Why did I bundle things in this way? <br /><br />This is where post-structuralism seems abstract, and all about the language, because it attempts to deconstruct the language to find this out. <br /><br />Idealism is easier, and just says "there is no such significance, I'm capturing the true essential nature of things", not getting stuck in this recursivity. <br /><br />Worse than this, many post-structuralists seem to, after deciding some rational, or justification for thinking or behaving in some way, think that it is appropriate to generalize their conclusion to a demographic of people, which they definitely should no better than doing. Everyone is different. <br /><br />It is my belief that post-structuralist philosophy ought to promote a completely differential ontology, of the uniqueness, and individuality of all things, doing aware with preconception and prejudice, thinking that we can know things about someone or thing from a top down hierarchical fashion. Actually knowing individuals, rather than reducing them to stereotypes, so as we can say that we know everyone, or everything. <br /><br />This doesn't mean that we shouldn't make use of heuristics, and categories (we can't help it, there are real physical limits on our ability to discern (which itself is not a generality, no more than saying that all men are mortal, which is open ended to the extent of their discerning abilities, understanding that everyone is different)), we can't help it -- and it is probably true that we can't be constantly stuck in recursively chasing down the reasons why we have bundled things just so, leading into linguistic, psychological and political analyses at every turn. <br /><br />It is however worse, to not be aware that these are where the origins of categorizes lie, and not with the things themselves. Because for me, this is inherently a liberating philosophy, one that embraces deviance, change, becoming, individuality, and uniqueness. We are freed from the shackles of definitions metaphysically dictating the natures of our very souls, without any wiggle room at all. To think otherwise is inherently oppressive, isn't understanding that categories are for our purposes, and are cognitive shortcuts, and not things that we cannot deviate from without being sick, insane, or evil. It forces open mindedness, and acceptance of difference, and uniqueness as the foundation of our thought -- and not the oppression of idealism. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00381702883992271891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-65455004564726217732014-02-12T07:24:27.244-08:002014-02-12T07:24:27.244-08:00@Elsa
I do not think we disagree as regards what ...@Elsa<br /><br />I do not think we disagree as regards what post-structuralist philosophy sets out to be. There is nothing in what you say that comes in conflict with my description. (And yes, I am talking about post-structuralism, not structuralism!)<br /><br />My point is simply that bigotry has harnessed post-structuralist feminist philosophy for its own purpose, and that the people doing so probably do not understand what they are doing, most likely because they believe that they truly have understood "The System". <br /><br />They have fallen into the same trap as the marxist-leninists of the cold war era, and have turned a tool for liberation into a tool of oppression.<br /><br />That does not mean that I think post-structuralism is useless or that all post-structuralists are bullies. Far from it! I am using post-structuralist philosophy myself to deconstruct the post-structuralist. <br /><br />That being said, we do probably disagree as regards one issue. To me it is clear that post-structuralism is useless as a tool for understanding biology or natural systems. <br /><br />If all you can understand is language, language is all you can say anything about. It seems to me this is your departure as well.<br /><br />This means that the whole discourse: philosophical, ethical, social, cultural becomes a discourse about language and symbols. <br /><br />So it doesn't matter if the post-structuralists accept the existence of the body. They have no way of understanding how it influences language and are therefore forced to ignore it. <br /><br />You may think that this would lead to some kind of humility as regards the use of the theory, but it does not. <br /><br />Any homosexual or transsexual who argues that "I was born this way!" will be ignored at best, or -- more likely -- ridiculed for being a naive essentialist, even if they are not.<br /><br />The tragedy of this philosophical lock-in is that nature has been left to the natural scientists, leaving us with two intellectual silos that rarely communicate. <br /><br />Well, my life is short. I cannot wait for philosophy to resolve all these dilemmas (which are probably unsolvable, anyway). Natural science is now the only discourse (apart from art) that tries to say anything sensible about the non-linguistic part of life (which, let's admit it, includes most of it). That is why I also discuss the science of sex and gender in this blog.<br /><br />Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-84194905616813464622014-02-11T15:08:03.842-08:002014-02-11T15:08:03.842-08:00Continued
It is the opposite of a rejection of th...Continued<br /><br />It is the opposite of a rejection of the body, but an acceptance of everybody, as distinct, and individual, and not reducible to essential common natures. If post-structuralist shy away from delineating the natural world, it is because they understand that language isn't up to the task, is built of heuristics, and generalities that in no way come close to capturing the overwhelming diversity of the natural world, but worse than this even -- that definitions are prejudices, that pigeonhole, stereotype, and categorize in meaningful ways for our own purposes, and do not actual describe the world, which is meaningless, void of meaning besides this meaning with respect our our lives and purposes. <br /><br />Now, you can say that people use these ideas to somehow invalidate people's identities, but it is said that Hitler used evolution to justify the holocaust, ergo evolution must be wrong... <br /><br />Putting aside the half-hearted reductio, I am sympathetic to consequentialist arguments, but I don't think that invalidating idealistic identities about partaking in a shared essential nature with some category, in a noumenal way is as terrible as negating, and falsifying all individuality, and character, in the place of anthropocentric prejudices, heuristics, and generalities.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00381702883992271891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-26795269631758503712014-02-11T15:07:38.897-08:002014-02-11T15:07:38.897-08:00You don't know what you're talking about.....You don't know what you're talking about... perhaps with respect to self-proclaimed post-structuralists, but not with respect to the philosophy. <br /><br />This comes down to the difference between structuralism, and post-structuralism. What is the difference? <br /><br />Well, for this, we have to go back to Plato, the Arch Idealist, and progenitor of essentialist thinkers. "Thing in itself" is a literal translation of phrases that were latinized into "essentia", such as "oneself as oneself", "the what it is", "the what it is to be", and are all referring to what it means for something to have being, to exist. For Plato, this was the forms, which is of course the essence in things. These are eternal, changeless, and static in their being, the world of becoming, change, impermanence is rendered an illusion, or shadows on a cave wall. <br /><br />Kant's disagreement with Plato surrounds his theory of knowledge, not his theory of forms. Plato's theory was that we already knew the forms, and that through contemplation, and processes of reasoning we could uncover this knowledge of the forms. The true nature of things, things in themselves, or their essences. The word "noumena" means "something that is thought", and is derived from the world "nous", meaning "intuition", or "knowledge". Kant, argues against a transcendental intuition, or the ability to know the noumena in this way, but he still accepts essentialism, or the existence of "things in themselves", which is why he classifies himself as a transcendental idealist, but an epistemological empiricist. Plato wasn't, sense information was useless for discovering the true nature of things, he was an epistemological rationalist. <br /><br />What are essences? For both Plato and Aristotle, they were correct definitions, or logos. Words define, in a metaphysical sense, the essential natures of things. <br /><br />Kant denies this, but he doesn't deny that essences exist, which are the eternal, unchanging permanent causes of the impermanent constantly changing objects of perception. Why? Because he believed in an eternal afterlife, and God as the cause of the world, and all things. <br /><br />Coming to structuralism. What is it? It is the idea that language is a relationship between signifier, and signified. That all words, reference something external, and in the world. It is Platonic noumenalism, by definition. When I say "red", I refer to a common essential feature of the world in things. Logically, if two things are the same, then there aren't two things, there is one thing (Leibniz's law). So there is one essence that is "redness", and all red things are imperfect, approximations, that do not themselves really exist, in that we don't refer to there distinctness, we refer to their single essential nature. <br /><br />Post-structuralism denies this. It is fundamentally based on a rejection of essentialism, or this noumenal, unchanging eternal world of being, and forms. Making unreal the world of change, impermanence, becoming. Replacing this eternal reality of forms with the void, or abyss. Making the world of appearances, change, becoming what is real. Definitions, essences, to be what is unreal. This is metaphysical materialism, and empiricism, the complete rejection of idealism. This is the core of post-structuralism. It's essence, as it were. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00381702883992271891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-34708671874114288082014-02-11T14:35:26.905-08:002014-02-11T14:35:26.905-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00381702883992271891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-974237124017982312014-02-11T14:28:57.885-08:002014-02-11T14:28:57.885-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00381702883992271891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-8570501234823972032014-02-11T13:33:46.019-08:002014-02-11T13:33:46.019-08:00Utter word salad. A wilful misrepresentation of al...Utter word salad. A wilful misrepresentation of all that is "other" (i.e. not in accord with your thinking). Sorry Jack but your posts have become progressive worse as you fumble inevitably towards a trans-female identity. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-52706955881656620572014-02-11T07:04:37.287-08:002014-02-11T07:04:37.287-08:00You are right.
Divisions, categorizations and cla...You are right.<br /><br />Divisions, categorizations and classifications bring no additional answers.<br /><br />For example, while the work of Blanchard and Anne Lawrence acknowledges the need for transsexual surgeries, the proposal that this need is rooted in either paraphilia or homosexuality is not an explanation but merely a behavioral observation. This is not science.<br /><br />Paraphilias themselves are not understood either.<br /><br />So you cannot ensure that politically motivated conjecture will not happen but as time goes on, hope that new theories will replace old ones until some truth is eventually uncovered. <br /><br />I cannot worry about what I cannot change in humanity but can only do my small part to dispel incorrect notions and obvious fallacies in logic.<br />joanna Santoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16722222181799879120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-5308524152524843742014-02-11T06:46:24.573-08:002014-02-11T06:46:24.573-08:00"its obvious to me that gender politics canno..."its obvious to me that gender politics cannot be allowed to enter into the serious research that must take place in order to understand the origin of gender dysphoria but people being what they are, it will be an unavoidable fact of life."<br /><br />I agree, but how do we ensure that this happens? Scientists are also children of their time and they bring their preconceptions with them when they define their research questions. And the research questions put a limit to what it is possible to find.<br /><br />The most obvious example of this for me is the division of transsexual women into "primary" and "secondary", feminine or masculine, "homosexual" or "non-homsexual". Researchers have wasted more than 30 years on studying something that is of little relevance to a real understanding trans identities.<br /><br />For all I know, my own approach to trans and crossdreaming could stop other interesting aspects from appearing.Jack Molayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03629363646482611722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472400923228993687.post-50559688238685539772014-02-11T06:11:31.626-08:002014-02-11T06:11:31.626-08:00Jack
Everyone has an agenda to push and while the...Jack<br /><br />Everyone has an agenda to push and while the radical feminists want to believe that gender is only a social construct in order to encourage women to be as socially powerful as men, they ignore any evidence that gender is likely both social and biological in nature. In their mind, David Reimer should have accepted his womanhood simply because he had been raised a girl - period.<br /><br />Conversely, classic transsexuals do not accept this type of thinking since they were raised as boys and yet persisted in their thinking they were girls. For them they were always women waiting for a correction.<br /><br />Somebody is wrong here and it is both. Gender is rooted in both nature and nurture but to what degree we cannot be sure. Likely it varies from person to person.<br /><br />How odd then that both would conveniently subscribe to the illegitimacy of pretenders and fetishists to discredit transgender people who fall somewhere in the gender spectrum.<br /><br />It shows the fallacy of logic and how opposites can make for strange bedfellows when it suits them.<br /><br />its obvious to me that gender politics cannot be allowed to enter into the serious research that must take place in order to understand the origin of gender dysphoria but people being what they are, it will be an unavoidable fact of life.joanna Santoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16722222181799879120noreply@blogger.com