People who are fixated on their own personal problems say:
"I'm not ill! But I am ill!"
I am absolutely healthy and sane, but I suffer endlessly because I am stuck in a body that is alien to me.
The fixated mind says something completely contradictory in one and the same sentence.
And this mind that is fixated on one thing expects the world around it to agree and disagree with it at the same time.
Here, some comments under the above video.
Where it is discussed that using the term "transwoman" and "transman" is already picking up on a wrong language.
How about either "AG's" for Auto-Gynophilic or "GD" for "Gender Dysphoric" as alternatives to referring to people as "Trans". They are more accurate, and short enough.
@JB.zero.zero.1:
Because, if it can be demonstrated that neurobiology in some instances presents an individual that does not conform to a more binary gender definition - then we are basically pathologizing these ones, which to some will be a license to denigrate and marginalise - rather than express compassion and accommodation.
@JB.zero.zero.1 I don't agree with identifying with myself as an earthling. I identify with an alien.
If a neurobiologist therefore diagnoses me as disturbed in my brain function, the neurobiologist is right and in his eyes I am fixated on an identification with something that does not exist BECAUSE I am disturbed.
According to your logic, a brain dysfunction is therefore a reason not to regard this dysfunction as such, but to use my dysfunction as an opportunity to reinforce it. So everyone else should accept that I tell them that they perceive me incorrectly and set aside their personal perception in favour of my own.
This means that if I claim that there are four fingers on my hand, everyone else has to confirm my assertion, even though I have five fingers on my hand. They're supposed to do this out of compassion for me and my disorder?
If, according to your definition, I am a victim of a brain disorder, I should not be treated for this particular pathology, but on the contrary, I should not receive any treatment and continue to exist with my suffering? So, I'm not even allowed to be considered ill because it hurts me to be considered ill?
That is the opposite of compassion. It's like saying to someone with a heart condition: you identify as having a heart condition, but of course it's an insult to call you sick at heart. I accept that you identify as having a heart condition, but it would be very inhumane of me to offer you treatment. It is quite enough for you to identify yourself as having a heart condition and be recognised as such by everyone. Their kindness and compassion is enough and any treatment or intervention to cure you of your heart condition would be an interference with your autonomous perception.
Now we come to the crux of the matter.
People who want to "choose their sex" naturally don't see themselves as ill. Even though they don't see themselves as ill, everyone else should sympathise with them. But the question is: if I say that I am not ill, what is the basis of my suffering?
On the fact that I am completely satisfied and have no problem with myself at all? Do I want to "change my sex" because I am happy with my life? Why should I go into such a fixation if everything is okay with me? If I am fixated on the fact that all my problems will be solved as soon as I have replaced my unwanted identity with a new identity that I want, why should everyone else go along with this fixation?
The answer is: because I am not convinced that my old self will be redeemed by my new self, I need an environment that believes this. Only when everyone else believes it can I believe it myself.
A hopeless entanglement in a never-ending loop of contradictions.
I need to understand that my unhappiness with myself is MY issue and not every one else's issue.
So if I say: "I'm not suffering from anything at all!", then the answer would be: "Then everything is fine. Why dwell on something when you're fine?"
Answer: "But I'm not fine!"
"So why is it my problem now that you're not well?"
"I'm not even talking about me! There are so many people out there who are suffering. They need to be listened to!"
"So they're ill?"
"No, damn it! They're healthy, but they're suffering immensely! All those children!"
"Let me summarise: There are no sick people, you're not sick and neither are the children. So why see you and them as suffering?"
"Because it's unfair! You have to pay attention to the children and listen to them!"
"You probably mean you need to be listened to. I listen to you. But so far you haven't said anything sensible."
If they are not sick, why do they require medical attention?
They don't. Usually, the vast majority now is just up for registering as whatever pronoun. If one really suffers, and if one really has a long history of suffering, they do everything to become that sex they want to be, including all the dreadful surgery. They deal with all the negative consequences because they need - talking about teenagers though, is a whole different story. Other than that, the whole thing is just political utopia, I think.
The video is great. Makes so much sense! By assigning special words, we make a non-problem more problematic. I've long resented having to share the word "woman" with biological men, who were likely raised with male privilege notions for breakfast and so think they can demand the one thing we women had for our own, our word.
She's very good.
Yes, she is very articulate and to the point.
I have a different attitude towards the word woman. I do not mind if this is an addition to the word man.
I had equal female privileges as a little girl and as a later woman, if not more, than boys and men had. As a modern western woman, I never had to go to the army, to die in war, to serve as a civil service worker as compensation for not going to the army, never had to do hard, dirty and live endangering work and so on and so forth. I was spared all this and more, because men did that on my behalf. My sex was publicly called "the weaker sex" - I used it to my advantage. Men repaired my broken cars and electrics, they gave me rides, they helped me out, they courted for me and so on and so on - I love my men (have two of them in the home:) of course, I had as well difficult experiences with men, but in general, I would not refer to this because of their sex but because of different notions towards life. How about you?
Good points, all.
I was elevated as a young mathematician because of my gender. I had no difficulties getting employment and being paid the same wage as a man would have been paid. We women were hardly victims, for the most part, as you point out. Now and then I would find myself alone with a brute, but no real harm was done. If anything, the men were as confused about right and wrong as I was.
I don't agree when women say that "if only women ruled the world, we wouldn't have wars" and the like. We can be every bit as self serving and cruel as any man.
I actually know of no woman in my entire social peer realm who was not able to get a good or somewhat alright position in the working field. One of my colleagues who - through a coincident became one day aware of my wage - was quite impressed of how much I was making a month. He asked me how I did it and I answered "good negotiation skill", or something like that.
totally so! Yes.
For sure. I agree even more.
A great deal of the stories of victimization of populations has been concocted for us to believe. I believe nothing I was taught in school anymore, not about history or social conditions. I do not mean to say, however, that Jews were not slaughtered during WWII, children are not shot in schools, or black persons were never enslaved, but I no longer believe the stories of how these events occurred. There is much more to these stories than we are taught, especially regarding who and what committed the acts, and why the acts were committed.
But why tell us we are being vicitimized, usually by our fellow human beings, our neighbors, our parents, our friends? Because these fabrications diminish our powers, simply by telling us that we have diminished powers.
People just love to be sympathized with. They love show-cases and being deceived, since confronting oneself with ones own stupidity feels uncomfortable. I made the experience that it is actually the best I can do for myself. In that very process I relieved myself from so much grief. And the beginning feeling of discomfort goes away.
But in avoiding doing that, I am the distress producer. When I am unwilling to see that, my finger always points outward.
I even think that the always mentioned Nuremberg Trials were just that: A big show case of "justice". While, when you really think about it, much more people must have had faced such trials. Where were they?
I refuse to be a victim and I am not begging for "safe spaces", since creating a space for the sole sake of "safety", you create the opposite. Sympathy is not empathy, it is its enemy, in my view. The best teachings I got from people were, when they straightforwardly critizised or challenged me.
You've nailed the surrealistic nature of this entire argument very well!
Nutso!