Pedophile who repeatedly sexually assaulted 6-8yo girls claims he's "trans-age"

[Ryika]

Not really. The leftist understanding of gender actually comes from the very real fact that gender is literally a social construct, unlike age.

Yeah, but when you're transgender, and want to transition, you don't alter your body to be more of the "gender" that you think you should be, you alter your body to become more of the sex that you think you should be. Hormone therapy and sex reassignment therapy do exactly that.

All you need for transageism to seem like an actual parallel is to establish a "social construct" that allows for "age conversion" to be seen as the ideal therapy, and for it to be "discriminatory" to say: "You're 60, you can't go back to basic school." That social construct might for example be a dismantling of the concept of maturity. People who are, for example, 20 don't all share a sense of maturity, they're all very different people, so who has the right to tell a 20yo that they're not actually a 6yo mind in the wrong body of a 20yo? If a person can give a believable account of that - be it as an act of role-playing, or an actual mental condition - then there's a strong moral argument that people should be allowed to live as people of the age they feel they are, and for that, laws need to be changed, too.

The difference is that this has no scientific backing at all for transageism - because unlike transgenderism, where we know that people's brain structure do actually support their claims (at least partly, and in a proportion of the people who feel like they're in the wrong body) - at least as far as big steps forwards or backwards are concerned. But we also know that on the left as well as on the right, scientific arguments only work when they support ones opinion, otherwise it's all feels over reals.

If enough people feel like it's discriminatory, the media will pick it up, it will spread in mainstream movements, and there's nothing a logically thinking person with rational arguments can do about it, because YOU will be called out as a bigot for suggesting that the people who are so open and accepting are doing something that is not in line with the data.

But like I said, I don't _think_ it's going to happen, I'm just saying there is a path that people can use to argue for it. I do think people's will to protect children from predatory adults (Social construct!) who would try to abuse that system will prevent that argument from gaining ground, but nobody knows what the future holds. Or in other words, the slippery slope is currently not very slippery, but who knows, somebody might turn on the water in in the future.

 

[Peuri]

Sorry, my bad. My natural tongue does not distinct biological sex and gender. Just one word for both. But biological sex and gender are both social constructs.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

A 56 and 18 year old isn’t fine to me— maybe not pedophilia but something I don’t believe is okay.

Cannot compute the presence of the word "maybe" in this statement...

 

[Farm Boy]

Having a reproductive tract capable of carrying, birthing, and feeding live young is a social construct? I mean, can we convince my mother to have a penile erection if only we frame it the right way?

I think there is a nuance to the statement I'm not getting.

 

[Peuri]

Having a reproductive tract capable of carrying, birthing, and feeding live young is a social construct? I mean, can we convince my mother to have an erection if only we frame it the right way?

In a sense, yes. Like the Moon, there obviously is an underlying reality upon which the concepts of "Moon" or "sex" are constructed. But that does not mean that us creating an understanding of them and categorising them is not without us creating a concept of "sex" or the "Moon". Obviously (I would assume) your mother cannot get an erection and I (as a male) cannot birth children, but that does not change the fact, that for us to understand this, and have a conversation about it, we need to socially construct these concepts about which we are discussing. Thst's why I said that the discussion is not ontological, because everything requires us to socially conceptualise the world in order to talk about it, but moral, because what we are truly interested is how should we want people conceptualised as something to act.

 

[CurtSibling]

TIL I identify as a dead person.

Unless you are some creepy pasta ghost, then your claim to be dead is pure rubbish.
Just like some crazy person claiming to be a dragon or a mexican potato.

Delusion and identity are two quite different things in society and the law's view.

 

[inthesomeday]

Yeah, but when you're transgender, and want to transition, you don't alter your body to be more of the "gender" that you think you should be, you alter your body to become more of the sex that you think you should be. Hormone therapy and sex reassignment therapy do exactly that.

We have a different word for that, which is transsexual, and is distinct from trans gender identity. Not everyone who is transgender is transsexual, although admittedly almost everyone who is transsexual is also transgender (the only exception that comes to mind is the character Shane in Chuck Palahniuk’s Invisible Monsters).

All you need for transageism to seem like an actual parallel is to establish a "social construct" that allows for "age conversion" to be seen as the ideal therapy, and for it to be "discriminatory" to say: "You're 60, you can't go back to basic school." That social construct might for example be a dismantling of the concept of maturity. People who are, for example, 20 don't all share a sense of maturity, they're all very different people, so who has the right to tell a 20yo that they're not actually a 6yo mind in the wrong body of a 20yo? If a person can give a believable account of that - be it as an act of role-playing, or an actual mental condition - then there's a strong moral argument that people should be allowed to live as people of the age they feel they are, and for that, laws need to be changed, too.

Let law leave the conversation, it’s irrelevant. On topic, what I’m saying is that there is no possible argument for age itself being a social construct because it exists independent of society. There is an objective age, where there is no objective gender. That an “age of adulthood” exists is most certainly socially constructed, but it’s got little (actually nothing) to do with my own moral rejection of pedophilia or relationships with big age gaps.

The difference is that this has no scientific backing at all for transageism - because unlike transgenderism, where we know that people's brain structure do actually support their claims (at least partly, and in a proportion of the people who feel like they're in the wrong body) - at least as far as big steps forwards or backwards are concerned. But we also know that on the left as well as on the right, scientific arguments only work when they support ones opinion, otherwise it's all feels over reals.

(Saying “transgenderism” makes you sound ridiculous) I mean feels over reals is actually pretty compelling when it comes down to something like gender, which doesn’t really exist but as an expression of internal identity, which exists only internally. Scientifically speaking it’s true that trans people often have that little thing on their brain shaped differently or whatever but the fact that that is correlated with being trans has more to do with the confines of socially constructed gender identity than actual objective definitions of gender. They’re born with x genitalia, then are treated like they have x traits (which are actually more influenced by that thing in the brain than genitalia, and possibly more influenced by entirely other factors than are popularly considered). Without the assumption of one of two very narrowly defined genders in a socially constructed binary, there probably wouldn’t be anyone who was trans; trans is a gender identity that only exists as we know it because of our constructed gender binary.

If enough people feel like it's discriminatory, the media will pick it up, it will spread in mainstream movements, and there's nothing a logically thinking person with rational arguments can do about it, because YOU will be called out as a bigot for suggesting that the people who are so open and accepting are doing something that is not in line with the data.

I think this is basically right wing fearmongering based around hysteria that the left is some sort of mob. We really truly don’t just throw the word bigot around, as much as bigots might feel we do.

But like I said, I don't _think_ it's going to happen, I'm just saying there is a path that people can use to argue for it. I do think people's will to protect children from predatory adults (Social construct!) who would try to abuse that system will prevent that argument from gaining ground, but nobody knows what the future holds. Or in other words, the slippery slope is currently not very slippery, but who knows, somebody might turn on the water in in the future.

I think the thing about slippery slopes is that they’re neither slippery nor slopes because they don’t exist how the people conjuring them up think they do

 

[Borachio]

I remember a time when homosexuality was most definitely illegal.

One can only wonder what further changes time will bring.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, can we convince my mother to have a penile erection if only we frame it the right way?

I'm not sure whether I'm crossing a line with this post, but your mother's clitoris does in fact respond to stimulation by becoming erect (assuming it works "normally" anyway).

I think there is a nuance to the statement I'm not getting.

The commonplace point is that biological sex is distinct from gender, which is a cultural/psychological construct. But as Peuri points out biological sex is really a construct too. At least, the sex binary is - the existence of intersex people of various kinds shows that the binary is a concept that maps imperfectly onto the reality.

 

[Synobun]

I'm not sure extreme outliers can be realistically used as an argument for why sex isn't binary, especially when a good portion of those outliers (already a rarity) are a result of some kind of error during fetal development.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not sure extreme outliers can be realistically used as an argument for why sex isn't binary, especially when a good portion of those outliers (already a rarity) are a result of some kind of error during fetal development.

Their mere existence means that sex is not binary. Obviously there are two major clusters but binary simply doesn't mean "binary but with some exceptions we write off."

 

[Farm Boy]

I follow where you're going now Peuri, cool.

I'm not sure whether I'm crossing a line with this post, but your mother's clitoris does in fact respond to stimulation by becoming erect (assuming it works "normally" anyway).



The commonplace point is that biological sex is distinct from gender, which is a cultural/psychological construct. But as Peuri points out biological sex is really a construct too. At least, the sex binary is - the existence of intersex people of various kinds shows that the binary is a concept that maps imperfectly onto the reality.

Well, you aren't with me, let's see if we run afoul of moderation, I suppose. But yes, I specified the anatomical part for that reason.

 

[Lexicus]

But yes, I specified the anatomical part for that reason.

Fair enough. I wanted to make the point that the underlying biology is way less clear-cut than the reactionaries like to pretend it is.

 

[inthesomeday]

On top of the chromosomal aspects of sex divergence there is also the argument by some that biological sex can be defined even more widely by considering a number of other factors, including that bit in the brain that may contribute to gender identity and hormonal distribution

 

[Synobun]

Their mere existence means that sex is not binary. Obviously there are two major clusters but binary simply doesn't mean "binary but with some exceptions we write off."

In the strictest sense of the term, sure. I rarely see anyone argue to change the sex binary perspective with that acknowledgement in mind. But then again, I only ever see people who live their lives on Tumblr make any concerted arguments about this subject.

 

[Ryika]

We have a different word for that, which is transsexual, and is distinct from trans gender identity. Not everyone who is transgender is transsexual, although admittedly almost everyone who is transsexual is also transgender (the only exception that comes to mind is the character Shane in Chuck Palahniuk’s Invisible Monsters).

Many people who strictly speaking fall in the category of being transsexual don't like the word (who could blame them?) and self-identify as transgender instead, which is why the ground between both words is extremely muddy (especially given that there is a policy of "Call the person what they want to be called, not what you think is correct."), and both are often used interchangeably.

Not that the words really matter, whether you're "transsexual" who wants to transition, or "transgender", the fact is, you try to change your sex to meet your gender, not the other way around. If a concept of an "constructed identity of maturity" were to manifest in culture, then it stands to reason that people would try to change their age to meet their "identity of maturity".

Let law leave the conversation, it’s irrelevant. On topic, what I’m saying is that there is no possible argument for age itself being a social construct because it exists independent of society. There is an objective age, where there is no objective gender. That an “age of adulthood” exists is most certainly socially constructed, but it’s got little (actually nothing) to do with my own moral rejection of pedophilia or relationships with big age gaps.

Yeah, but there is an objective sex, and we're willing to bend that, too. Or are you saying that a person who was assigned male at birth but has since undergone gender reassignment therapy is now "female, but not a woman"? If so, yes, then that's consistent with how you treat age and the possibility of a social construct of maturity, but that's not how society in general handles it. There's a large majority of people that says that a m2f-trans individual is not only female, but also "a woman" - often even if they have not transitioned and/or don't plan to transition.

So clearly, in societal dialog it does not only effect the social construct (gender / maturity), but also leads back to the biological concept behind it (sex / age).

Another example for that is the fact that we allow m2f trans individuals to take part in women's sports, even though the reason we even split it between men and women is not gender identity, but the different average body types of men and women; because women can generally not compete against men.

(Saying “transgenderism” makes you sound ridiculous)

Why? Because you've decided the word is not acceptable this month? The word is used by a wide range of people, here are some examples:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-some-people-transgender/
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-science-of-gender
https://www.amazon.com/Psychobiolog...440831262/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

etc. etc.

I'm not into changing my vocabulary all the time just to keep up with what outrage crusaders deem acceptable today.

I mean feels over reals is actually pretty compelling when it comes down to something like gender, which doesn’t really exist but as an expression of internal identity, which exists only internally. Scientifically speaking it’s true that trans people often have that little thing on their brain shaped differently or whatever but the fact that that is correlated with being trans has more to do with the confines of socially constructed gender identity than actual objective definitions of gender. They’re born with x genitalia, then are treated like they have x traits (which are actually more influenced by that thing in the brain than genitalia, and possibly more influenced by entirely other factors than are popularly considered). Without the assumption of one of two very narrowly defined genders in a socially constructed binary, there probably wouldn’t be anyone who was trans; trans is a gender identity that only exists as we know it because of our constructed gender binary.

This is just an extended version of what you've already said, without actually responding to what I have said, so I'll restate my point as well:

Gender Identity is a social construct that makes some people want to transition from one sex to the other, and society generally accepts that. Transage might, in the societal dialog, end up being seen very similarly.

While the social construct that I'll describe as "maturity" has currently not been very well established as a thing that is separate from age, it is clearly there. We do know that people are at different levels of maturity, even if they're the same age, and can go back to being more immature than they were before. So clearly, maturity is not the same thing as age. Maturity is a social construct, a social construct that makes society expect certain behaviors based purely on the physical reality of their age.

We expect a person who is 50 for example to act in a certain way, and pooping in diapers while running around on a playground is not that. Society would disapprove of it, probably say that such a person has a mental condition, even if they harm nobody. But who's to say that that's not who they are, and that we should not be accepting of their identity as a person who is "very immature"? This may again sound silly from today's point of view, but all that is required is for the natural connection between maturity and age to be questioned by people who are very supportive of the idea that it is discriminatory to have a societal expectation on a person to act in a certain way just because of their age.

And again, I'm not saying that's likely to happen, but there is clearly an angle of attack that people might try to abuse at one point or another. If they do, they'll likely be rejected.

I think this is basically right wing fearmongering based around hysteria that the left is some sort of mob. We really truly don’t just throw the word bigot around, as much as bigots might feel we do.

Words written by the person who just scolded another person for using a word they didn't like.

 

[inthesomeday]

But I didn’t call you a bigot about it, did I? I wouldn’t even say I scolded you, just politely informed you that it makes you sound ridiculous

 

[Peuri]

I agree with Valessa with most of what Valessa said. There is no "objective age". At some point we have decided that we will count people's age by the cycles of
Earth around the Sun, but we could also try to conceptualise age in other ways, like degeneration of cells or something. Or tie it to the onset of certain mental or physical capabilities. And maturity is obviously distinct from age, as Valessa points out. So again, the discussion is moral, not ontological.

I would not say, that there necessarily is a slippery slope in accepting transsexuals as normal, into transageism or even transracialism, if we agree morally, that there is a distinction. But if the narrative is that both are forms of discrimination, and discrimination is always evil, then I could see it argued that transageism is a thing.