Absent an absolute authority, who is to say what anything is.

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have not condoned/rationalized/justified any violent or unlawful protests.  I have not resorted to "It's not bad when my side does it"-style special pleading arguments.

You will note that I previously agreed that "describing these issues {regarding Orwellian tactics} via political designations can indeed be problematic," and that "{n}ot all on the 'left' agree with these concepts, and some on the 'right' do."

You will also note that when you previously asked "Do you really think this is unique to 'the left'?", I replied "No."

You will note that I called the January 6 event a "riot," and I further stated that "I condemn unlawful protests, regardless of who does them.  I also condemn violence, particularly politically-motivated violence, regardless of who does it."

My critique of Orwellian tactics has not been "one sided," as I think both sides of the spectrum do it (though I think it is far more prevalent and menacing on the "left").

My condemnation of unlawful protests and violence, particularly politically-motivated violence, is likewise not "one sided."

The BLM/Antifa riots resulted in dozens of violent deaths, thousands of injuries, and and billions in property damage.  For months and months and months.  Much of this was endorsed or condoned or excused, and even actively encouraged, by politicians, academics, and others.

And yet here you are, minimizing the enormity of those riots.

I condemn unlawful protests, regardless of who does them.  I also condemn violence, particularly politically-motivated violence, regardless of who does it.

I have said this.  Publicly.  Many times.

But I just don't see much in the way of leftists saying this.  It's all special pleading, minimization, and even rationalizations, justifications, and celebrations of the "It's not wrong when my side does it" variety.

Thanks,

-Smac

I never claimed you were “rationalizing violence” etc.  I don’t know where that straw man is coming from.  I also didn’t minimize the enormity of the riots.  That is also a straw man.  I said it wasn’t as dangerous to our republic as the attempted insurrection.

Your original post I responded was I deed 1 sided.  Prove me wrong.

I am SO TIRED of your politics and social attacks on here that is mostly all you do.  You are obsessed.

Edited June 17, 2022 by pogi

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, Obehave said:

His memes are informative and substantive.

They are the most obvious jokes repeatedly obviously for the amusement of the dull-witted.

That you find them informative is, okay, how do I put this nicely………it is not good.

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, Obehave said:

☝️ ☝️ ☝️ That was my attempt to be a peacemaker here, folks.  brothers and sisters.  I probably still need to keep working on that. ☝️ ☝️ ☝️

 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

I never claimed you were “rationalizing violence” etc.  I don’t know where that straw man is coming from.  

You said I had mounted a "one sided attack."  I did not.

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

I also didn’t minimize the enormity of the riots.  

You surely did.  "{T}hey don’t compare to an attempted insurrection in the Capitol" is nothing but minimization.  

The BLM/Antifa riots resulted in dozens of violent deaths, thousands of injuries, and and billions in property damage.  And they lasted for months and months and months, all the while being excused / rationalized / justified / celebrated by politicians, journalists, academics, and others.  

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is also a straw man.  I said it wasn’t as dangerous to our republic as the attempted insurrection.

Minimization.  Tu quoque.

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Your original post I responded was I deed 1 sided.  Prove me wrong.

Asked and answered.

This Orwellian stuff has been going on for quite a while.  Some examples:

• "Assault Rifle"
• "Undocumented Immigrant"
• "Mostly peaceful protests."
• "Birthing person"
• "People who menstruate"
• "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."
• "Amen and awomen."
• "The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a {person’s} life, to {their} well-being and dignity. When the government controls that decision for {people}, {they are} being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for {their} own choices.”

There are many, many more such examples of the Orwellian neologisms being created these days, even to the extent of literal historical revisionism (that last quote was from the ACLU, quoting Ruth Bader Ginsberg).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 17, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They are the most obvious jokes repeatedly obviously for the amusement of the dull-witted.

That you find them informative is, okay, how do I put this nicely………it is not good.

And still more insults. 

Still no substance.  No evidence.  No reasoned argument or analysis.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And still more insults. 

Still no substance.  No evidence.  No reasoned argument or analysis.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, I was literally responding to your evidential, substantive, analytic, and reasonable argumentative MEMES!

Glass houses and all of that.

I made a response about the value of those memes and how they were inaccurate absurdities and badly made and badly used. I guess you missed that part and blathered about gaslighting, a term that doesn’t describe anything either of us have done.

Edited June 17, 2022 by The Nehor

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You said I had mounted a "one sided attack."  I did not.

How is that the same as claiming that you were “rationalizing violence”???  

It was a one sided attack on one parties use of manipulative language.  

I asked you to prove me wrong that your original post wasn’t one sided and you gave me a long list of proof that I was RIGHT.  Ok.  Looks real balanced to me…not!
 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Again, I was literally responding to your evidential, substantive, analytic, and reasonable argumentative MEMES!

And nothing else.

I also posted a number of personal thoughts/observations, together with quotations about Orwellian revisions to language, and I posted a video from Thomas Sowell, "an American economist, historian, social theorist, and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution."  I also posted a number of links to examples substanting my position.  I also commented on  Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug, Stefoknee Wolscht, Eva Tiamat Medusa and Naia Ōkami, also in furtherance and substantiation of my point.

You have provided zero substance to this discussion.  No evidence.  No reasoning.  Nothing but ridicule and insults.

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Glass houses and all of that.

I have provided substantive argument, reasoning, evidence, etc.

All you have is glib taunts and insults.

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I made a response about the value of those memes and how they were inaccurate absurdities and badly made and badly used.

Conclusory, because-I-say-so declarations.  No substance.  No reasoned argument.  No analysis.  No evidence.

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I guess you missed that part and blathered about gaslighting, a term that doesn’t describe anything either of us have done.

Ad hominem, tuo quoque, appeals to ridicule, etc. - which are all you have to offer - are common forms of gaslighting.

You sneer at and insult people voicing legitimate concerns about serious issues.  You seek to shame and insult people into silence by ridiculing and insulting them, by trying to make them feel stupid for voicing their concerns.  You offer nothing of substance.  No evidence.  No analysis.  No reasoning.  You just insult and ridicule.  Over and over and over. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 17, 2022 by smac97

[The Nehor]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ad hominem, tuo quoque, appeals to ridicule, etc. - which are all you have to offer - are common forms of gaslighting.

Nope.

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You sneer at and insult people voicing legitimate concerns about serious issues.  You seek to shame and insult people into silence by ridiculing and insulting them, by trying to make them feel stupid for voicing their concerns.

I don’t sneer. It is more of a snigger.

As to seeking to shame and insult people into silence? Yeah, sometimes I do that. When appeals to reason don’t work it is all you have left. If I think their concerns are their own I am generally much more affable and friendly. When I think they are parroting propagandists….not so much.

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You offer nothing of substance.  No evidence.  No analysis.  No reasoning.  You just insult and ridicule.  Over and over and over. 

I have found that when I offer substance and evidence and analysis and reason I am often just ignored. When I blast a concept to pieces I get a one sentence rejoinder or silence and within 15 minutes the point I took down is repeated as if it were proven. Insult and ridicule though seem to create a lot more feedback.

Don’t blame the player, blame the game.

[Analytics]

On 6/16/2022 at 4:24 PM, smac97 said:

If we are interested in fact and truth, then we need to resist contrivances formulated to deviate from fact and truth, and to punish those who oppose such deviations...

To me, your position here comes across as being ironic, and perhaps even a bit hypocritical. 

1- Mormons believe, gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. This implies that eons before people had chromosomes and gonads, they still had gender. This implies that gender is really a spiritual thing that is much more fundamental than how gender is manifest in our physical bodies.

2- Mormons believe that there is a spiritual realm of reality that transcends the mundane world that can be reduced to biology, chemistry, and physics. They believe we can learn truth about these spiritual things by revelation and being sensitive to spiritual promptings.

If somebody looks deep within themself and acquires a personal conviction that their true gender is different than their biologic gender, I'd expect Mormons to be open to the possibility that they are correct. After all, Mormons believe that gender really is something deeper and more fundamental than mere biological "fact." At the very least, I'd expect Mormons to be respectful towards people who hold spiritual truth claims that contradict worldly "fact and truth."

 

 

 

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

If we are interested in fact and truth, then we need to resist contrivances formulated to deviate from fact and truth, and to punish those who oppose such deviations...

To me, your position here comes across as being ironic, and perhaps even a bit hypocritical. 

1- Mormons believe, gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. This implies that eons before people had chromosomes and gonads, they still had gender. This implies that gender is really a spiritual thing that is much more fundamental than how gender is manifest in our physical bodies.

That seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the Proclamation.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

2- Mormons believe that there is a spiritual realm of reality that transcends the mundane world that can be reduced to biology, chemistry, and physics. They believe we can learn truth about these spiritual things by revelation and being sensitive to spiritual promptings.

Also a fair summary of our beliefs.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

If somebody looks deep within themself and acquires a personal conviction that their true gender is different than their biologic gender, I'd expect Mormons to be open to the possibility that they are correct.

Phrases like "personal conviction" and "open to the possibility" have a remarkably wide range of interpretation.

Anyway, I have previously commented on these sentiments previously here:

Quote

Quote

You think that feelings are unreliable or at least not as reliable as thinking is.

Not quite.  I think that feelings have an important, but not dispositive or ultimately determinative, role to play in decisions we make in this life.  

I also members of the Church run the risk of over-privileging feelings because we claim to rely on the Spirit.  So a strong feeling about Issue X can be construed as a spiritual confirmation as to one's position for or against Issue X.  I think that people in the Church can and do confuse and conflate spiritual and emotional experiences.  Pres. Hunter put it this way: "I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself."

Also, consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

I really like this.  Metaphorically speaking, a four-legged stool is going to be more sturdy, stable, and durable than a one-legged stool.  

Quote

We sometimes make them more important than the analysis that is more reliable.  

I think we sometimes don't keep feelings in their proper sphere and element.  I don't discount "feelings."  I acknowledge them.  I understand their import and value.  But I think they need to be kept within appropriate parameters.  A person can be overly-reliant on "feelings," to the exclusion of reasoning and evidence (the converse proposition is also true).

This year I will celebrate 25 years of being married to the most wonderful person I have ever met.  I am well and truly head over heels in love with my wife.  I have very strong feelings for her.  Love and affection.  Respect and admiration.  Devotion and fidelity.  Desires to protect and help her, and to provide for her.  I rely heavily on her insights and opinions.  I take her counsel very seriously.  And I think my wife reciprocates these things.  I have similar feelings for my children.  I value my family above everything else in life, save God alone.  These things, which I value most in life, are heavily affected by my emotions.  My feelings.  But over the course of the last 25 years I have come to understand that my feelings, to some extent, need to be constrained and molded and corrected.  So just because I feel anger doesn't mean that the emotion is justified, or that words or actions arising from that emotion are valid and appropriate.  The same goes for when I feel offended, or when I feel judgmental, or arrogant, and so on.  So I temper my reliance on feelings/emotions with reliance on reasoning, and prophetic counsel, and personal revelation (and with counsel from my wife, natch).

I'm not sure what you personally consider to be "personal conviction."  For myself, I can't adopt a "If it feels good, do it" approach.  I can talk myself into all sorts of things that are "wrong," and I can talke myself out of all sorts of things that are "right."  This is why I value the four legs of Ash's Stool: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason.  Let me lay out my reasoning:

• A) If I feel strongly about X, and
• B) if X is something based in morality or subjective emotion, or else if X can only be proven or disproven in the Hereafter, and
• C) if X has been extensively and plainly addressed by past and present prophets and apostles, then
• D) I'm probably  going to have a hard time rationalizing and adopting a conclusion about X that is at odds with scriptural/prophetic counsel.

So while I am open to the theoretical possibility you suggest, I think it's a pretty low one, and to be substantially more likely to be the product of social trends/pressures/influences and such.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

‘I literally lost organs:’ Why detransitioned teens regret changing genders

By 

Rikki Schlott

June 18, 2022 9:01am

 

“I was failed by the system. I literally lost organs.”

When Chloe was 12 years old, she decided she was transgender. At 13, she came out to her parents. That same year, she was put on puberty blockers and prescribed testosterone. At 15, she underwent a double mastectomy. Less than a year later, she realized she’d made a mistake — all by the time she was 16 years old.

Now 17, Chloe is one of a growing cohort called “detransitioners” — those who seek to reverse a gender transition, often after realizing they actually do identify with their biological sex. Tragically, many will struggle for the rest of their lives with the irreversible medical consequences of a decision they made as minors.

“I can’t stay quiet,” said Chloe. “I need to do something about this and to share my own cautionary tale.”

At 12 years old, Chloe Cole decided she was transgender. At 13, she was put on puberty blockers and prescribed testosterone. At 15, she underwent a double mastectomy. Less than a year later, she realized she’d made a mistake.

In recent years, the number of children experiencing gender dysphoria in the West has skyrocketed. Exact figures are difficult to come by, but, between 2009 and 2019, children being referred for transitioning treatment in the United Kingdom increased 1,000% among biological males and 4,400% among biological females. Meanwhile, the number of young people identifying as transgender in the US has almost doubled since 2017, according to a new Centers for Disease Control & Prevention report.

Historically, transitioning from male to female was vastly more common, with this cohort typically experiencing persistent gender dysphoria from a very young age. Recently, however, the status quo has reversed, and female-to-male transitions have become the overwhelming majority.

Dr. Lisa Littman, a former professor of Behavioral and Social Sciences at Brown University, coined the term “rapid onset gender dysphoria” to describe this subset of transgender youth, typically biological females who become suddenly dysphoric during or shortly after puberty. Littman believes this may be due to adolescent girls’ susceptibility to peer influence on social media.

Helena Kerschner, a 23-year-old detransitioner from Cincinnati, Ohio, who was born a biological female, first felt gender dysphoric at age 14. She says Tumblr sites filled with transgender activist content spurred her transition.

“I was going through a period where I was just really isolated at school, so I turned to the Internet,” she recalled. In her real life, Kerschner had a falling out with friends at school; online however, she found a community that welcomed her. “My dysphoria was definitely triggered by this online community. I never thought about my gender or had a problem with being a girl before going on Tumblr.”

She said she felt political pressure to transition, too. “The community was very social justice-y. There was a lot of negativity around being a cis, heterosexual, white girl, and I took those messages really, really personally.”

Chloe Cole, a 17-year-old student in California, had a similar experience when she joined Instagram at 11. “I started being exposed to a lot of LGBT content and activism,” she said. “I saw how trans people online got an overwhelming amount of support, and the amount of praise they were getting really spoke to me because, at the time, I didn’t really have a lot of friends of my own.”
...
Until 2019, Marcus Evans was the Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Services at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, a publicly funded mental-health center in the UK where many youth seek treatment for gender dysphoria. But he resigned three years ago over what he viewed as the unnecessary medicalization of dysphoric adolescents.

 

“I saw children being fast-tracked onto medical solutions for psychological problems, and when kids get on the medical conveyor belt, they don’t get off,” Evans said. “But the politicization of the issue was shutting down proper clinical rigor. That meant quite vulnerable kids were in danger of being put on a medical path for treatment that they may well regret.”

Indeed, transitions are getting younger and hastier. Puberty blockers are commonly administered at the first sign of development to children as young as 9, according to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Testosterone and estrogen injections are frequently prescribed at age 13 or 14, despite the Endocrine Society’s recommendation of 16. And serious surgeries like mastectomies are sometimes performed on children as young as 13.

Although medical intervention for minors requires parental consent, many mothers and fathers approve surgery and hormone therapy at the recommendation of affirming medical professionals or even out of fear their child might self-harm if denied treatment.

Medical professionals typically follow the affirmative-care model, which is supported by the American Psychological Association, validating a patient’s expressed gender identity regardless of their age. As a result, detransitioners frequently report that getting prescriptions is a breeze. A total of 55% said their medical evaluations felt inadequate, according to Dr. Littman’s survey.

In Helena’s case, all it took to get a testosterone prescription was one trip to Planned Parenthood when she was 18. She said she was given four times the typical starting dose by a nurse practitioner in less than an hour, without ever seeing a doctor.

Chloe said she was fast-tracked through her entire transition — from blockers to a mastectomy — in just two years, with parental consent. The only pushback she said she encountered came from the first endocrinologist she saw, who agreed to prescribe her puberty blockers but not testosterone when she was 13. But she said she went to another doctor who gave her the prescription with no trouble.

“Because all the therapists and specialists followed the affirmative care model, there wasn’t a lot of gate-keeping throughout the whole transition process,” she recalled. “The professionals all seemed to push medical transition, so I thought it was the only path for me to be happy.”

Evans, the author of “Gender Dysphoria: A Therapeutic Model for Working with Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults,” now runs his own private practice with his wife in Beckenham, England, where he helps parents struggling with how to address their children’s dysphoria.

A variety of studies suggest that as many as 80% of dysphoric children could ultimately experience “desistance”— or coming to terms with their biological gender without resorting to transition. Which is why many professionals like Evans think it’s wise to hold off on potentially irreversible medical intervention for as long as possible. “I’m not against transition. I just don’t think kids can give informed consent.”
...
For those who ultimately end up regretting their transition, the consequences of hormone therapy and surgery can be devastating. For Helena, testosterone caused emotional instability that culminated with two hospitalizations for self-harm.

While in the hospital she came to the realization that her transition was a mistake. “I saw a montage of photos of me, and when I saw how much my face changed and how unhappy I looked, I realized this was all f****d up and I shouldn’t have done it. It was a really dark time.”

Chloe said testosterone altered her bone structure, permanently sharpening her jawline and broadening her shoulders. She said she also struggles with increased body and facial hair. She has a large scar across her chest from her mastectomy, which disturbed her about surgery. “The recovery was a very graphic process, and it was definitely something I wasn’t prepared for,” she said. “I couldn’t even bear to look at myself sometimes. It would make me nauseous.”

Gravest of all concerns is her fertility. Although she’d like to have children one day, Chloe doesn’t know whether the viability of her eggs was compromised by years of testosterone injections. She’s working with doctors to find out, and her medical future is uncertain. “I’m still in the dark about the overall picture of my health right now,” she said.

The subject of detransitioning is often met with vitriol from the transgender activist community, which claims that stories like Chloe’s and Helena’s will be used to discredit the trans movement as a whole. 

This is understandable, although unlikely, as research reveals that up to 86% of trans adults feel that transitioning was the right long-term decision for them. But, as more and more children are entrusted to make serious medical decisions with permanent implications, the numbers of disaffected detransitioners is almost certain to grow.

That’s why Dr. Anderson feels compelled to speak out on their behalf, as a transgender woman herself. “Some of my colleagues are worried that conversation about detransitioners is going to be more cannon fodder in the culture wars, but my concern is that if we don’t address these problems, there will be even more ammunition to criticize the appropriate work that I and other colleagues are doing.”

And, like Anderson, these young people — who will forever live with the consequences of hasty transition — refuse to be silenced. “I want my voice to be heard,” said Chloe. “I don’t want history to repeat itself. I can’t let this happen to other kids.”

There sure does seem to be a lot of social pressure out there, which I think is a far more likely cause of the "1,000% {increase} among biological males and 4,400% {increase} among biological females" of "children being referred for transitioning treatment" in the UK from 2009 to 2019.

Now, you may say that I, in looking at these startling statistics, should "be open to the possibility that {those teenager} are correct."  Well, in a very abstract way, I suppose I am open that theoretical "possibility."  But for now I am reaching another conclusion.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

After all, Mormons believe that gender really is something deeper and more fundamental than mere biological "fact." At the very least, I'd expect Mormons to be respectful towards people who hold spiritual truth claims that contradict worldly "fact and truth."

Disagreement is not disrespect.  I would expect you, of all people, to know that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 20, 2022 by smac97

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

To me, your position here comes across as being ironic, and perhaps even a bit hypocritical. 

1- Mormons believe, gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. This implies that eons before people had chromosomes and gonads, they still had gender. This implies that gender is really a spiritual thing that is much more fundamental than how gender is manifest in our physical bodies.

2- Mormons believe that there is a spiritual realm of reality that transcends the mundane world that can be reduced to biology, chemistry, and physics. They believe we can learn truth about these spiritual things by revelation and being sensitive to spiritual promptings.

If somebody looks deep within themself and acquires a personal conviction that their true gender is different than their biologic gender, I'd expect Mormons to be open to the possibility that they are correct. After all, Mormons believe that gender really is something deeper and more fundamental than mere biological "fact." At the very least, I'd expect Mormons to be respectful towards people who hold spiritual truth claims that contradict worldly "fact and truth."

 

 

 

I would argue that we don't believe gender is something deeper and more fundamental than "mere" biological fact. Specifically, I would dispense with the "mere." Jesus Christ states that his spiritual body is in the form of his temporal body in Ether 3:15-16, emphasis mine:

Quote

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

Furthermore, we have D&C 77:2. I tend to follow @Kevin Christensen's thinking on D&C 77 canonicity (whether or not it should have been canonized is questionable; never mind that canonization is not a guarantee of inerrancy), so I take this passage as evidence of Joseph Smith's understanding of the subject, which remains significant.

Quote

2 Q: What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse? [Revelation 4:6]

   A: They are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; that            which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the                  spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.

Fully parsing the ramifications of these passages is beyond my scope in this comment. I conclude that the physical body ought to be regarded as a valuable reference point when considering the nature of the spirit. It is not a "mere" reality. The spirit and body together are the soul of man; we are embodied creatures. 

Now, we know that physical disorders like injuries or illnesses will be corrected in the resurrection, so it is clear that there is not a 1-to-1 correlation with our spirits and our physical bodies. However, such disorders are not "eternal" in any sense, whereas gender has been defined as such. If the spirit and body are in the likeness of each other, then for a body to be of the wrong sex, which implies that the spirit is also of the wrong sex, and defies the existence of a pre-spiritual "proto-sex" despite whatever process God used in its creation. 

Gregory Smith has an excellent section on premortal sex, "proto-sex", and the theology of intelligence in his rebuttal to Taylor Petrey's "Feet of Clay." I recommend everybody read it, if just for the intellectual history of the definition of "premortal intelligence."

I echo @smac97's comments. I would also add that a "phenomenal conservative" account of religious experience, like this one or that of Richard Swinburne, does not permit "seemings" to overrule clear defeaters. The nature of the body, under the view I have laid out, presents such a defeater. 

[pogi]

9 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I would argue that we don't believe gender is something deeper and more fundamental than "mere" biological fact. Specifically, I would dispense with the "mere." Jesus Christ states that his spiritual body is in the form of his temporal body in Ether 3:15-16, emphasis mine:

Furthermore, we have D&C 77:2. I tend to follow @Kevin Christensen's thinking on D&C 77 canonicity (whether or not it should have been canonized is questionable; never mind that canonization is not a guarantee of inerrancy), so I take this passage as evidence of Joseph Smith's understanding of the subject, which remains significant.

Fully parsing the ramifications of these passages is beyond my scope in this comment. I conclude that the physical body ought to be regarded as a valuable reference point when considering the nature of the spirit. It is not a "mere" reality. The spirit and body together are the soul of man; we are embodied creatures. 

Now, we know that physical disorders like injuries or illnesses will be corrected in the resurrection, so it is clear that there is not a 1-to-1 correlation with our spirits and our physical bodies. However, such disorders are not "eternal" in any sense, whereas gender has been defined as such. If the spirit and body are in the likeness of each other, then for a body to be of the wrong sex, which implies that the spirit is also of the wrong sex, and defies the existence of a pre-spiritual "proto-sex" despite whatever process God used in its creation. 

Gregory Smith has an excellent section on premortal sex, "proto-sex", and the theology of intelligence in his rebuttal to Taylor Petrey's "Feet of Clay." I recommend everybody read it, if just for the intellectual history of the definition of "premortal intelligence."

I echo @smac97's comments. I would also add that a "phenomenal conservative" account of religious experience, like this one or that of Richard Swinburne, does not permit "seemings" to overrule clear defeaters. The nature of the body, under the view I have laid out, presents such a defeater. 

You are correct to note that our spirit and physical bodies are not a 1:1 correlation. 

You are also correct that physical/genetic disorders are not eternal whereas our gender is.  
 

 A physical disorder does not imply an equivalent spiritual disorder too.  Therefore a physical disorder of sex/gender would not diminish the eternal and spiritual nature of such traits.  Again, it is not a 1:1 correlation.   There are both divergences in phenotype and genotype in what might determine sex/gender that most certainly do not align with our spirit.
 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

That seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the Proclamation.

Also a fair summary of our beliefs.

Phrases like "personal conviction" and "open to the possibility" have a remarkably wide range of interpretation.

Anyway, I have previously commented on these sentiments previously here:

I'm not sure what you personally consider to be "personal conviction."  For myself, I can't adopt a "If it feels good, do it" approach.  I can talk myself into all sorts of things that are "wrong," and I can talke myself out of all sorts of things that are "right."  This is why I value the four legs of Ash's Stool: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason.  Let me lay out my reasoning:

• A) If I feel strongly about X, and
• B) if X is something based in morality or subjective emotion, or else if X can only be proven or disproven in the Hereafter, and
• C) if X has been extensively and plainly addressed by past and present prophets and apostles, then
• D) I'm probably  going to have a hard time rationalizing and adopting a conclusion about X that is at odds with scriptural/prophetic counsel.

So while I am open to the theoretical possibility you suggest, I think it's a pretty low one, and to be substantially more likely to be the product of social trends/pressures/influences and such.  See, e.g., here:

There sure does seem to be a lot of social pressure out there, which I think is a far more likely cause of the "1,000% {increase} among biological males and 4,400% {increase} among biological females" of "children being referred for transitioning treatment" in the UK from 2009 to 2019.

Now, you may say that I, in looking at these startling statistics, should "be open to the possibility that they are correct."  Well, in a very abstract way, I suppose I am open that theoretical "possibility."  But for now I am reaching another conclusion.

Disagreement is not disrespect.  I would expect you, of all people, to know that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, there is a chance that social pressures might wrongly influence.  But this could possibly go both ways. Couldn’t it be possible that by adopting a position of absolute certainty and authority to judge another’s gender, pressuring them to identify as you deem fit - isn’t it at least theoretically possible that that social conservative pressure could be incorrectly influencing someone to identify contrary to the nature of their eternal and pre-post mortal gender?  You seem to admit that there is a chance that analytics could be right.  Given that chance, as slim as you think it may be, wouldn’t it be best to avoid social pressure from both sides and judge not?

Edited June 20, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, there is a chance that social pressures might wrongly influence.  

I think that chance is a more plausible/probable explanation for the "1,000% {increase} among biological males and 4,400% {increase} among biological females" of "children being referred for transitioning treatment" in the UK from 2009 to 2019.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

But this could possibly go both ways.

Possibly, yes.  But not, in my estimate, plausibly/probably.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Couldn’t it be possible that by adopting a position of absolute certainty

I have not done that.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

and authority to judge another’s gender,

I have not done that, either.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

pressuring them to identify as you deem fit

Nor this.  

5 hours ago, pogi said:

- isn’t it at least theoretically possible that that social conservative pressure could be incorrectly influencing someone to identify contrary to the nature of their eternal and pre-post mortal gender?  

I suppose.  Far more likely, though, that other forms of social pressure hold considerably more sway. 

And again, this is why I value the four legs of Ash's Stool: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason.  

5 hours ago, pogi said:

You seem to admit that there is a chance that analytics could be right.  

I do.  Which is why it's weird that you are attributing many things to me that I have not said.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Given that chance, as slim as you think it may be, wouldn’t it be best to avoid social pressure from both sides and judge not?

There is already massive "social pressure" from one "side."  There is nowhere near the symmetry you seem to be implying.

As for "judge not," I'm not sure what you are saying. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that chance is a more plausible/probable explanation for the "1,000% {increase} among biological males and 4,400% {increase} among biological females" of "children being referred for transitioning treatment"…

In this case, using actual numbers as well as percentages would be more persuasive. If there were merely one or two in 2009 because it was new or looked on as inappropriate at the time to transition children and few of the public were aware someone in the medical establishment was even wiling to do it, less than a hundred in 2019 could give you that increase and that might be just from the option being shared in the news and individuals choosing to use it where before they wouldn’t because they didn’t know they could (not saying that is the reason, but it is reasonable and thinking of that as likely could cause someone to dismiss your point especially if they were unaware of any option of transitioning till recently). 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Calm

[Analytics]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you personally consider to be "personal conviction."  For myself, I can't adopt a "If it feels good, do it" approach.  I can talk myself into all sorts of things that are "wrong," and I can talke myself out of all sorts of things that are "right."  This is why I value the four legs of Ash's Stool: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason.  Let me lay out my reasoning:

• A) If I feel strongly about X, and
• B) if X is something based in morality or subjective emotion, or else if X can only be proven or disproven in the Hereafter, and
• C) if X has been extensively and plainly addressed by past and present prophets and apostles, then
• D) I'm probably  going to have a hard time rationalizing and adopting a conclusion about X that is at odds with scriptural/prophetic counsel.

How would you react if an investigator of the Church had this attitude? What if he said:

• A) I strongly feel the LDS Church is true
• B) But those feelings are subjective and can't be proven or disproven until the hereafter
• C) Scriptures and Church authority have plainly explained that the rock of the Church is Peter and all successive Popes
• D) Therefore despite my personal feelings to the contrary, I won't rationalize and adopt a conclusion that is at odds with scriptural and Catholic teachings

The tension between personal feelings/personal revelation and the dogma of churches isn't a new phenomenon, and it reminds me of what Emerson said when he echoed Joseph Smith and said he'd follow the Spirit even if it contradicted dogma:

Quote

 I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested,--"But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

So while I am open to the theoretical possibility you suggest, I think it's a pretty low one, and to be substantially more likely to be the product of social trends/pressures/influences and such.  See, e.g., here:

So, you are against using social pressure in ways that could harm children? I certainly am, and can't help but think of Richard Dawkins thoughts on this topic:

Quote

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience (composed, admittedly, of Dublin intellectuals and presumably not representative of the country at large). But I was reminded of the incident later when I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents’ church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. She wrote: "Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as ‘yucky’ while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest—but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion (pp. 356-357). 

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

There sure does seem to be a lot of social pressure out there, which I think is a far more likely cause of the "1,000% {increase} among biological males and 4,400% {increase} among biological females" of "children being referred for transitioning treatment" in the UK from 2009 to 2019.

Now, you may say that I, in looking at these startling statistics, should "be open to the possibility that {those teenager} are correct."  Well, in a very abstract way, I suppose I am open that theoretical "possibility."  But for now I am reaching another conclusion.

Those statistics don't have context and could be very misleading (e.g. was the 1,000% increase an increase of 1 to 10? How many should have been referred?). Further, they don't give any indication that you are right about widespread "social pressure" being out there that is inappropriately forcing people to be transgender. If a child, parent, or doctor makes a bad decision or gives bad advice then that's too bad. Of course. And if somebody really is subject to inappropriate social pressure, that's bad too. Of course. But that doesn't excuse throwing rocks from the living room of your glass house.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Disagreement is not disrespect. 

Of course. But memes that mock people are disrespectful. For example, the following meme is disrespectful:

Likewise, the various mocking memes you've posted lack taste and respect. e.g.

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Analytics

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

 

Quote

 

I'm not sure what you personally consider to be "personal conviction."  For myself, I can't adopt a "If it feels good, do it" approach.  I can talk myself into all sorts of things that are "wrong," and I can talke myself out of all sorts of things that are "right."  This is why I value the four legs of Ash's Stool: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason.  Let me lay out my reasoning:

• A) If I feel strongly about X, and
• B) if X is something based in morality or subjective emotion, or else if X can only be proven or disproven in the Hereafter, and
• C) if X has been extensively and plainly addressed by past and present prophets and apostles, then
• D) I'm probably  going to have a hard time rationalizing and adopting a conclusion about X that is at odds with scriptural/prophetic counsel.

 

How would you react if an investigator of the Church had this attitude?

Pretty good.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What if he said:

• A) I strongly feel the LDS Church is true
• B) But those feelings are subjective and can't be proven or disproven until the hereafter
• C) Scriptures and Church authority have plainly explained that the rock of the Church is Peter and all successive Popes
• D) Therefore despite my personal feelings to the contrary, I won't rationalize and adopt a conclusion that is at odds with scriptural and Catholic teachings

I would respect, and even admire, that person. At least he has resisted trends like "if it feels good, do it," uncritically demolishing Chesterton's Fence, and so on.

That said, the individual is only using one of the four "legs" of Michael Ash's stool.  So the foregoing analysis is not really symmetrical with what I proposed (reliance on Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason).

It seems strange that you can only interact with what I am saying by subtantially altering/misrepresenting/mischaracterizing what I am saying.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

So while I am open to the theoretical possibility you suggest, I think it's a pretty low one, and to be substantially more likely to be the product of social trends/pressures/influences and such.  See, e.g., here:

So, you are against using social pressure in ways that could harm children?

"Could harm" sure seems to have a lot of wiggle room in it.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

 

There sure does seem to be a lot of social pressure out there, which I think is a far more likely cause of the "1,000% {increase} among biological males and 4,400% {increase} among biological females" of "children being referred for transitioning treatment" in the UK from 2009 to 2019.

Now, you may say that I, in looking at these startling statistics, should "be open to the possibility that {those teenager} are correct."  Well, in a very abstract way, I suppose I am open that theoretical "possibility."  But for now I am reaching another conclusion.

 

Those statistics don't have context and could be very misleading (e.g. was the 1,000% increase an increase of 1 to 10? How many should have been referred?).

It was an example.  One of many.  And the context is there for the taking.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Further, they don't give any indication that you are right about widespread "social pressure" being out there that is inappropriately forcing people to be transgender.

Not sure what you mean by "inappropriately forcing people to be transgender."  Is there an appropriate way to do this?

And who said anything about "forcing people to be transgender"?

Again, it seems strange that you can only interact with what I am saying by subtantially altering/misrepresenting/mischaracterizing what I am saying.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If a child, parent, or doctor makes a bad decision or gives bad advice then that's too bad. Of course. And if somebody really is subject to inappropriate social pressure, that's bad too. Of course. But that doesn't excuse throwing rocks from the living room of your glass house.

I don't know what you are saying here.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Disagreement is not disrespect. 

Of course. But memes that mock people are disrespectful.

Whom do you think I mocked?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

For example, the following meme is disrespectful:

Likewise, the various mocking memes you've posted lack taste and respect. e.g.

Again, whom did I mock?  I was critiquing Orwellianisms:

Whom does this meme ridicule?

Same question.  Who is being ridiculed here?

Same question.  Who is being ridiculed here?

This one struck a chord with me, as I found it to be a pithy, yet astute, critique of the "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" inanity that has been making the rounds recently.  But again, who is this ridiculing?

You get that these two are likely models, right?  That this is probably a stock photo?

Again, who is this ridiculing?

Candidly, I do not find the above meme "ridiculing."  It is critiquing Orwellian re-definition of basic words and concepts.  "What is a woman?" is not a question we should need to ask, and yet not only is the question pertinent, some folks today cannot or will not answer it in any coherent or sensible way.  And they cannot or will not answer it because they are beholden to trends and philosophies that contravene objective reality.

Questions of religious belief, meanwhile, are usually centered on matters that may be "true," but which cannot be empirically proven or disproven, and which are instead accepted principally as a matter of faith.

I've previously summarized as follows:

Quote

I also posted a number of personal thoughts/observations, together with quotations about Orwellian revisions to language, and I posted a video from Thomas Sowell, "an American economist, historian, social theorist, and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution."  I also posted a number of links to examples substanting my position.  I also commented on  Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug, Stefoknee Wolscht, Eva Tiamat Medusa and Naia Ōkami, also in furtherance and substantiation of my point.

Relative to the Orwellian elements of the recent trans movement, I think discussing these folks is a fair analog.  And you will note that here I have identified people, but have said nothing to "ridicule" them.

If Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner can "identify" as women, why can't Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug "identify" as Black?

If Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner can "identify" as women, why can't Stefoknee Wolscht "identify" as being a six-year old girl?

If Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner can "identify" as women, why can't Eva Tiamat Medusa "identify" as a reptile/dragon?

If Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner can "identify" as women, why can't Naia Ōkami "identify" as a wolf?

If Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner can "identify" as women, why can't Joseph Backholm "identify" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman, or a seven-year-old, or as being six feet five inches tall?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 21, 2022 by smac97

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That said, the individual is only using one of the four "legs" of Michael Ash's stool.  So the foregoing analysis is not really symmetrical with what I proposed (reliance on Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason).

In my example, the investigator was using a Catholic version of Ash's "four legs." Substitute Pope for Prophet, and you are at the same place. My point is to criticize the self-serving nature of the stool, where the legs were chosen to stack the deck against objectively evaluating the most fundamental and pertinent questions. Use Ash's stool to avoid questioning Mormonism. Use a Catholic version to avoid questioning Catholicism. Design whatever stool you want to rationalize the beliefs you want to rationalize. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And who said anything about "forcing people to be transgender"?

"Forcing" is a synonym for the "a lot of social pressure" you asserted.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Whom do you think I mocked?

You are mocking people who uses gender identity terms in a modern way.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, whom did I mock?

You are mocking people who uses gender identity terms in a modern way.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

  I was critiquing Orwellianisms:

These are not examples of an attitude of or a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink). It has nothing to do with being Orwellian.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

This one struck a chord with me, as I found it to be a pithy, yet astute, critique of the "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" inanity that has been making the rounds recently.  But again, who is this ridiculing?

If you think this is astute, it just illustrates an exceedingly superficial understanding of the issues.

If you actually listened to the people you are mocking rather than caricatures of them from the right-wing media, you'd know that an actual glossary of relevant words would include  the words sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, cisgender, transgender, nonbinary, agender, gender-expansive, gender transition, gender dysphoria, sexual orientation, and intersex. You would also know that the vocabulary list adds precision and insight into the issues. Please read a primer on the subject.

Consider the following definitions:

• Sex refers to a person's biological status and is typically assigned at birth, usually on the basis of external anatomy. Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex.
• Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary.
• Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others. For most people, gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth, the American Psychological Association notes. For transgender people, gender identity differs in varying degrees from the sex assigned at birth.

What is Orwellian about using several words in precise ways to describe different things?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You get that these two are likely models, right?  That this is probably a stock photo?

Again, who is this ridiculing?

You are mocking transgender people and everyone who uses a modern vocabulary of gender identity.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"What is a woman?" is not a question we should need to ask...

I totally agree. Yet it is the anti-transgender crowd such as  Marsha Blackburn (R) who are asking it! The problem with that bad-faith question is that in the context of gender identity, it is an ambiguous question. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Relative to the Orwellian elements of the recent trans movement, I think discussing these folks is a fair analog.  And you will note that here I have identified people, but have said nothing to "ridicule" them.

If Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner can "identify" as women, why can't Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug "identify" as Black?

Who said they can't "identify" as Black? When somebody says they "identify as a woman", they are saying their internal sense of being is that of a woman. They aren't making a comment about their biology--they are making a comment about how they feel on the inside. 

If you think it is wrong for Lia Thomas or Caitlynn Jenner to feel on the inside like they are women, and you think it is wrong for somebody else to feel on the inside like they are black, a six-year old girl, a "reptile/dragon," a wolf, or anything else, why isn't it wrong for you to feel like you are a child of God?

[OGHoosier]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

You are correct to note that our spirit and physical bodies are not a 1:1 correlation. 

You are also correct that physical/genetic disorders are not eternal whereas our gender is.  
 

 A physical disorder does not imply an equivalent spiritual disorder too.  Therefore a physical disorder of sex/gender would not diminish the eternal and spiritual nature of such traits.  Again, it is not a 1:1 correlation.   There are both divergences in phenotype and genotype in what might determine sex/gender that most certainly do not align with our spirit.
 

 

I'd like to respond, but I would like to understand your position better first. I grant the truth of 2 of your claims. A physical disorder of sex/gender, such as a sexual development disorder, would not diminish the eternal and spiritual nature of such traits. There are divergences in phenotype and genotype in what might determine sex and gender that don't align with our spirit. 

I'll grant that the existence of a physical disorder does not imply the existence of a spiritual disorder, but I won't say that a physical disorder cannot be associated with a spiritual disorder. I'm agnostic on whether or not spirits could have disorders of whatever variety (I'm not particularly interested in speculating on the matter), but I won't rule it out, and it could have some explanatory value. I view the purpose of the mortal experience as not merely building upon our spirits but perhaps healing their shortcomings: if our uncreated core has some flaws, then a physical body and brain could probably be made capable of overcoming them. If the soul is both spirit and body, then perhaps the perfection of body and spirit is a condition where both body and spirit compensate for the flaws of the other to make a perfect being. 

That was something of a tangent, so I will return to my question. It feels like your claims lend themselves to a conclusion, but you do not state any conclusion. However, given that you responded to my comment regarding transgenderism, I feel like the conclusion is implied. So, to clarify: do you believe that a spirit of one sex could be born in a body which is unequivocally of the other sex?

Edited June 21, 2022 by OGHoosier

[pogi]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is already massive "social pressure" from one "side."  There is nowhere near the symmetry you seem to be implying.

We live in different worlds, it seems.

You don't think there is any social pressure from religion and conservative families that might cause someone to remain in the closet our of fear of rejection and shaming due to their parents conservative or religious beliefs?  

The social pressure to remain in the closet has dominated for centuries, it is only recently that people are even beginning to feel safe to express their feelings.  The conservative social pressures is not one sided but is prevalent in politics and conservative media and social media (those memes you post didn't come from nowhere)  But the greatest impact is the cultural pressure which dominates the the home.  You can't tell me that it is not balanced.  The greatest social pressure comes from those we are closest to and has way "more sway" (as you put it).

 

 

[OGHoosier]

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

These are not examples of an attitude of or a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink). It has nothing to do with being Orwellian.

Pretty sure @smac97 is referring to Newspeak, by which the Party seeks to control the very possibilities available to the minds of the people by manipulating the language. How can you rebel if the concept doesn't even exist in your language? Orwell's insights do not, I think, become irrelevant just because an authoritarian state is not responsible. In this case his insights remain particularly relevant because they are reinforced by the general consensus of postmodern philosophy that language is not a neutral factor but rather itself is an instrument of power. Language constrains what can be communicated and therefore constrains the content of public thought. Furthermore, since the building blocks of our thinking are the concepts we already possess, I would argue that language constrains not merely what can be communicated but even what can be believed by the individual.

"Language games" aren't games, after all.

[OGHoosier]

1 minute ago, Obehave said:

I believe that as individuals we are either male or female while also a combination of both males and females.

That's interesting. Could you expand on that?

[smac97]

7 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Pretty sure @smac97 is referring to Newspeak, by which the Party seeks to control the very possibilities available to the minds of the people by manipulating the language.

Yes, that is what I am doing.

7 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

How can you rebel if the concept doesn't even exist in your language? Orwell's insights do not, I think, become irrelevant just because an authoritarian state is not responsible.

If anything, I think Orwell becomes more relevant when the Powers-that-Be use "unofficial" channels, in tandemn with government authority, to enforce certain ideologies and concepts.

Mainstream media.  Academia (including, it seems, going all the way down to elementary schools).  Big Tech.  Movies, TV and Music.  All these and more are heavily in the thrall of a generalized movement that seeks to distort all sorts of things, including the corruption of words and phrases.

Again:

If Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner can "identify" as women, why can't Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug "identify" as Black?

If Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner can "identify" as women, why can't Stefoknee Wolscht "identify" as being a six-year old girl?

If Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner can "identify" as women, why can't Eva Tiamat Medusa "identify" as a reptile/dragon?

If Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner can "identify" as women, why can't Naia Ōkami "identify" as a wolf?

If Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner can "identify" as women, why can't Joseph Backholm "identify" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman, or a seven-year-old, or as being six feet five inches tall?

Nobody seems to be willing to address these questions.  Lots of ridicule and scorn in response, but that's about it.

7 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

In this case his insights remain particularly relevant because they are reinforced by the general consensus of postmodern philosophy that language is not a neutral factor but rather itself is an instrument of power. Language constrains what can be communicated and therefore constrains the content of public thought. Furthermore, since the building blocks of our thinking are the concepts we already possess, I would argue that language constrains not merely what can be communicated but even what can be believed by the individual.

"Language games" aren't games, after all.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

There is already massive "social pressure" from one "side."  There is nowhere near the symmetry you seem to be implying.

We live in different worlds, it seems.

I guess we do.

7 hours ago, pogi said:

You don't think there is any social pressure from religion and conservative families that might cause someone to remain in the closet our of fear of rejection and shaming due to their parents conservative or religious beliefs?  

Weird.  I said "there is nowhere near the symmetry you seem to be implying" as regarding "social pressure."  And from that you ask about "any social pressure from religion and conservative families."

Very weird.

Yes, there are such social pressures.  But again, there is nowhere near the symmetry you seem to be implying.

7 hours ago, pogi said:

The conservative social pressures is not one sided but is prevalent in politics and conservative media and social media (those memes you post didn't come from nowhere)  But the greatest impact is the cultural pressure which dominates the the home.  You can't tell me that it is not balanced.  

I can.  I do.

Thanks,

-Smac