Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem”

This provocative Comment of the Day by Null Pointer is at least three distinct discourses in one. I will eschew me usual introductory framing attempts and leave what will, I hope, be a rich and diverse discussion to the comments to the Comment, on the post, “Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem”…


I would refer to homosexuality as normal but atypical. Before the LGBTQ+ activist brigade went bat guano crazy, I considered transgenderism to be the same, biologically based but extremely atypical, even more so than homosexuality. Then the crazy people started screaming from the roof tops about gender being a social construct, completely divorced from biology, and began preaching the merits of gender fluidity along with a host of other “genders” for which the definitions sound like the were written by someone experiencing an LSD induced hallucinogen state.

I still think there are a small minority of people with atypical brain biology who are legitimately transgender. I think there is a much larger cohort of people with personality disorders who need Jesus. Those people have appointed themselves spokespeople for the transgender community. It is never a good idea to let obnoxious, crazy people be your the face of your community. Narcissistic personality disorder is not endearing. Histrionic personality disorder does not lend itself to coherent argument. Brainwashing people’s children into “changing” their gender against the parents’ will or sparking mass hysteria events in teenage girls and autistic young people is not beneficial to society in the slightest. Anarchists and authoritarians are the only communities benefiting from this mess.

The brain forms in utero. It does not change on a whim. It forms as either male or female and stays that way. Forever. Until you die. There are only two genders: male and female. The brain might have the wrong one based on the body it’s riding around in, but it is still one or the other. It does not change, and there is no such thing as gender fluidity. Attention seeking, on the other hand, is quite common.

I think it is quite telling that the community in which all this transgender craziness is occurring is the progressive community. Progressives are really nothing but rebranded communists. Progressive philosophy, like communist philosophy, involves a lot of ideas about everyone being exactly the same. Equity. The problem with this philosophy is that it’s based on the idea that everyone wants to be exactly the same as everyone else, and have exactly the same things everyone else has. This idea is a load of crap. People don’t want to be the same as everyone else. They want to be better than everyone else. They want to be special. How do you become special in an equitable society? By complaining that you’re not getting your fair share of the equity pie due to a non-equitable characteristic. In other words, by being special.

Most people are happy with being special on a small scale. Being the best at something in your family, or being special to your spouse. On a small scale, this desire to be special is healthy and an evolutionary positive. It drives people to improve themselves, learn special skills, and adds value to a small tribe.

On a large scale, this motivator is sociologically impossible, and an evolutionary disaster. Trying to be special on Twitter leads to riots, psychotic political ideologies, and massive cults of personality.

The ethics of the transgender activists are non-existent. You have one group of people using another group of people for likes and specialness without regard to the effects it has on the group being used.

Much of this is, in my opinion, is the result of the tech revolution. The industrial revolution had a seismic impact on society that reverberated for decades before society reordered itself to a homeostatic state. Living through a change in the homeostatic state makes it very difficult to analyze the factors that are affecting people. Only in hindsight, when things have settled down, does it become obvious what was really going on. Culture is in flux in response to massive changes in technology.

18 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Musings On The Transgender Problem”

  1. An excellent comment, NP. Discussion of this subject makes me think that we need a better term than “normal” to describe, without prejudice, what is atypical but a real and/or acceptable condition. We got into this a while back (I believe with our briefly active commenter who kept insisting that the NYT was not biased in its reporting). She seemed to want to argue that if a condition or behavior were widely known, it was “normal”, no matter how far from the actual norm it might be.

  2. I would assume that any physical differences in brains between men and women are driven by the types and amounts of the usual suspect hormones in utero and throughout life. I could be wrong, of course.

    If that is the case, a “female” brain in a male body would be the result of an abnormally high presence of estrogen/progesterone or whatever during development. Isn’t that also associated with homosexuality?

    Regardless, I’ve never understood this about the transgender movement–if there truly is a physiological difference that causes or contributes to gender dysphoria, why does the medical community focus on changing the body to match the brain, rather than vice versa?

    First, I don’t see how the brain could be binary–it’s at worst a sliding scale from extremely “female” to extremely “male” and I don’t think there’s any research that proves what substantive effects such differences, if any, exhibit. In other words, are there any real problems caused by a female brain being in a male body? Is that where gender dysphoria comes from? And there are millions of very effeminate men and masculine women who live perfectly normal lives in their biological body. So it doesn’t stand to reason that any efforts to change the brain, either physiologically or merely psychologically, would need nearly as drastic the changes (or cause nearly as drastic the side effects) as what’s required to surgically or chemically change the body.

    Secondly, there’s the underlying problem of psychology as a science. Gender dysphoria isn’t real–it only tries to describe what psychologists see in certain patients. And the diagnosis process is extremely subjective–every psychologist will elicit different answers to questions from patients based on a million unquantifiable factors, and every patient will vary their own answers based on a million factors. We may one day understand chemicals, brain tissue, electron movement, etc, to the extent that we could reliably diagnose mental disorders with some degree of impartiality, but that’s Star Trek future.

    I suspect, as Null Pointer alluded to, that there are more and more people being diagnosed, whether officially or by their peers/teachers/parents as transgender who are nowhere near it. I feel so much pity for the little girls (and vice versa) these days who love traditional boy things, who, by high school, will be bombarded by propaganda from friends, beloved teachers, and others that they might be a boy trapped in a girl’s body. Add in the emotional turmoil of teenage years (who doesn’t, at some point, wonder whether there isn’t something really wrong with you?) and you have a recipe for a tragically large number of children being put on irreversible medications and medical procedures who didn’t need it.

    The worst part is that the discussion we’re having here is absolutely forbidden. I bet a tiny fraction of children under 18 ever hear the ideas we’re discussing. They largely hear that being transgender simultaneously confers a difficult (but courageous!) life full of bigotry, special victim status, and a community that will happily destroy other people’s lives at your command. Scary stuff.

    • “First, I don’t see how the brain could be binary”

      99.99% of everyone is born either distinctly Male or distinctly Female. Everyone then develops a different personality after that. For the most part those personalities *tend* towards one of two “genders” that for the *vast vast vast* majority of people generally align with what they were distinctly born as. Males tend to be more aggressive, Females tend to be more nurturing. Males tend to be more risk taking, Females tend to be more stability seeking. There are many ways each side of the “split” bring advantages to the family unit – with the goal of creating a fairly stable, fairly healthy single brick of a larger societal building.

      But in the 18-20 year process of those little personalities developing on their way to generally coalescing around one of the two archetypes (with some clear ‘customization’) – they will go through a wide range of moods, attitudes, worldviews, etc as every consternated parent knows. The current transgender activist movement *menacingly* wants to capture a child in a single moment of the chaos of those 1st developmental years and compel the child to be some sort of “final vision” of the “single snapshot”.

      This is a problem – if the goal of raising a child is to end with a healthy, stable adult member of the larger community.

      And of course the larger community has to decide what exactly is a “healthy, stable adult member” of the larger community. Which is why we sit at this crossroads:

      One section of the community believes that if the archetypal component of society is the family – then the raising of adults should be oriented to making those adults capable of creating their own stable families that are also, in turn, capable of generating their own stable adults. Anywhere in that process any individual product of one of those families may choose *not* to pursue a family of their own – but they would have still ended the child-rearing process “stable” and “healthy” enough to do so.

      The other section of the community believes that not a bit of that matters – the only thing that matters is “self-actualization” and damn the ripple effects.

      But let’s be fair – some degree of “self-actualization” is a good goal of *individuals* while some degree of societal stability is a good goal of *communities*.

      So – society has to decide what a “healthy, stable adult member” of the larger community is that can simultaneously balance the community needs and the individual needs (both of which clearly interact with each other). If an individual’s has a particular self-proclaimed need to achieve their own “actualization” that is decided upon by society to be *too* undermining of community’s stability – that would be seen as outside of normal. If that self-proclaimed need is then declared to be a natural component of that individual’s life.

      Well – that’s where society has to decide if it’s a “mental illness” or not. So to a degree, “mental illness” is an arbitrary term that doesn’t necessarily have a scientific basis.

      Society has to decide for such particular individuals – whatever in their developmental process led to the imbalance which subsequently led to them not conforming to what society considers to be a healthy, stable adult – should that be discouraged or corrected? Often times for not directly violent or destructive personality flaws, society simply ignores and discourages the trait while allowing the individual to carry on with the rest of their lives. Perhaps they are just an eccentric.

      But, I think what the current transgender movement is attempting, flips the location of the group on the “toleration” scale from becoming increasingly destructive of the essential years of development of children on their road to becoming normal, healthy adults.

      That’s why we sit at the crossroads. That’s why it’s a mental illness from one point of view, but not from another point of view. I suppose we really need to put a lot more thought into whether or not encouraging children and adults to pursue *whatever* conduct they want with disregard to the foundations of stable society is actually an appropriate pursuit of the value of “self actualization”.

      I submit it isn’t good, and it’s one situation in which hyper-individualism should have the brakes pumped.

      Eventually we’ll have a society in which the family is completely undermined – children will, as a rule not an exception, hit adulthood with *exactly ZERO* anchors tying them to what we have historically known creates stability, balance and healthiness. Then we’ll wonder what happened – we’ll have no ability to describe what happened because we will have lampooned all the necessary terms to describe what happened but we’ll vaguely recall the people who tried to warn us but we ridiculed as bigoted prudes and we’ll blame them instead.

      • “For the most part those personalities *tend* towards one of two “genders” that for the *vast vast vast* majority of people generally align with what they were distinctly born as.”

        Obviously there is a separate discussion regarding those who fall more outside of normal grouping than fall inside but for the most part – those individuals aren’t actively trying to undermine the processes that do tend towards normal stable development – so it isn’t a hard discussion.

        • Another addendum here:

          When nate dropped his cheap comment that was the final straw in banning regarding the “otherizing” of mental illnesses such as transgenderism by labelling it a “problem” – I couldn’t help but think he had a *tiny* bit a point. Which is why I was surprised that that comment was the final straw. I knew he’d eventually get banned but I don’t think that was the best reason.

          In fairness – if society does label something a mental illness then the promotion of that mental illness is indeed a problem.

          I think nate misunderstood and interpreted the label of “problem” as meaning that transgendered people are the problem – and as a normal leftist, nate sees all problems as requiring some sort of governmental action to resolve. So of course his mind went to extermination (which frankly I think most leftists wouldn’t mind happening to what they consider to be society’s problems).

          But, obviously Jack meant that the problem was what the transgender activists are doing – not the transgendered people themselves.

          But, nate does unintentionally and tangentially remind us that if a community is pushed enough and too far – it will start to look at the pushers as problems that should be removed. So there is a danger there – but it isn’t caused by the “normies”. Simultaneously – the more the transgender activists unreasonably seek political backing via policy and government – the “normies” will eventually use the same tools to counteract them.

          That should always be a source of concern.

          • But he didn’t mention “otherizing” or mental illnesses at all. The comment that got him banned was:

            “Identifying a minority group as a “problem” is wrong and unethical. My reply invoked a historical comparison to explain what it leads to. It *is* what the Nazis did. No one has actually defended why this is actually ok.”

            If he had written what you did, that would be a valid discussion pont. What he wrote, TWICE, was that identifying the groups as a problem was the equivalent of Hitler doing the same with Jews, and would lead to the same result, which was mass extermination.

            Which is ridiculous, offensive, untrue and insulting.

            A last clarification: a group poses problems because of the policy issues their presence creates in previously effective and established systems, the precedents and unanticipated results policy responses create, how other non-group members respond to the groups, AND what the group itself does. Saying a group is or poses a “problem” (“a question raised for inquiry, consideration, or solution”) does not mean that said group is necessarily bad or undesirable. Nate, as those of his ilk like to do here, used a “gotcha!” tactic to imply bad motives in my analysis while he distorted the issue.

            Child prodigies are a good thing for society—Fermi, Pascal, Mozart, McCartney, Spielberg—but society isn’t constructed to handle them. That’s a problem. In saying that, I do not advocate gassing them, and anyone who believes that is too stupid to participate here, while anyone implying that who doesn’t believe it is, as I correctly labeled Nate, an asshole.

            • I don’t think he asserted that you asserted that – only that the language of calling groups of people a “problem” can be concerning and can lead certain directions. You didn’t do that of course you were, rather, labeling the problems created by this transgender situation as the problem, but I don’t think he realized that – he knee jerk reacted and I don’t think any of the responses to his initial knee jerk reaction was an attempt to clarify his confusion.

              I think he was ban bound anyway which is why I’m not too exercised about this. But I did see a slight point to his comment.

                  • (And part of me was unethically hoping it would be another J6 comment that got the ban)

                    I was swamped recently by about 6 people who were abjectly incredulous that I didn’t think Trump needed to be arrested and jailed immediately.


                    “THE FAKE MICHIGAN ELECTORS!!!!”


                    1) The “congressional hearings” hired an ABC producer to make sure it ran as a believable narrative [cobbled together from disparate an unrelated parts – half of which would never make into an actual courtroom]

                    2) Half of those who were incredulous with me probably wanted to hang the vice-president – so spare me the anger.

                    3) Literally every single one of them never cared enough about politics or our political system to understand how the system works and suddenly they are aghast and rallying to it’s defense…

                    spare me the theatrics.

  3. The problem is not that more are being diagnosed rather more are being affirmed in their self proclaimed identities. The APA and other professional associations start with the conclusion that is presented by the patient and work to affirm that conclusion. This is the reverse of science on a number of levels first science starts with an hypothesis and collects data to prove or disprove the hypothesis after drawing replicable conclusions. Second when one starts with a conclusion and disregard repeatable proven facts one is not doing science. This is what the affirming professions are doing now. E,G. I come with an earache telling my doctor that it is caused be the presence of phantom in my apt. Rather than look in my ear to find a foreign body lodged there or pus exuding from my ruptured ear drum he/she accepts my explanation and tells me to burn some sassafras to expel the phantom rather than remove the foreign body or prescribe the curative antibody.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.