First person without a legal gender

[Kajahtava]

To talk them (as in, the ladies) into going to bed with him (as in the gentleman)?

Your lexer needs updating.

 

[DanP]

Your lexer needs updating.

Seems it does indeed.

 

[Kajahtava]

I would suggest switching to a model that first translates to C-- and then compiles.

Any way, nothing wrong with a bit of homo-erotic military paedastry.

[PLAIN]http://images.quickblogcast.com/3/9/0/5/3/144289-135093/THIS____IS____SPARTA.jpg

 

[DanP]

Any way, nothing wrong with a bit of homo-erotic military paedastry.

Nothing indeed, as long as you remain a male.

 

[Kajahtava]

There are no women in Sparta my friend, children are born with beards out of creatures that have beards there.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

'Gender' typically is synonymous with 'sex'. Old men with beards a long time ago decided that people acted a certain way because of their gender and that ladies are to act like ladies and men are to act like men and anything else is just not natural. Feminists decided, rightly, that these absolute 'gender roles' were hogwash but then proceeded to commit just as egregious a taxonomic offense and threw the baby out with the bath water. Now 'gender' is supposedly just a social construct that ultimately means nothing and accommodations of definition have been made (gender =/= sex) so that we can still classify people as male and female while being politically correct.

 

[DanP]

Now 'gender' is supposedly just a social construct that ultimately means nothing and accommodations of definition have been made (gender =/= sex) so that we can still classify people as male and female while being politically correct.

Being "politically correct" is a sad joke, IMO.

 

[Kajahtava]

I agree, to say that people are female because they feel female is absurd. I just say it as it is, male body, female mind, that's just how it is, and truth can hurt.

 

[Kajahtava]

Oh, by the way, I think that the following legal changes out to be made for every person:

1: removing one's name from legal documents, already, every citizen of this country has a social number, and in fact for all official business one has to input both. Names cannot serve to disambiguate people for legal reasons, because two people can have the same name, but not the same social numbers. People should be legally only known by their number, how they wish to be called in private life is their own business. If I randomly want to have a different name I just tell people to address me with that without going through any legal trouble.

2: removing one's gender from legal documents, there is simply no reason for it to be there, already, one can derive no legal right or plight from one's gender in this country. There simply is no reason that one's gender is on a legal document. If they use it, they violate the first article of the constitution.

There is actually a movement here who advocates the same, it's a subparty (yeah, Dutch politics is complex) called pink-left that has also started actions like 'If you have to fill in your gender on a form where it's not relevant, don't, and add the qualifying note that if they would use your gender in any way, they violate the constitution, thus they have no need for it.', they also feel people should be legally able to lie about their names because as soon as people find people's name relevant, they violate same part of the constitution.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Oh, by the way, I think that the following legal changes out to be made for every person:

1: removing one's name from legal documents, already, every citizen of this country has a social number, and in fact for all official business one has to input both. Names cannot serve to disambiguate people for legal reasons, because two people can have the same name, but not the same social numbers. People should be legally only known by their number, how they wish to be called in private life is their own business. If I randomly want to have a different name I just tell people to address me with that without going through any legal trouble.

2: removing one's gender from legal documents, there is simply no reason for it to be there, already, one can derive no legal right or plight from one's gender in this country. There simply is no reason that one's gender is on a legal document. If they use it, they violate the first article of the constitution.

There is actually a movement here who advocates the same, it's a subparty (yeah, Dutch politics is complex) called pink-left that has also started actions like 'If you have to fill in your gender on a form where it's not relevant, don't, and add the qualifying note that if they would use your gender in any way, they violate the constitution, thus they have no need for it.', they also feel people should be legally able to lie about their names because as soon as people find people's name relevant, they violate same part of the constitution.

You mean this?
"Article 1 [Equality]
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
That seems a bit of a tough sell. I'm not sure what the case law is like though.

As for the name drop I think that may be a bit more trouble than it is worth. People are frequently called to court due to mistaken identity (well they are here anyway). I could only imagine just how many different people one might be mistaken for due to a single off digit.

I understand the idea, and I like it, though it does not seem very practical.

 

[DanP]

1: removing one's name from legal documents, already, every citizen of this country has a social number, and in fact for all official business one has to input both. Names cannot serve to disambiguate people for legal reasons, because two people can have the same name, but not the same social numbers. People should be legally only known by their number, how they wish to be called in private life is their own business. If I randomly want to have a different name I just tell people to address me with that without going through any legal trouble.

Removing a person's name is part of the process of dehumanization. It was a key element in nazist concentration lagers. You rape,kill and generally abuse much easier numbers then humans with a name. The psychology of self indicates that humans do consider names a important part of what is The Self. Removing names is a bad idea on all possible levels. The right to recognition as a person is so important that is present in UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 6 of UN Universal Human Rights Declaration

 

[DanP]

Now 'gender' is supposedly just a social construct that ultimately means nothing and accommodations of definition have been made (gender =/= sex) so that we can still classify people as male and female while being politically correct.

I believe this case is not one of being "politically correct". Psychologically, the self, your identity is built by a series of cognitive processes. Your identity can be discordant with the
scientific reality, but for all intended purposes it does not matter. If your cognitive processes
build the self with the information that you are a female for whatever reason, (even if you have male sexual characteristics), you will define yourself as female.

The problem is further complicated if the society see you as a male. There is cognitive conflict between your perception of yourself (the real self), and what the society think you ought to be (the ought self). Such conflicts between real self and ought self are generating strong anxiety. I can only imagine that life for such a person will be hell.

The policy question is where you draw the line. What society would consider as more or less normal and what it considers a pathological deviation. And this is where you start to either accept the person as it perceives itself, or you throw them into a psychiatric ward, or, god forbid, to a deserted island in the South Pacific.

 

[Kajahtava]

You mean this?
"Article 1 [Equality]
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted."
That seems a bit of a tough sell. I'm not sure what the case law is like though.

As for the name drop I think that may be a bit more trouble than it is worth. People are frequently called to court due to mistaken identity (well they are here anyway). I could only imagine just how many different people one might be mistaken for due to a single off digit.

I understand the idea, and I like it, though it does not seem very practical.

Well, these things are copied by computers nowadays, not people writing it over.

You just select a person in your database -> right click -> sue.

Removing a person's name is part of the process of dehumanization. It was a key element in nazist concentration lagers. You rape,kill and generally abuse much easier numbers then humans with a name. The psychology of self indicates that humans do consider names a important part of what is The Self. Removing names is a bad idea on all possible levels.

One doesn't remove names at all, one removes them from legal documents. You keep your name, you just can't derive any legal rights from them.

It basically comes down to that you can always give up a different name, but you have to give up the correct social number.

Besides, the rules for how much your name may deviate is complex enough as it is. If your name is William, you may call yourself formally Bill, or Will, or even Willy, but you can't Jill. I fail to see how William is any closer to Bill than it is to Jill. Then there are ridiculously complex rules about last names and using your mother's maiden name as that and what-ever. And that if you're married as a woman you can use your husband's name without formally changing it. (People here seldom adopt each other's names on marriage. Children for the most part are still named after the father though.)

The right to recognition as a person is so important that is present in UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Okay, that's a ****ing stupid universal right, that is unbelievably vague. Also, how does having a name on a legal document recognises you as a person. It at max recognizes and solidifies the fact that you are to some extend property of your parents until you reach a magic number in age.

Do I also have a universal right of not having a name intrinsicly linked to me by law? I didn't choose my own name, I think it's stupid.

Then again, the universal rights of man are one big praetentious hoax of the west trying to impose their culture onto others and sell it under some good-will 'universal rights' banner. Especially since a lot of them seem to be plights, such as this one.

Any way, if this is so true, to recognise me as a person, then why do I have to have a legal gender? I never choose that gender, just because I have a little schlongie between there it got into all kinds of papers and various groups insist that I 'act like it', if I want to have long hair and long nails that's my bloody own business.

 

[Kajahtava]

I believe this case is not one of being "politically correct". Psychologically, the self, your identity is built by a series of cognitive processes. Your identity can be discordant with the
scientific reality, but for all intended purposes it does not matter. If your cognitive processes
build the self with the information that you are a female for whatever reason, (even if you have male sexual characteristics), you will define yourself as female.

The problem is further complicated if the society see you as a male. There is cognitive conflict between your perception of yourself (the real self), and what the society think you ought to be (the ought self). Such conflicts between real self and ought self are generating strong anxiety. I can only imagine that life for such a person will be hell.

I find this 'self' to be a dubious business to be honest. Supposedly 'my' hands are mine, but they're still tools which simply execute some tasks, like typing here, by static electricity by neurons which hit by the laws of physics those keys again drive scancodes through my CPU, which also by the laws of physics processes characters to finally sent some symbols over a wire to some server so that you can read this in the end.

So why aren't the keyboard, the wires, the CPU, the whole relay connexion, the server, your eyes, and finally the neurons that lead up to, and into your brain so that you can 'consciously perceive this' part of me? Why are my fingers, but that not?

The 'self' is in the end a cognitive illusion that the mind makes to abstract and simplify reality, I don't believe in it. Also, 'identity' is mainly how you want to be called. Not what you are, or want to be, it's about the name, not about the meaning.

 

[DanP]

One doesn't remove names at all, one removes them from legal documents. You keep your name, you just can't derive any legal rights from them.

It doesn't matter. Name is a too important part of the human self to remove it from anywhere. Dehumanization of citizens by government is how all wrongs start

Okay, that's a ****ing stupid universal right, that is unbelievably vague

Actually, is one of the most important constructs I ever seen. Its rooted in history, human psychology, sociology, and a long observation of human rights disasters.

Any way, if this is so true, to recognise me as a person, then why do I have to have a legal gender?

Because governments recognize **your right** to be represented as a person before the law. Sex is also an extremely important part of self.

 

[Kajahtava]

It doesn't matter. Name is a too important part of the human self to remove it from anywhere. Dehumanization of citizens by government is how all wrongs start

So people feel more human because the government legally decides for them what their name is?

People freak me out.

Actually, is one of the most important constructs I ever seen. Its rooted in history, human psychology, sociology, and a long observation of human rights disasters.

How does one decide when the government depersonalizes?

Because governments recognize **your right** to be represented as a person before the law. Sex is also an extremely important part of self.

It's not a right, it's a plight.

They force every citizen to choose this binary, there are some facilities to chance it, just like names, but only binary. It's like saying all people should be called either John or Matthew.

 

[DanP]

So why aren't the keyboard, the wires, the CPU, the whole relay connexion, the server, your eyes, and finally the neurons that lead up to, and into your brain so that you can 'consciously perceive this' part of me? Why are my fingers, but that not?

Because not even your fingers are. If you make the effort to study human cognition long enough you will see how it works. You can start with "phantom limbs" phenomena.

Also, 'identity' is mainly how you want to be called. Not what you are, or want to be, it's about the name, not about the meaning.

identity: the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity

this is the main definition of identity. It's up to you if you try to invent your own definitions, or reinvent the whole world, but don't expect other ppl to take you seriously.

 

[DanP]

So people feel more human because the government legally decides for them what their name is?

People freak me out.

How does one decide when the government depersonalizes?

It's not a right, it's a plight.

They force every citizen to choose this binary, there are some facilities to chance it, just like names, but only binary. It's like saying all people should be called either John or Matthew.

You didnt understood anything it seems.

 

[Kajahtava]

Because not even your fingers are. If you make the effort to study human cognition long enough you will see how it works. You can start with "phantom limbs" phenomena.

Fine enough, you define to me where the 'self' then ends.

identity: the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity

Which doesn't exist.

There has been no scientific evidence whatsoever that this 'ego' people to have exists, furthermore, its existence is hard, next to impossible to unify with physics or neuroscience.

It's a cognitive illusion made by how human beings store memory, the 'self', the 'identity', the 'ego', it doesn't exist. You exchange like 80% of the atoms in your body in a month or something?

this is the main definition of identity. It's up to you if you try to invent your own definitions, or reinvent the whole world, but don't expect other ppl to take you seriously.

I'm fine with this definition, it shows so simply it doesn't exist. There is no 'persisting entity'

You can at max go to 'a collection of memories', but that means you can remove part of the ego by a good blow to the head.

You didnt understood anything it seems.

Maybe me, maybe you, who knows?

The fact stands that having a name in a legal document solidifies that the government legally decides for you what your name is and not sticking to it is punishable then.

 

[DanP]

Fine enough, you define to me where the 'self' then ends.

Start by learning the bare minimum of social psychology, social cognition and the accepted theories in existence today. You will get a clear idea of many elementary notions in several months. You will also learn about a lot of experiments in psychology and cognitive areas which lend support to particular theories. It is the best I can tell you to do. Much of what you wrote here about the "self" , "persistent identity" and so on is flawed. Understanding cognition scientifically may allow you a better perspective over many subjects you at the moment only grasp intuitively. I guarantee you it will not be a waste of your time if you do this.

 

[Kajahtava]

I know all those works and I know that people experience a self, and I also know that there is no single hard evidence to support the self or the conscious mind except that people claim they have it. You cannot proof to me your sentience or possession of an 'ego' or 'identity' any more than a machine claiming to be sentient that is programmed to praeserve itself at all costs is to you. It's the age-old debate.

U-WUQg-_oow[/youtube] You were sha...hout making compelling the existence thereof.

 

[DanP]

I know all those works and I know that people experience a self, and I also know that there is no single hard evidence to support the self or the conscious mind except that people claim they have it. You cannot proof to me your sentience or possession of an 'ego' or 'identity' any more than a machine claiming to be sentient that is programmed to praeserve itself at all costs is to you. It's the age-old debate.

[

Whatever. In the end, you decide if you want to remain at your present level of knowledge or learn something new.

Like apeiron said earlier, it is a waste of time to continue discussing.

 

[Kajahtava]

Whatever. In the end, you decide if you want to remain at your present level of knowledge or learn something new.

Like apeiron said earlier, it is a waste of time to continue discussing.

As I said, I read the literature regarding this and it is not grounded in materialistic science and in fact, it's a particularly old problem that the notion of 'consciousness' and 'free will' and 'choice' and 'identity' is for the most part not reconcilable with materialistic science. Duality certainly failed, control the neurons and control the consciousness, that's already established. Now you can then raise that neurons somehow 'invoke' consciousness or the 'self', but how that could take place if you can remove half of the brain of a child which will still continue to function, especially if the central nervous system is still a swarm intelligence, is a mystery, not to mention that it's a big dump of mist and fog exactly how the flow of electricity in neurons would lead to a 'conscious introspection'.

The only feasible—and trivial—solution to this problem is that humans do not possesses a conscious mind, introspection, ego, feelings or what-not but simply claim that they do because they're programmed for self-praeservation, via evolution. It answers all quaestions, and raises no new ones. It's a winner.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I believe this case is not one of being "politically correct". Psychologically, the self, your identity is built by a series of cognitive processes. Your identity can be discordant with the
scientific reality, but for all intended purposes it does not matter. If your cognitive processes
build the self with the information that you are a female for whatever reason, (even if you have male sexual characteristics), you will define yourself as female.

The problem is further complicated if the society see you as a male. There is cognitive conflict between your perception of yourself (the real self), and what the society think you ought to be (the ought self). Such conflicts between real self and ought self are generating strong anxiety. I can only imagine that life for such a person will be hell.

The policy question is where you draw the line. What society would consider as more or less normal and what it considers a pathological deviation. And this is where you start to either accept the person as it perceives itself, or you throw them into a psychiatric ward, or, god forbid, to a deserted island in the South Pacific.

I would suggest that the root of the identity concern here is in the fact that the person wishes to be female but is in fact male. Otherwise there is no concern, there is no bother. Females do not wish to be female, they just are, there is no identity concern there. Issues of identity only occur when one is not in fact what one wishes to be or when that identity is an ephemeral thing.
Females who are concerned with their looks are not generally concerned with looking female, only looking attractive (though they may be concerned with an ephemeral concept of female beauty). Males who wish to be female, when concerned about their looks, are concerned about looking female. I would imagine (sorry no sources on this) that any male who identifies as female will always have that dichotomy of sexual identity as part of their perceived self (adults with fortitude towards 'deviant sexuality' see: Buck Angel [wish I could see your faces]).

As far as political correctness goes I was primarily referring to the feminist movements rejection of gender roles that went so far as to reject the notion of gender all together. We can see the far reaching implications of this in the idea proposed in this thread that gender is not clear cut based on a very tiny minority of people whose genes do not match their sex characteristics, whose sex characteristics are ambiguous, or who decide that they self identify as the opposite sex. Political correctness extends to these people as well because in the modern age of gender politics it just doesn't seem nice to call them abnormal or a freak mutation. Though if I had six fingers to a hand I doubt that anyone would bother being nice about saying its abnormal or suggesting 'fixing' it.
Being that sexual identity remains an important aspect of social interaction and self perception for most of us it requires delicate handling in social situations, otherwise no disentangled scientist would call it anything other than just another abnormality of genetics or psychological perception of self. Its a reaction to people who have an aversion to that which is not 'normal'.

 

[DanP]

I would suggest that the root of the identity concern here is in the fact that the person wishes to be female but is in fact male. Otherwise there is no concern, there is no bother.

It may not be a wish, in the traditional sense of the word. Cognition can be distorted by atypical neurological processes in such a degree that you perceive yourself as a female.

Those cases are of course bordering psychopatology. But it is very important to make a difference between "wishing" and distorted cognition. Schizophrenia is the typical example of a pathology where the subject suffers by cognitive abnormality. There are other as well. A schizophrenic does not wish to have hallucinations, delusions, or perceive itself as something he is not. His cognitive functions are altered, so his perception of the reality is distorted.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Because not even your fingers are. If you make the effort to study human cognition long enough you will see how it works. You can start with "phantom limbs" phenomena.

I would suggest looking into the "Phantom Cord Phenomenon". If you take a person who has played video games regularly in their life with corded controllers and hand them a wireless controller for say a PS3 or XBox 360 you will invariably see them unconsciously handle the controller as if there were a cord there even though there is not. (see also mac mouses used by PC users) ;-p

My point being that just because the brain is used to a limb being there and continues to react as if one is there after it is gone does not necessarily say much about the concept of self.

 

[DanP]

My point being that just because the brain is used to a limb being there and continues to react as if one is there after it is gone does not necessarily say much about the concept of self.

And it wasn't used to illustrate the concept of self.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It may not be a wish, in the traditional sense of the word. Cognition can be distorted by atypical neurological processes in such a degree that you perceive yourself as a female.

Those cases are of course bordering psychopatology. But it is very important to make a difference between "wishing" and distorted cognition. Schizophrenia is the typical example of a pathology where the subject suffers by cognitive abnormality. There are other as well. A schizophrenic does not wish to have hallucinations, delusions, or perceive itself as something he is not. His cognitive functions are altered, so his perception of the reality is distorted.

It would seem that a person who believes that they are female even though they are not has more than just "gender identity" issues and I doubt that any amount of surgical alteration or social engineering would fix this.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And it wasn't used to illustrate the concept of self.

Sorry, I was not paying close enough attention.

Now I feel silly instead of witty. Thanks man. ;-)

 

[zomgwtf]

That is called gay :P

This post right here nearly killed me, good call DanP. Love it. Oh by the way, do you like fishsticks?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

'The have feelings too'.

They do. And if I did not think that your post was half tongue in cheek I would find it rather disgusting. I'm finding it hard not to as it is.

 

[DanP]

It would seem that a person who believes that they are female even though they are not has more than just "gender identity" issues and I doubt that any amount of surgical alteration or social engineering would fix this.

There are serious issues indeed. This is why I said it's a question of policy what you do with such persons, and where you draw the line between a variance in the population , and psychopathology.

Sorry, I was not paying close enough attention.

Now I feel silly instead of witty. Thank man. ;-)

Common man, you know I appreciate your comments. No problems at all.

Anyway, in psychology, the "self" is a social construct. It is constructed from social information. It represent your cognition about you as a social animal.

There exist evidence that support the idea that cognitive constructs of the self are schemas. Cognitive generalization about yourself created from past experiences, which organize and guide processing of self-related information. It can also include attributes generated from reflective cognitive processes (popular: thoughts) which include future states, as for example "I want to be a PhD in phsycis". When talking about self, a lot of ppl seem (Im not alluding to you ) to get their panties in a knot, expecting something "mystical", a piece of divinity, or other such nonsense. In fact the term has a very clear definition in psychology, supported with experiments, and it's rather trivial.

 

[Kajahtava]

This discussion has gone way off course IMO. Allow me to reiterate, you are BORN A MALE OR FEMALE BY DEFINITION under NORMAL circumstances.

Dogma.

There are of course chromosomal disorders etc. which may make it difficult to determine the sex. If you want to run around saying that you are sexless then in my mind you're not even WORTH being human.

That's okay, I don't 'identity' as human either. I just don't identify.

You go against the very nature

Naturalistic fallacy.

of being a living organism on this planet

You know the vast majority of species have no sexes right?

and it's a real shame that you feel the need for this just because of your own insecurities.

Hey, you're the one who desperately needs an 'identity', stop jabbering about insecurity of people who don't need to find their 'identity'.

However just because you have these insecurities don't expect the rest of the world to lay down and go heads over heels for you to accommodate you in new legislature etc.

Why? The legislature simply lies? The laws in this country provide for gender, and not sex on that paper. It is a right I have as a citizen to have my 'gender identity' as opposed to my 'sex' on it. The law however assumes that all citizens have such a gender identity, a thing which is hardly true. The paper lies and technically the law gives me the full right to say I've neither.

I really don't care what you think about yourself or that you feel like you think that you should be a girl. As I said before that's a PERSONAL problem and maybe you should go see a psychologist (especially instead of trying to reaffirm your feelings on a forum.)

As I said a thousand times before, I don't think anything about myself. And neither does the topic.

The topic was about a person without a gender identity, or an identity as 'neuter', that could also be true. People can call me whatever gender they want, it doesn't hit me. Likewise I don't subconsciously place other people into binary genders, genders are simply irrelevant to me in interaction.

As for the 'self/identity' crisis we have going on. Well it has been mentioned here that 'identity' does not exist on the basis that people can't prove to other people their own identity. Well if that's the case then I'm going to start taking names and eliminating people in MY world. Because I PERSONALLY know I have an identity and a self and if everyone else doesn't have one then that means they are all part of MY OWN self or they are just pretend 'robots' or what have you. I don't like this so I'm going to kill them all, starting with the people who think that the world should accommodate them for non-sense. I will probably decide to leave the girls I consider to be sexy however... force my identity onto ("in") them.

Maybe you know that, maybe you don't. The point is, you can't prove that you know it too.

To address the 'where's the line' problem that I brought up. I think that it doesn't need to be a solidly defined line at this very moment in time.

It's a handy way to think if your world view encounters countless contradictions yes.

Mine is simpler, I simply see no reason at all to not let people change their phaenotype if they don't like it by whatever means they can; no limit.

It's not like I can see the future and decide every little thing that's going to happen and when the line of accomodation gets passed... a little rediculous? The line should be decided as life goes on and for a person to decide that he doesn't want to have a sex and be accommodated for that is passing the line. We already accommodate for the trangenders of the world, it's even though of as rude to stare at them or talk about them when you see them at the mall. 'The have feelings too'.

There shouldn't be a line unless it's on a singularity. I don't believe in genders because it's theoretically, as much as practically possible to establish a gradient, also, we can't even define what the polar extremes are, what is the epitome of masculinity or femininity? I don't believe in placing lines at arbitrary points without a singularity, neither rationality and consciously, nor subconsciously. And I don't think you do either. You don't know where the line is, you couldn't point it out. If I gave you several intermits, you couldn't tell for yourself where female starts and male ends. You can't tell where modifications of phaenotypes stop, you can recognise the end points, sure, but as soon as you come close to that line, you don't know it any more. Where does black start and white end? Obviously on #7F7F7F but if I showed you that shade of grey, it would depend on your mood.

It's a cognitive illusion, you're evolved to subconsciously class people into genders for an obvious reason of course, that doesn't mean they exist. It takes a single SRY gene to change a gender, human beings are simply evolved to pay a ridiculous attention to those small details. If you take away your SRY gene, you're supposedly 'female', even though you're genetically next to identical to what you are now. People, genders, chairs, wood, it doesn't exist. What exists is oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, electrons, protons, and those can simply come together in arbitrary combinations which your mind abstracts from reality. You can either be primitive and live by your instincts, or be a rational being and go against nature and overrule those instincts with sapient thought.

 

[zomgwtf]

You can either be primitive and live by your instincts, or be a rational being and go against nature and overrule those instincts with sapient thought.

Have fun with that. Maybe your on the brink of an evolutionary breakthrough!?

 

[Kajahtava]

Hardly,

the point about rational people is that they quickly realize that having children is largely an urge and giving into it usually yields unpleasant results, children may have some good aspects, but for the most parts they cost you more energy, time, money and stress than they give back from company. People who don't follow primitive urges seldom breed, unless of course they just happen to really like children.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There are serious issues indeed. This is why I said it's a question of policy what you do with such persons, and where you draw the line between a variance in the population , and psychopathology.

Being that legal and political issues are social in nature then I see no problem with granting a person with the sexual identity of their choice. My only quip is with the scientific angle. Scientifically speaking your gender, or biologically abnormal nature, are not a matter of choice. So medically, and hence to some degree legally, your biological nature must be based on reality and not preference.

Common man, you know I appreciate your comments. No problems at all.

Thank you. I am always happy for a sparing partner that enjoys the ride.

Anyway, in psychology, the "self" is a social construct. It is constructed from social information. It represent your cognition about you as a social animal.

There exist evidence that support the idea that cognitive constructs of the self are schemas. Cognitive generalization about yourself created from past experiences, which organize and guide processing of self-related information. It can also include attributes generated from reflexive cognitive processes (popular: thoughts) which include future states, as for example "I want to be a PhD in phsycis".


When talking about self, a lot of ppl seem (Im not alluding to you ) to get their panties in a knot, expecting something "mystical", a piece of divinity, or other such nonsense. In fact the term has a very clear definition in psychology, supported with experiments, and it's rather trivial.

I can not say that I have read much literature on the matter but I see the concept of self being rather key to consciousness and the human experience. The little I have read on the self being trivial or illusive seems more that a little crackpotted. But that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[DanP]

.I can not say that I have read much literature on the matter but I see the concept of self being rather key to consciousness and the human experience.

I agree that is a subject for another thread, so Ill just say that in philosophy you do indeed have a lot of discussion on self as a key to consciousness and the human experience and whatever not.

However, psychology and cognitive sciences keeps things surprisingly simple, and use theories which are supported by experiment. Concepts as self, self awareness, self-control are indeed central to the human experience, and they do get wide coverage in social psychology. However, all is mainstream science. Self is a consequence of reflective cognition, it is not the key to cognition.

 

[MotoH]

They do. And if I did not think that your post was half tongue in cheek I would find it rather disgusting. I'm finding it hard not to as it is.

The sensitivity corporation called.

zomgwtf knows what he is talking about, I hear he has worked with a lot of creamers. (half and half. .. get it?)

 

[Kajahtava]

No, I don't actually.

 

[berkeman]

This thread is cllosed pending moderation.