The idea that society should accept, at a legal level, a person as they want to be seen, not as they ARE, as an antidote to the person themselves not being able to accept who they ARE physically, is absurd. Refusing to engage in painful introspection isn't a valid reason to try force others to accept a personal delusion.
Psychologists do not view transgenderism as a delusion. So what’s absurd is insisting that we govern ourselves by *your* political ideology rather than by the consistent judgment of the psychological community.
@@ericd9827 Caving in to cries of the previous definition being "dehumanising" is not consistent judgement. Believing you were born in the wrong body is literally a delusion just like anorexia etc.
@@ambientjohnny Let me know when your peer-reviewed work on the issue is published. I’d hope that even you would agree that it’s *far* more rational to go with the judgment of experts who have devoted their lives to studying this stuff than with the judgment of an anonymous CZcams commenter. Also, I’m astonished anyone could listen to Sophie-Grace Chappell and come away with the conclusion that she’s delusional.
That's an implausible objection for a species that is so social that we engage in endless acts of self-presentation all the time. Currently, I am in my office wearing dress clothes I'd rather not wear, and cologne that makes me smell quite different than I would without it. Later, I will go to a meeting where I'd be absolutely and rightly penalized for saying anything like what I'd really like to say or what I'd say were I, say, out with friends for a drink. So, I mean, society regularly encourages me, you, and everyone to regularly get others to accept an appearance of us that is different from "who we are." And, of course, as Dr. Chappell would tell you (because she told us in the video), being trans and hiding it in public is one of the very worst (and taxing) kinds of deception toward others. "Who you are" is not just exhausted by the genitalia you have, but also includes things like what you'd like to wear, the types of activities you'd like to engage in, etc. TO say otherwise is to reduce identity to brute physicalism. Lastly, as Dr. Chappell also explains, it is worth asking why it matters to others whether my presentation of myself is different from "who I am" in a case like this one. Great, I wear a dress and want to be called "she" when you happen to somehow know that i'm really male. What bad consequence follows from that?
There is very little to no scientific or philosophical basis for the so called "delusional" character of transgender identity that you speak of. Very rational researchers have dedicated their lives work to understanding transgender identity with a true, empathetic scientific spirit. Regardless, why would anyone who is harassed, belittled, and disowned for their identity actively chose to "refuse" to introspect about its validity? If anything, the opposite is oftentimes true and young transgender people undergo enormous stress, self-deprecation, and active rejection of their emotions to avoid abuse. Your characterization of transgender life merely serves to show your ignorance of it, so why should anyone value your blind assertions over the lived experiences of transgender people and the peer-reviewed literature?
The “what would it be like to hit the target - Perfectly understand the woman as she lives perfectly womanly. It’s like a girlfriend telling me her husband said she would have a perfect Body is she lost 5 lbs. I begged her, “never ever lose those 5 lbs, because the image of perfection is inscribed In his idea of you minus 5 lbs, so keep the 5 or 10 lbs because the image of your perfection only lives in the “failure” of losing 5 lbs. for Hegel- this is the negation of the negation.
OK, Slavoj:) But seriously, I feel it was dismissive of him to say that he is "passed" answering that question. While he is a parent, he cannot struggle with fertility issues like a woman. So he isn't a fertile woman. But, we normally assume a woman is fertile or potentially so. So fertility is part of the everyday definition of being a woman. And, I don't think we should start referring to postmenopausal women as "infertile women." Perhaps what he should say, at his age, he is passed worrying about what is like to be a "postmenopausal woman."
@@johnstewart7025 Well stated, and you’re right. The post- menopausal/ infertile woman is highly problematic, and why this is so is well worth delving into. Synonyms can be brutal. The statements that lead you to the “everyday definition” line are also good, but Slavoj would like to provoke you to look more closely at that argument and more so to its conclusion. 😉 Thank for your comment. I don’t know why something doesn’t ring true about that argument, it might be something about way we generate meaning, and the way we form “what matters” to us and how much, how It changes with age, how it changes when we move from the personal realm to the societal. You gave me a lot to think about!
I think this is a mis-reading of Socrates in Phadeo. Those who are preoccupied with the body, associated with the body, are weighed down, and one must shed this preoccupation with the bodily element and have no willing association with it in order to practice philosophy, virtue, moderation to join the company of the gods. (81a-82b). He holds in this passage a soul in the state of detachment from the body makes its way in the afterlife to the invisible, which is like itself. Someone who is transgender seems overly preoccupied with the body, with how the body is perceived. Socrates is saying one should be detached about physical things and focused on the immaterial, rational, conceptual things. This included essences, and there is no way you can get around the fact that Socrates would hold that the essence of a thing, the realm of the forms, is tied to the realm of appearances. While the realm of appearances is a degree away from truth, it is still a derivative of the form. The female body is a derivative of the essence, or form, of a female just as a chair is the appearance of the essence of a chair. For Socrates, transgender claims would be like a chestnut tree that is really an oak tree in its essence, or a shape that appears to be a square but in its essence is really a circle.
I will say that I am ambivalent regarding the debate between gender critical and trans-inclusionary feminism. Part of the reason why I sympathize with both sides, however, is that I think each mischaracterizes or misreads the other, and they end up arguing past each other. I see this when Dr. Chappell says (around 46:00) that gender critical feminists talk as if biology is the only factors that matters. I know quite well that Kathleen Stock does not think this and is quite explicit about not thinking it. She thinks that in certain discussions only (those around, say, trans women accessing female changing spaces) biology becomes the more important factor. But vice versa: Dr. Chappell clearly recognizes, and says, that biology is a factor that does matter and does have some ontological reality. Most gender critical feminists wrongly believe that trans-inclusionary feminists just deny biology's reality or importance. But it seems that very few trans-inclusionary feminists go that far. So, there you have it. Two sides that might really benefit from an honest interaction, where they MIGHT find that there are more salient points of agreement than previously realized. For the record, I'd LOVE to see a rich discussion between Chappell and Stock. I was thinking that several times while watching this.
Why the pearls? Interesting that a "cis-woman" who chose to wear them would be regarded as ridiculously old-fashioned and unlikely to be taken seriously as a modern-day philosopher. And then the chosen name "Grace"? Taken like an antidote to maleness. It is impossible to ignore the strong element of play-acting in this Chapelle's persona. When Capelle says the word "rapey" he gives himself away 100%.
He is an AGP. His view on sex/gender is regressive, and incoherent. He dresses with pearls and a frumpy grandma look is his fetish. It is insulting to women.
The idea that society should accept, at a legal level, a person as they want to be seen, not as they ARE, as an antidote to the person themselves not being able to accept who they ARE physically, is absurd. Refusing to engage in painful introspection isn't a valid reason to try force others to accept a personal delusion.
Psychologists do not view transgenderism as a delusion. So what’s absurd is insisting that we govern ourselves by *your* political ideology rather than by the consistent judgment of the psychological community.
@@ericd9827 Caving in to cries of the previous definition being "dehumanising" is not consistent judgement. Believing you were born in the wrong body is literally a delusion just like anorexia etc.
@@ambientjohnny Let me know when your peer-reviewed work on the issue is published. I’d hope that even you would agree that it’s *far* more rational to go with the judgment of experts who have devoted their lives to studying this stuff than with the judgment of an anonymous CZcams commenter. Also, I’m astonished anyone could listen to Sophie-Grace Chappell and come away with the conclusion that she’s delusional.
That's an implausible objection for a species that is so social that we engage in endless acts of self-presentation all the time. Currently, I am in my office wearing dress clothes I'd rather not wear, and cologne that makes me smell quite different than I would without it. Later, I will go to a meeting where I'd be absolutely and rightly penalized for saying anything like what I'd really like to say or what I'd say were I, say, out with friends for a drink. So, I mean, society regularly encourages me, you, and everyone to regularly get others to accept an appearance of us that is different from "who we are."
And, of course, as Dr. Chappell would tell you (because she told us in the video), being trans and hiding it in public is one of the very worst (and taxing) kinds of deception toward others. "Who you are" is not just exhausted by the genitalia you have, but also includes things like what you'd like to wear, the types of activities you'd like to engage in, etc. TO say otherwise is to reduce identity to brute physicalism.
Lastly, as Dr. Chappell also explains, it is worth asking why it matters to others whether my presentation of myself is different from "who I am" in a case like this one. Great, I wear a dress and want to be called "she" when you happen to somehow know that i'm really male. What bad consequence follows from that?
There is very little to no scientific or philosophical basis for the so called "delusional" character of transgender identity that you speak of. Very rational researchers have dedicated their lives work to understanding transgender identity with a true, empathetic scientific spirit. Regardless, why would anyone who is harassed, belittled, and disowned for their identity actively chose to "refuse" to introspect about its validity? If anything, the opposite is oftentimes true and young transgender people undergo enormous stress, self-deprecation, and active rejection of their emotions to avoid abuse.
Your characterization of transgender life merely serves to show your ignorance of it, so why should anyone value your blind assertions over the lived experiences of transgender people and the peer-reviewed literature?
The “what would it be like to hit the target -
Perfectly understand the woman as she lives perfectly womanly. It’s like a girlfriend telling me her husband said she would have a perfect
Body is she lost 5 lbs. I begged her, “never ever lose those 5 lbs, because the image of perfection is inscribed
In his idea of you minus 5 lbs, so keep the 5 or 10 lbs because the image of your perfection only lives in the “failure” of losing 5 lbs. for Hegel- this is the negation of the negation.
OK, Slavoj:) But seriously, I feel it was dismissive of him to say that he is "passed" answering that question. While he is a parent, he cannot struggle with fertility issues like a woman. So he isn't a fertile woman. But, we normally assume a woman is fertile or potentially so. So fertility is part of the everyday definition of being a woman. And, I don't think we should start referring to postmenopausal women as "infertile women." Perhaps what he should say, at his age, he is passed worrying about what is like to be a "postmenopausal woman."
@@johnstewart7025 Well stated, and you’re right. The post- menopausal/ infertile woman is highly problematic, and why this is so is well worth delving into. Synonyms can be brutal.
The statements that lead you to the “everyday definition” line are also good, but Slavoj would like to provoke you to look more closely at that argument and more so to its conclusion. 😉
Thank for your comment. I don’t know why something doesn’t ring true about that argument, it might be something about way we generate meaning, and the way we form “what matters” to us and how much, how It changes with age, how it changes when we move from the personal realm to the societal. You gave me a lot to think about!
I think this is a mis-reading of Socrates in Phadeo. Those who are preoccupied with the body, associated with the body, are weighed down, and one must shed this preoccupation with the bodily element and have no willing association with it in order to practice philosophy, virtue, moderation to join the company of the gods. (81a-82b). He holds in this passage a soul in the state of detachment from the body makes its way in the afterlife to the invisible, which is like itself. Someone who is transgender seems overly preoccupied with the body, with how the body is perceived. Socrates is saying one should be detached about physical things and focused on the immaterial, rational, conceptual things. This included essences, and there is no way you can get around the fact that Socrates would hold that the essence of a thing, the realm of the forms, is tied to the realm of appearances. While the realm of appearances is a degree away from truth, it is still a derivative of the form. The female body is a derivative of the essence, or form, of a female just as a chair is the appearance of the essence of a chair. For Socrates, transgender claims would be like a chestnut tree that is really an oak tree in its essence, or a shape that appears to be a square but in its essence is really a circle.
I will say that I am ambivalent regarding the debate between gender critical and trans-inclusionary feminism. Part of the reason why I sympathize with both sides, however, is that I think each mischaracterizes or misreads the other, and they end up arguing past each other.
I see this when Dr. Chappell says (around 46:00) that gender critical feminists talk as if biology is the only factors that matters. I know quite well that Kathleen Stock does not think this and is quite explicit about not thinking it. She thinks that in certain discussions only (those around, say, trans women accessing female changing spaces) biology becomes the more important factor.
But vice versa: Dr. Chappell clearly recognizes, and says, that biology is a factor that does matter and does have some ontological reality. Most gender critical feminists wrongly believe that trans-inclusionary feminists just deny biology's reality or importance. But it seems that very few trans-inclusionary feminists go that far.
So, there you have it. Two sides that might really benefit from an honest interaction, where they MIGHT find that there are more salient points of agreement than previously realized. For the record, I'd LOVE to see a rich discussion between Chappell and Stock. I was thinking that several times while watching this.
Trans inclusive feminist is quite adamant about males being able to enter all women's spaces. Claiming otherwise is completely dishonest.
Why the pearls? Interesting that a "cis-woman" who chose to wear them would be regarded as ridiculously old-fashioned and unlikely to be taken seriously as a modern-day philosopher. And then the chosen name "Grace"? Taken like an antidote to maleness.
It is impossible to ignore the strong element of play-acting in this Chapelle's persona.
When Capelle says the word "rapey" he gives himself away 100%.
He is an AGP. His view on sex/gender is regressive, and incoherent. He dresses with pearls and a frumpy grandma look is his fetish. It is insulting to women.
Agnes, you really shouldn't defer and pander to this dude. It is embarrassing.