a reply to: kaylaluv
Oh. So what I wrote is "word salad". But what you write is not?
Do you know what a logical argument should look like? I did that with what I wrote. I began from a general understanding of what the sciences know
(physics) to biology, to neurology, to psychoanalysis, traumatology, etc.
What studies have you completed? Peer reviewed? How many years have you been researching gender dysphoria?
Don't you think this is an issue of myopia? Gender dysphoria researchers DONT READ OUTSIDE THEIR FIELDS. If they did, it would be impossible to
maintain this belief. Rather, one must assume that they are unconsciously relying upon the contemporary fiction that "genes" control everything, and
so are not relating to the post-genocentric era, where genes, proteins, and environment form a continuum. Please look into this.
The Third Way of Evolution
I am a researcher in traumatology, but am a general reader into all the sciences. And like other researchers who reflect on the etiology of mental
dysfunction (such as Dan Siegel), the emerging consensus is that all psychological conditions (and maybe all physical conditions) are a function of a
mismatch between the history of our organism (our evolutionary/molecular history) in interaction with the environment. Remember what I said earlier:
point A? All things are symmetry or the breakdown of symmetry. Symmetry in Human relations is the 'golden rule'. A mind which develops around
non-caring others will be deprived of what many people take for granted - a coherent sense of Self. Thus, in feeling so 'removed' from others (and
they're bodies) people like this are fundamentally vulnerable to claims such as transgenderism (homosexuality follows the same dynamic). In other
words, a persons standard for truth lowers when they are in a state of social need i.e. to have their feelings/needs recognized.
On another note, are today's contemporary social environments normal vis a vis the 200,000 years that Human beings - Homo Sapiens - have existed?
Absolutely not. There is so much more unpreditability in todays world than in the world we evolved in, which means theres more
anxiety/fear/dissociation. The desperate solutions that are emerging - such as transgenderism - simply reflects a society that' has lost all touch
with indigenous i.e. body-based, knowledges. The idea that complementarity is at the root of things, for instance, would be hotly contested by many
liberals today, yet they would be wrong. Beginning from non-physical premises/references, they will argue a false position because they are working
from a metaphysically weaker position i.e. what they already believe. Unlike science - they cannot source real physical dynamics to justify their
I'm sorry to burst your bubble and confront you with what you feel the need to denigrate/insult/seek to diminish as "a word salad", but what I write
is the truth.
If you don't understand some of my referents - that is because you aren't educated sufficiently to understand the complexity of how something like
transgenderism could emerge. To me - and other interdisciplinary researchers, it is obviously a function of the mind "retracting" from the body as a
result of interpersonal and/or shock trauma (an established neurological fact) and then the social AFFORDANCE of hearing crazed fanatics (from my
perspective) who aver that societies "demonization" of peoples gender confusion (a non-existing confusion for most people BEFORE they hear it; after
which, paranoia helps scaffold the eventual acceptance of said issue) is wrong, and that we should be accepting of peoples "beliefs" - which
apparently, from the neoliberal perspective, means apparently anything.
Another issue is the history of transgenderism. There is a whole history - typically associated with the decadent elite of a culture - of
cross-dressing and being and celebrating "the opposite". Ancient gnostics, perhaps aided by Plato, even mythologized the laws of physical reality as
the "imposition" of a creator God they called the "demiurge". Political elites for thousands of years have been cultivating such nonsense in
Bacchanalia type festivities, where opposites and being the opposite or doing the opposite is perversely imagined as the 'gateway to truth'. They even
went so far as to give a fool the chance to be king for a day - which might be "funny" or quaint to modern ears, without keeping in mind that such
"reversing" reality is a general ethos for them, and implies that good is evil, and evil is good.
This is also against Ockham's razor, which says that the simplest assumption is probably the right one. My assumptions thus far are in agreement with
the hard sciences - which describes a dynamically changing organism that changes with its environmental interactions. If interactions change, so do
the systems genes, because the metabolism of an organism feeds into its genetic regulation of itself. The simplest assumption also entails a correct
and accurate phenomenological description of experience, which necessarily relies upon developmental psychology as a springboard: since affective and
ecological ways of knowing (age 0 to 2) precedes linguistic forms (age 2) and well before the development of a coherent identity (age 18) people are
primarily guided by what they feel (it is an older form). Feelings are 'signs' - or internal referents (for the mind) which, if bad, the minds seeks
to 'regulate' through some sort of cognitive/linguistic/narrative-based meaning-structure. Ideally, truth will be the most stabilizing, but anything
that establishes social-relations with others will serve as a 'bridge' - and therefore, a flow of energy between Humans. Understanding - even a false
one - is better than no understanding. Beliefs are real - they "glue" Humans together the way gluons glue quarks, or glia 'glue' neurons (etymology of
glia and gluon come from glue). On the other hand, it is not coincidence that cancer emerges in glia - in the relationsips between neurons, and not
the neurons themselves. Dysfunction is always at the interface - not the organism itself. Contemporary sciences have been deluded by reductionism i.e.
(seeking explanations in genes) and only emergentism - or understanding how something like a mind with beliefs emerges - can understand the problems
of the mind. Only be understand a persons developmental canalization can properly locate the meanings and needed understanding that the self/left
brain craves for proper self-regulation.
You yourself, for instance, only believe this because other people you have historically connected with believe it; and since it is a belief - like
all beliefs, you may have an unhealthy degree of identification with it as a way to regulate your self-esteem. In other words, all action is
simultaneously self-regulation. Admitting that your views are wrong might make you feel a sense of shame, stupidity, or irriation: a general sense of
dissonance. Your brain-mind doesn't want that - and without more knowledge/persuasion/support, you are likely to feel little need to believe.
But its not unbelievable to think trauma is the cause of transgender beliefs. We don't live in a dualistic world. Everything is connected. There are
causes. The world and reality is one - not two.
edit on 13-5-2017 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)