What can someone self identify as though, can I self identify as a specific race, species, nationality, etc… where does one determine where to draw the line?
Clearly its going to be an issue that leads to some disagreement as it is open to ambiguity. If anything can self identify as anything would that be the middle path?
Obviously it has real implications in reality as well, like grants and shelters that go towards a specific demographics that are disproportionately disadvantaged. If people can self identify then it is obviously ripe for exploit, and how do we police that outside of the same witch hunts the anti-trans people are on, so how do we solve this one?
Short answer: By what the experts say, and they say transgender people should be treated as the gender they identify as. Period.
Long answer: A lot of PhDs did a fuckload of research over a century plus and showed that, yeah, gender is super fucking complicated and doesn’t map out to male/female based on your genitals at birth (let alone for the reason that, you know, maybe you might be born with a penis AND a vagina or ovaries AND testes or female chromosomes AND male genetalia, etc.), and if people get some simple gender affirmation, they live better and happier lives, and that applies to cisgender people, as well.
Easy answer: You can claim to be fucking anything you want. Who actually gives a shit? Let people be themselves if it don’t hurt anyone. What’s the problem with being a transgirl or a transboy? Why do we even have multiple bathrooms? That just seems to punish all sorts of people for no reason.
If you WANT to say transracial or transspecies or transnational is a thing, by all means do some research and prove it through studies and peer review. Until then, it is unlikely to be recognized the same way that transgender has because it has a lot of supporting evidence.
If you WANT to say transracial or transspecies or transnational is a thing, by all means do some research and prove it through studies and peer review. Until then, it is unlikely to be recognized the same way that transgender has because it has a lot of supporting evidence.
I want to play a game with you. You’re demanding evidence for something that some people have a lot of experience with, but most people don’t care to investigate. I wanna do the same thing.
I’ve decided that fish aren’t real. I want you to link a scientific journal article that says fish are real. Not one that presupposes the existence of fish in general, one that asks if fish actually exist and asserts an answer from evidence.
If you can’t prove fish are real, why should anyone have to prove otherkin are real?
Buuuuuuuut, if you really want scientific articles on otherkin…
I think you misunderstood, but I’m not presupposing otherkin isn’t a thing. I am saying it doesn’t have the same type of intellectual backing as transgender experience does, so it isn’t treated the same. I think that is unfortunate, even if there are studies done as well as expressed experiences, especially within indigenous peoples (and you could argue that is part of the reason fewer studies are done on it.)
I’m not really here to debate whether fish exist because I know fish exist and I can drive to most lakes and find fish in them and I can go to a few museums and see fish remains and I can go to pet stores and find fish for sale and I can go to a grocery store and find fish to eat. Doing that same thing with people and their personal experiences is much harder since it’s more of a personal experience and not, you know, a visible phenomenon, and so it’s going to be harder to convince people a personal experience is real if it’s not their experience and especially if it’s not a common one.
Au contrare. I can go speak to otherkin right now. In fact, I’m in conversation with one about how the cartoon Generator Rex uses nanites as a parallel to the AIDS crisis. Otherkin quite clearly and obviously exist. I see otherkin much more often than I see fish.
Now, most people see fish more often, because most people are boring, but that’s no reason for disbelief. The point is that there’s little point proving something so non-controversial exists. Nobody cares. You won’t get a research grant for something so irrelevant.
Asking people to provide research studies for this kind of thing is absurd. The only reason all these studies on trans people exist is because the media politicises our existence. When you treat otherkin the same way, you’re politicising their existence too.
That’s a fair point. I suppose that does put onus on people to prove their existence and experience. I can see that as frustrating, and I didn’t intend on making that statement.
The issue at hand, however, is how the OP can determine that trans people even exist, and using the existence of studies is one that is easily acceptable to most people. If your argument is that there should be no need to prove identities so long as no one is harmed, then I believe you are arguing with the wrong person, since that same sentiment was already expressed in my original reply.
Taking your stance is fine to anyone that accepts that these identities harm no one, but that in itself is obviously in contention with too many people. I will argue the easier logic until that is fixed.
No. Otherkin are valid. The social construct of species isn’t.
Asexual reproduction. Sapiens-Neanderthal hybrids. Tree grafting. Speciation is nonsense with no basis in empirical observation. The only reason it’s become an accepted paradigm in the scientific community is that the convenience outweighs the inaccuracy in a lab context. It doesn’t when we’re talking about otherkin. When we’re talking about otherkin, the cost of continuing to believe in the made up nonsense that is species is too high.
That’s really interesting about lice. I’d be curious how you deal with society trying to protect or enhance specific groups they deemed disadvantaged still, do we eliminate them and remove these labels entirely making then moot?
What can someone self identify as though, can I self identify as a specific race, species, nationality, etc… where does one determine where to draw the line?
Clearly its going to be an issue that leads to some disagreement as it is open to ambiguity. If anything can self identify as anything would that be the middle path?
Obviously it has real implications in reality as well, like grants and shelters that go towards a specific demographics that are disproportionately disadvantaged. If people can self identify then it is obviously ripe for exploit, and how do we police that outside of the same witch hunts the anti-trans people are on, so how do we solve this one?
Short answer: By what the experts say, and they say transgender people should be treated as the gender they identify as. Period.
Long answer: A lot of PhDs did a fuckload of research over a century plus and showed that, yeah, gender is super fucking complicated and doesn’t map out to male/female based on your genitals at birth (let alone for the reason that, you know, maybe you might be born with a penis AND a vagina or ovaries AND testes or female chromosomes AND male genetalia, etc.), and if people get some simple gender affirmation, they live better and happier lives, and that applies to cisgender people, as well.
Easy answer: You can claim to be fucking anything you want. Who actually gives a shit? Let people be themselves if it don’t hurt anyone. What’s the problem with being a transgirl or a transboy? Why do we even have multiple bathrooms? That just seems to punish all sorts of people for no reason.
If you WANT to say transracial or transspecies or transnational is a thing, by all means do some research and prove it through studies and peer review. Until then, it is unlikely to be recognized the same way that transgender has because it has a lot of supporting evidence.
I want to play a game with you. You’re demanding evidence for something that some people have a lot of experience with, but most people don’t care to investigate. I wanna do the same thing.
I’ve decided that fish aren’t real. I want you to link a scientific journal article that says fish are real. Not one that presupposes the existence of fish in general, one that asks if fish actually exist and asserts an answer from evidence.
If you can’t prove fish are real, why should anyone have to prove otherkin are real?
Buuuuuuuut, if you really want scientific articles on otherkin…
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/murdoch.edu.au?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fjackal-city-empirical-phenomenological-study%2Fdocview%2F2956849512%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D12629
https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/qualit/article/view/8147
https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/252
https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2012.15.3.65
I think you misunderstood, but I’m not presupposing otherkin isn’t a thing. I am saying it doesn’t have the same type of intellectual backing as transgender experience does, so it isn’t treated the same. I think that is unfortunate, even if there are studies done as well as expressed experiences, especially within indigenous peoples (and you could argue that is part of the reason fewer studies are done on it.)
I’m not really here to debate whether fish exist because I know fish exist and I can drive to most lakes and find fish in them and I can go to a few museums and see fish remains and I can go to pet stores and find fish for sale and I can go to a grocery store and find fish to eat. Doing that same thing with people and their personal experiences is much harder since it’s more of a personal experience and not, you know, a visible phenomenon, and so it’s going to be harder to convince people a personal experience is real if it’s not their experience and especially if it’s not a common one.
Au contrare. I can go speak to otherkin right now. In fact, I’m in conversation with one about how the cartoon Generator Rex uses nanites as a parallel to the AIDS crisis. Otherkin quite clearly and obviously exist. I see otherkin much more often than I see fish.
Now, most people see fish more often, because most people are boring, but that’s no reason for disbelief. The point is that there’s little point proving something so non-controversial exists. Nobody cares. You won’t get a research grant for something so irrelevant.
Asking people to provide research studies for this kind of thing is absurd. The only reason all these studies on trans people exist is because the media politicises our existence. When you treat otherkin the same way, you’re politicising their existence too.
That’s a fair point. I suppose that does put onus on people to prove their existence and experience. I can see that as frustrating, and I didn’t intend on making that statement.
The issue at hand, however, is how the OP can determine that trans people even exist, and using the existence of studies is one that is easily acceptable to most people. If your argument is that there should be no need to prove identities so long as no one is harmed, then I believe you are arguing with the wrong person, since that same sentiment was already expressed in my original reply.
Taking your stance is fine to anyone that accepts that these identities harm no one, but that in itself is obviously in contention with too many people. I will argue the easier logic until that is fixed.
deleted by creator
No. Otherkin are valid. The social construct of species isn’t.
Asexual reproduction. Sapiens-Neanderthal hybrids. Tree grafting. Speciation is nonsense with no basis in empirical observation. The only reason it’s become an accepted paradigm in the scientific community is that the convenience outweighs the inaccuracy in a lab context. It doesn’t when we’re talking about otherkin. When we’re talking about otherkin, the cost of continuing to believe in the made up nonsense that is species is too high.
That’s really interesting about lice. I’d be curious how you deal with society trying to protect or enhance specific groups they deemed disadvantaged still, do we eliminate them and remove these labels entirely making then moot?