Traditional Values, Gender, and Socialism

RedSun wrote:Because no society which is willing to undermine the most fundamental aspects of its citizens' identity is going to last very long at all. It will come apart at the seams.

Would it not be undermining the citizen's identity to force them to behave contrary to their nature? How would something pretty rare unravel society?

Red Aegis wrote:Would it not be undermining the citizen's identity to force them to behave contrary to their nature?

The continuing growth of such subcultures, apparently out of nothing, indicates to me that not everyone was, so to speak, "born that way."

How would something pretty rare unravel society?

I see it becoming increasingly common.

This has gone a ways away from National Bolshevism. Perhaps a topic split might be in order?

Admin wrote:You are aware that sex (being biological) and gender (being cultural) are not identical concepts, are you not?

Only since very recently. 1955 I believe it was introduced to mean something different, before that gender was only used in languages.

Make a new topic with your argument in full please. It'll be fun.

Red Aegis wrote:Please define these self-concepts so that I may address this.

I think these self-concepts could be defined as an irrational view on reality. As it is obvious transsexuals do not fit the National-concepts applied by its society, but rather their own view on reality. There are many examples; For one there are those adults that like to act, dress, and to be treated like babies. I personally find these self-concepts quite disturbing and are not to be welcomed in my future society...

Random789654 wrote:I think these self-concepts could be defined as an irrational view on reality. As it is obvious transsexuals do not fit the National-concepts applied by its society, but rather their own view on reality. There are many examples; For one there are those adults that like to act, dress, and to be treated like babies. I personally find these self-concepts quite disturbing and are not to be welcomed in my future society...

Even if they appear "irrational" prima facie, that doesn't somehow provide us with an ethical basis for criticism. Yes, males who feel they are female are probably suffering from an unfortunate psychological defect, but it doesn't logically follow that they should be condemned to having to dress and behave in a manner which they find alienating for their entire life as a result. Like yourself, I find adults with bizarre sexual fetishes, such as dressing as infants, repugnant; but I also find chewing tobacco repugnant. We can't ban everything we should happen to dislike solely for that reason. Transsexuals may be off-putting to large segments of the population, but their behavior is relatively benign, i.e., it mainly affects only themselves and those who choose to be involved in their lives. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no pressing need to legislate against transsexual lifestyles, or what have you.

Random789654 wrote:I think these self-concepts could be defined as an irrational view on reality. As it is obvious transsexuals do not fit the National-concepts applied by its society, but rather their own view on reality. There are many examples; For one there are those adults that like to act, dress, and to be treated like babies. I personally find these self-concepts quite disturbing and are not to be welcomed in my future society...

People with depression have a skewed view on reality characterized by an intense apathy for things that they once loved, despair, even suicidal ideations without reason. There is something different in their brains, but that does not make them wrong or 'worse' than normal people's experiences and thoughts. They are only different. They may feel better about things if they could magically get rid of their depression but that does not make them 'deviant individuals' in any moral sense of the term. Both they and trans-sexuals have different self-concepts about themselves that should be accepted at face value.

Appeals to "national-concepts" seems to imply that there is some foreign idea that all within a nation are supposed to adhere to. I do not agree. National-concepts are the collective will of the people deciphered through democratic methods. This does not exclude culture, though I do not think that culture should be legislated, because culture itself is made up of the collective opinions and trends of whichever group that one can think of. When people of a sub-culture are accepted by enough of the population, the culture changes due to this democratic process. I do not believe that holding fast to rigid traditions is possible in a world that should maximize democracy in all it's forms.

Celtiberian wrote:Even if they appear "irrational" prima facie, that doesn't somehow provide us with an ethical basis for criticism. Yes, males who feel they are female are probably suffering from an unfortunate psychological defect, but it doesn't logically follow that they should be condemned to having to dress and behave in a manner which they find alienating for their entire life as a result. Like yourself, I find adults with bizarre sexual fetishes, such as dressing as infants, repugnant; but I also find chewing tobacco repugnant. We can't ban everything we should happen to dislike solely for that reason. Transsexuals may be off-putting to large segments of the population, but their behavior is relatively benign, i.e., it mainly affects only themselves and those who choose to be involved in their lives. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no pressing need to legislate against transsexual lifestyles, or what have you.

I don't understand. You admit it is probably a psychological defect, but you would let a sub-culture grow in your own nation because it is harsh to pressure them to fit the normal culture that already exist? I find that offensive, seeing as I wouldn't be able to perserve my own culture (Basically what nationalism is) due to some mentally ill peoples. It would be like telling a mentally depressed person to stay depressed because pressuring them to be happy is wrong. The only conclusion from your idea could be a mess of different cultures fighting to maintain dominance, simply because it is too mean to encourage people to be people.

Also chewing tobacco is on a different level from transexuals, It comes from a whole different source. I don't think I can take that argument as viable.

Red Aegis wrote:Appeals to "national-concepts" seems to imply that there is some foreign idea that all within a nation are supposed to adhere to. I do not agree. National-concepts are the collective will of the people deciphered through democratic methods. This does not exclude culture, though I do not think that culture should be legislated, because culture itself is made up of the collective opinions and trends of whichever group that one can think of. When people of a sub-culture are accepted by enough of the population, the culture changes due to this democratic process. I do not believe that holding fast to rigid traditions is possible in a world that should maximize democracy in all it's forms.

Shouldn't the people also be able to decide which cultures are not allowed in their society, after all it is the collective opinions of the people who decide this. The branch swing both ways on this case.

Random789654 wrote:you would let a sub-culture grow in your own nation because it is harsh to pressure them to fit the normal culture that already exist? I find that offensive, seeing as I wouldn't be able to perserve my own culture (Basically what nationalism is) due to some mentally ill peoples.

Excuse me, but in what way does a statistically insignificant percentage of the population dressing as the opposite sex—so as to live a life in accordance with the way they feel—threaten our culture, exactly? And you're absolutely correct in that I do find it unjustifiable to pass laws mandating that transsexuals wear clothing appropriate to their biological sex. It's pointless, psychologically harmful to the individuals affected, and would waste valuable resources in pursuit of enforcing the law.

It would be like telling a mentally depressed person to stay depressed because pressuring them to be happy is wrong.

Forcing a depressed person to get well would also be unwarranted, in my opinion. It's their decision how they choose to live their life. (I honestly don't understand why some people are such busybodies.)

The only conclusion from your idea could be a mess of different cultures fighting to maintain dominance, simply because it is too mean to encourage people to be people.

What a non sequitur.. First of all, transsexuals are people—the only abnormal quality they possess pertains to their sexual identity. Secondly, in what way would endorsing an ethic of 'live and let live' (provided no socially destructive externalities are generated) inevitably lead to a cultural bellum omnium contra omnes?

Also chewing tobacco is on a different level from transexuals, It comes from a whole different source. I don't think I can take that argument as viable.

The point I was attempting to convey is that our dislikes are arbitrary. Transsexuals anger certain individuals but not others, just as chewing tobacco does. Who's to say which should be legislated against? Unless some undeniably harmful externality can be logically presented, there's simply no ethical basis (utilitarian or otherwise) to substantiate your desire to eliminate the transsexual lifestyle.

I have a friend who became transexual (male to female) he had a brother (a Christian) who refused to have anything to do with him again, when he informed me just prior to the operation my answer was he was a friend before and he would still be a friend after. That was almost seventeen years ago, and she's still a friend.

Celtiberian wrote:Excuse me, but in what way does a statistically insignificant percentage of the population dressing as the opposite sex—so as to live a life in accordance with the way they feel—threaten our culture, exactly? And you're absolutely correct in that I do find it unjustifiable to pass laws mandating that transsexuals wear clothing appropriate to their biological sex. It's pointless, psychologically harmful to the individuals affected, and would waste valuable resources in pursuit of enforcing the law.

This does not come down to a statistical percentages about how many people cross-dress, What it comes down to is the fact that I don't want my people exposed to this. Laws do not have to be made to enforce this; Maybe encouragement away from being a transsexual would work just as well...
I don't see how you could label something psychologically harmful to the psychologically harmed, would it really make matters worse???

Forcing a depressed person to get well would also be unwarranted, in my opinion. It's their decision how they choose to live their life. (I honestly don't understand why some people are such busybodies.)

Maybe people are such busybodies because they actually care about the people in their society. I also like how you changed the attitude from Encouraging to Forcing

What a non sequitur.. First of all, transsexuals are people—the only abnormal quality they possess pertains to their sexual identity. Secondly, in what way would endorsing an ethic of 'live and let live' (provided no socially destructive externalities are generated) inevitably lead to a cultural bellum omnium contra omnes?

Transsexuals are a socially destructive externality as they go from Human to Degenerate or Less Human. I would like things to be kept as they were meant to be.

The point I was attempting to convey is that our dislikes are arbitrary. Transsexuals anger certain individuals but not others, just as chewing tobacco does. Who's to say which should be legislated against? Unless some undeniably harmful externality can be logically presented, there's simply no ethical basis (utilitarian or otherwise) to substantiate your desire to eliminate the transsexual lifestyle.

As a member of my community I am to say what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed; Just like any other member of my community. To not be ethical that must make the contrary ethical. Having your body mutilated to feel better emotionally is not very ethical is it? So what is the ethical reason for allowing this lifestyle?

Random789654 wrote:This does not come down to a statistical percentages about how many people cross-dress, What it comes down to is the fact that I don't want my people exposed to this. Laws do not have to be made to enforce this; Maybe encouragement away from being a transsexual would work just as well...
I don't see how you could label something psychologically harmful to the psychologically harmed, would it really make matters worse???

You do not possess a monopoly on the determination of cultural mores. No individual or group does and none should. Simply because you find the practice repugnant does not render it unacceptable. Who are "your" people? Not everybody within your perceived in-group shares your beliefs.

Maybe people are such busybodies because they actually care about the people in their society.

To what extent should other individuals be allowed to interfere with our lives? Your attitude is antithetical to a democratic society, which I suspect you are opposed to in any case. I find most reality shows absolutely disgusting, but this does not translate into a willingness to legally prohibit such material. A society that concerns itself with the private lives of individuals is a repressive society.

Transsexuals are a socially destructive externality as they go from Human to Degenerate or Less Human.

Completely baseless assertion. I disagree that they are a "socially destructive externality," and venturing that they are less than human is empty moralism verging on fanaticism.

I would like things to be kept as they were meant to be.

And how exactly were "things" meant to be, pray tell? Avoid committing the naturalistic fallacy in your response.

As a member of my community I am to say what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed; Just like any other member of my community. To not be ethical that must make the contrary ethical. Having your body mutilated to feel better emotionally is not very ethical is it? So what is the ethical reason for allowing this lifestyle?

If a person willingly decides to undergo surgery because they believe it will improve their psychological welfare, on what basis do you argue that it is unethical to do so? Emotional comfort is no less important than physical comfort. Unless it can be proven that a serious negative externality results from the mere existence of transsexuals, society has no ethical reason to prevent such individuals from pursuing what they believe is in their self-interest.

Random789654 wrote:What it comes down to is the fact that I don't want my people exposed to this.

For what reason? Are you worried that mere exposure to transsexuals is enough to turn otherwise normal people into transsexuals themselves? I think that even you'll admit that's absurd.

Maybe encouragement away from being a transsexual would work just as well...

"Encouragement" is not going to be sufficient enough to alter the psychological state of someone who is a transsexual. It's likely that transsexualism is an immutable phenomenon. Don't you think that the social stigma which already exists in society against the abnormal makes many of these people wish they didn't identify with the opposite sex?

I don't see how you could label something psychologically harmful to the psychologically harmed, would it really make matters worse???

I never claimed that transsexualism is "psychologically harmful," I said it was abnormal. The behavior itself is completely benign, in my view. Consequently, it's unethical to force these individuals to live a life contrary to how they feel.

Maybe people are such busybodies because they actually care about the people in their society. I also like how you changed the attitude from Encouraging to Forcing

Caring about one's community is perfectly understandable and even admirable. Busybodies, however, aren't so much interested in helping people as they are in enforcing their personal sense of mortality onto other people's private affairs. It's unnecessary and annoying.

Transsexuals are a socially destructive externality as they go from Human to Degenerate or Less Human.

I don't think you understand what an externality is. An externality is a social consequence which arises from individual interactions.

I would like things to be kept as they were meant to be.

Neither you nor I are in a position to unilaterally declare how things were "meant to be." Transsexuals were probably born with a profound sense of gender confusion, so in behaving like the opposite sex, they are merely conforming with their own nature.

As a member of my community I am to say what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed; Just like any other member of my community.

Certainly. But minority groups should have rights too, which is precisely why a constitution is necessary in any civilized society.

Having your body mutilated to feel better emotionally is not very ethical is it? So what is the ethical reason for allowing this lifestyle?

Those of us who pierce our ears or get tattoos are technically "mutilating" our bodies, parents who circumcise their male infants are also involved in an act of mutilation, but society doesn't legislate against it because there's no compelling reason to do so. It's unethical to legislate against transsexual lifestyles because there's likewise no societal imperative to do so. The reason for allowing people to live this lifestyle is because it's relatively harmless and enables them to lead a psychologically fulfilling existence.

Celtiberian wrote:For what reason? Are you worried that mere exposure to transsexuals is enough to turn otherwise normal people into transsexuals themselves? I think that even you'll admit that's absurd.

No I don't, I just wouldn't want transsexuals around my kids and I. I find them disgusting and wrong and don't want that around anybody.

"Encouragement" is not going to be sufficient enough to alter the psychological state of someone who is a transsexual. It's likely that transsexualism is an immutable phenomenon. Don't you think that the social stigma which already exists in society against the abnormal makes many of these people wish they didn't identify with the opposite sex?

Again should we allow mentally deficient people create a culture based on their own personal reality? And right now the social stigma is "Tolerance & Diversity" so I think transsexuality could actually be growing currently. I see an open mind to it more than I ever have before.

I never claimed that transsexualism is "psychologically harmful," I said it was abnormal. The behavior itself is completely benign, in my view. Consequently, it's unethical to force these individuals to live a life contrary to how they feel.

You said forcing transsexuals to be normal would be "psychologically harmful".

Neither you nor I are in a position to unilaterally declare how things were "meant to be." Transsexuals were probably born with a profound sense of gender confusion, so in behaving like the opposite sex, they are merely conforming with their own nature.

Then how is there a basic understanding between us of what is normal and what is not. We both agree that transsexuality is abnormal therefore we declare partially what normality is.

Certainly. But minority groups should have rights too, which is precisely why a constitution is necessary in any civilized society.

To a degree they should have rights, but they could also have there own right according to their own state.

Those of us who pierce our ears or get tattoos are technically "mutilating" our bodies, parents who circumcise their male infants are also involved in an act of mutilation, but society doesn't legislate against it because there's no compelling reason to do so. It's unethical to legislate against transsexual lifestyles because there's likewise no societal imperative to do so. The reason for allowing people to live this lifestyle is because it's relatively harmless and enables them to lead a psychologically fulfilling existence.

I think you're missing my point, I don't want some legislation banning transsexuals. I want almost a superhuman "nature" encouraged among my people making them stronger to make the right decisions. And If I cannot impose my opinion on people because you find that too harsh to do; Then there might as well be no reason for anybody to have an opinion. We should just accept anything that crosses our path because it would be morally unjust to recommend to them another outlet for their mental situation. We should just let America keep going down the path it's going into social degeneration, all because we don't want to impede on others. This is my interpretation of your ideology; and it might actually keep us going down this slippery slope.

If this is not your ideology tell me how you plan to fix social degeneration, if you even think it is a problem that is.

Random789654 wrote:No I don't, I just wouldn't want transsexuals around my kids and I. I find them disgusting and wrong and don't want that around anybody.

You currently have the freedom to associate or disassociate with whomever you please in your private life. You also have the freedom to express your views regarding why you find certain groups of people "disgusting." No one is suggesting that you should be deprived of these rights.

Again should we allow mentally deficient people create a culture based on their own personal reality?

Insofar as it doesn't harm themselves or society, yes. If I was born with a psychological defect which led to me thinking that I was the reincarnation of Zhou Enlai, but despite this delusion I was capable of leading a relatively normal existence, no entity should be permitted to force me to take medication or require me to claim I wasn't Zhou Enlai in a previous life.

And right now the social stigma is "Tolerance & Diversity" so I think transsexuality could actually be growing currently. I see an open mind to it more than I ever have before.

It's not "growing." There may be more people who feel comfortable partaking in the transsexual lifestyle now than in previous generations, due to the gradual increase of tolerance in society, but it's hardly spreading in the sense you mean.

You said forcing transsexuals to be normal would be "psychologically harmful".

Indeed, to the transsexuals being coerced into it.

Then how is there a basic understanding between us of what is normal and what is not. We both agree that transsexuality is abnormal therefore we declare partially what normality is.

Whatever society deems "normal" doesn't render that judgement absolute. Our sense of normality is shaped by material forces, our cultural mores, and so forth. In other words, normality is subjective.

To a degree they should have rights, but they could also have there own right according to their own state.

The establishment of independent nations is certainly practical for ethnocultural minorities, but it would be illogical to require individuals with atypical sexual preferences or identities to form into national units. The reason being, such preferences and identities are specific to those individuals; they aren't intergenerational.

I don't want some legislation banning transsexuals.

Okay, I'm glad we cleared that up.

I want almost a superhuman "nature" encouraged among my people making them stronger to make the right decisions.

And what would this entail, exactly?

And If I cannot impose my opinion on people because you find that too harsh to do; Then there might as well be no reason for anybody to have an opinion.

Nonsense. Opinions are fine, but if you're demanding government action for a specific purpose, your opinion had better have a firm logical or empirical reason for requesting said action. Thus far, you've not presented a compelling reason as to why you believe that transsexualism is something which should concern us in any significant way.

If this is not your ideology tell me how you plan to fix social degeneration, if you even think it is a problem that is.

Many social pathologies currently afflicting the nation will be alleviated with the implementation of a socialist mode of production. Socially destructive subcultures, e.g., inner city ghetto culture, will be addressed by a combination of providing important opportunities to those people and ruthlessly cracking down on the violence perpetrated by followers of those subcultures. But, again, unless a specific behavior or lifestyle can be proven to harm either the individual involved or society in a significant way, I see no reason to consider it something worthy of addressing.

Celtiberian wrote:You currently have the freedom to associate or disassociate with whomever you please in your private life. You also have the freedom to express your views regarding why you find certain groups of people "disgusting." No one is suggesting that you should be deprived of these rights.

But I do not have that right in my community as a whole. Although I do think my community as a whole should be able to decide on whether or not to allow certain types of people into the mix. Would this idea still be "harsh" in your opinion or not.

Insofar as it doesn't harm themselves or society, yes. If I was born with a psychological defect which led to me thinking that I was the reincarnation of Zhou Enlai, but despite this delusion I was capable of leading a relatively normal existence, no entity should be permitted to force me to take medication or require me to claim I wasn't Zhou Enlai in a previous life.

But the whole idea is built off a false pretense, Even though it may not hurt anybody I would rather not stray from reality. In an age where people don't know where they're from or where they're going it could only hurt there sense of reality.

It's not "growing." There may be more people who feel comfortable partaking in the transsexual lifestyle now than in previous generations, due to the gradual increase of tolerance in society, but it's hardly spreading in the sense you mean.

Wouldn't the gradual increase of acceptance of a personal-reality allow others to join in without the sense of guilt or misplacement. I would expect this to give more options to people, increasing there tendency to be a transsexual.

Whatever society deems "normal" doesn't render that judgement absolute. Our sense of normality is shaped by material forces, our cultural mores, and so forth. In other words, normality is subjective.

And if a culture's "normal" does not fit the "normal" of another should they really intertwine, So much as mixing the transsexual cultures amongst mine.

The establishment of independent nations is certainly practical for ethnocultural minorities, but it would be illogical to require individuals with atypical sexual preferences or identities to form into national units. The reason being, such preferences and identities are specific to those individuals; they aren't intergenerational.

It does not have to be specifically for them, It could just be a state willing to accept them.

And what would this entail, exactly?

I think it would entail myself encouraging a cultural well-being amongst my fellow citizens.

Many social pathologies currently afflicting the nation will be alleviated with the implementation of a socialist mode of production. Socially destructive subcultures, e.g., inner city ghetto culture, will be addressed by a combination of providing important opportunities to those people and ruthlessly cracking down on the violence perpetrated by followers of those subcultures. But, again, unless a specific behavior or lifestyle can be proven to harm either the individual involved or society in a significant way, I see no reason to consider it something worthy of addressing.

I disagree that simply fixing our economy would just magically get rid of transsexuals, There is no proof pointing to materialism making people want to mutilate there genitals. There is absolutely a social reason for why these people do what they do. You cannot say these people act the way they do because they think they are treated badly by the capitalistic mode of production. If that were to be true almost every socially deficient being would be a socialism supporter. Since this is not the case it's just not practical. This is my main reason for not liking marxism. It's all based around materialism and not around a national well-being in a social way.

Random789654 wrote:But I do not have that right in my community as a whole.

Because you don't represent your community as a whole.

Although I do think my community as a whole should be able to decide on whether or not to allow certain types of people into the mix. Would this idea still be "harsh" in your opinion or not.

Yes, I would, because it would be an indefensible violation of our personal liberties. As I've stressed throughout our exchange, unless a legitimate social malady can be attributed to the mere presence of transsexuals, I don't believe there is an ethical basis for taking collective action against them.

But the whole idea is built off a false pretense, Even though it may not hurt anybody I would rather not stray from reality.

Would you pursue this line of reasoning to religious individuals as well? After all, they lead their lives around rules which they believe deities established, and yet there exists no evidence which could conclusively justify belief in a god. I don't think you would, because it's unreasonable to force people to only espouse the views which we happen to consider realistic. Moreover, whatever faiths they practice are ultimately of no concern to us. Likewise, whether some person wears clothing fashioned for the opposite sex or uses their money to undergo sex reassignment surgery is their own business; it only affects us to the extent we allow it to. I suggest not getting so bothered by what people do in their personal lives, so long as it doesn't involve you in some capacity.

Wouldn't the gradual increase of acceptance of a personal-reality allow others to join in without the sense of guilt or misplacement. I would expect this to give more options to people, increasing there tendency to be a transsexual.

Correct, but what I was arguing was that the percentage of individuals who feel the impulse toward transsexualism itself hasn't somehow increased. The social climate having become more accepting of alternative lifestyles has undoubtedly had the effect of more people 'coming out of the closet.'

And if a culture's "normal" does not fit the "normal" of another should they really intertwine, So much as mixing the transsexual cultures amongst mine.

Transsexualism is a lifestyle, not a entire "culture." That lifestyle, once again, in no way threatens our cultural integrity.

It does not have to be specifically for them, It could just be a state willing to accept them.

We have no right to tell law abiding citizens that dressing in a certain way or identifying with the opposite sex condemns them to having to move to a foreign country.

I disagree that simply fixing our economy would just magically get rid of transsexuals, There is no proof pointing to materialism making people want to mutilate there genitals.

I never suggested anything of the sort. I claimed that altering our mode of production will alleviate many of the social pathologies currently observed in society. I don't consider transsexualism to be a social pathology; I've maintained that I consider it to be a benign lifestyle.

Frankly, I don't think you understand Marxism or materialism well enough to make an informed decision on the merits (or lack thereof) of the theories. Don't disregard them just because you miscomprehended what I wrote, study them further.

Random, you seem to be under the impression that being trans-sexual is a choice and that accepting it as a legitimate lifestyle is the cause for more trans-sexuals to arise. This is not the case. All the 'new' trans-sexuals were merely trans-sexuals in hiding. They could not safely voice themselves before and are finally able to do so. What you are seeing now is closer to what the actual numbers are of trans-sexuals in society. Their numbers are not growing, but the number of them coming out of hiding is.

Being a Pole, I believe there must be space for traditional values within workers state, trying to kill a tradition is basically killing the people, as tradition is important part of ones identity as a person... its what Hitler had planned for many of conquered states.

Thus I consider those who want to completely eliminate tradition as Hitlerites, or as many people like to call them today... Nazis.

But I must say I firmly support secularization ( I am not an atheist, I'm proud roman catholic, not very religious though)

WodzuUK wrote:Being a Pole, I believe there must be space for traditional values within workers state, trying to kill a tradition is basically killing the people, as tradition is important part of ones identity as a person... its what Hitler had planned for many of conquered states.

Thus I consider those who want to completely eliminate tradition as Hitlerites, or as many people like to call them today... Nazis.

But I must say I firmly support secularization ( I am not an atheist, I'm proud roman catholic, not very religious though)

I applaud your support of a secular state and fully agree with that proposal.

As for killing traditions, no-one is talking about actively forcing anyone to stop traditions that harm no-one. All that I was saying at least was that traditions are democratic in nature and are propagated when people are convinced to follow them.

As for your description of social activists against traditions, it could be argued that the tradition of slavery was argued against and was successfully (mostly) destroyed. Would you consider those tradition killers to be Nazis?

The word Nazi has a specific meaning. It's not just an insult to throw around.

With Best Intentions,
Red Aegis

Celtiberian wrote:Yes, I would, because it would be an indefensible violation of our personal liberties. As I've stressed throughout our exchange, unless a legitimate social malady can be attributed to the mere presence of transsexuals, I don't believe there is an ethical basis for taking collective action against them.

I assume you are nationalist as you belong to this site. I don't want transsexual here for the same reasons I wouldn't want other cultures here. Transsexualism is an insult to my lifestyle, the straight lifestyle.

Would you pursue this line of reasoning to religious individuals as well? After all, they lead their lives around rules which they believe deities established, and yet there exists no evidence which could conclusively justify belief in a god. I don't think you would, because it's unreasonable to force people to only espouse the views which we happen to consider realistic. Moreover, whatever faiths they practice are ultimately of no concern to us. Likewise, whether some person wears clothing fashioned for the opposite sex or uses their money to undergo sex reassignment surgery is their own business; it only affects us to the extent we allow it to. I suggest not getting so bothered by what people do in their personal lives, so long as it doesn't involve you in some capacity.

I really don't want to respond to this because it might start a theist v. atheist debate. I'll just say I don't agree with you.

We have no right to tell law abiding citizens that dressing in a certain way or identifying with the opposite sex condemns them to having to move to a foreign country.

Where does your separation of rights stand? It is okay to send other cultures to a foreign country, but not okay to send transsexuals off too; Which can be considered a culture in themselves.

I never suggested anything of the sort. I claimed that altering our mode of production will alleviate many of the social pathologies currently observed in society. I don't consider transsexualism to be a social pathology; I've maintained that I consider it to be a benign lifestyle.

When I asked what you would do to fix social degeneration such as transsexualism I got this...

Many social pathologies currently afflicting the nation will be alleviated with the implementation of a socialist mode of production.

So you did suggest such things.

Red Aegis wrote:Random, you seem to be under the impression that being trans-sexual is a choice and that accepting it as a legitimate lifestyle is the cause for more trans-sexuals to arise. This is not the case. All the 'new' trans-sexuals were merely trans-sexuals in hiding. They could not safely voice themselves before and are finally able to do so. What you are seeing now is closer to what the actual numbers are of trans-sexuals in society. Their numbers are not growing, but the number of them coming out of hiding is.

Can you prove it is not a choice?

Random789654 wrote:Can you prove it is not a choice?

Here's a personal testimony: http://genderblogs.com/being-transgender-is-not-a-choice/

http://www.gendercentre.org.au/46article4.htm

Analysis of scientific findings with sources cited:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/transsexu3.htm

Random789654 wrote:I don't want transsexual here for the same reasons I wouldn't want other cultures here. Transsexualism is an insult to my lifestyle, the straight lifestyle.

And smoking is an insult to my lifestyle, the non-smoking lifestyle. How do I respond? By not smoking or being around those who do so. That is how mature people react to lifestyles they happen to find disagreeable. I suggest that if transsexuals bother you, don't associate with them in your personal life; don't even look at them as they walk down the street.

I really don't want to respond to this because it might start a theist v. atheist debate. I'll just say I don't agree with you.

Very well.

Where does your separation of rights stand? It is okay to send other cultures to a foreign country, but not okay to send transsexuals off too; Which can be considered a culture in themselves.

I don't agree with mandatory repatriation. I believe the national question will be solved by a plurality of methods, e.g., voluntary repatriation, the establishment of autonomous territories, secession, national personal autonomy, etc.

And no, transsexualism isn't a culture unto itself, it's even debatable as to whether it's a subculture. Transsexuals possess no unique cultural attributes, they merely model their appearance and behavior off of the opposite sex.

When I asked what you would do to fix social degeneration such as transsexualism I got this...

Wrong. You didn't explicitly include transsexualism in your question, which is why I didn't address it. Once again, I don't consider transsexualism to be a social pathology; it is a benign lifestyle.

Can you prove it is not a choice?

Can you prove that it is?