The News Thread

If there was any distinction in the eighteenth century, it was in language only. People acting animalistic were accused of being mentally ill. Blacks, on the other hand, were believed to be animalistic and their behavior was perceived as such. Put another way, mental illness was their baseline state; but it wasn't thought of as mental illness since it was believed they didn't possess for full-capacity human cognition.

There's no functional difference, only a discursive one.
 
Sure, but that's not the difference we're (or I'm) talking about.

There was no psychological science being done in the 18th century. Complaining that it was "leaky" 100+ years before the field began to take shape, much less become mature, is a non sequitur as far as I am concerned. Studies show that transgendered persons report higher levels of depression and suicidality than the general population, and surgery/HRT does not have an effect in reducing these levels. Allowing an already at-risk population into an occupational field which is an additional risk factor for depression and suicidality is irresponsible and unethical both in regards to transgenders and potential coworkers - over and above concerns regarding specific trans-issues.

None of this is in any way functionally comparable to racism or discussions of mental "inadequacy" (to use a useless blanket term) in the 18th century. Obviously if one plays around with words enough, anything can be compared with anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nate Skalman
In the process of attempting to right wrongs, liberals believing their being socially conscious end up categorizing and labeling people and groups just as bad as the racists do. I make points on why the military has a more stringent criteria...and I get labeled a "bigot" and as saying "transgenders don't matter" despite the fact I've written nothing verbally derogatory. Just stating that the military is probably the wrong place to test these theories. I live in probably the highest concentration of transsexual/transgenders in the nation, I have 2 "female" friends who pass as males and honestly they're more open and humorous about it than you'd think. They're people just like anyone else- it's liberals standing behind them almost pushing them into a fight and using the trans community for their own cause
 
Last edited:
Lol my friend JJ does these performance nights at a trans club "Embers"...dresses like Bruno Mars and does karaoke skits. Me and my wife always get invited, have drinks and have a blast!
 
It isn't racist to point out similarities between transgender issues and race issues. It would be ignorant to say that transgender individuals suffer the same depredation that blacks did in the eighteenth century, that's true; but it isn't at all racist or a stretch to point out that perceptions of racial psychology/cognition in the eighteenth century still permeate cultural rhetoric and understanding today. If there's overlap between transgender and race, it has nothing to do with being an accurate comparison between sexual/gender and race. It's simply a result of the messy and leaky psychological parameters that have been deployed in the past.

Well, I think it is pretty racist. Something doesn't become not racist because you don't want it to be, especially so just because the intersection of oppression is a fundamental political position of yours.
 
If you wouldn't say it in front of black people, it probably shouldn't be brought up. I thought this kind of stuff is why people are protesting...?
 
:erk:

So you've only pretended to read Foucault's History of Madness? Insanity has been around for centuries, even if we don't approve of its practitioners' methods.

I have to entirely adopt its perspective and the various baggage which informs Foucault's creative license on display in the book to have read it?

So what insanity has always been around? That's an irrelevant factoid.
 
I was just trolling, was in the middle of watching Venus in Furs.

More seriously, I'm not exactly of the belief that transracialism is a thing.

What is transracialism to you, and would you deny its practitioners the same right to serve that is denied to transgender people?

There's an important distinction between mental illness and mental retardation. Blacks were accused of the latter, transpersons self report the former outside of trans-issues at an elevated rate.

What's your point? Are you saying the mentally retarded are allowed/should be allowed to serve?

There was no psychological science being done in the 18th century. Complaining that it was "leaky" 100+ years before the field began to take shape, much less become mature, is a non sequitur as far as I am concerned. Studies show that transgendered persons report higher levels of depression and suicidality than the general population, and surgery/HRT does not have an effect in reducing these levels. Allowing an already at-risk population into an occupational field which is an additional risk factor for depression and suicidality is irresponsible and unethical both in regards to transgenders and potential coworkers - over and above concerns regarding specific trans-issues.

None of this is in any way functionally comparable to racism or discussions of mental "inadequacy" (to use a useless blanket term) in the 18th century. Obviously if one plays around with words enough, anything can be compared with anything.

In European nations, trans people generally report much lower rates of mental illness, in some indistinguishable from non-trans people iirc.
 
What is transracialism to you, and would you deny its practitioners the same right to serve that is denied to transgender people?

To the latter, no I would only deny people who cannot meet the standards for entry. However, if their inclusion comes with a huge cost to the taxpayer, I might consider caveats to their entry alongside the standard to entry.

To the former, Rachel Dolezal.
 
surgery/HRT does not have an effect in reducing these levels.

Does it bring them to the level of the general population? No. Does it reduce the levels relative to trans people (note there is supposed to be a space there,) absolutely.

And as I've said before - when society at large views you as disgusting and treats you as such - violently and with hate, you're going to be an at risk population. The fault lies with society not giving trans people a place.
 
To the latter, no I would only deny people who cannot meet the standards for entry. However, if their inclusion comes with a huge cost to the taxpayer, I might consider caveats to their entry alongside the standard to entry.

To the former, Rachel Dolezal.

OK, but that seems to be a different argument from the one you were making earlier.

Don't be mentally retarded.

u first brah
 
OK, but that seems to be a different argument from the one you were making earlier.

Is it? The standards thing has always been my position on this.

Does it bring them to the level of the general population? No. Does it reduce the levels relative to trans people (note there is supposed to be a space there,) absolutely.

And as I've said before - when society at large views you as disgusting and treats you as such - violently and with hate, you're going to be an at risk population. The fault lies with society not giving trans people a place.

People aren't given a place, you carve out your own place.
I support the trans "community" trying to carve out their own space, as well as their integration into society at large. I'm not sure that there is even any proof that these are the reasons they deal with the mental health issues they deal with.