Debates over sex and gender

Laura Jones56 said:Would I see them as I wish to see them, or as they truly are? If it's the former, I suppose I might find some way to cling to the illusion. But if it's the latter, then I am merely a victim of his own fervor and pretension.
No, because it wouldn't be her anymore; it would just be him pretending to be her. No matter how feminine or delicate a man might act, he is still a man. Add to that the fact that he believes himself to be a woman, and well... that doesn't suddenly make him one. It just makes him such an anomaly that I wouldn't even want to know him, let alone pursue any kind of relationship.
Let's stop pretending that having certain preferences isn't perfectly normal. 😉
Well, I guess I don't really care much for being "understanding" in that regard. 🙂)

Look, let’s be clear here—we aren't talking about some kind of performance or an act; this is about fundamental gender identity and the actual person you've met and experienced firsthand. I just saw the video. To me, being a woman is fundamentally about one's biological identity.

I really tried to lay it out for you with an example—you know, just to show how someone can exist and interact with the world without their physical appearance defining them, where they just act naturally and communicate authentically instead of putting on some kind of act, but I guess you aren't actually interested in really grasping the point I'm making.

Quincy:

Deus ex machina Asks: I mean, honestly, what would I even have to become just to reach that level of understanding? 🙂)

Look, I know you probably couldn't care less about this, but I really want to see if you’re even capable of wrapping your head around the whole situation from a different angle, just to test the limits of how much you can actually grasp on a topic like this.

Sometimes I think that if we could just find a way to truly step into the shoes of The Second, or even try to see things through the eyes of a parent raising a transgender child—or even just imagine ourselves navigating those same struggles as parents ourselves—it might actually help us understand the situation a little better.

Whether you actually agree with transgender identities or not really doesn't matter; seeking out genuine understanding and making the effort to educate yourself—to truly learn the nuances of someone else's reality—is something that enriches your soul rather than diminishes it. I honestly believe that staying informed helps us grow as people, regardless of our personal stances on the matter. But if you consciously choose to lean into transphobia or nurture xenophobic narratives in the way you speak to others, then you aren't just being closed-minded, you're actively choosing to stay small.
For philosophy.

Justin Richardson7 said:It really is just a thought experiment—playing around with hollow possibilities.
In practical terms, such a scenario is impossible because this premise

1) assumes you met a woman online whom you found deeply attractive, specifically for her way of thinking

contradicts the very foundation of point

2) and she asks what would happen if she were a woman in a man's body.

This implies that one can be attracted to a woman—without having seen her, essentially detached from physical appearance (which presents its own set of complications)—based solely on her intellectual framework...

... while simultaneously assuming that her way of thinking is such that she can perceive herself as a woman inhabiting a male body.

That is where the logic collapses; the abstract assumption that her way of thinking alone could be the catalyst for attraction is flawed. If her mindset is truly structured in a way that allows for such identity confusion, that perspective won't be a mere isolated fragment; it will permeate everything about her. Consequently, the idea that I could be attracted to her through her intellect becomes moot. In reality, her worldview would manifest in every interaction, ensuring we remain fundamental strangers on almost every level, far from any kind of mutual spark.

Of course. That’s exactly why they identify as transgender, and they’re fully aware of that reality.

Quincy:

Justin Richardson7 Asks: At that specific crossroads where you’re just staring into this empty possibility—this purely abstract assumption that I might actually find myself drawn to her because of the way her mind works—it just doesn't hold water. Because honestly, if someone possesses a way of thinking that breeds that kind of fundamental confusion, it isn't just some isolated quirk or a random fragment of their personality that you can overlook; it’s something that will inevitably bleed through into everything they do. That realization completely kills any chance of me being attracted to her intellectual side. To put it bluntly, her logic would eventually manifest itself in every little thing she says or does, leaving us as total strangers on almost every single issue, let alone finding some kind of spark or "vibe" that connects us.

Look, this thought experiment—since it’s essentially just a mental exercise or a hypothetical scenario—is defined by its own specific set of rules, and I think we really need to stick to the parameters we've actually established rather than drifting into those extra points you're bringing up, because if we start factoring in things that weren't part of the initial setup, we aren't even talking about the same experiment anymore.

steelridge58 said:Look, let’s be clear here—we aren't talking about some kind of performance or an act; this is about fundamental gender identity and the actual person you've met and experienced firsthand. I just saw the video. To me, being a woman is fundamentally about one's biological identity.

I really tried to lay it out for you with an example—you know, just to show how someone can exist and interact with the world without their physical appearance defining them, where they just act naturally and communicate authentically instead of putting on some kind of act, but I guess you aren't actually interested in really grasping the point I'm making.

Quincy:

Deus ex machina Asks: I mean, honestly, what would I even have to become just to reach that level of understanding? 🙂)

Look, I know you probably couldn't care less about this, but I really want to see if you’re even capable of wrapping your head around the whole situation from a different angle, just to test the limits of how much you can actually grasp on a topic like this.

Sometimes I think that if we could just find a way to truly step into the shoes of The Second, or even try to see things through the eyes of a parent raising a transgender child—or even just imagine ourselves navigating those same struggles as parents ourselves—it might actually help us understand the situation a little better.

Whether you actually agree with transgender identities or not really doesn't matter; seeking out genuine understanding and making the effort to educate yourself—to truly learn the nuances of someone else's reality—is something that enriches your soul rather than diminishes it. I honestly believe that staying informed helps us grow as people, regardless of our personal stances on the matter. But if you consciously choose to lean into transphobia or nurture xenophobic narratives in the way you speak to others, then you aren't just being closed-minded, you're actively choosing to stay small.
For philosophy.

Of course. That’s exactly why they identify as transgender, and they’re fully aware of that reality.

Quincy:

Justin Richardson7 Asks: At that specific crossroads where you’re just staring into this empty possibility—this purely abstract assumption that I might actually find myself drawn to her because of the way her mind works—it just doesn't hold water. Because honestly, if someone possesses a way of thinking that breeds that kind of fundamental confusion, it isn't just some isolated quirk or a random fragment of their personality that you can overlook; it’s something that will inevitably bleed through into everything they do. That realization completely kills any chance of me being attracted to her intellectual side. To put it bluntly, her logic would eventually manifest itself in every little thing she says or does, leaving us as total strangers on almost every single issue, let alone finding some kind of spark or "vibe" that connects us.

Look, this thought experiment—since it’s essentially just a mental exercise or a hypothetical scenario—is defined by its own specific set of rules, and I think we really need to stick to the parameters we've actually established rather than drifting into those extra points you're bringing up, because if we start factoring in things that weren't part of the initial setup, we aren't even talking about the same experiment anymore.

Though, I guess most men aren't even particularly concerned with a woman's identity, even when she truly is a woman.😁

steelridge58 said:Look, let’s be clear here—we aren't talking about some kind of performance or an act; this is about fundamental gender identity and the actual person you've met and experienced firsthand. I just saw the video. To me, being a woman is fundamentally about one's biological identity.

I really tried to lay it out for you with an example—you know, just to show how someone can exist and interact with the world without their physical appearance defining them, where they just act naturally and communicate authentically instead of putting on some kind of act, but I guess you aren't actually interested in really grasping the point I'm making.

Quincy:

Deus ex machina Asks: I mean, honestly, what would I even have to become just to reach that level of understanding? 🙂)

Look, I know you probably couldn't care less about this, but I really want to see if you’re even capable of wrapping your head around the whole situation from a different angle, just to test the limits of how much you can actually grasp on a topic like this.

Sometimes I think that if we could just find a way to truly step into the shoes of The Second, or even try to see things through the eyes of a parent raising a transgender child—or even just imagine ourselves navigating those same struggles as parents ourselves—it might actually help us understand the situation a little better.

Whether you actually agree with transgender identities or not really doesn't matter; seeking out genuine understanding and making the effort to educate yourself—to truly learn the nuances of someone else's reality—is something that enriches your soul rather than diminishes it. I honestly believe that staying informed helps us grow as people, regardless of our personal stances on the matter. But if you consciously choose to lean into transphobia or nurture xenophobic narratives in the way you speak to others, then you aren't just being closed-minded, you're actively choosing to stay small.
For philosophy.

Of course. That’s exactly why they identify as transgender, and they’re fully aware of that reality.

Quincy:

Justin Richardson7 Asks: At that specific crossroads where you’re just staring into this empty possibility—this purely abstract assumption that I might actually find myself drawn to her because of the way her mind works—it just doesn't hold water. Because honestly, if someone possesses a way of thinking that breeds that kind of fundamental confusion, it isn't just some isolated quirk or a random fragment of their personality that you can overlook; it’s something that will inevitably bleed through into everything they do. That realization completely kills any chance of me being attracted to her intellectual side. To put it bluntly, her logic would eventually manifest itself in every little thing she says or does, leaving us as total strangers on almost every single issue, let alone finding some kind of spark or "vibe" that connects us.

Look, this thought experiment—since it’s essentially just a mental exercise or a hypothetical scenario—is defined by its own specific set of rules, and I think we really need to stick to the parameters we've actually established rather than drifting into those extra points you're bringing up, because if we start factoring in things that weren't part of the initial setup, we aren't even talking about the same experiment anymore.

However, I feel like the male perspective simply can't be placed inside that particular framework of yours, so it seems almost impossible to actually reference anything within it at all. 🤷

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Though, I guess most men aren't even particularly concerned with a woman's identity, even when she truly is a woman.😁

That might actually hold water—if men weren't human.

ruggedraven36 said:That might actually hold water—if men weren't human.

Actually, I think it’s quite the opposite! The real question, I suppose, is how much women were even considered human in the first place. I guess even Marin touched on this idea in one of his novels—mentioning people, women, and children as if they were separate categories altogether. Historically speaking, the very term "humanity" seemed to almost exclusively refer to men, don't you think?

steelridge58 said:Look, let’s be clear here—we aren't talking about some kind of performance or an act; this is about fundamental gender identity and the actual person you've met and experienced firsthand. I just saw the video. To me, being a woman is fundamentally about one's biological identity.

I really tried to lay it out for you with an example—you know, just to show how someone can exist and interact with the world without their physical appearance defining them, where they just act naturally and communicate authentically instead of putting on some kind of act, but I guess you aren't actually interested in really grasping the point I'm making.

Quincy:

Deus ex machina Asks: I mean, honestly, what would I even have to become just to reach that level of understanding? 🙂)

Look, I know you probably couldn't care less about this, but I really want to see if you’re even capable of wrapping your head around the whole situation from a different angle, just to test the limits of how much you can actually grasp on a topic like this.

Sometimes I think that if we could just find a way to truly step into the shoes of The Second, or even try to see things through the eyes of a parent raising a transgender child—or even just imagine ourselves navigating those same struggles as parents ourselves—it might actually help us understand the situation a little better.

Whether you actually agree with transgender identities or not really doesn't matter; seeking out genuine understanding and making the effort to educate yourself—to truly learn the nuances of someone else's reality—is something that enriches your soul rather than diminishes it. I honestly believe that staying informed helps us grow as people, regardless of our personal stances on the matter. But if you consciously choose to lean into transphobia or nurture xenophobic narratives in the way you speak to others, then you aren't just being closed-minded, you're actively choosing to stay small.
For philosophy.

Of course. That’s exactly why they identify as transgender, and they’re fully aware of that reality.

Quincy:

Justin Richardson7 Asks: At that specific crossroads where you’re just staring into this empty possibility—this purely abstract assumption that I might actually find myself drawn to her because of the way her mind works—it just doesn't hold water. Because honestly, if someone possesses a way of thinking that breeds that kind of fundamental confusion, it isn't just some isolated quirk or a random fragment of their personality that you can overlook; it’s something that will inevitably bleed through into everything they do. That realization completely kills any chance of me being attracted to her intellectual side. To put it bluntly, her logic would eventually manifest itself in every little thing she says or does, leaving us as total strangers on almost every single issue, let alone finding some kind of spark or "vibe" that connects us.

Look, this thought experiment—since it’s essentially just a mental exercise or a hypothetical scenario—is defined by its own specific set of rules, and I think we really need to stick to the parameters we've actually established rather than drifting into those extra points you're bringing up, because if we start factoring in things that weren't part of the initial setup, we aren't even talking about the same experiment anymore.

Those aren't "additions," they are observations regarding the inherent contradictions lying dormant—unresolved, essentially—within this supposed "thought experiment."
That is why I maintain that these are merely hollow possibilities; they are nothing more than intellectual games that lack any real commitment. For one person to truly resonate with another "in their way of thinking," there must be a shared foundational bedrock. To put it plainly, you cannot find someone appealing if their core values are diametrically opposed to your own, because a person’s mindset permeates everything they do; the concept of a "person" implies a certain integrity. Simply stated, I cannot consider someone a person if they hold one view on one matter and a completely contradictory view on another; their identity will inevitably bleed through in every situation. Therefore, it is impossible for me to be attracted to someone's intellect if they are so fundamentally confused that, despite having a male body, they identify as a woman. Such a person could never be attractive to me based on their way of thinking.

One can certainly imagine such a scenario, as you have done, but that is all it amounts to: pure imagination, which is little more than pseudo-philosophy. Real philosophy deals with the concrete, and thus my "additions" serve to develop these empty, imagined possibilities that possess no standing in reality.

Speaking of which,
this statement also lacks genuine philosophical substance.
Quincy:

I tried to illustrate the point by suggesting that physical appearance doesn't define who a person is.

but that leads to a conflation of terms between personhood and womanhood.

The fact is,
personhood isn't defined by physical looks, but womanhood is. And a man's identity is likewise tied to his physical form.
A person is one thing, and while a man can be a person, just as a woman can, when it comes to "attraction" in the sense you were asking about, I respond—as does the other participant, from what I can see—that it is essential that the being is alive, is a woman (meaning defined by her physical nature and birth), and is also a person (since integrity is a defining trait of personhood). So, regarding our topic, it is necessary for them to be both a person and a woman; both criteria are vital. If someone were looking for only a person, they would be, in my view, conceptually confused, which would lead to various complications in their romantic life. But that is beside the point of our discussion; it is enough to say that for erotic attraction to occur for me, both conditions must be met: they must be a woman for me to be attracted, and being "just a person" is insufficient.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Actually, I think it’s quite the opposite! The real question, I suppose, is how much women were even considered human in the first place. I guess even Marin touched on this idea in one of his novels—mentioning people, women, and children as if they were separate categories altogether. Historically speaking, the very term "humanity" seemed to almost exclusively refer to men, don't you think?

Debating whether women are people is a question only an idiot would waste time on. Marin obviously wasn't suggesting women aren't human beings. It's the same logic as an Index song like "One Man and One Woman"—it's not implying the woman isn't a person.

Quincy:

Justin Richardson7 As if I could have predicted this! It seems like someone else is chiming in with their thoughts on the matter. I suspect we might be running into a bit of a situation where our definitions are starting to clash, or perhaps I’m just overthinking things, but it feels like there’s some real confusion brewing regarding how we're using these terms! person It seems like you might have hit enter a little too early! I was just sitting here thinking that maybe there was some profound insight coming my way, but I guess I might be getting ahead of myself. If you were trying to share something, please do go ahead—I’m all ears and quite eager to see what you have to say! Woman..

Yeah, I suppose so!

I guess you could say that, in my view, women are the ones I'd actually want to spend my nights with, whereas everyone else is just... well, people. 😁

ruggedraven36 said:Debating whether women are people is a question only an idiot would waste time on. Marin obviously wasn't suggesting women aren't human beings. It's the same logic as an Index song like "One Man and One Woman"—it's not implying the woman isn't a person.

From a purely biological standpoint, women are definitely human beings, so I guess there really isn't any room for debate there at all.😁

Kenneth Cruz67 said:From a purely biological standpoint, women are definitely human beings, so I guess there really isn't any room for debate there at all.😁

Where’s the double standard? Since when did women stop being people?

Good God, what kind of nonsense are you spewing?

steelridge58 said:Look, let’s be clear here—we aren't talking about some kind of performance or an act; this is about fundamental gender identity and the actual person you've met and experienced firsthand. I just saw the video. To me, being a woman is fundamentally about one's biological identity.

I really tried to lay it out for you with an example—you know, just to show how someone can exist and interact with the world without their physical appearance defining them, where they just act naturally and communicate authentically instead of putting on some kind of act, but I guess you aren't actually interested in really grasping the point I'm making.

Quincy:

Deus ex machina Asks: I mean, honestly, what would I even have to become just to reach that level of understanding? 🙂)

Look, I know you probably couldn't care less about this, but I really want to see if you’re even capable of wrapping your head around the whole situation from a different angle, just to test the limits of how much you can actually grasp on a topic like this.

Sometimes I think that if we could just find a way to truly step into the shoes of The Second, or even try to see things through the eyes of a parent raising a transgender child—or even just imagine ourselves navigating those same struggles as parents ourselves—it might actually help us understand the situation a little better.

Whether you actually agree with transgender identities or not really doesn't matter; seeking out genuine understanding and making the effort to educate yourself—to truly learn the nuances of someone else's reality—is something that enriches your soul rather than diminishes it. I honestly believe that staying informed helps us grow as people, regardless of our personal stances on the matter. But if you consciously choose to lean into transphobia or nurture xenophobic narratives in the way you speak to others, then you aren't just being closed-minded, you're actively choosing to stay small.
For philosophy.

Of course. That’s exactly why they identify as transgender, and they’re fully aware of that reality.

Quincy:

Justin Richardson7 Asks: At that specific crossroads where you’re just staring into this empty possibility—this purely abstract assumption that I might actually find myself drawn to her because of the way her mind works—it just doesn't hold water. Because honestly, if someone possesses a way of thinking that breeds that kind of fundamental confusion, it isn't just some isolated quirk or a random fragment of their personality that you can overlook; it’s something that will inevitably bleed through into everything they do. That realization completely kills any chance of me being attracted to her intellectual side. To put it bluntly, her logic would eventually manifest itself in every little thing she says or does, leaving us as total strangers on almost every single issue, let alone finding some kind of spark or "vibe" that connects us.

Look, this thought experiment—since it’s essentially just a mental exercise or a hypothetical scenario—is defined by its own specific set of rules, and I think we really need to stick to the parameters we've actually established rather than drifting into those extra points you're bringing up, because if we start factoring in things that weren't part of the initial setup, we aren't even talking about the same experiment anymore.

Wait, we've understood each other so well, connected mentally to such a degree... yet if she hadn't "told" me she "identifies" as a woman while actually being a man in a male body, whatever... wouldn't that be a form of withholding truth and pretending? 🤣
Do you honestly believe a person isn't defined by their body?
It isn't that I lack interest in understanding; it's just that I don't see what there is to understand.
Just because something is distressing to them... what am I supposed to do? Am I expected to pretend to believe in something when I have absolutely no basis for believing it? I can feel sympathy, and I think that should be enough to remain decent (though how much does decency even matter when we are discussing philosophy and social constructs?) from my perspective.
Instead, imagine you spend days listening to a puppy whimpering in a nearby thicket. Its cries are so heartbreakingly sad that they win you over. You assume it's lonely and needs a home and food. You head out into the woods, only to find a 260lb man crawling on all fours, wiggling around and rubbing against you. Would you still adopt that "sweet little puppy" and toss him a bone?

ruggedraven36 said:Where’s the double standard? Since when did women stop being people?

Good God, what kind of nonsense are you spewing?

If we look at it from a linguistic perspective, the term "humanity" was historically used primarily to refer to men 🤷

Kenneth Cruz67 said:If we look at it from a linguistic perspective, the term "humanity" was historically used primarily to refer to men 🤷

Dead wrong. The word "man" has always been synonymous with the species—period. If you’re the type of person who gets tripped up trying to argue whether women are actually people just because the word "man" is being used to describe the whole group, then you're just proving how little sense you make.

ruggedraven36 said:Dead wrong. The word "man" has always been synonymous with the species—period. If you’re the type of person who gets tripped up trying to argue whether women are actually people just because the word "man" is being used to describe the whole group, then you're just proving how little sense you make.

I was honestly just trying to meet you at your level of conversation, I guess. It all started when I mentioned how men don't typically dwell on other people's identities, which seemed to trigger you to start trolling, so I decided to just play along with the game. Now, if you truly believe I'm being a fool, then maybe you have to conclude that you're being an even bigger one; after all, not only are you engaging with a fool—which is silly enough in itself—but you were actually the one who kicked off all this nonsense. And now you seem genuinely shocked, lashing out with insults, and I really hope there's an appropriate moderation action taken here. Both for the trolling and the personal attacks 🤷

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I was honestly just trying to meet you at your level of conversation, I guess. It all started when I mentioned how men don't typically dwell on other people's identities, which seemed to trigger you to start trolling, so I decided to just play along with the game. Now, if you truly believe I'm being a fool, then maybe you have to conclude that you're being an even bigger one; after all, not only are you engaging with a fool—which is silly enough in itself—but you were actually the one who kicked off all this nonsense. And now you seem genuinely shocked, lashing out with insults, and I really hope there's an appropriate moderation action taken here. Both for the trolling and the personal attacks 🤷

The "trolling" thing? Purely in your head. You clearly missed the basic philosophy lesson here—if you actually understood that a man is a human being first, you’d realize he actually *does* give a damn about identity.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Look, obviously I get that a man is also just a person. Do you really think I’m that dense?

Yeah. Based on your earlier posts, that was my only logical takeaway. Too bad plenty of people don't catch that.

Quincy:

And sure, he cares about someone else's identity—just not within the scope of the Wolverine experiment.

You wrote: "But men generally don't care about a woman's identity even when she actually is a woman." If you meant "generally," then we aren't just talking about the Wolverine experiment. If I misread you, that's on me.

Quincy:

I think you know exactly what I meant and you're just being provocative. It's insulting.

No, you've got it wrong. I didn't grasp what you "meant" at all, and I wasn't trying to provoke you.

My bad if it came off as an insult.

ruggedraven36 said:Yeah. Based on your earlier posts, that was my only logical takeaway. Too bad plenty of people don't catch that.

Quincy:

And sure, he cares about someone else's identity—just not within the scope of the Wolverine experiment.

You wrote: "But men generally don't care about a woman's identity even when she actually is a woman." If you meant "generally," then we aren't just talking about the Wolverine experiment. If I misread you, that's on me.

Quincy:

I think you know exactly what I meant and you're just being provocative. It's insulting.

No, you've got it wrong. I didn't grasp what you "meant" at all, and I wasn't trying to provoke you.

My bad if it came off as an insult.

Generally speaking, I was referring to the framework established by Volver. Otherwise, the situation would be quite specific. I'll admit, I might have overcomplicated things unnecessarily. I guess I'm the one at fault here 👍

My apologies for the insult.

NP 👍

I don't hold the insult against you, really. It’s more just the delivery that bothered me. When discussing philosophy, I'd certainly expect a bit more subtlety than just calling someone an idiot 😁

steelridge58 said:Look, let’s be clear here—we aren't talking about some kind of performance or an act; this is about fundamental gender identity and the actual person you've met and experienced firsthand. I just saw the video. To me, being a woman is fundamentally about one's biological identity.

I really tried to lay it out for you with an example—you know, just to show how someone can exist and interact with the world without their physical appearance defining them, where they just act naturally and communicate authentically instead of putting on some kind of act, but I guess you aren't actually interested in really grasping the point I'm making.

Quincy:

Deus ex machina Asks: I mean, honestly, what would I even have to become just to reach that level of understanding? 🙂)

Look, I know you probably couldn't care less about this, but I really want to see if you’re even capable of wrapping your head around the whole situation from a different angle, just to test the limits of how much you can actually grasp on a topic like this.

Sometimes I think that if we could just find a way to truly step into the shoes of The Second, or even try to see things through the eyes of a parent raising a transgender child—or even just imagine ourselves navigating those same struggles as parents ourselves—it might actually help us understand the situation a little better.

Whether you actually agree with transgender identities or not really doesn't matter; seeking out genuine understanding and making the effort to educate yourself—to truly learn the nuances of someone else's reality—is something that enriches your soul rather than diminishes it. I honestly believe that staying informed helps us grow as people, regardless of our personal stances on the matter. But if you consciously choose to lean into transphobia or nurture xenophobic narratives in the way you speak to others, then you aren't just being closed-minded, you're actively choosing to stay small.
For philosophy.

Of course. That’s exactly why they identify as transgender, and they’re fully aware of that reality.

Quincy:

Justin Richardson7 Asks: At that specific crossroads where you’re just staring into this empty possibility—this purely abstract assumption that I might actually find myself drawn to her because of the way her mind works—it just doesn't hold water. Because honestly, if someone possesses a way of thinking that breeds that kind of fundamental confusion, it isn't just some isolated quirk or a random fragment of their personality that you can overlook; it’s something that will inevitably bleed through into everything they do. That realization completely kills any chance of me being attracted to her intellectual side. To put it bluntly, her logic would eventually manifest itself in every little thing she says or does, leaving us as total strangers on almost every single issue, let alone finding some kind of spark or "vibe" that connects us.

Look, this thought experiment—since it’s essentially just a mental exercise or a hypothetical scenario—is defined by its own specific set of rules, and I think we really need to stick to the parameters we've actually established rather than drifting into those extra points you're bringing up, because if we start factoring in things that weren't part of the initial setup, we aren't even talking about the same experiment anymore.

That is a incredibly tricky distinction, Volver.
If he hasn't actually seen the person he's talking to, how did he experience them as a woman?
Is it based on their "softness, gentleness, or kindness," etc.—those universal human virtues that, for some reason, are subconsciously tethered to biological females? 🤔

By doubling down on gender ideology, you actually end up reinforcing biological sex even further. I can only hope one of these social experimenters realizes that, or perhaps one of the influential figures backing them might...
It would be far more intelligent and prudent to return to Jungian psychology on this matter—discussing the so-called inner feminine, the Animus, or the inner masculine, the Animus, or perhaps even introducing Yin and Yang concepts that aren't strictly tied to biological sex...

Western politics and the general political direction of the West is profoundly foolish and destructive.

Regarding that, and your experiment reminded me of this, I recalled a time back in the early days of the internet in America, when I met someone in a chat room who I really connected with—even though his nickname was male and my mental image of him was 😎
He was the sensitive, intelligent Yin, and I was the wild Yang (by modern terminology, does that mean he was a woman and I was a man? ... even though neither of us were biologically either 🙂 ).
Then, he got angry with me. He refused to talk to me anymore and would leave whenever I showed up. But to him, I was nothing more than my username (and whatever preconceived notion lived in his head). It turned out all I had to do was change my name to continue talking to this interesting being. First, I switched to another female name, but I didn't find real success until I returned as a male.

Isn't it tragic that in order to reach his soul, I had to "become" a man within a male body...?

There is a film by B. Streisand on this theme, and a novel by Erika Jong, but what I find puzzling is that the women in those stories—who disguise themselves as men for various reasons—still remain in love, as women, with the men who perceive them as men! That is the element that fails for me; it just isn't believable....

Sandra Murphy33 said:That is a incredibly tricky distinction, Volver.
If he hasn't actually seen the person he's talking to, how did he experience them as a woman?
Is it based on their "softness, gentleness, or kindness," etc.—those universal human virtues that, for some reason, are subconsciously tethered to biological females? 🤔

By doubling down on gender ideology, you actually end up reinforcing biological sex even further. I can only hope one of these social experimenters realizes that, or perhaps one of the influential figures backing them might...
It would be far more intelligent and prudent to return to Jungian psychology on this matter—discussing the so-called inner feminine, the Animus, or the inner masculine, the Animus, or perhaps even introducing Yin and Yang concepts that aren't strictly tied to biological sex...

Western politics and the general political direction of the West is profoundly foolish and destructive.

Regarding that, and your experiment reminded me of this, I recalled a time back in the early days of the internet in America, when I met someone in a chat room who I really connected with—even though his nickname was male and my mental image of him was 😎
He was the sensitive, intelligent Yin, and I was the wild Yang (by modern terminology, does that mean he was a woman and I was a man? ... even though neither of us were biologically either 🙂 ).
Then, he got angry with me. He refused to talk to me anymore and would leave whenever I showed up. But to him, I was nothing more than my username (and whatever preconceived notion lived in his head). It turned out all I had to do was change my name to continue talking to this interesting being. First, I switched to another female name, but I didn't find real success until I returned as a male.

Isn't it tragic that in order to reach his soul, I had to "become" a man within a male body...?

There is a film by B. Streisand on this theme, and a novel by Erika Jong, but what I find puzzling is that the women in those stories—who disguise themselves as men for various reasons—still remain in love, as women, with the men who perceive them as men! That is the element that fails for me; it just isn't believable....

Doesn't that feel a little bit creepy and, I don't know, maybe even a bit stalkerish? 😁

The women in those stories where they disguise themselves as men for various reasons still end up staying in love, as women, with the men who see them as men! That part always feels like a major flaw to me; it just doesn't seem believable at all....

Ahm, I guess the thing is, just because someone is pretending, masking, or identifying as a man, it doesn't suddenly make them one. I'm not quite sure what's unbelievable about that, really. 🤔

Laura Jones56 said:Wait, we've understood each other so well, connected mentally to such a degree... yet if she hadn't "told" me she "identifies" as a woman while actually being a man in a male body, whatever... wouldn't that be a form of withholding truth and pretending? 🤣
Do you honestly believe a person isn't defined by their body?
It isn't that I lack interest in understanding; it's just that I don't see what there is to understand.
Just because something is distressing to them... what am I supposed to do? Am I expected to pretend to believe in something when I have absolutely no basis for believing it? I can feel sympathy, and I think that should be enough to remain decent (though how much does decency even matter when we are discussing philosophy and social constructs?) from my perspective.
Instead, imagine you spend days listening to a puppy whimpering in a nearby thicket. Its cries are so heartbreakingly sad that they win you over. You assume it's lonely and needs a home and food. You head out into the woods, only to find a 260lb man crawling on all fours, wiggling around and rubbing against you. Would you still adopt that "sweet little puppy" and toss him a bone?

I don't think they need pity at all, because honestly, expressing pity can actually end up stripping a person of their dignity, which makes it far from being "human enough"—in fact, it's pretty damaging.

Would you actually want someone to look down on you with pity? As the saying goes, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Compassion or empathy is a completely different animal; those things require an actual connection, some kind of interaction or dialogue, or at least some level of engagement with the other person.

Just imagine you're spending days listening to a puppy whimpering in a nearby thicket, and his cries are just so heartbreakingly sad that you find yourself totally won over by them. You assume he’s lonely and desperately needs a home and some food, so you head out into the woods, only to find this massive 260-pound guy crawling around on all fours, wiggling and grooving his way toward you. Would you really take that "cute puppy" home and throw him a bone?

Please don't trivialize the topic with these kinds of awkward comparisons unless you want me to yell—Deussex, watch out!!