]More notes from recent thoughts on this subject, see my early article for more thoughts, and more may follow in the future.]
You may identify as whatever you wish, this doesn't mean you
scientifically are the case, with gender fluid and other variables this
identity choice is even more illogical from a factual point of view,
however, tolerating such identities isn't a problem. What is a problem
is confusion over what gender it at the culture level, and how this
social understanding is not compatible with the scientific definition of
gender. Knowing that radically different points relate to differing
areas of thought and study create different results, the pseudoscience
of many social justice activists are massively biased to the fundamental
views of culture imposing gender identity, which they take as gender in
totality, whereas, the less left voices focus on the scientific view
only, such as chromosomes. The fact is there are chromosomal and
chemical imbalance reasons for gender characteristics meaning the
general conservative view is in error, not that social identity is
enough to argue that gender doesn't exist and/or is an imposed cultural
The nuanced answer has more to say than SJW claims and the (often) right-wing rhetoric.
Sunday, 25 September 2016
Friday, 23 September 2016
I am a self-critical freethinker, I doubt myself and our world, our culture and the swaying branches of humanity. What I do not do is claim this makes me superior, nor indeed should anyone think because they try to be critical and seek after truth with a rational outlook that they are. We are open to new ideas and willing to accept change. We are not made greater or super human by this, we need not beg the ego. It seems that any New Agers or self-made neo-pagan may talk in terms that we find somewhat familiar, they sketch in the reason into their faith, they use terms such as 'rational' and 'logical' from time to time. The whole vale of this is to pose the idea that a belief held to be true via faith is true and should be accepted as rational because it is argued with some fair tact and serious sounding language. If this is so then the green grosser of word salad is master above academic and doubter alike. This is not so. To say you have science because you have one study is in error, to ignore data that doesn't fit your beliefs is more than a fools blunder, and to claim that you are open minded as you preach is a joke of epic proportions.
The simple truth is that I am very open minded, and this is because I care what's true. I am very concerned that to a great many people to be 'open minded' is to be a blind devotee. It is considered perfectly normal in everyday society to not see the differences between questioning and showing aggression towards an idea, the pondering person may be unsure or have better data. And, all too often, the question falls on deaf ears and it is seen as being closed minded. This is considered normal with many people, if you ask a hard question to those who are insistent that they are open minded then what chance do you have in expressing another opinion. It seems that the devout have the open minds while we who have no set belief, nothing set in stone, we are the closed minded, the negative Nancy or doubting Thomas.
So, what might we find if we follow this train of thought, where may these tracks lead us if we consider the open minded one is the devout one? It could lead far beyond the moderate beliefs that are common in the spiritual movement. If we turn the spiritual gurus logic back upon him will we find the most open minded people join ISIS or knock door to door giving out the Watch Tower magazine? At any guess, I doubt the logic that the believing psychic or healers are open to honest discussion, and much of my attempt pan this out. What can be said is that in comparison, as far as beliefs and intellectual freedom, the average spiritual person is far more liberated than an extremist. Although this is not the factor in question.
We need to ask simply what is meant by having 'an open mind', to be 'open minded' is said to be open to the truth by many, open to the argument by others, yet others say accepting. And people wonder why a famous quote says we should have an open mind, but not so open out brain falls out of our head. Too many spiritual people acceptance is the fundamental point, so maybe they risk losing their minds.
What is true to you may vary, the facts do matter, not that the big picture is always clear, and we should accept facts and sound theories while being flexible enough to accept new data. In my opinion, being open minded is more than being swayed by any argument that you consider to be comforting. Perhaps that's why new age and relating ideas do so well, you get a great deal for every little effort, and people to enjoy a bargain. If I am told of a thing that is said to be true and I trust the person telling me and I like the idea you can imagine how easy it would be to accept it. Much like alternative medicine, an accepting person gets results because they take onboard the idea, and the reality need not exist as long as the psychological benefits yield fruit. This is the road of self-deception, it seems good and kind of works, thus I take to it as if glued to the belief and hold it as practically or literally holy. The illusion that comes for free is that what you trust in is correct and no accept this is open-minded.
No, Edgar Cayce did not predict much of note, unless you use the same tricks as the fans of Nostradamus. If you make things fit from a prediction or a few words that may be predictive you are not finding where it fits, you're making it fit.
It is the same reasoning that creates movements like the Christian-scientists, creation-science, koranic-science, etc. You take what you believe and make it fit reality, BUT it is not reality that fits your beliefs. You build the illusion, bridge gaps, endow the system with the ability to not be totally disproven. Religion and spirituality are similar to science in one way, it adapts based on undeniable facts. The fundamental difference is science changes to learn from reality and spirituality changes just enough to allow itself to continue without being a totally refuted collection of poorly thought out opinions.
Predictions are commonly based on the idea of a number of changes, good or bad, give that a century or many more years and you'll have many hits. Some say Cayce predicted the end of communism, he did, but he claims ALL systems will fall with a rising of a spiritual age of enlightenment, so no cigar for Edgar. He predicted an alliance between the west and the USSR around the beginning of WW2, just like many analysts did, so no cigar again! He predicted a united world and renewed spirituality, so much for that. Oh, and he said dumb shit about energy, reality, the past, highers beings, and he was wrong. Best of all, well in my view, he claimed Atlantis would be discovered, so once again no cigar.
I don't know he was a conman but that isn't important to the issue that concerns me, the fact that he and many other heroes of modern new agers were nothing but mystics with as much or little to offer as the local priest.
Thursday, 22 September 2016
Socially, there are more than two genders, however, genetically there are two gender types, yet there are variations such as XYY syndrome. So Socially you can identify differently or act differently, at a social level you can use a label/identity/role as a persona, however, the fact do not change. I don't think there is a movement to say that 'chromosomes change', or anything of this kind, a rare few will have chromosomal conditions that are non-binary, the previously noted XYY condition is a common example. Other conditions that may be a factor vary, such as stable chemical differences, thus a lower amount of gender specific chemicals being produced by the body.
And, regardless of all of this, there are those who are non-trans and do not have gender dysphoria as much as general identity issues, so confusion or preference allows some to confuse identity issues with gender identity issues. As a result, we have people claiming trans and fluid gender types based on personal mental-emotional issues while they're young and being exposed to new ideas in university. It's a bit like students who get politicised, in fact, it is the same in many ways and politically social issues are pushed forward by those who fail to define what is social and what is scientifically true.
There are those who don't trust science and will reject it for social ideological views, they, when they appear, are the troubling phenomenon that is growing out of social justice politics. And, they are the true core of the trouble with social issue activists.
My video on this subject: