• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trans Women are not Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
Any philosophy that doesn't acknowledge at least the possibility of a situation where it's impossible to "please" (maybe not the most perfect term, but close) everybody is flawed on a deep level.

Sometimes we have opposing wants/needs/desires that can't reach a reasonable compromise. It sucks but sometimes it does happen.

That's why "Well just do what makes people happy" while useful, is not complete.
 
theprestige said:
Agreed with all of this, 100%!

However.

Time and energy are still limited quantities. There's still only so many hours in a day. There's still only so much you can accomplish before you cannot even anymore, and need a nap.

BDSM play, for example. I don't want a robot that perfectly simulates a human enjoying a power exchange. I want to know there's another human on the other end of that exchange, who's having a real human experience, and who comes away from the encounter with a real human appreciation for what we did together.

Sure, your techparadise will make it easier for us to find each other and spend time with each other. But there's still a finite number of us, and a finite number of hours in the day, and a finite number of calories in our bodies. A really top-notch dom or sub is going to be in high demand. You can't just run around to all their customers (clients? friends? fellow enthusiasts? what do you call it when access to a person is a scarce commodity?) and tell them to stop desiring specialty sex play. Some sort of sermon about how all their needs are met, so if they are still unhappy about not finding a good BDSM partner that's their fault.

In your grim dark future, there is only mere meeting of needs, and kink-shaming. Lots of kink-shaming.
Click to expand...

You seem hung up on considering interaction with other people as a commodity. It's not. People interact or don't. There is no need to fight for access to other people's attention. Is materialism so ingrained that you can't conceive of anything being good if it's not an exploitable resource of limited availability?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Exactly the opposite. If technology reaches a point where our material needs are met we will be less like machines than we currently act. I don't work eight hours a day because I want to, I work because I have to. If I could afford not to work I'd spend that time doing things I'd enjoy doing instead. How on earth would that be more machine-like?
Click to expand...

When you put it that way, it's not very machine-like at all.

But saying you'd do stuff you enjoy is just another way of saying you'd do stuff you desire. And just previously you were saying that desire was a problem. So this seems contradictory. If the point of your tech-paradise is to enable people to pursue their desires, great. I'm just saying that there will always be a market for fulfilling human desires, and that market will always be a scarcity market. Your solution to that seems to be to condemn human desire, which appears to contradict what you're saying now.

My solution is to embrace that market for human desire, and get all up in it, and discover all kinds of new currencies of exchange, now that all our needs are met and mere money is no longer a thing.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Any philosophy that doesn't acknowledge at least the possibility of a situation where it's impossible to "please" (maybe not the most perfect term, but close) everybody is flawed on a deep level.

Sometimes we have opposing wants/needs/desires that can't reach a reasonable compromise. It sucks but sometimes it does happen.

That's why "Well just do what makes people happy" while useful, is not complete.
Click to expand...

Three bathrooms seems a reasonable compromise to me. One for uptight women, one for uptight men, and one for people who don't give a **** except for a literal one which is the point of a bathroom to begin with.

The benefit of that compromise is it doesn't require anybody to rule on anybody else's bodily nature.
 
TragicMonkey said:
You seem hung up on considering interaction with other people as a commodity. It's not. People interact or don't. There is no need to fight for access to other people's attention. Is materialism so ingrained that you can't conceive of anything being good if it's not an exploitable resource of limited availability?
Click to expand...

That's over simplifying things.

"Commodity" might not be the exact right word, and it's probably too loaded a term even if it is, but... well yeah to a degree.

When we're talking social interactions, the things from which all of our morality, laws, standards, etc work within the context of, the only thing worth discussing is interaction as a commodity from a certain point of view.

If two people aren't interacting what are we even discussing? A hypothetical trans person in one sealed off room and a hypothetical cis person in another sealed off room?
 
theprestige said:
When you put it that way, it's not very machine-like at all.

But saying you'd do stuff you enjoy is just another way of saying you'd do stuff you desire. And just previously you were saying that desire was a problem. So this seems contradictory. If the point of your tech-paradise is to enable people to pursue their desires, great. I'm just saying that there will always be a market for fulfilling human desires, and that market will always be a scarcity market. Your solution to that seems to be to condemn human desire, which appears to contradict what you're saying now.

My solution is to embrace that market for human desire, and get all up in it, and discover all kinds of new currencies of exchange, now that all our needs are met and mere money is no longer a thing.
Click to expand...

I said desire is the root of suffering, not that desire is therefore inherently bad or wrong. You just have to control it if you want to be happy. And what you desire is as important as the degree to which you desire it. My desire to enjoy a good time with friends is hardly as problematic as JoJo Siwa's desire to pour asbestos into the faces of every girl under the age of twelve.
 
TragicMonkey said:
You seem hung up on considering interaction with other people as a commodity. It's not. People interact or don't. There is no need to fight for access to other people's attention. Is materialism so ingrained that you can't conceive of anything being good if it's not an exploitable resource of limited availability?
Click to expand...

Human interaction is absolutely a commodity. And people fight for other people's attention all the time. Look at the news and entertainment industry. Newspapers compete with social media compete with video games compete with streaming porn compete with TV shows compete with dinner as a family. Etc. I can't go to my best friend's wedding because I have to go to my dad's funeral that same day. My bridge club will have to settle for Joe Bowl as a fourth, because this week that's the only time I could get in to see the amazing hairdresser I've been waitlisted for all summer.

Even something as pure and simple and constant as sunshine is both an exploitable resource (well, really it's the sun-facing land that's the resource) and of limited availability.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Three bathrooms seems a reasonable compromise to me. One for uptight women, one for uptight men, and one for people who don't give a **** except for a literal one which is the point of a bathroom to begin with.

The benefit of that compromise is it doesn't require anybody to rule on anybody else's bodily nature.
Click to expand...

The detriment of that compromise is that it doesn't actually serve the people who are asking to be grouped with the "uptight women". You know - the people this thread is actually talking about.
 
theprestige said:
Human interaction is absolutely a commodity. And people fight for other people's attention all the time. Look at the news and entertainment industry. Newspapers compete with social media compete with video games compete with streaming porn compete with TV shows compete with dinner as a family. Etc. I can't go to my best friend's wedding because I have to go to my dad's funeral that same day. My bridge club will have to settle for Joe Bowl as a fourth, because this week that's the only time I could get in to see the amazing hairdresser I've been waitlisted for all summer.

Even something as pure and simple and constant as sunshine is both an exploitable resource (well, really it's the sun-facing land that's the resource) and of limited availability.
Click to expand...

We can dismiss the example of the media as they want your attention to sell you things so they can meet their own needs. As for the rest it appears to be scheduling conflicts. You would refuse to enter paradise because someone might book two events simultaneously, forcing you to choose between them?

Yes, I can see that. It's the year 20000. Hovering above the pristine oceans of terraformed Mars in our immortal nanotech-infused perfect bodies, it arises in conversation that James Randi will be giving a magic show at the same time Mary Berry unveils a new form of cake. Everyone else picks one to attend. You commit suicide from frustrated desire to attend both.
 
theprestige said:
The detriment of that compromise is that it doesn't actually serve the people who are asking to be grouped with the "uptight women". You know - the people this thread is actually talking about.
Click to expand...

The more urgent need (which outranks desire) is a place to use the bathroom that won't get people violently attacked.
 
Also your solution can't be "new third category" when the ENTIRE LITERAL DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING is that some people want to belong to one of the two categories without modifier.

If "Okay you're in the group with this modifier" or "You're in this subgroup" was an acceptable answer we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
TragicMonkey said:
We can dismiss the example of the media as they want your attention to sell you things so they can meet their own needs. As for the rest it appears to be scheduling conflicts. You would refuse to enter paradise because someone might book two events simultaneously, forcing you to choose between them?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't refuse to enter paradise. I'd just point out that it isn't actually paradise. And that human interaction is still scarce, and still an exploitable commodity.

Yes, I can see that. It's the year 20000. Hovering above the pristine oceans of terraformed Mars in our immortal nanotech-infused perfect bodies, it arises in conversation that James Randi will be giving a magic show at the same time Mary Berry unveils a new form of cake. Everyone else picks one to attend. You commit suicide from frustrated desire to attend both.
Click to expand...
Now you're just being mean for no reason.

---

My basic point is this: In a world where all needs are met by machines, having a need met by an actual human will be a scarce and exploitable commodity. There will be humans who want it. There will be humans willing to provide it. There will be a market for such services.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
The more urgent need (which outranks desire) is a place to use the bathroom that won't get people violently attacked.
Click to expand...

Except that it's not been established that this happens to any statistically-significant degree. How many trans people get attacked in restrooms? So far I've been told that all we have is anecdotal.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Also your solution can't be "new third category" when the ENTIRE LITERAL DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING is that some people want to belong to one of the two categories without modifier.

If "Okay you're in the group with this modifier" or "You're in this subgroup" was an acceptable answer we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

"People who don't care" isn't a "third category". It's a behavior. It doesn't hinge on bodily states but personal action; or more precisely personal inaction. The "don't care" bathroom is for those who mind their own business and won't cause a fuss over anybody else using that bathroom.
 
Belz... said:
Except that it's not been established that this happens to any statistically-significant degree. How many trans people get attacked in restrooms? So far I've been told that all we have is anecdotal.
Click to expand...

The paranoia of the uptight requires this concession as part of the compromise.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The more urgent need (which outranks desire) is a place to use the bathroom that won't get people violently attacked.
Click to expand...

If the need outranks the desire, then the simplest solution is to tell transwomen to set aside their desire, butch up, and pass as men so they can use the existing men's bathroom.

Or perhaps tell the violent bathroom attackers to set aside their desires and just be nice people instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom