How studying Eastern and Western philosophy and geography can lead to better, more meaningful, and more highly constructive debates. Coherency is king, baby!
Hey Dave, just wanted to thank you for all the articles you’ve written. I’ve been on a journey for the past year to get challenge my own beliefs and get closer to the ground truth. You’ve helped a lot with that journey.
Fantastic article Dave. I’ve been subconsciously forming many of these views however they were only half-baked. You’ve sped up my learning and I am truly grateful. My main problem (and perhaps the most fundamental) is recalling this when I need it the most eg when I’m triggered by reading comments, when a person talks to me rudely etc. Mindfulness is big time important but soooo hard (I’m audhd and not medicated).
Also, considering I consume alot of content from you and likeminded others, when I interact with typical humans in the real world it can be a bit of a shocker as I’m sure you can imagine hahaha
Great read. I took huge value from the Chinese cultural points. Really enjoyed this one.
My example argument before internalizing your principles.
<point>
I think we've lost a step with Transsexuality. There is a line that is best drawn, or the first fork in the road, with deviations from the dominant population distribution. Anorexia and other "dysmorphic" conditions/disorders/syndromes endanger the sufferer, necessitating treatment. Homosexual orientations put personal reproduction at risk, without existential danger or physical destruction. Transsexual orientations inherit homosexuality's reproductive disadvantage and appear to share Anorexia's delusional/destructive characteristics, causing physical mutilation or the compulsive desire for physical mutilation.
If Transsexuality is akin to Anorexia, then shouldn't we declare that this condition requires treatment to stop the condition/syndrome/disorder? Isn't it "over-the-line", based on physical and emotional health? Are we not desperate for a treatment, but in having none to offer, we are resorting to over-conceptualizing convenient abstractions and rationalizations?
I've seen the first decision point, a fork to the left or to the right, flip in our society recently. The decision was overrun with political force. Now we're downstream from a political decision. I recommend that we back up and handle this tough question in the proper order, starting at the beginning. Get political influence out of it and be scientific.
</point>
Criticism welcome about where this deviates from the principles you list.
Your comparison between transgender identity and anorexia, while seemingly logical on the surface, misses some crucial distinctions. Anorexia nervosa is characterized by a fundamental misperception of reality - someone who is dangerously underweight seeing themselves as overweight. The distress and harm come directly from this misalignment between perception and reality.
In contrast, transgender individuals typically have a very accurate understanding of their biological characteristics. Their experience isn't about denying physical reality, but rather about a deep, persistent incongruence between their internal sense of self and their physical characteristics. This experience has been documented across cultures and throughout history, suggesting it's a natural variation in human experience rather than a pathology.
More importantly though, I need to address your focus on reproduction and "deviations from the dominant population distribution." This framework, even if well-intentioned, echoes concerning historical patterns. When society starts making decisions about who should reproduce or what constitutes an acceptable "deviation," we're treading dangerously close to eugenics. History has shown us, particularly through events like forced sterilization programs and the horrific actions of Nazi Germany, where this kind of thinking can lead.
The scientific approach you advocate for is valuable, but it's crucial to recognize that current scientific evidence supports gender-affirming care as beneficial for many individuals. The decision to pursue such care is deeply personal and should be made between an individual and their healthcare providers, not dictated by societal pressures or government policy.
You're absolutely right that we need to carefully consider these issues and base our approach on evidence. However, the evidence we have suggests that accepting and supporting transgender individuals leads to better outcomes than attempting to "treat" their identity as a disorder. The distress many transgender people experience often comes not from their identity itself, but from societal rejection and lack of access to appropriate care.
Rather than focusing on whether transgender identity is "over the line," perhaps we should ask: How can we ensure all individuals have access to the healthcare they need while protecting their autonomy and dignity? This approach aligns better with both scientific evidence and ethical principles of human rights and individual liberty.
It's wrong to pathologize someone who is born a certain way and not harming anyone. To do so runs contrary to our bedrock principles of individual liberty.
Was your reply Claude assisted, as you indicated? If so, I presume that you "loaded" your submission into your Claude session and instructed it to present cogent counterpoints while adhering to your points. Yes/no?
If not, I don't want to start a debate (haha). Thanks for the big reply!
Yes, I figured you were replying in good faith and rather than do the mental labor, I just told Claude what I wanted to say and it shaped the response.
Hey Dave, just wanted to thank you for all the articles you’ve written. I’ve been on a journey for the past year to get challenge my own beliefs and get closer to the ground truth. You’ve helped a lot with that journey.
what has helped the most?
0. Your intellectual honesty. That is the first thing I look for in anyone before I seriously consider their ideas.
1. You write about about ideas, concepts and frameworks I don’t encounter elsewhere in my feed.
2. You fit topics within the current overton window into your frameworks (e.g. the “trans-debate” and metamodernism).
3. You use a multi-disciplinary approach in many of your posts.
Great read. Lots to think about and I learned a thing or two. Can’t ask for more than that!
Fantastic article Dave. I’ve been subconsciously forming many of these views however they were only half-baked. You’ve sped up my learning and I am truly grateful. My main problem (and perhaps the most fundamental) is recalling this when I need it the most eg when I’m triggered by reading comments, when a person talks to me rudely etc. Mindfulness is big time important but soooo hard (I’m audhd and not medicated).
Also, considering I consume alot of content from you and likeminded others, when I interact with typical humans in the real world it can be a bit of a shocker as I’m sure you can imagine hahaha
Great read. I took huge value from the Chinese cultural points. Really enjoyed this one.
My example argument before internalizing your principles.
<point>
I think we've lost a step with Transsexuality. There is a line that is best drawn, or the first fork in the road, with deviations from the dominant population distribution. Anorexia and other "dysmorphic" conditions/disorders/syndromes endanger the sufferer, necessitating treatment. Homosexual orientations put personal reproduction at risk, without existential danger or physical destruction. Transsexual orientations inherit homosexuality's reproductive disadvantage and appear to share Anorexia's delusional/destructive characteristics, causing physical mutilation or the compulsive desire for physical mutilation.
If Transsexuality is akin to Anorexia, then shouldn't we declare that this condition requires treatment to stop the condition/syndrome/disorder? Isn't it "over-the-line", based on physical and emotional health? Are we not desperate for a treatment, but in having none to offer, we are resorting to over-conceptualizing convenient abstractions and rationalizations?
I've seen the first decision point, a fork to the left or to the right, flip in our society recently. The decision was overrun with political force. Now we're downstream from a political decision. I recommend that we back up and handle this tough question in the proper order, starting at the beginning. Get political influence out of it and be scientific.
</point>
Criticism welcome about where this deviates from the principles you list.
Your comparison between transgender identity and anorexia, while seemingly logical on the surface, misses some crucial distinctions. Anorexia nervosa is characterized by a fundamental misperception of reality - someone who is dangerously underweight seeing themselves as overweight. The distress and harm come directly from this misalignment between perception and reality.
In contrast, transgender individuals typically have a very accurate understanding of their biological characteristics. Their experience isn't about denying physical reality, but rather about a deep, persistent incongruence between their internal sense of self and their physical characteristics. This experience has been documented across cultures and throughout history, suggesting it's a natural variation in human experience rather than a pathology.
More importantly though, I need to address your focus on reproduction and "deviations from the dominant population distribution." This framework, even if well-intentioned, echoes concerning historical patterns. When society starts making decisions about who should reproduce or what constitutes an acceptable "deviation," we're treading dangerously close to eugenics. History has shown us, particularly through events like forced sterilization programs and the horrific actions of Nazi Germany, where this kind of thinking can lead.
The scientific approach you advocate for is valuable, but it's crucial to recognize that current scientific evidence supports gender-affirming care as beneficial for many individuals. The decision to pursue such care is deeply personal and should be made between an individual and their healthcare providers, not dictated by societal pressures or government policy.
You're absolutely right that we need to carefully consider these issues and base our approach on evidence. However, the evidence we have suggests that accepting and supporting transgender individuals leads to better outcomes than attempting to "treat" their identity as a disorder. The distress many transgender people experience often comes not from their identity itself, but from societal rejection and lack of access to appropriate care.
Rather than focusing on whether transgender identity is "over the line," perhaps we should ask: How can we ensure all individuals have access to the healthcare they need while protecting their autonomy and dignity? This approach aligns better with both scientific evidence and ethical principles of human rights and individual liberty.
It's wrong to pathologize someone who is born a certain way and not harming anyone. To do so runs contrary to our bedrock principles of individual liberty.
Was your reply Claude assisted, as you indicated? If so, I presume that you "loaded" your submission into your Claude session and instructed it to present cogent counterpoints while adhering to your points. Yes/no?
If not, I don't want to start a debate (haha). Thanks for the big reply!
Go to 16mins (if listening)
Yes, I figured you were replying in good faith and rather than do the mental labor, I just told Claude what I wanted to say and it shaped the response.
Not quite as articulate as the biological form, but I'll take it.