Forum => General LHP Discussion => Satanism => Topic started by: Xepera-maSet on August 27, 2019, 12:08:23 am

Title: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Xepera-maSet on August 27, 2019, 12:08:23 am
It seems there's a storm coming for CoS, and at the center of it is the question of transgenderism. On one side are Satanists who believe things should stay apolitical and individual, and the other wants take the stand that a transgender individual is objectively the sex they identify with, not their "physical" gender.

The issue is that Peter, Peggy, and Blanche all side with the latter, including many high ranking CoS members. This has led to a situation where Satanists who don't agree with them are being demoted in rank and power within the CoS. This is to the level where guys like the one who runs the official merch website are being demoted to Warlock from Reverend or higher!

Honestly it's about time CoS teams up with guys like me, because I've been calling out this RHP, hierarchy driven CoS reality for years, and it's never been clearer. I don't care how much you support transgender recognition, especially since these guys and gals aren't AGAINST it, just against CoS taking a stance. One member even reported that'd he would happily have sex with a transitioned female and couldn't care less, so long as they appealed to him of course. But this wasn't enough to save from demotion.

If CoS wants to survive, it's time they start asking the questions others have been asking for years, applying the skepticism of authority again, rereading and interpreting holy texts. Otherwise we're in for TST2.0 - RHP edition.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on August 27, 2019, 07:27:49 am
Quote
and the other wants take the stand that a transgender individual is objectively the sex they identify with, not their "physical" gender.
Is that how they phrase it? Then they are simplifying matters a lot with such a claim.
Sex and gender are not the same thing, and a fair amount of trans people (myself included) are non-binary, i.e. consider themselves neither gender (and often consider gender a mere social construct).
In any case, it's certainly not a matter where even every trans person would be of the same opinion as it includes questions of psychology, neurology, culture, and possibly even metaphysics, and telling people what to believe is neither helping the issue nor is it fitting an LHP-organization.

Regarding the comparison with TST - while they are clearly in favor of the rights of trans people, I would not be aware of them having any official stances on these details. So I agree that with that step CoS is imitating TST while being much more RHPy than them.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Hapu on August 27, 2019, 10:01:25 am
The CoS clearly needs a new schtick and the TST model may be the path forward for them. The whole "alien elite"  thing isn't working as a marketing tool as far as I can tell. It might have worked if they could point to their members as some sort of actual elite for reasons other than seeing through the same delusions that so many non-Satanists likewise see through. Atheism and a general attitude of skepticism toward social norms are too common nowadays to be counted as a badge of honor.

Now the adjective alien has always had promise and still does. There are many people who feel alienated from society for reasons that some of them have chosen and some of them have not. All of them could find a home in the Island of Misfit Toys that the CoS has honestly always been but has tended not to fully embrace as their primary identity. Satan is Alien. This is the formula that could revitalize their organization. It flows naturally from so much of what they've always been about. Just lose the "elite" part. You're not elite if you're having trouble paying your rent because your college loans (the Great Lie of the West) are slurping down all your resources and leaving you bereft. You're not elite. You're just a person. But you may be alien and looking for a community.

To paraphrase the closing words of the well-known poem, The New Colossus, by Emma Lazarus:

"Bring me your weird, your alienated,
your misfits who question hoary platitudes
and blaze paths through virgin forests.
I, Satan, am safe refuge from the mindless
who'd brandish torches and scream curses at the gate."
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Onyx on August 27, 2019, 12:51:07 pm
Quote from: Liu
Sex and gender are not the same thing, and a fair amount of trans people (myself included) are non-binary, i.e. consider themselves neither gender (and often consider gender a mere social construct).

Ironically, what you said reminds me of LaVey's essay about having a Third Side Perspective (or the Satanic Side), in that there are not always two sides to everything.

Many years ago I worked with a guy at a picture framing place who was rather effeminate, liked arts and crafts, of the "motherly" type, had a bit of a "gay lisp" to his voice, and was even a goddamned florist for some number of years. Does that make him a homo?

I really thought he was, but quite the contrary: he wasn't the preachy type, but I later learned he was actually an Apostolic Pentecostal of all things. So you can't judge a book by its cover.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Inlustratus on August 27, 2019, 03:51:06 pm
>getting your rank lowered in a Satanic community that says that there's no Satanic community and promotes individualism
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Km Anu on August 27, 2019, 05:32:07 pm
Quote
I really thought he was, but quite the contrary: he wasn't the preachy type, but I later learned he was actually an Apostolic Pentecostal of all things. So you can't judge a book by its cover.

Agreed! My mother identifies as homosexual, and when you ask her she says she always has been, but I'm here. That doesnt really make her a liar, it just means that sexuality is a little misunderstood by most people.

For example, she used to hang out with this drag queen, super tall, gorgeous, funny as all hell on stage, everything you would expect from a performer, which is precisely what he was. Outside of going out and performing, this is a heterosexual married man who's sexuality had nothing to do with his chosen identity on Friday nights.

In my mother's case, our family when she was growing up was southern, poor, and very religious. At the time, bisexuality was not an accepted concept, and later in life other women in her friends group harshly judged lesbians that had been married in the past (silly I know. They're "ghetto") which threatened my moms identity. To cope, she emphasized her abuse as a child in her memory, and her internal language changed. Her marriage became much more of an effort to fit in in her mind than it really was.

Two drastically disconnected scenarios,  but both highlighting the same issue: the way that people currently think about sexuality is better left in their own heads. Lol
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Kapalika on August 28, 2019, 02:54:38 am
center of it is the question of transgenderism.

Welp. I always dread when this comes up lol.

Also the term "transgenderism" has a negative connotation and is often used by anti transgender activists. I'd recommend you shy away from using the word, even if it had different uses in the past it is sometimes considered offensive and it won't win you any points with anyone who's trans or an ally.


On one side are Satanists who believe things should stay apolitical and individual, and the other wants take the stand that a transgender individual is objectively the sex they identify with, not their "physical" gender.

Just so everyone reading this is aware, transgender people existing is not political.

It's been well established within the medical field for decades, going as far as brain scans proving that the wiring is different from that of CIS people that were also born as the same physical sex as them.

Satanism is a religion of individualism, it makes no sense to me for a Satanist to be against trans people, particularly when there is a lot of medical literature, clinical evidence, and established effective treatments on the issue.

Also, the CoS has always been political.. Ayn Rand was a big influence. Personal freedom is a huge part of that. Look at the Pentagontal Revision.

The issue is that Peter, Peggy, and Blanche all side with the latter, including many high ranking CoS members. This has led to a situation where Satanists who don't agree with them are being demoted in rank and power within the CoS. This is to the level where guys like the one who runs the official merch website are being demoted to Warlock from Reverend or higher!

Even LaVey said that Satanism should have no problem with someone's self identity or even sexuality, habits or other things. It seems perfectly in line with them to demote people who don't hold to those ideals. I don't agree with the CoS on a lot of things but on this one issue it makes sense given what is written in The Satanic Bible.

I don't care how much you support transgender recognition, especially since these guys and gals aren't AGAINST it, just against CoS taking a stance.

Why are they against the group taking a stance that an individual is free to live their life as they are meant to? Isn't that one of the main points of Satanism in general?


One member even reported that'd he would happily have sex with a transitioned female and couldn't care less, so long as they appealed to him of course. But this wasn't enough to save from demotion.

Right because our recognition is based on how fuckable we are. That kind of reasoning belongs in the garbage. If this was his defense I really wonder what it was that he said in the first place to make it even relevant.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Xepera-maSet on August 28, 2019, 03:48:50 am
#wordtwist
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on August 28, 2019, 05:23:28 am
Just so everyone reading this is aware, transgender people existing is not political.
For some people it is - if they believe that us trans people are just a bunch of attention-hungry delusionals or pervs because their world view doesn't allow for the possibility of sex and gender to be incompatible..
Quote
It's been well established within the medical field for decades, going as far as brain scans proving that the wiring is different from that of CIS people that were also born as the same physical sex as them.
As far as I know, according to those studies the tested trans people's brains show some signs of resembling the typical brain of the opposite sex more than of the chromosomal sex. Doesn't mean that every trans person's brain is like that of the opposite sex, only that there are tendencies in that direction.
(Basing that on the paper by Saraswat et al. 2015)

Quote
Why are they against the group taking a stance that an individual is free to live their life as they are meant to? Isn't that one of the main points of Satanism in general?

I would say so - except that I wouldn't understand the phrasing of their stance mentioned above as meaning that. It might have been the intention but as I pointed out in my previous comment, even people fully supporting trans people, and even trans people, might take offense at that claim.

@Xepera maSet (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=3) What's the actual quote?
Can't seem to find anything on that.

Well, their official stance according to their FAQ is laudable enough (if a bit too self-laudating):
Quote
Does the Church of Satan accept transgender people?
Yes. We have done so since the organization was founded in 1966. The Church of Satan’s philosophy promotes individuals empowering themselves so as to seek personal satisfaction. Magus Anton LaVey embraced people from the entire LGTBQ spectrum wholeheartedly—and well in advance of most other religious organizations—and Magus Gilmore proudly maintains that position. We consider it intrinsic to Satanism to support our fellows’ search for fulfillment so long as it involves other consenting mature, self-aware adults, even when our own pursuits are different. As Magus LaVey wrote in his essay Diabolica: "Man prides himself on being the only animal who can modify his Nature, yet when he chooses to do so he is called a phony." We in the Church of Satan support the decision to modify one's nature employing whatever means are available should one choose that path to attain fulfillment.

If one of our members wishes a membership card reflecting a name change due to a gender identity different from when they originally joined, please supply proof of your updated legal ID for our records. We will then supply an updated membership card.
Well insisting on a legal name change might be a bit pedantic, though, as not everyone is in the position to get that (my name change cost me a month's salary after all - it would have been covered by the state if I wouldn't have been able to afford it, but it is not cheap - and it took them almost a year).

Quote
Right because our recognition is based on how fuckable we are. That kind of reasoning belongs in the garbage. If this was his defense I really wonder what it was that he said in the first place to make it even relevant.
Yeah, if that one did want to say something positive then his phrasing was even worse.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Onyx on August 28, 2019, 07:13:14 am
Quote
If one of our members wishes a membership card reflecting a name change due to a gender identity different from when they originally joined, please supply proof of your updated legal ID for our records. We will then supply an updated membership card.

Quote from: Liu
Well insisting on a legal name change might be a bit pedantic...

Isn't this just an offer to get a new card if you happened to change your name, and keep the files up-to-date? I mean, even if I changed my name without gender being involved wouldn't they do the same thing?
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on August 28, 2019, 07:25:23 am
Quote
If one of our members wishes a membership card reflecting a name change due to a gender identity different from when they originally joined, please supply proof of your updated legal ID for our records. We will then supply an updated membership card.

Quote from: Liu
Well insisting on a legal name change might be a bit pedantic...

Isn't this just an offer to get a new card if you happened to change your name, and keep the files up-to-date? I mean, even if I changed my name without gender being involved wouldn't they do the same thing?
Yes, so it's not even anything special on their part, they just are boasting about not being such assholes that they wouldn't even accept the legal change.

Some institutions actually have to change your name in their files if you are trans and insist on it, even before your name change is official - at least that's what some transwoman here in Germany told me who offers advice on legal matters. According to her that would have applied to my university, which however insisted on only changing it in their documents once it was official. Didn't mind - my student ID is also my public transport ticket and so it needed to have the same name on it as my ID card anyway.

With a much less official institution like the CoS they wouldn't have any legal issues either way I suppose, so them insisting on it being the same name as your legal name...
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Onyx on August 28, 2019, 07:42:02 am
Quote from: Liu
With a much less official institution like the CoS they wouldn't have any legal issues either way I suppose, so them insisting on it being the same name as your legal name...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't quite see where they are actually insisting on anything?
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on August 28, 2019, 07:55:28 am
Quote from: Liu
With a much less official institution like the CoS they wouldn't have any legal issues either way I suppose, so them insisting on it being the same name as your legal name...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't quite see where they are actually insisting on anything?
Well as I understand it they insist on the name they put on your membership card to be your legal name. Why else would they ask to see your ID card as a proof?
Not too much of an issue, but as I said, I don't think they would get legal problems from printing on the membership card whatever name you want to have written on there, which would be much more fitting for an organization focused on individualism.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Onyx on August 28, 2019, 08:34:44 am
Quote from: Liu
Not too much of an issue, but as I said, I don't think they would get legal problems from printing on the membership card whatever name you want to have written on there, which would be much more fitting for an organization focused on individualism.

Come to think of it I don't see why it would really matter one way or the other, as newer cards have serial numbers on them.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Hapu on August 28, 2019, 10:26:16 am
Why are they against the group taking a stance that an individual is free to live their life as they are meant to? Isn't that one of the main points of Satanism in general?

Full disclosure, I'm technically a member of the CoS. Bought the damned card twice. Lost it twice. Messed around on their message board for a while. Didn't like it. Wasn't for me. I like it here better. More open-minded. More cosmopolitan.

My guess is that some CoS members see standing up for LGBT+ rights as earning a "good guy badge" and they feel contemptuous of that. Every bad guy is (or can be) somebody's good guy. Some CoS members don't like being the good guy. Most TST members, by contrast, very much enjoy the good guy role.

TST has embraced the Prometheus archetype, I think. The CoS largely hasn't. It was always available to them and they always knew it. They just preferred to be cosplay villains rather than heroes.



Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Km Anu on August 28, 2019, 11:23:42 am
Quote
Satanism is a religion of individualism, it makes no sense to me for a Satanist to be against trans people, particularly when there is a lot of medical literature, clinical evidence, and established effective treatments on the issue.

I really don't understand why a person's sexuality or chosen identity has anything to do with anyone within a satanic organization. So far as I can tell, no one NEEDS to talk about it either. Presenting an opinion of acceptance opens up a space for a counter opinion, when I cant fathom why either is relevant. Call people what they want to be called, let them identify however they like. For the work required, those things seem irrelevant to me. When striving to embody the prince of darkness, the only concern (in areas of identity) should really be the self. All else is a measure of agreeability, cohesion, and like-thinking. Identity of any kind shouldn't effect that, IMO.

Quote
Not too much of an issue, but as I said, I don't think they would get legal problems from printing on the membership card whatever name you want to have written on there, which would be much more fitting for an organization focused on individualism.

If you lose the card and it contains a pseudonym as opposed to your real name, your identity is better protected.

Even my government will recognize a chosen allias. Name changes effect your birth certificate and Social security card, but it isn't ILLEGAL to put any name on anything. So if my government doesn't care, why do my fellow Satanists? They have no need to accurately identify me outside of continuity of identity. A simple time limitation on name changes would serve just fine. Give everyone 1 for free, and then put a cool down on it. I don't know any of your names, and I only know Xepra's gender, really. None of it effects how any of us interact, and I'm comfortable in stating that in person that information wouldn't hamper work. Another opinion :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Kapalika on August 28, 2019, 12:01:35 pm
I agree with @Liu (http://orderoftheserpent.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=61)  that that FAQ answer seems to be one big self given pat on the back, but I do agree that it's on point with talking about how LaVey accepted LGBT people from the start. I don't see anything incongruent with that, their recent actions and the situation. It would be like if someone joined and then started saying the CoS shouldn't take a stance on taxation of the churches... that's one of their big things.

This thread was weird for me though, in all honesty. I didn't think I'd be defending the CoS, given my general dislike of the organization. But I gotta give credit where it's due.

My guess is that some CoS members see standing up for LGBT+ rights as earning a "good guy badge" and they feel contemptuous of that

I never really considered that, but that would explain a lot about their attitudes on some issues, at least a facet of it.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Mindmaster on September 12, 2019, 04:23:57 pm

Full disclosure, I'm technically a member of the CoS. Bought the damned card twice. Lost it twice. Messed around on their message board for a while. Didn't like it. Wasn't for me. I like it here better. More open-minded. More cosmopolitan.

My guess is that some CoS members see standing up for LGBT+ rights as earning a "good guy badge" and they feel contemptuous of that. Every bad guy is (or can be) somebody's good guy. Some CoS members don't like being the good guy. Most TST members, by contrast, very much enjoy the good guy role.

TST has embraced the Prometheus archetype, I think. The CoS largely hasn't. It was always available to them and they always knew it. They just preferred to be cosplay villains rather than heroes.

I don't stand up for LGBT+ because I feel it has nothing inherently to do with Satanism. And, Satan is all I have time for. Likewise, I don't care about TST because their focus is political activism -- something I think has nothing to do with Satanism. I'm not supportive of CoS demoting people who are allies of the LGBT+ community (at least not solely on that basis) either. It is amusing that someone attempting to portray themselves as a Satanist cares either way how they are perceived. Good or bad wouldn't that leave you at the mercy of the proclivities of the sheeple?

Satanism has always been about emancipation in the mental, emotional, and spiritual realm and it boggles my mind that one has to do or not do something at the behest of others in their organization. Pro or Anti-LGBT doesn't matter to me - they're still moving in the wrong direction. :D

I don't feel it's a Satanists place to involve oneself with issues that do not directly concern themselves anyway. But, it's also not these organizations duties to deal with the minutia of an individuals preferences at all. Though I don't see the attempt of doing necessarily as an attempt to enforce a dogma, but rather a sure sign that both organizations are completely deluded. :D
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Kapalika on September 20, 2019, 12:21:13 pm
Quote
I don't stand up for LGBT+ because I feel it has nothing inherently to do with Satanism

Weird then that Satanists identify as LGBT at a much higher rate than the general population. I would wager that it tangentially does in that Satanism embraces individuality and allows one to live their life as they want, loving who and what they want (so long as it's between consenting adults) without judgement.

LGBT issues are issues of individual freedom and autonomy. It might not be related to Satanism per se but the core idea of personal freedom and empowerment is.

In other words, supporting LGBT rights is one of many logical conclusions of Satanic values, theisic or not.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Mindmaster on September 20, 2019, 03:07:03 pm
Quote
I don't stand up for LGBT+ because I feel it has nothing inherently to do with Satanism

Weird then that Satanists identify as LGBT at a much higher rate than the general population. I would wager that it tangentially does in that Satanism embraces individuality and allows one to live their life as they want, loving who and what they want (so long as it's between consenting adults) without judgement.

LGBT issues are issues of individual freedom and autonomy. It might not be related to Satanism per se but the core idea of personal freedom and empowerment is.

In other words, supporting LGBT rights is one of many logical conclusions of Satanic values, theisic or not.

It really has nothing to do with it other than incidentally. I'd argue that for the most part people don't even make a decision on their sexual preferences they just do it. It depends on whether or not you think people make a decision to be gay or whatever and I don't think they do. Therefore, it doesn't have anything to do with empowerment or individuality to me -- it's just a biological reality that someone is inclined to and no decision was made. You don't become gay, straight, bi or whatever you just are. I have to exclude transgenders from that because I just think it's a more complicated matter. There is certainly a decision process there and it has nothing to do with ones sexual preference necessarily. (People always talk about them as the same things, but it's really completely different set of issues, IMHO. Transitioning MtF doesn't mean you stopped preferring the opposite biological sex, etc., or that you'd even desire a relation with a comparable FtM individual.)

Satanism rejects equality fundamentally, and also the idea that the approval of the masses is even a desired end. Philosophically, that would make you their pet for lack of a simpler analysis. The only identity that matters to Satanism is the individual, not the herd, not even the pro-LGBT herd. Likewise, it's a waste of Satanists time to even be involved in such issues especially when their own personal achievements, religious activities, and other goals aren't manifested because of all of these sorts of activist actions. Simply ask yourself: Who sets the LGBT agenda, you or someone else? If it's not you, Satanically, that's where you go wrong. That means someone else is the drivers seat... Even if you personally are LGBT it's still not really your business so to speak -- your business is taking care of the issues which would produce something good in your life.

Then there is the myth of LGBT lacking some rights -- it's foolish to even believe it... There have been social difficulties, but rights -- no rights needed to be given, they were already there. It confuses me endlessly that anyone thinks that these activists accomplished anything, especially for the fact that society was already moving toward the direction of acceptance due the fact that celebrities and other highly visible individuals have come out of that closet and it hasn't had any repercussions to their respective careers. That has been ongoing for the last forty or fifty years and is nothing new. Society has willingly moved toward acceptance as they got to know these folks in detail it wasn't a result of begging for it. Thus, this begging and the support of the begging are worthless and shameful activities. And, really... That's all it is... Begging authorities and society for fair consideration -- when, except in rare circumstance, it's already been given. Seeking approval of society regardless of matter directly though is just about the most un-Satanic thing you can do in my opinion. That's not what it's about, like, ever. Satanism is that healthy dose of "I don't give a fuck" that pushes you through anything. Society hates you because you're LGBT? Fuck 'em. That's the only right answer from a Satanic perspective.  CoS doesn't like transgenders? Fuck 'em. Do that enough, and you're headed in the right direction. When nothing is left but what is truly important to you in your mind because you don't give a single fuck about anything else you will literally be the "jedi master" so to speak of a really important philosophical bit of Satanism. :)

P.S. - You can really insert your favorite identity, political view, or whatever here. I still contend they have absolutely nothing to do with Satanism. They're all just different herds. :D
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Cabshear on September 20, 2019, 03:45:04 pm
When it comes to LGBTQ if it doesn't take money from my pocket, or infringe on my personal liberty then what others do behind closed doors, with consenting adults, is none of my business. Rights as a concept are very questionable. Does Nature really grant us rights? I doubt this since Nature is not a conscious force. Natural selection exists, despite our feelings about it. There is no "voting" this force out of existence.

If someone recognizes that they are transgender then that's their individual right! They must recognize this and seek out what makes them happy. However, I draw the line when I am asked to be tolerant of these rights and then they are turned around and used against my children. When schools are forcing parents to give teens hormone blockers (which will cause irreversible damage and possible sterility later on in life if they stay on the blockers.) When transvestites in devil horns are reading books to 4 and 5 year olds and letting the kids lay on top of them. When 8 year old half naked boys are twerking at gay pride parades around adult men with dildos glued to a morphie suit. Desmond is not amazing, he is being brainwashed by liberal parents trying to grand-stand and shine up their political goodguy badges, using their kids as fodder.

https://youtu.be/3YWNMunlx6w

This doesn't look like fighting for rights, this looks like using impressionable minds to push a political agenda. Everyone flipped the fuck out when Christians were giving out Darwin's book, with an intro defaming evolution, at college campuses. Yet, very few are scratching their chins about this one!

https://youtu.be/pbm03NcEcvg

Threatening to attack someone for not speaking the way they want you to speak. This isn't fighting for rights. It's forcing everyone else to bend to your personal views and values. This is Solipsism plain and simple. The trans woman didn't have to throw a temper tantrum and trash the store, but she did because everyone wasn't doing what she wanted! I don't agree, but this is exactly why Conservatives see this as a mental illness.


Do not harm little children is one of the Rules of the Earth and I see some "progressive values" as emotional and psychological harm. Same as brainwashing kids that an eternal torture chamber exists after death, unless they blindly follow some religion. It's the same as kids being told their nazi scum if they don't take hormone blockers and accept pedophilia.

However, people are looking the other way because it's "progressive." I don't force things on other people, however it seems we live in a day-in-age were things are being forced on me. That I am some white nationalist nazi if I don't "accept" these people's somewhat wreak-less behavior.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 20, 2019, 06:11:13 pm
It really has nothing to do with it other than incidentally. I'd argue that for the most part people don't even make a decision on their sexual preferences they just do it. It depends on whether or not you think people make a decision to be gay or whatever and I don't think they do. Therefore, it doesn't have anything to do with empowerment or individuality to me -- it's just a biological reality that someone is inclined to and no decision was made. You don't become gay, straight, bi or whatever you just are. I have to exclude transgenders from that because I just think it's a more complicated matter. There is certainly a decision process there and it has nothing to do with ones sexual preference necessarily. (People always talk about them as the same things, but it's really completely different set of issues, IMHO. Transitioning MtF doesn't mean you stopped preferring the opposite biological sex, etc., or that you'd even desire a relation with a comparable FtM individual.)
I think there is some causal relationship between being LGBTQ+ and being LHP.
If one is LHP, one does a lot of selfwork, so if one hadn't been aware/certain of one's sexual or gender queerness beforehand, it's likely to come to light. Also the tolerance on the path makes it much easier to acknowledge one's queerness. Therefore, the amount of LHPers who are queer without knowing it is smaller than in the general population.
And if one already knew it before one entered the LHP, it may have contributed to one's decision to become an LHPer, due to the aforementioned tolerance, and also because it can benefit one in dealing with any mental health issues caused by suppressing or having to hide one's queerness.

Quote
Satanism rejects equality fundamentally, and also the idea that the approval of the masses is even a desired end. Philosophically, that would make you their pet for lack of a simpler analysis. The only identity that matters to Satanism is the individual, not the herd, not even the pro-LGBT herd.
...unless it's among their personal values to support rights of sexual preference and gender expression.

Quote
Then there is the myth of LGBT lacking some rights -- it's foolish to even believe it... There have been social difficulties, but rights -- no rights needed to be given, they were already there.
From what I heard about the US, the legal situation seems quite a bit worse than here in Germany.

Quote
It confuses me endlessly that anyone thinks that these activists accomplished anything, especially for the fact that society was already moving toward the direction of acceptance due the fact that celebrities and other highly visible individuals have come out of that closet and it hasn't had any repercussions to their respective careers. That has been ongoing for the last forty or fifty years and is nothing new. Society has willingly moved toward acceptance as they got to know these folks in detail it wasn't a result of begging for it. Thus, this begging and the support of the begging are worthless and shameful activities. And, really... That's all it is... Begging authorities and society for fair consideration -- when, except in rare circumstance, it's already been given. Seeking approval of society regardless of matter directly though is just about the most un-Satanic thing you can do in my opinion. That's not what it's about, like, ever. Satanism is that healthy dose of "I don't give a fuck" that pushes you through anything. Society hates you because you're LGBT? Fuck 'em. That's the only right answer from a Satanic perspective.  CoS doesn't like transgenders? Fuck 'em. Do that enough, and you're headed in the right direction. When nothing is left but what is truly important to you in your mind because you don't give a single fuck about anything else you will literally be the "jedi master" so to speak of a really important philosophical bit of Satanism. :)

P.S. - You can really insert your favorite identity, political view, or whatever here. I still contend they have absolutely nothing to do with Satanism. They're all just different herds. :D
I would agree that for the purpose of changing the minds of homophobic or transphobic people, activism doesn't help, it may even further convince them of their prejudices.
I hardly face any discrimination for being trans here (well I also don't talk about it that often). The only explicitly negative reaction I heard of was a friend of my dad saying that transpeople on pride parades are just attention-hungry. Pride parades aren't exactly the same thing as activism and have their own purpose, but it shows that they can have the opposite effect from the intended one.

If someone recognizes that they are transgender then that's their individual right! They must recognize this and seek out what makes them happy. However, I draw the line when I am asked to be tolerant of these rights and then they are turned around and used against my children. When schools are forcing parents to give teens hormone blockers (which will cause irreversible damage and possible sterility later on in life if they stay on the blockers.)
Haven't heard of any such case of the parents being forced by the school, but I also don't keep up with the news.
I consider hormone blockers to be a very difficult to decide issue. I mean, I would certainly have been happier if I had never grown boobs, but it took me 10 years to come to the conclusion that I don't like to have boobs due to being trans and not due to any other mental issue. I kinda doubt that a teen kid is already able to determine that. Still better than getting surgery at that age.

Quote
When 8 year old half naked boys are twerking at gay pride parades around adult men with dildos glued to a morphie suit. Desmond is not amazing, he is being brainwashed by liberal parents trying to grand-stand and shine up their political goodguy badges, using their kids as fodder.
I've never been to a pride parade and I don't know who's that Desmond. That stuff does sound like bad parenting, but I don't know the details.

Quote
When transvestites in devil horns are reading books to 4 and 5 year olds and letting the kids lay on top of them.
https://youtu.be/3YWNMunlx6w

A drag queen is a cisgender male. That's relatively unrelated to transgender people.
Don't really see the issue there, though.

Quote
https://youtu.be/pbm03NcEcvg

Threatening to attack someone for not speaking the way they want you to speak. This isn't fighting for rights. It's forcing everyone else to bend to your personal views and values. This is Solipsism plain and simple. The trans woman didn't have to throw a temper tantrum and trash the store, but she did because everyone wasn't doing what she wanted! I don't agree, but this is exactly why Conservatives see this as a mental illness.
I really would need to know the circumstances here to judge that.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Kapalika on September 21, 2019, 07:53:11 pm
Ugh. well im about to do some errands so I''ll address what just stuck out to me.


First, yes the LGBT lack certain rights in America depending on where you live, and in a lot of the world. A large part of why I moved to California so was I didn't have to worry about getting fired/not hired for being trans and to have a right to healthcare that I was being denied (as in not even seen even if it had nothing to do with me being trans).


Since moving, I've had the fact that I'm trans (and it's hard to get around since I've not been able to change my name yet) and it's been 0% issue. In West Virginia where i'm from, housing, employment, being denied service at a place of business, and healthcare were not protected. I encountered issues most of those before moving to a place that they were protected under law.


Quote
When schools are forcing parents to give teens hormone blockers

That's never and never will happen. If anything the vast majority of trans positive doctors won't even give them to anyone under 18 let alone force anyone to take them. A doctor can't force anyone to take anything.

------

As for the last thing, that video of the storming of the gamestop, they had been harassing her for quite a while and refusing service. It wasn't just like they misgendered her once and she went off. There is like an hour of shit left out of that and everyone  always take it way out of context, kind of like how the gay cake thing was taken out of context (when they were doxxed by the cake store owners and receiving death threats as a result and it got so bad they had to move, that's what the suit was about).

Always look at the context people.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Hapu on September 21, 2019, 08:27:40 pm
Seeking approval of society regardless of matter directly though is just about the most un-Satanic thing you can do in my opinion. That's not what it's about, like, ever. Satanism is that healthy dose of "I don't give a fuck" that pushes you through anything. Society hates you because you're LGBT? Fuck 'em. That's the only right answer from a Satanic perspective.  CoS doesn't like transgenders? Fuck 'em. Do that enough, and you're headed in the right direction. When nothing is left but what is truly important to you in your mind because you don't give a single fuck about anything else you will literally be the "jedi master" so to speak of a really important philosophical bit of Satanism. :)

^^^
This

P.S. - You can really insert your favorite identity, political view, or whatever here. I still contend they have absolutely nothing to do with Satanism. They're all just different herds. :D

^^^^^
This too

Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 12:02:29 am
It seems there's a storm coming for CoS, and at the center of it is the question of transgenderism. On one side are Satanists who believe things should stay apolitical and individual, and the other wants take the stand that a transgender individual is objectively the sex they identify with, not their "physical" gender.

The issue is that Peter, Peggy, and Blanche all side with the latter, including many high ranking CoS members.

And Peter, Peggy, and Blanche happen to be right about this particular issue.

As a wise man once said "facts don't care about your feelings". Men who feel as if they are women are still men. Women who feel as if they are men are still women. This is just biological fact. That it is an objective fact of nature is key. Neither surgery nor hormone replacement changes what is true at the chromosomal level.

I don't think they're arguing that one shouldn't be free to modify their body in anyway they so choose. What they're arguing is if doing so is sufficient to objectively change one's gender or that others should be forced to act as if it has. I'm with them on this. That it isn't.

This, in and of itself, is not a political issue at all except inasmuch as some transgenders choose to make it one. Fact is I don't care what laws are or are not on the books, as far as I'm concerned, if a dude who went through all the trouble of surgery and hormone replacement to "become" a women insists that I call him a "she", I will tell "him" specifically and in no uncertain terms, "to go kick rocks, sir".

Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

Moreover, if people happen to find it creepy, gross, and possibly symptomatic of some underlying psychological issue, they are more than free to do so. They do not have to play along with another person's delusion. However, I should stress, I do not disapprove of another's free choice to engage in self-deception even to that radical extent. It is a choice just as all body modifications are. That is not the issue. The issue is when I am forced to accommodate what I know to be untrue in order to spare another human beings feelings.

When you start meandering into trains of thought that open what is objectively so to the whim and accommodation of subjective needs to an extent beyond willful suspension of disbelief, you begin venturing far off-center of what LaVeyan Satanism originally stood for. I am pleased to see that the current administration has not lost sight of this.

Possibly the C/S will see a decline in numbers over this matter, but they will never suffer the fate of those whose principles are swayed by mass acceptance and what is currently fashionable. To think that they should consider doing otherwise implies a glaring misapprehension of what the C/S actually stands for. It's not for the masses. It, like nature herself, is not a liberal democracy and it does not care one bit about anyone's feelings.

I say kudos to them, for once, on their stance in this matter.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 05:24:36 am
It seems there's a storm coming for CoS, and at the center of it is the question of transgenderism. On one side are Satanists who believe things should stay apolitical and individual, and the other wants take the stand that a transgender individual is objectively the sex they identify with, not their "physical" gender.

The issue is that Peter, Peggy, and Blanche all side with the latter, including many high ranking CoS members.

And Peter, Peggy, and Blanche happen to be right about this particular issue.

As a wise man once said "facts don't care about your feelings". Men who feel as if they are women are still men. Women who feel as if they are men are still women. This is just biological fact. That it is an objective fact of nature is key. Neither surgery nor hormone replacement changes what is true at the chromosomal level.

Depends on the definition of "man" and "woman". If you mean "person of these respective chromosomes" or "person who was born with the respective kinds of genitals", then sure.
But the 3 CoS members in question were quite obviously talking about the mental gender, not about the physical sex.

Quote
I don't think they're arguing that one shouldn't be free to modify their body in anyway they so choose. What they're arguing is if doing so is sufficient to objectively change one's gender or that others should be forced to act as if it has. I'm with them on this. That it isn't.

This, in and of itself, is not a political issue at all except inasmuch as some transgenders choose to make it one. Fact is I don't care what laws are or are not on the books, as far as I'm concerned, if a dude who went through all the trouble of surgery and hormone replacement to "become" a women insists that I call him a "she", I will tell "him" specifically and in no uncertain terms, "to go kick rocks, sir".

Why would you do so if you agree with them? I think you mis-read something, they are saying that being transgender objectively means being of the opposite gender of one's physical sex. Which likely also means that they are in favor of treating people as their preferred gender.

And in most cases of encountering a trans-person after transitioning you wouldn't even know they are trans - why go out of your way to address someone according to their chromosomes if you know their chromosomes, if in 99% of cases you won't?

Quote
Moreover, if people happen to find it creepy, gross, and possibly symptomatic of some underlying psychological issue, they are more than free to do so. They do not have to play along with another person's delusion. However, I should stress, I do not disapprove of another's free choice to engage in self-deception even to that radical extent. It is a choice just as all body modifications are. That is not the issue. The issue is when I am forced to accommodate what I know to be untrue in order to spare another human beings feelings.
I don't know about other trans-people, but for me transitioning has nothing to do with any self-deception that it would physically make me a male. Physically, I'm basically an intersexual now. Transitioning is about feeling more comfortable in one's body. It also is, to a certain degree, about influencing how others perceive you, and I do feel much more comfortable being considered a guy and being referred to as a he (even though I don't really identify with either gender). But it's the less important aspect.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 05:45:56 am
What I have to go on is in the OP "On one side are Satanists who believe things should stay apolitical and individual" to which I agree.

and

"the other wants take the stand that a transgender individual is objectively the sex they identify with, not their 'physical' gender." [sic] to which I do not agree. Sex is a function of one's physiology.

Having read the actual article just now, though, https://www.churchofsatan.com/a-redhead-named-peggy/ (https://www.churchofsatan.com/a-redhead-named-peggy/)
I see I was hastily optimistic in my assumptions. They've gone soft.

Even so: it is up to the Satanist to assert their own identity. It is not up to the Satanist to insist the world pander to it.

Tangential after-thought: how the C/S' vision of Satanism which at least was at one time predicated on the idea of man as "just another animal" manages to reconcile speaking to matters of "gender" - a term reserved exclusively for human animals whereas with nonhuman animals there is only sex - at all would be, I suspect, highly amusing to hear
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 06:06:54 am
What I have to go on is in the OP "On one side are Satanists who believe things should stay apolitical and individual" to which I agree.

and

"the other wants take the stand that a transgender individual is objectively the sex they identify with, not their 'physical' gender." [sic] to which I do not agree. Sex is a function of one's physiology.

They are using the terms gender and sex wrongly there, they should be swapped as I pointed out earlier in this thread, and even then things are not well-phrased.
But I guess that wouldn't really make a difference to you.

Quote
Even so: it is up to the Satanist to assert their own identity. It is not up to the Satanist to insist the world pander to it.
If the Satanist in question considers it the easiest way to their own mental well-being then why not?
I can agree that it's more mature to develop coping strategies about being mis-gendered than to just get angry or depressed about it. Easier said than done, though.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 06:11:47 am
Correct. It wouldn't to me. If I am of the belief that man is just another animal, then there is and can only be sex as the word gender does not apply to animals. It is only in the sense of human beings being somehow "different" than animals that the whole issue of gender arises in the first place. An issue that I, personally, believe is complete and utter nonsense.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 06:27:34 am
Correct. It wouldn't to me. If I am of the belief that man is just another animal, then there is and can only sex. The word gender does not apply to animals. It is only in the sense of human beings being somehow "different" than animals that the whole issue of gender arises in the first place.
I also consider gender mainly a social construct.

As I mentioned before, being trans is about not feeling comfortable with one's physical sexual characteristics, though, which is likely caused by some difference in the physical structure of the brain.
So changing one's physical sexual characteristics should solve those issues.

Nevertheless, even if gender is a social construct, it's a powerful one. It involves a ton of stereotypes and associations that play a role throughout everyday life.
Therefore, it makes sense that if someone can't identity with the gender people take them to be, they will feel misunderstood and will likely behave in gender-nonconform ways that they feel more comfortable with. That also applies to many people who aren't trans.

Since gender has some basis in physical characteristics, it's obvious why transsexuals (i.e. people who want to change their physical sexual characteristics) are often also gender-nonconform as described above. Add to that the stress from having the "wrong" physical sexual characteristics and it's completely understandable why being mis-gendered feels so bad that they make a political issue out of it.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 06:47:58 am
No intentional disrespect and not that I think it should matter, but the way you're describing it really doesn't do a whole lot to assuage me of the notion that it may just actually be a neurological disorder.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 06:58:56 am
No intentional disrespect and not that I think it should matter, but the way you're describing it really doesn't do a whole lot to assuage me of the notion that it may just actually be a neurological disorder.
I didn't claim any different - what else would it be?
Just, it's an unusual neurological disorder in so far as it's best treated by changing the reality to conform to the "delusion" instead of by fighting the delusion as it's inborn and can hardly be gotten rid of.

I always find it strange when e.g. my hormone doctor excuses himself for using medical terminology and stresses that it would not be a disease. But I guess it's understandable that people don't wanna be thought of as mentally ill, especially since most people who call it a mental illness thereby imply that it shouldn't be treated the way it is or that it would be a much easier issue than it is.

Being gender-nonconform on the other hand seems like a much more complex thing, more rooted in psychology than neurology, and more caused by too strict social norms that limit people's individuality.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Km Anu on September 22, 2019, 07:34:00 am
I think you're right on it Liu. I want to present some similar ideas.

cite (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799708/)

Trauma is a gigantic motivating factor in the human decision making process, but also in how we identify problems. Trauma doesnt always occur in a single event and is defined subjectively, meaning there is no minimum or maximum way to experience it.

Repeated traumatic experiences force a form of escape or acceptance to manifest in behavior.

Trauma that benifits from gender dissasociation as a form of acceptance may manifest as transgenderism.

It's an example that fits your explanation nicely and leaves room for other concepts around the phenomenon's validity.

So far as relevance to CoS,

Along the lines of Trauma and PTSD, people who choose to identify as Transgender report that they are not treated fairly,  even discriminated against. (cite) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981566/)Subversion of will is wrong, regardless of who it happens to. It is a relevant goal.

Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Km Anu on September 22, 2019, 07:56:42 am
No intentional disrespect and not that I think it should matter, but the way you're describing it really doesn't do a whole lot to assuage me of the notion that it may just actually be a neurological disorder.

A population that experiences a neurological disorder doesnt go away when they're labeled with a neurological disorder. And even so, identifying the cause hasn't ended any of the discrimination. Disorder implies misfunction, but even so it's a misfunction that is lived around, and the only reason it's ever really a problem is because people have a problem with it.

Political bodies (In the United states) appeal to the public's wants as well as their fears and insecurities. They also set our laws in accordance with these principles to ensure equality. If someone is not being treated equally (or feels as if they aren't) they should not be dismissed as sick. They should be free to Express themselves however they want, and still be treated as normal functioning adults. If that is too opinion driven, then at the very least everyone deserves to live free of stigma when they have done nothing amoral.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 10:19:44 am
I think you're right on it Liu. I want to present some similar ideas.

cite (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799708/)

Trauma is a gigantic motivating factor in the human decision making process, but also in how we identify problems. Trauma doesnt always occur in a single event and is defined subjectively, meaning there is no minimum or maximum way to experience it.

Repeated traumatic experiences force a form of escape or acceptance to manifest in behavior.

Trauma that benifits from gender dissasociation as a form of acceptance may manifest as transgenderism.

It's an example that fits your explanation nicely and leaves room for other concepts around the phenomenon's validity.

So far as relevance to CoS,

Along the lines of Trauma and PTSD, people who choose to identify as Transgender report that they are not treated fairly,  even discriminated against. (cite) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981566/)Subversion of will is wrong, regardless of who it happens to. It is a relevant goal.
Interesting paper - they seem to conflate things a bit though. Normally one can only be diagnosed as transgender if other causes (like schizophrenia, transvestite fetishism, etc) are excluded. So I would assume that also trauma-caused gender dissociation (if that's even a thing - after all they say gender dissociation can be diagnosed even in some 2 year olds and that they remain agnostic as to what's the cause and what's the effect) would be something distinguished from being actually transgender.

The definition of gender dysphoria in that article seems also strange to me as it doesn't include anything regarding feeling uncomfortable with one's sexual physical characteristics, which to me (and also according to my therapist) would be the only defining criterion.
In other words, they are talking about gender-nonconform people, not transgender people in particular.

I would postulate the following interpretation of the study's results: If someone does have childhood trauma, that can make it much more difficult to deal with a preexisting gender-nonconformity, and also to suppress being transgender on top of it.
Just a guess, though, I haven't looked that closely into it.

EDIT: This was directed to the paper in the first link. It basically also applies to the second one, though.

The second one also confirms that acting gender-nonconform can lead to having traumatic childhood experiences.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Hapu on September 22, 2019, 01:39:53 pm
...If I am of the belief that man is just another animal, then there is and can only be sex as the word gender does not apply to animals. It is only in the sense of human beings being somehow "different" than animals that the whole issue of gender arises in the first place. An issue that I, personally, believe is complete and utter nonsense.

A thought-provoking application of the 7th Satanic Statement. And it does seem theoretically workable to achieve indifference to gender, be it one's own or anyone else's. Of course workable and easy are not the same thing.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Hapu on September 22, 2019, 01:45:27 pm
The definition of gender dysphoria in that article seems also strange to me as it doesn't include anything regarding feeling uncomfortable with one's sexual physical characteristics, which to me (and also according to my therapist) would be the only defining criterion.
In other words, they are talking about gender-nonconform people, not transgender people in particular.

I would have identified "feeling uncomfortable with one's sexual physical characteristics" as transsexual rather than transgender. Why do you use the latter term?


Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 01:47:24 pm
While it is true that neurological issues don't just go away and civilized society must somehow come to terms with this, nothing about that causes me to question what the Church of Satan - or any church for that matter - is doing about it. Especially not in a secular nation. That's a weird leap that only a transgender with their perennial insistence for special consideration and accommodations would make.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 01:52:55 pm
...If I am of the belief that man is just another animal, then there is and can only be sex as the word gender does not apply to animals. It is only in the sense of human beings being somehow "different" than animals that the whole issue of gender arises in the first place. An issue that I, personally, believe is complete and utter nonsense.

A thought-provoking application of the 7th Satanic Statement. And it does seem theoretically workable to achieve indifference to gender, be it one's own or anyone else's. Of course workable and easy are not the same thing.

Indeed. When I first read the OP without reading the article, I could only think "good for them, that's right man is just another animal, and gender doesn't apply to animals - way to stick to your guns! screw these whiny leftists". Imagine my dismay when I actually read the article!
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 02:06:32 pm
The definition of gender dysphoria in that article seems also strange to me as it doesn't include anything regarding feeling uncomfortable with one's sexual physical characteristics, which to me (and also according to my therapist) would be the only defining criterion.
In other words, they are talking about gender-nonconform people, not transgender people in particular.

I would have identified "feeling uncomfortable with one's sexual physical characteristics" as transsexual rather than transgender. Why do you use the latter term?
I always heard those terms are full synonyms and that transsexual is being avoided in order to also include those who don't undergo or haven't yet undergone physical changes like surgery or hormone treatment but are only doing more superficial changes to their physical appearance, and to avoid using the term sexual as it's not about sex as an activity or sexual preference.

While it is true that neurological issues don't just go away and civilized society must somehow come to terms with this, nothing about that causes me to question what the Church of Satan - or any church for that matter - is doing about it. Especially not in a secular nation. That's a weird leap that only a transgender with their perennial insistence for special consideration and accommodations would make.
Which special accommodations are you taking about that would only be demanded by trans people? I suppose getting to choose which pronouns people use could count (except that pretty much anyone would feel disrespected by being mis-gendered, no matter whether they are trans or not), but can't really think of anything further.
I don't know many trans people, though, I mainly speak for myself.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 04:37:08 pm
Were you asleep during the transgender bathroom debate?
*incidentally, no. You don't get to choose how people address you. I use gender to differentiate sex. My dog is a he. A male that thinks he is a she is also one too.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 05:02:05 pm
Were you asleep during the transgender bathroom debate?
Did not happen in my country, from all I hear it's completely normal here that people go to the bathrooms of the gender they identify with. But admittedly I hardly have to do with other transpeople here, so I don't know how they normally handle it.

From my outside point of view, the bathroom debate seemed to be about transpeople normally going to the bathroom of the gender they identified with, and then some people starting to complain, not vice versa.

Quote
*incidentally, no. You don't get to choose how people address you. I use gender to differentiate sex. My dog is a he. A male that thinks he is a she is also one too.
How do you call intersexuals then? "it"?
I didn't say that this would not be asking for an accommodation, but what I was saying is that it's not only transpeople who demand these rights.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 05:08:08 pm
Did not happen in my country, from all I hear it's completely normal here that people go to the bathrooms of the gender they identify with. But admittedly I hardly have to do with other transpeople here, so I don't know how they normally handle it.

From my outside point of view, the bathroom debate seemed to be about transpeople normally going to the bathroom of the gender they identified with, and then some people starting to complain, not vice versa.


That it isn't happening in your own backyard doesn't make it any less of an accommodation, and clearly not one you were unaware of.
Quote
How do you call intersexuals then? "it"?
I didn't say that this would not be asking for an accommodation, but what I was saying is that it's not only transpeople who demand these rights.
I call them whatever I - not they - deem most appropriate given the person and scenario. One's confusion about their own physiology is just not sufficient cause for me to consent to what amounts to impelled speech. Sorry.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 05:22:34 pm
Did not happen in my country, from all I hear it's completely normal here that people go to the bathrooms of the gender they identify with. But admittedly I hardly have to do with other transpeople here, so I don't know how they normally handle it.

From my outside point of view, the bathroom debate seemed to be about transpeople normally going to the bathroom of the gender they identified with, and then some people starting to complain, not vice versa.
That it isn't happening in your own backyard doesn't make it any less of an accommodation, and clearly not one you were unaware of.
It doesn't feel like an accomodation to me, and it does not only apply to transpeople, that's why I didn't mention it.

Quote
Quote
How do you call intersexuals then? "it"?
I didn't say that this would not be asking for an accommodation, but what I was saying is that it's not only transpeople who demand these rights.
I call them whatever I - not they - deem most appropriate given the person and scenario. One's confusion about their own physiology is just not sufficient cause for me to consent to what amounts to impelled speech. Sorry.
Well if you consider it a good idea to hold a bag of spiders in front of someone with arachnophobia...
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 05:42:40 pm
It doesn't feel like an accomodation to me, and it does not only apply to transpeople, that's why I didn't mention it.


That things can equally be said of an unrelated subject does nothing to negate what is said about the subject in focus.

If I were in the least concerned with what it feels like to you I would have stated:
That's a weird leap that only liu with her perennial insistence for special consideration and accommodations would make.

Quote
Well if you consider it a good idea to hold a bag of spiders in front of someone with arachnophobia...
Nonsense. How often am I - or anyone - holding a bag of spiders? How often do I use pronouns (FFS)? It's not an accommodation to ask someone not to do something they would never a million years be inclined to do in the first place.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 05:57:18 pm
It doesn't feel like an accomodation to me, and it does not only apply to transpeople, that's why I didn't mention it.


That things can equally be said of an unrelated subject does nothing to negate what is said about the subject in focus.
Well you wrote that only transpeople would insist on that kind of special consideration and accommodations, that's what I was arguing against.

Quote
If I were in the least concerned with what it feels like to you I would have stated:
That's a weird leap that only liu with her perennial insistence for special consideration and accommodations would make.
How considerate of you...

Quote
Quote
Well if you consider it a good idea to hold a bag of spiders in front of someone with arachnophobia...
Nonsense. How often am I - or anyone - holding a bag of spiders? How often do I use pronouns (FFS)? It's not an accommodation to ask someone not to do something they would never a million years be inclined to do in the first place.
I admit that it wasn't a perfect example, I rather meant it as a metaphor than as a comparison.
But how much effort does it however need to use the pronouns a person either asks for or those of the gender that the person obviously tries to pass as.
Seems to be less than intentionally using different pronouns and dealing with the consequences.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 06:04:51 pm
I see figures of speech and poetic license seem to evade you, and to be honest, it's actually draining to have to spell these things out. People find this tedious.

When I say "only a transgender with their perennial insistence for special consideration and accommodations would make."

It's flippant. Tongue-in-cheek. Slight hyperbole for effect. These are perfectly common literary devices. We're not automatons, here... well at least I don't think we are.

Now, I mean not to be inflammatory, this is a legitimate question just so I know the size-of what it is I'm replying to here: are you perchance somewhere on the autism spectrum?

Quote
But how much effort does it however need to use the pronouns a person either asks for or those of the gender that the person obviously tries to pass as.
It doesn't matter how much effort it takes. It's impelled speech. Why is that so hard to wrap your tragically self-absorbed heads around?  I'm not going to be roped-in to arguing something as subjective as to "how hard it is to monitor pronoun usage", because that's patently absurd and totally beside the point. A red herring at best. We're not going down that road.
This argument is of the same form as "well what's it to you if we invade your privacy if you have nothing to hide". It doesn't matter if I have nothing to hide, and it doesn't matter how much effort it takes. My answer is no because no. I'm not going to do it. Kick. Rocks.

In fact, even if I were inclined to accommodate this request, the instant one insists and makes a demand that I do so is the instant I don't (as the saying goes) "because fuck you is why".
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 06:30:20 pm
I see figures of speech and poetic license seem to evade you, and to be honest, it's actually draining to have to spell these things out. People find this tedious.

When I say "only a transgender with their perennial insistence for special consideration and accommodations would make."

It's flippant. Tongue-in-cheek. Slight hyperbole for effect. These are perfectly common literary devices. We're not automatons, here... well at least I don't think we are.

Now, I mean not to be inflammatory, this is a legitimate question just so I know the size-of what it is I'm replying to here: are you perchance somewhere on the autism spectrum?

Never been officially diagnosed (even though I brought it up once to the therapist I was seeing due to being trans), but I do suspect so.
You are only the 2nd person in my life who asked me that question, though (the other one was a classmate ~15 years ago).

I tend to take written things literally in forums on philosophical discussions and similar like this forum here, as I assume that people put some thought into what they write.
If I would have phrased things like you had, I would have meant them the way I interpreted yours.

Quote
It doesn't matter how much effort it takes. Why is that so hard to wrap your tragically self-absorbed heads around? It's impelled speech.
This argument is of the same form as "well what's it to you if we invade your privacy if you have nothing to hide". It doesn't matter if I have nothing to hide, and it doesn't matter how much effort it takes. My answer is no because no. I'm not going to do it. Kick. Rocks.

In fact, even if I were inclined to accommodate this demand, the instant one insists that I do so is the instant I don't because fuck you is why.
I can actually relate to that. Wouldn't seem the wisest decision to me, so I wouldn't do that.
And I don't see much sense in intentionally hurting someone else's feelings for the heck of it.
Also it would imply to me that I would consider gender-transitioning to be something one should not do, which I obviously don't, so it would be hypocritical if I'd act like that.
If you can justify to yourself disrespecting someone's gender identity but respecting their gender-related life decisions, then go for it.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 06:54:06 pm
If you can justify to yourself disrespecting someone's gender identity but respecting their gender-related life decisions, then go for it.

That's easy - I don't even respect them on the basis of their gender-related life decisions. My respect for someone is not at all contingent on one's self-perceived sex or gender. The thought that it should be is just alien to my way of thinking. I moreover think gender as anything other than a synonym for physiological sex is an absurd post-modernist construct, and that there could be nothing more vapid than taking pride in something as utterly meaningless, and unimportant as one's sexual orientation.

Because sue me, I respect people on the basis of things that actually matter: the content of their character and if that makes me a hate-filled bigot, OFW.

And you really have to ask yourself: Is it any less "wrong" that I am presumed an intolerant bigot for merely choosing to call things what they are, while holding human beings accountable to measures of respect that require actual effort beyond mere identification? It's plain to me who really should be taking offense, here. And no doubt they rightly would were it not that crying victim is abhorrent to anyone who knows the meaning of self-respect.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 07:19:10 pm
If you can justify to yourself disrespecting someone's gender identity but respecting their gender-related life decisions, then go for it.

That's easy - I don't even respect them on the basis of their gender-related life decisions. My respect for someone is not at all contingent on one's self-perceived sex or gender. The thought that it should be is just alien to my way of thinking. I moreover think gender as anything other than a synonym for physiological sex is an absurd post-modernist construct, and that there could be nothing more vapid than taking pride in something as utterly meaningless, and unimportant as one's sexual orientation.

Because sue me, I respect people on the basis of things that actually matter: the content of their character and if that makes me a hate-filled bigot, OFW.

Just for your info: There are/were cultures with up to 5 different genders. So, doesn't seem that post-modernist to me.

But believe what you will.

I also find "pride", as in "gay pride" etc., quite a misnomer.

I was using "respecting" in the sense of "considering valid", "considering not batshit insane".
And I wouldn't know how to derive a person's character from their behavior regarding pronouns alone, too many unknown variables.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 07:49:28 pm
And you really have to ask yourself: Is it any less "wrong" that I am presumed an intolerant bigot for merely choosing to call things what they are, while holding human beings accountable to measures of respect that require actual effort beyond mere identification? It's plain to me who really should be taking offense, here. And no doubt they rightly would were it not that crying victim is abhorrent to anyone who knows the meaning of self-respect.
It's a different way of measuring things. I normally treat pretty much everyone with respect, out of strategy, and it would mean going very much out of my way to disrespecting someone intentionally in that fashion. You know that the person in question doesn't consider themself a "he" or whatever, and that the person in question by that does not mean that they don't have a male body but that they don't see themself belonging to the social group of people normally referred to with "he". Therefore, you are not merely doing identification by using whichever pronoun you choose to use but you are claiming they would belong to a given social group that they don't identify with.
And since the person thus referred to also knows that, it is understandable that they react offended.
Uninentional misgendering can happen, and overreacting about that is surely a sign of an underlying psychological issue (and be it just stress), but if it's done intentionally it's hard to not consider it a personal attack.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 22, 2019, 08:23:10 pm

Just for your info: There are/were cultures with up to 5 different genders. So, doesn't seem that post-modernist to me.


What they have are specific words for: dude-who-acts-like a woman, woman-who-acts-like-a-dude, dude-who-acts-like-a-dude, woman-who-acts-like-a-woman, and hermaphrodite.

Conversely in the Philippines all they have by way of pronouns is "siya". If it's a man it's "siya" if it's a female, it's also "siya". What does that say of their recognition of genders? Nothing at all, and neither does that.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 22, 2019, 08:28:51 pm

Just for your info: There are/were cultures with up to 5 different genders. So, doesn't seem that post-modernist to me.


What they have are specific words for: dude-who-acts-like a woman, woman-who-acts-like-a-dude, dude-who-acts-like-a-dude, woman-who-acts-like-a-woman, and hermaphrodite.
From what I recall the last category wasn't hermaphodite/intersexual, but don't remember.
I can see your point, and I mentioned before that there is a biological foundation to some aspects of gender.
Still means that these cultures recognized that just because someone has a given set of genitals they don't necessarily are happy to be in the same social category as most other people with that set of genitals.
People reacting offended about being misgendered do so because they assume you don't recognize that fact (and because they may have had a lot of negative experiences with such people).
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Km Anu on September 22, 2019, 11:15:02 pm
Quote
I would postulate the following interpretation of the study's results: If someone does have childhood trauma, that can make it much more difficult to deal with a preexisting gender-nonconformity, and also to suppress being transgender on top of it.
Just a guess, though, I haven't looked that closely into it.

That's interesting! It's the opposite of my beleif. With this identified, I can use both moving foreward, thank you.

I was thinking along the lines of trauma structuring behavior via negative association. Those negative associations are more likey to manifest as behavioral patterns that favor disassociation with the gender.

By adding the neurological change as causality, it could be said that an individual with the neural make-up to disassociate with their sex is more likely to also disassociate with their gender if they experience early trauma.

You may also be able to theorize that the two are interdependent, that it takes some combination of both for the topic of current discussion to manifest. That is my fluid belief.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Km Anu on September 22, 2019, 11:50:09 pm
I see figures of speech and poetic license seem to evade you, and to be honest, it's actually draining to have to spell these things out. People find this tedious.

When I say "only a transgender with their perennial insistence for special consideration and accommodations would make."

It's flippant. Tongue-in-cheek. Slight hyperbole for effect. These are perfectly common literary devices. We're not automatons, here... well at least I don't think we are.

Now, I mean not to be inflammatory, this is a legitimate question just so I know the size-of what it is I'm replying to here: are you perchance somewhere on the autism spectrum?

Quote
But how much effort does it however need to use the pronouns a person either asks for or those of the gender that the person obviously tries to pass as.
It doesn't matter how much effort it takes. It's impelled speech. Why is that so hard to wrap your tragically self-absorbed heads around?  I'm not going to be roped-in to arguing something as subjective as to "how hard it is to monitor pronoun usage", because that's patently absurd and totally beside the point. A red herring at best. We're not going down that road.
This argument is of the same form as "well what's it to you if we invade your privacy if you have nothing to hide". It doesn't matter if I have nothing to hide, and it doesn't matter how much effort it takes. My answer is no because no. I'm not going to do it. Kick. Rocks.

In fact, even if I were inclined to accommodate this request, the instant one insists and makes a demand that I do so is the instant I don't (as the saying goes) "because fuck you is why".

The effect you're aiming for is innapropriate for the setting.

"1. Posting
This forum is intended to facilitate mature Left-Hand Path discussions. The boards are lightly moderated, but personal attacks and trolling won't be tolerated. Please format posts so others can read them. You are in control of your content and can modify it at any time with the exception of deleting entire threads."


It doesnt matter what effect you're aiming towards, making your argument by saying "no offense, are you autistic?" Is not appropriate here. Paired with "It's flippant. Tongue-in-cheek. Slight hyperbole for effect," I can only surmise that you're doing this intentionally.

If you do not agree with someone, make a legitimate counter argument. It's okay to ask for clarification, it's okay to disagree, but it's pointless to do so if your only contribution is that you dont agree and dont care to expand.

Asking someone why they interpret what you say the way you do doesnt have to involve questioning the presence of autism spectrum disorder. If you want to be taken seriously and post within the forum guidelines you need to do it without negative descriptors aimed at the character of forum members, like when you refered to everyone as "tragically self-absorbed."
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Xepera-maSet on September 23, 2019, 12:51:32 am

ADMIN NOTE:

Disagreement = good

Insulting other forum members = bad

Certain obvious insults will not make it to a third "strike"
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 23, 2019, 01:12:52 am
I don't think there's anything particularly offensive or shameful about being or being perceived as autistic any more so than there is anything particularly offensive or shameful about being or being perceived as trans-whatever. These are both naturally occurring neurological conditions which need to be brought to light maturely if they are to be addressed.

Idiot, I could understand.

If I'm engaging in textual intercourse with a person, knowing if they fall somewhere on the spectrum is important for me at least enough to ask. Similarly if I'm engaging with sexual intercourse with a person, knowing that they are trans is also important for me to know about.

If you find that offensive, maybe the problem is you. Big red letters don't make it so.

That's just the way of things. There has to be a line beyond which the risk offending someone is deemed acceptable, because if we don't draw it for ourselves someone else will, and if you think the C/S is fascist, some very, very big surprises are in store for you if we as a society keep plodding down this path where no one can speak at all for fear of offending someone and risking censure. Is that the world you really want? Because that's the one your "tolerance and sensitivity" is going to get you.

As to my counter-argument: It's in there. Sadly, I'd have to try very hard to make more than a paragraph of it. It is this:

There simply is no justification in my mind for impelled speech. Period.

There is no justification in my mind for the demands a group identity to presume dictate the laws by which two people - two individuals - must address each other. What pronouns they can and cannot use. What level of consideration must be given.

That is for two grown adults to negotiate between themselves as individuals. Just as what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom is their business and their business alone.

If I decide to accommodate a trans-person in their desire to be called he or she despite what I know full well to be true and in spite of my beliefs concerning sex and physiology, it will be because I know and respect that person personally enough to play along. And yeah, that is asking a lot.

No one gets carte blanche for my consideration and uncritical acceptance on account of what they merely identify as. And I honestly can think of nothing more "Christian" than the very premise of universal acceptance based solely on one's claim to an identity.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Xepera-maSet on September 23, 2019, 01:56:53 am
There's quite a gap between the problem of disagreement offending others and insulting one personally in the sense of an ad hominem fallacy. Hell, fascism relies on ad hominem fallacies, especially those like "you disagree, so you must have cognitive problems".
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 23, 2019, 02:11:26 am
That's not an ad-hominen, it was a legitimate question and framed as tactfully as one can. You can read it yourself.

Moreover, a bigger question is who exactly is offended? It seems everyone but the person it was directed to. Why do you suppose that is?


And yes, it is important to know if a person you are communicating with is on the spectrum, because it saves a ton of time when you know that sarcasm, flippancy, figurative language anything non-literal just causes way more confusion than it clarifies. That's just the nature of the beast. It's how they process things. If you know this ahead of time you can___ what's the word? ___ oh right: accommodate them!

Here's a story - it is relevant if you have eyes to see it, bear with me:

A buddy of mine was tasked with implementing a real quick and dirty Captcha system for some site. It consisted of a phrase with words that were different colors. You had to type in the phrase or answer what color is the fourth word or whatever. Not well-thought-out and very quick and dirty. It just had to be quick, nothing too complicated.

So, anyway, he implements it and it seems to be working, but every so often he'd get these calls from the users that every now and again the captcha would just reject their responses even though they knew for sure they entered it right.

Guy spends countless hours - weeks on project that should only take not even a day - trying to replicate the error, refactoring his code, all that. Still, just when he thought he had it nailed down - a day or two later he'd get another call, this time from another user. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

He asks me to look at it, I see nothing wrong with the code, and it just occurs to me

 "well maybe they're just fucking color blind!"

... turns out that's exactly what it was.

They were too embarrassed to say, didn't consider it important, and my buddy just didn't want to risk offending anyone.

Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Mindmaster on September 23, 2019, 02:32:18 am
I think there is some causal relationship between being LGBTQ+ and being LHP.
If one is LHP, one does a lot of selfwork, so if one hadn't been aware/certain of one's sexual or gender queerness beforehand, it's likely to come to light. Also the tolerance on the path makes it much easier to acknowledge one's queerness. Therefore, the amount of LHPers who are queer without knowing it is smaller than in the general population.
And if one already knew it before one entered the LHP, it may have contributed to one's decision to become an LHPer, due to the aforementioned tolerance, and also because it can benefit one in dealing with any mental health issues caused by suppressing or having to hide one's queerness.

Everything in someone's life is relevant to pursuing the LHP collectively, but it is not usually specific to that path. I'm perplexed by the being queer and not knowing it comment, if only because I couldn't imagine being in that head space. Self-awareness is probably the most galvanizing personal trait present when someone decides to pursue the path. You know you're not a normie, you know why, but moreover since you are freed from the burden of conformity the LHP becomes really appealing. However, you know it's not a social club and by this juncture you're not needing that -- the need to belong or fit in is gone.

Quote
...unless it's among their personal values to support rights of sexual preference and gender expression.

I'm still at the the "what rights" issue. They have rights to be LGBT, and no one is stopping them. Social norms will not change with any amount of activism, so that's wasted effort. Those change as people are exposed to "the others" and realize they're not any trouble. The only issue I really see is from legal snafus in regard to what is considered marriage, and that's because those laws simply weren't written in mindset of being inclusive of these alternative lifestyles -- it's not that they were particularly written to deny those benefits to these individuals. (Lack of awareness versus actual resistance, two different things...) Affecting the social norm is not a LHPers business even if they project their ego into the issue and make it so. "If you are vexed by the social norm then you're not free of it!" is really the short of it... :D

Quote
From what I heard about the US, the legal situation seems quite a bit worse than here in Germany.

Not really, most transgender people here can do everything anyone else can provided they have the skills and resources. Even in the cases where something more be difficult to accomplish it's still possible, just requires more effort on the part of the individual. Society isn't really against you in that regard, but there are individuals whom are still not on board and that happens anywhere. Rural areas are much more traditional, but that's the case in any country...

Quote
I would agree that for the purpose of changing the minds of homophobic or transphobic people, activism doesn't help, it may even further convince them of their prejudices.
I hardly face any discrimination for being trans here (well I also don't talk about it that often). The only explicitly negative reaction I heard of was a friend of my dad saying that transpeople on pride parades are just attention-hungry. Pride parades aren't exactly the same thing as activism and have their own purpose, but it shows that they can have the opposite effect from the intended one.

To the person that isn't LGBT themselves, a pride parades look like the day they all put on the clown shoes. There isn't any positive social gain to participate in that activity if you ask me. :D

As far as reinforcing negative biases -- that's all pride parades and activism accomplish. But, part of me believes that there is a segment of those communities that have a persecution complex and do get something out of it. The only way for me to understand it easily is if I was contemplating participating in a "Satanic Pride" parade -- would this parade be to enrich me, entertain me, or piss of the normies and put me on their hate radar? :D It's obvious that it's nonsensical either way, but I think you see my point.

The real way for transgenders to gain acceptance is to demonstrate their value to society through results. That's that case for anyone, but especially true when you are extremely non-conventional. That'll change minds faster than anything, if that is a personal priority... It also lines up extremely well with the LHP in execution.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Mindmaster on September 23, 2019, 02:35:07 am
There's quite a gap between the problem of disagreement offending others and insulting one personally in the sense of an ad hominem fallacy. Hell, fascism relies on ad hominem fallacies, especially those like "you disagree, so you must have cognitive problems".

There is really no socio-political ideology that doesn't fall victim to this path of rationale in one way or another. Hence, my blanket warning: "There is no good herd for a left-hand pather."
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Km Anu on September 23, 2019, 04:52:53 am
That's not an ad-hominen, it was a legitimate question and framed as tactfully as one can. You can read it yourself.

Moreover, a bigger question is who exactly is offended? It seems everyone but the person it was directed to. Why do you suppose that is?


And yes, it is important to know if a person you are communicating with is on the spectrum, because it saves a ton of time when you know that sarcasm, flippancy, figurative language anything non-literal just causes way more confusion than it clarifies. That's just the nature of the beast. It's how they process things. If you know this ahead of time you can___ what's the word? ___ oh right: accommodate them!

Here's a story - it is relevant if you have eyes to see it, bear with me:

A buddy of mine was tasked with implementing a real quick and dirty Captcha system for some site. It consisted of a phrase with words that were different colors. You had to type in the phrase or answer what color is the fourth word or whatever. Not well-thought-out and very quick and dirty. It just had to be quick, nothing too complicated.

So, anyway, he implements it and it seems to be working, but every so often he'd get these calls from the users that every now and again the captcha would just reject their responses even though they knew for sure they entered it right.

Guy spends countless hours - weeks on project that should only take not even a day - trying to replicate the error, refactoring his code, all that. Still, just when he thought he had it nailed down - a day or two later he'd get another call, this time from another user. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

He asks me to look at it, I see nothing wrong with the code, and it just occurs to me

 "well maybe they're just fucking color blind!"

... turns out that's exactly what it was.

They were too embarrassed to say, didn't consider it important, and my buddy just didn't want to risk offending anyone.

The rule is not to avoid offense, and I'm not investing energy into a philosophical debate about the nature of our forum guidelines.  Your comment was innapropriate.  You do not have to agree, but you do have to follow our guidelines to retain membership.

You are also presenting a false dichotomy.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 23, 2019, 06:18:26 am
Thanks for defending me, but I didn't feel offended whatsoever by the question whether I'm on the autism spectrum.
As I mentioned here and elsewhere on this board before, it might quite likely actually be the case.
It would have been better to first just point out that I'm taking something too literally than to get overly surprised about it, but in the previous cases here where I misunderstood people due to taking them by their word, they also didn't really point out anything for quite a while, so it's actually good IALPRR brought up the confusion within a reasonable timespan.

Regarding impelled speech:
As to my counter-argument: It's in there. Sadly, I'd have to try very hard to make more than a paragraph of it. It is this:

There simply is no justification in my mind for impelled speech. Period.

There is no justification in my mind for the demands a group identity to presume dictate the laws by which two people - two individuals - must address each other. What pronouns they can and cannot use. What level of consideration must be given.
It seems to me like you're having an emotional problem with changing or broadening your definition of "he" and "she" towards what a significant segment of the population is taking it to mean nowadays. Just some suggestion for introspection, I might be mistaken.

That's interesting! It's the opposite of my beleif. With this identified, I can use both moving foreward, thank you.

I was thinking along the lines of trauma structuring behavior via negative association. Those negative associations are more likey to manifest as behavioral patterns that favor disassociation with the gender.

By adding the neurological change as causality, it could be said that an individual with the neural make-up to disassociate with their sex is more likely to also disassociate with their gender if they experience early trauma.

You may also be able to theorize that the two are interdependent, that it takes some combination of both for the topic of current discussion to manifest. That is my fluid belief.
Those seem to be two sides of the same coin to me, so yes, likely interrelated.

Everything in someone's life is relevant to pursuing the LHP collectively, but it is not usually specific to that path. I'm perplexed by the being queer and not knowing it comment, if only because I couldn't imagine being in that head space. Self-awareness is probably the most galvanizing personal trait present when someone decides to pursue the path. You know you're not a normie, you know why, but moreover since you are freed from the burden of conformity the LHP becomes really appealing. However, you know it's not a social club and by this juncture you're not needing that -- the need to belong or fit in is gone.
Some people may first enter the path and then grow up. Or they may be "different" in some other way but for some reason or another haven't given this aspect the proper attention yet.
Heck I've been a Satanist for longer than being fully aware that I'm trans - when I "became" a Satanist 6 years ago or so, I was hardly aware that transsexuality is a thing. I mean, I had gender dysphoria, but I found different explanations (e.g. trauma from being bullied plus having social anxiety making me avoid normal sexuality and thereby also dislike sexual aspects of my body, or belief that gender is purely a social construct and that this is why I don't fit in any of the female stereotypes and more into the male stereotypes.) Also didn't know that I'm asexual, assumed I was pansexual as I didn't know that what I was experiencing was just aesthetic attraction, not sexual attraction.

Quote
I'm still at the the "what rights" issue. They have rights to be LGBT, and no one is stopping them. Social norms will not change with any amount of activism, so that's wasted effort. Those change as people are exposed to "the others" and realize they're not any trouble. The only issue I really see is from legal snafus in regard to what is considered marriage, and that's because those laws simply weren't written in mindset of being inclusive of these alternative lifestyles -- it's not that they were particularly written to deny those benefits to these individuals. (Lack of awareness versus actual resistance, two different things...) Affecting the social norm is not a LHPers business even if they project their ego into the issue and make it so. "If you are vexed by the social norm then you're not free of it!" is really the short of it... :D
Well Kapalika for example mentioned the right of being protected against losing your job or your apartment due to being trans. Seems like an important one to me.

Quote
To the person that isn't LGBT themselves, a pride parades look like the day they all put on the clown shoes. There isn't any positive social gain to participate in that activity if you ask me. :D

As far as reinforcing negative biases -- that's all pride parades and activism accomplish. But, part of me believes that there is a segment of those communities that have a persecution complex and do get something out of it. The only way for me to understand it easily is if I was contemplating participating in a "Satanic Pride" parade -- would this parade be to enrich me, entertain me, or piss of the normies and put me on their hate radar? :D It's obvious that it's nonsensical either way, but I think you see my point.
I partly do see your point. Still think people are also having pride parades for slightly different reasons, though, like enjoying to have an occasion to celebrate and being shown acceptance for an aspect of themselves that they have been discriminated against before, or simply enjoying being in a large group of people that they can be sure are on their side.
I also don't really see the sense for me to go to one to be honest but doesn't mean others aren't getting something worthwhile out of it.
And also for people who aren't queer in their gender or sexuality, a pride parade may still be a demonstration of liberal values and individuality.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 23, 2019, 12:27:42 pm
Quote
The rule is not to avoid offense, and I'm not investing energy into a philosophical debate about the nature of our forum guidelines.  Your comment was innapropriate.  You do not have to agree, but you do have to follow our guidelines to retain membership.

You are also presenting a false dichotomy.
It's not a comment. It was a legitimate question. It sounds to me like you're the one who's offended, to which I offer no apologies whatsoever for that.

Also. You can't just wave the name of a logical fallacy that doesn't even remotely apply like a "expecto patronum" and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Quote
It seems to me like you're having an emotional problem with changing or broadening your definition of "he" and "she" towards what a significant segment of the population is taking it to mean nowadays. Just some suggestion for introspection, I might be mistaken.

It seems to me like they're having an emotional problem with my not changing or broadening my definition of "he" and "she" towards what an insignificant segment of the population is taking it to mean nowadays.

So, this being an "LHP forum" (reportedly) which side do you suppose should yield?

I certainly wouldn't want to break some sort of unspoken taboo or seem as if bucking prevailing societal norms by simply speaking truth to power. Perish the thought! Nothing could be further from LHP than that!
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Xepera-maSet on September 23, 2019, 12:36:36 pm
I think the very idea that someone must "yeild" on epistemologically unanswerable questions is a curious one.

I also think being against discrimination towards non-harmful things is a perfectly valid mindset for the LHPer.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Hapu on September 23, 2019, 01:38:21 pm
Hence, my blanket warning: "There is no good herd for a left-hand pather."

My brain initially processed that as, "There is no good herd for a left-hand panther."

Which, I've decided, I kind of like.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 23, 2019, 03:41:18 pm
I think the very idea that someone must "yeild" on epistemologically unanswerable questions is a curious one.
I tend to agree, except I word it with greater vehemence. I sense, although I cannot prove, something more insidious and unctuous at play here than simply the hurt feelings of a small minority. What it boils down to is the control of language - en' mass via an appeal to emotion. This should be setting-off all manner of red flags to anyone who truly appreciates the power of words.

*incidentally this is what I mean by "tragically self-absorbed", that this issue isn't about them. It's about something much bigger.

Quote
I also think being against discrimination towards non-harmful things is a perfectly valid mindset for the LHPer.

LHPer gets murky. I don't mean to offend anyone but it really is a nebulous buzzword that I don't think is meant to prescribe anything specific enough to be dogmatic about. It most cases - especially on the internet - it is descriptive.

Questioning if X is LHP or RHP or a valid stance for an LHPer is seldom ever productive, it lends itself to endless discussions that really all amount to "well it really just depends on how you vector it", and I have to say, choosing to behave one way or another because it is the LHP thing to do is a bit carriage before the horse. This, of course, if we agree on LHP in the descriptive sense.

Now, in the prescriptive sense, it gets much, much murkier:

If one personally is against discrimination, one could easily suggest that this is a personal taboo which they would gain a great deal by committing themselves to breaking.

This is strictly LHP, and a point at which it diverges with the LaVeyan strain of Satanism.

Satanism introduces a whole separate can of worms: namely that the needs of the individual trump the needs of any "group" - especially those of a victimized minority. Phrases such as "I don't run on your clock" and "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine" comes to mind.

Some could argue rightly that discrimination is not an inherently bad thing: i.e. "he has a discriminating tastes" - and this is not equivocation. Even here, it becomes a personal decision - a negotiation between two individuals on how they choose to address one another.

I mean here: a guy believes he's a she? ok fine. I'm not saying he can't believe that. But with that, that does not give him the right to suggest that it's not ok for me to believe that he's still a guy who just thinks he's a girl. I'm not committing acts of violence against the person, and I am not disrespecting him by calling "him" "him".

Maybe I personally am insulted that I am being made out to be disrespectful for calling things as they are and not as they imagine themselves to be.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: Liu on September 23, 2019, 04:09:10 pm
It seems to me like they're having an emotional problem with my not changing or broadening my definition of "he" and "she" towards what an insignificant segment of the population is taking it to mean nowadays.
I wasn't only referring to transpeople by calling it a significant segment of the population but pretty much anyone minding their language regarding gender issues.

Quote
*incidentally this is what I mean by "tragically self-absorbed", that this issue isn't about them. It's about something much bigger.
To me the only bigger movement that seems to be part of is one about supporting people in the expression of their individuality.

I admit that the strategies, including linguistic ones, which some suggest to be employed for that are not always that good of an idea and that some people can get quite narrow-minded and dogmatic in that very pursuit, as strange as it seems.
But using pronouns according to gender instead of according to sex seems really like not a huge deal to me.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: IALPRT on September 23, 2019, 04:17:47 pm

But using pronouns according to gender instead of according to sex seems really like not a huge deal to me.

Yeah, but like I mentioned I don't run on your clock.

If it's not a big deal to you, then feel free to mind your Ps and Qs. You believe you're a gender that does not conform to your birth sex? That's fine. I don't believe in gender. There is only physiological sex. You're entitled to act on your beliefs, and so am I.

I'm not telling you to act the sex you were born, so kindly keep your social constructs out of my mouth.
Title: Re: Some CoS inside information
Post by: W_Adam_Smythe on October 15, 2019, 01:05:04 am
This is to the level where guys like the one who runs the official merch website are being demoted to Warlock from Reverend or higher!

On this point, while I do not know the full details, I can say this: My understanding of this guy was that something stemmed from out and out homophobic comments he had made back in the alt.satanism days that someone fount.

However, from what I heard this had nothing at all to do with his demotion and possible expulsion. That had to do with either being drastically late in shipping orders out or in some cases people not getting their orders at all, but the CoS still put up with that. If my sources are accurate on this one it boiled down to that he wasn't giving Peter the 10% for use of the Sigil of Baphomet and he was caught.

If all of this is true the real quirk is within the ethics. The CoS was fine with this guy taking members of the CoS for a ride but as soon as he got his hand in that 10% cookie jar he was out.