Appagheny Forum

I'm going to start this thread with the question of trans ontology.

For those unaware, ontology is the philosophical study of what is. So a trans ontology is a description of being that would include an explanation for the transgender phenomenon. My goals in this thread are to discuss the different schools of thought outside of any ideology. Whether is this board finds trans men and women heckin' valid or godless degenerates (or something in between) is moot. Nor is this thread interested in what the culture war has to say - if you are here in the first place you probably aren't on that bandwagon to begin with.

Also, because I am lazy I will start calling "transgender people" Trannies because it is faster to type. If you feel I have poisoned the well please consult your PCs power button.

So there are two broad schools of thought that I will call Transgender Realism (TR) and Transgender Conditionalism (TC). TR posits that trannies are a direct result of a dissonance between one's essence (soul, consciousness, what have you) and one's physical body. TC posits that the trans phenomenon is not a direct result of some dissonance between self and body, but that transness is a psychological state, gender dysphoria is a symptom of some other underlying issue (mental illness, conditioning, porn addiction, degeneracy, internalized homophobia, autism, etc.)

TR requires one to have a personal heuristic to discover one's true essence. From my understanding, this is usually determined by whether you experience bad or good feelings surrounding your relationship between your sense of self and your body. TC on the other hand tries to explain transgenderism based off of empirical study from the outside looking in.

Initially it seems that TR has a very difficult problem, since many of its claims are both personal and metaphysical, on the other hand TC has the benefit of a more empirical framework. This does not mean that TR is incorrect because of this. After all, there are unempirical and personal things that are unfalsifiable but are also most definitely are true.

If TC is the better option for explaining trannies, then the question is what condition or conditions best explain the existence of gender dysphoria, and how do people get to a state of desiring transition?
Pictured: Monica Helms (Birthname: Robert Hogge) creator of the Trans Flag

I don't think I could expect more from someone who thinks its a good idea to name their queer board "faggotology" I bet you slept on that one, huh?

Don't try to legitimize your position further by adding little academic flourishes. Why would you take the time to write out Transgender Realism and Transgender Conditionalism but be "too lazy" to write out transgender people. Why not just "trans ppl?" it's clear that you are already coming at this with a transphobic bias so please don't dilute yourself. What you have described as TC is just trans medicalism and TR is just trans by identity - there is no need for another word shitting up the lexicon.

Also, why does it matter? Genuinely, if trans people exist due to this or that. The important thing is that they are here and that they should be allowed to live their lives.

First off thanks for hating my reply enough to create and account and post.

Admittedly yes, and I'll take the critique. The name originally came from "Circuits of the Sacred: A Faggotology in the Black Latinx Caribbean" by Carlos Ulises Decena because I thought it was a funny and failed way to reclaim the slur. No I have not read it.

I think the question of why does it matter is a bit of a silly one. I can think of several reasons - it can better explain the phenomenon, it can inform social policy, it can inform the best solution, it's an interesting topic and I want to talk about it. Yeah I'm a bit critical, but I have my reasons that I want to it hash out.