Maybe I'm wrong, but I was getting the impression the comparison was in how trans people are as misunderstood as the monster was in the book.

(November 20, 2024 at 1:30 am)Silver Wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I was getting the impression the comparison was in how trans people are as misunderstood as the monster was in the book.

That could well be. I mean, even some like myself, while sympathetic to trans rights and socialization, still don't understand what it means to be trans ... or monster. But "monster" as a term is less about misunderstanding and more about demonization, the way I read it.

My son's mom wanted to watch a horror movie one night, so I went and rented The Elephant Man. The horror was not in what Joseph Merrick did to others, it was what they did to him. Misunderstanding someone so much that you traumatize them is a horror too, and no less horrific than a monster cut loose on the world.

Whose horror is it?

(November 20, 2024 at 1:30 am)Silver Wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I was getting the impression the comparison was in how trans people are as misunderstood as the monster was in the book.

So the most generous interpretation is that this troll is criminally tone-deaf? Maybe I'm wrong, but I was getting the impression that they were sub-literate with a single digit IQ and wouldn't know Frankenstein if the good doctor took a dump on them.

(November 19, 2024 at 6:16 pm)Belacqua Wrote: No one will discuss the real issues with you though.

Waiting for Bel to show me where the OP brought up any issue, real or imaginary, in any coherent sense. Won't hold my breath.

(November 20, 2024 at 3:03 am)Paleophyte Wrote:

(November 20, 2024 at 1:30 am)Silver Wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I was getting the impression the comparison was in how trans people are as misunderstood as the monster was in the book.

So the most generous interpretation is that this troll is criminally tone-deaf? Maybe I'm wrong, but I was getting the impression that they were sub-literate with a single digit IQ and wouldn't know Frankenstein if the good doctor took a dump on them.

And, frankly, even if you don’t know Frankenstein, and even if you are sub-literate, there’s resources for you. Like this Wendigoon video covering the story:





Maybe with the first post, they could be argued to be tone deaf, but then they replied and started agglutinating a bunch of things the far-right hates and tossed any good faith interpretation out the window.

(November 20, 2024 at 3:06 am)Paleophyte Wrote:

(November 19, 2024 at 6:16 pm)Belacqua Wrote: No one will discuss the real issues with you though.

Waiting for Bel to show me where the OP brought up any issue, real or imaginary, in any coherent sense. Won't hold my breath.

It doesn't seem obscure or difficult to me. If I'm not clear you can just ask a question. 

Though other interpretations are possible, the standard view of the Frankenstein myth is that a scientist does something just because he can, but then sees that the consequences are bad. You see it in movies like Jurassic Park. "My god, we've created a monster!" or "We knew that we could, but we didn't think about whether we should." 

The OP believes that the recent increase in trans therapy, including both chemical and surgical interventions, is scientific hubris. He thinks that the science is playing God and interfering with nature in ways that people are going to regret. 

Obviously if I'm wrong about his opinion I hope he'll correct me. But it seems clear, and he's far from being the only person to think this. 

For the record, I am not against people transitioning if they are making sound informed decisions. People should be free to choose.

(November 20, 2024 at 5:09 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 20, 2024 at 3:06 am)Paleophyte Wrote: Waiting for Bel to show me where the OP brought up any issue, real or imaginary, in any coherent sense. Won't hold my breath.

It doesn't seem obscure or difficult to me. If I'm not clear you can just ask a question. 

Though other interpretations are possible, the standard view of the Frankenstein myth is that a scientist does something just because he can, but then sees that the consequences are bad. You see it in movies like Jurassic Park. "My god, we've created a monster!" or "We knew that we could, but we didn't think about whether we should." 

The OP believes that the recent increase in trans therapy, including both chemical and surgical interventions, is scientific hubris. He thinks that the science is playing God and interfering with nature in ways that people are going to regret. 

Obviously if I'm wrong about his opinion I hope he'll correct me. But it seems clear, and he's far from being the only person to think this. 

For the record, I am not against people transitioning if they are making sound informed decisions. People should be free to choose.

If that is a correct interpretation of the OP, then a lousy analogy is being made. All the bits and bobs that made up The Creature weren't suffering from depression and persecution because they were non-living. They didn't seek out help from the good Doctor to adapt their physical form to conform to their identity. Conversely, modern medicine is no more 'playing God and interfering with nature' by doing trans therapy than they are when they replace a liver or set a bone.

A much more likely interpretation of the OP is that he's a drive-by shitposting troll.

Boru

(November 19, 2024 at 6:16 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 18, 2024 at 11:17 pm)RantingManchester Wrote: A guy trying to play God for fame (Money)
Makes something hideous, the public dont like it. Monster goes on a rampage. Monster wants sympathy, monster kills girl. Mob kills monster.

I say thats a interesting morale of the story.

There are still red lines, 

For me that red line will always be cruel bigotry, even if it does incur the disdain of the self appointed intellectual conscience of the forum. Can you see Texas from that high horse?

(November 20, 2024 at 5:09 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 20, 2024 at 3:06 am)Paleophyte Wrote: Waiting for Bel to show me where the OP brought up any issue, real or imaginary, in any coherent sense. Won't hold my breath.

The OP believes that the recent increase in trans therapy, including both chemical and surgical interventions, is scientific hubris.

Another view, that requires no interpretations, is that he created a crass facile comparison in order to troll. though of course byond what was posted I can't claim to know what that poster believes, that would be rather silly.

I do have a question though, while you're... sorry I do apologise, while @RantingManchester is decrying scientific hubris, here are some figures from the US dept of Justice that the FBI have compiled on hate crimes for 2022:

"LGBTQI+ Targeted Crimes: Incidents targeting gay men reached 1,075, while anti-lesbian incidents numbered 622. Both categories recorded their highest totals in the past five years and increased by more than 10% since 2021. A significant increase of nearly 40% was observed in reported anti-transgender incidents (totaling 338) compared to 2021."

CITATION

More hubris?

(November 20, 2024 at 5:41 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(November 19, 2024 at 6:16 pm)Belacqua Wrote: There are still red lines, 

For me that red line will always be cruel bigotry, even if it does incur the disdain of the self appointed intellectual conscience of the forum. Can you see Texas from that high horse?

I'm on the other side of the world from Texas.

We are ideologically in agreement, in that we think that trans women are women, and that there should be no discrimination against people based on sexual orientation or gender. 

Some people are stricter than we are concerning their epistemology. They think that we should only believe in those things for which there is objective evidence, and that subjective testimony is not good enough to be persuasive. So they don't accept the subjective testimony of people who say that their gender is different from what (until recently) was taken to be objectively indicative of maleness or femaleness. Objective evidence would include things like chromosomes or anatomy, or other observable, empirical evidence. For our more accepting attitude, subjective testimony is sufficient.