The religious mystery aspect kept me watching the show and by the end literally no questions I had were answered. I liked the show but I wish they didnt even bother with the great plot for all they did with it.

What film was that mentioned? I don't recall anything about Asuka being a clone in the tetralogy.

I’m really struggling to see anything here that you could object to. Do you remember the public discourse around Trump’s tweets being civil and open-minded?

Yes, it was just for the sake of simplicity. I wasn't sure whether it would be good to explain what Evas are or not as the first paragraph was already getting long enough and this wasn't the article's intention (or it would take too long until the reader reaches the actual theme of the article), so I just refered to them as fighting robots believing this would be bo problem (unless it was a full Evangelion's analysis; if this was the case, of course it wouldn't be possible to do so).

In the Rebuild, Asuka is also from a series of clones.

How so? That’s kind of one of the core tenents of science, is it not

[removed]

Unless I'm forgetting my Eva... Rei is the clone.

Debated for sure. Scientists never imagined they’d ever need the philosophers’ help to do science, but they do

What does it truly mean to observe? And does it require consciousness?

Out of curiosity, did you refer to the evas as robots for simplicity’s sake?

I think this interpretation of what "observation" means in quantum physics is generally rejected in the scientific community.

It seems consciousness is not a requirement for observation to occur in this context.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

Facts are the dimensions (in the sense of things along which information is conserved) which constitute the map, which, remember– is NOT the territory.

Language cannot be used to get around that.

I noticed you wrote the article, it's pretty good keep it up! And maybe also write one on monster? It's not as philosophical as Evangelion but definitely a philosophical anime, Johan is a very interesting character to study.

Make sense, I agree there's a lot to dive in specially when it comes to shinji

A pretty good read, wish the article went deeper into the characters tho, especially with shinjis hedgehog dilemma and rei struggle with her own identity as she is a clone and replacable

Its everywhere in Pong too.

"Trump Tweets have shown us that access to, obviousness of, and even universal agreement on the facts often achieves nothing for public discourse. Everyone agrees on the exact words he said, but their interpretation remains individual and tribal." imagine a blog post containing these words getting 41 upvotes on a philosophy subreddit. absolutely laughable.

"Science holds all knowledge as tentative and uncertain" is an untrue statement.

Your original comment was in reply to another that says ‘all children were administered testosterone blockers’ and then was followed by other comments stating that no child was given blockers, which may be an honest mistake on my part in that you were replying to the ‘all children’ part of that statement.

You have cited four articles out of many, many pages of pro-trans articles on their website. Hardly enough to describe a the most progressive newspaper transphobic. In fact, it’s quite ridiculous.

Your example is silly. We’re talking about health practitioners who have chosen to purposefully work in a gender dysphoria clinic who are concerned about the methods and practice of the institution applied to children. Is honestly fair to say their concern is out of ideology or malice?

There is no falling into ableism because that isn’t the point. The point is that majority of the patients were young girls who had signs of autism. Now the question MUST be asked, what is the connection with young girls with autism who claim they have gender dysphoria? You cannot ignore that correlation.

A small percent yes however that small percent may never be able to recover back the functions of their birth gender like being able to have a child. Should we really be practising a utilitarian approach to this or should we should try to reduce as much harm as possible? In case of the latter is it not sensible and more consensual and informed to allow these children to make their own decision once they become a consenting adult? This of course does not mean we do affirm the gender they identify but rather halt all life-changing drugs and treatment until they can make a decision as an adult. Many of those who detransition, if you watch their testimonial, blame the adults in their life for pushing them to take these treatments and we simply should allow these children to have face the horror that they will never recover just because we favour the majority.

Again, the majority does mean that the consensus is right nor truthful and we do not know if those staff were scared to loose their job considering the backlash Bell received.

I personally buy Bell having a political ideology against the clinic considering he’s worked there for 20 years and as I said has everything to loose. His main concern was that the clinic became less about care and more about handing treatment to those who came in without proper and thorough evaluation.

I'm interested what you disagree on!

You are right to question this part as it is a blindspot and weakly argued by me.

From my understand, and I have to admit, that I have read far more from Zizek than from Butler, so please be highly critical, Butler positions (in accordance with Hegel) that the process of becoming a subject means to be in contrast or accordance, with that what is found "outside" oneself, narratives, social norms, culture, political rule. The subject is subjugated. But out of this subjugation emerges resistance. The symbolic order is performed and in the performance subversive potential can be found. Symbols can be over and/or under played, like hyperfemininity (which in turn can also be under-masculinity in a dialectical relation) in drag for example. One aspect of the relationship between the subject and subjugation is desire. A certain desire is demanded from me by the symbolic order ("You are a woman so you have to desire men") but something may not meet up with this demand ("I am a woman but I desire woman. What am I then? What even is a woman?"). I want to argue that the "true self" enters through "the back" in their (Butlers) view on the subject. If the (resisting) subject becomes as it constitutes itself in relation to narratives/power/symbols by an excess, is this excess the true self? Is the performativity the true self? The subversion? A space opens up where the subject that is aware of their subjugation can only exist in relation to their subjugation. This "true self" is that which constantly challenges in subversive performative acts. The act of subverting has become the more authentic.

Note that my critique on Butler was derived with Zizek in mind, who at the end uses Lacans "Real" as an idea that there exists a point of non-sense. Butler challenges Zizeks use of the Real as ahistorical, while Zizek sees in relation to Lacans Real the possibility to act (oversimplified).

But I encourage to read Butler themselves on this, from what I know it can be found in "Subjects of Desire", "Gender Trouble", Contingency, Hegemony, Universality" and "Giving an Account of Oneself"

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

There's plenty strange, especially as I have not suggested no child was prescribed testosterone whilst under the care of the Tavistock - this is something you have imagined.

The Guardian may be progressive, but most 'gender critical' individuals identify as left-wing - transphobia isn't limited to the right of politics. The Guardian is in no way "very inclusive" of trans folk^(1)^(,)^(2)^(,)^(3)^(,)^(4).

Plenty of people choose their principles over their employment. That doesn't always mean their principles are valid...just ask any 'Christian' baker who gave up their business instead of putting two little men on top of a cake.

The method that should be employed is something that requires development (as outlined in the report). From personal experience working with trans-identified young people, I would argue a systemic and existential approach can work well to support exploration in this cohort. I also think we need to be very careful not to fall into ableism by assuming autism must be explored. I think it's necessary to include it in any formulation, but it in no way should single an individual out for 'special measures'. As for depression existing in someone with gender dysphoria - come on, that's part of the diagnosis.

Detranistioners do deserve compassion and support, but it's important to always remember that regret rates for this particular cohort are very small. More research is needed, but denying appropriate care to gender dysphoric children because some may regret this is about as fair as denying someone in agony pain meds because some people are scamming to get free drugs.

Some staff spoke to Dr Bell - the majority seem not to have agreed with him.

I admit there may be some political motivation on the part of the NHS to downplay dissent. However, if we're allowing for that we also have to allow for political motivation in the likes of Dr Bell in wanting to shut down a clinic at odds with his personal ideology.

Or just life. This can be viewed on so many different levels. I know this is rather vague, but where does this not hold up in any relationship?

[deleted]

I appreciate the time you took with this, there are some interesting points you’ve made, and some places I disagree with.

I do have a question though, referring to this part:

> This is in contrast to Butler, who argues that there is a “true” being/self (the subject which the narratives/discourses do not represent fully) under the narratives put onto it.

Can you elaborate or point me to a reading here? My understanding of Butler’s work is of their application of speech act theory onto gender. I don’t recall this idea of “true” self being something Butler has discussed, but that could just be my ignorance.