The issue of "transgendered" people is a hot topic for discussion in today's world. People who consider themselves transgendered believe that they are really the opposite sex "inside" and that having surgery to alter their appearance to conform to their idea of themselves is the only way for them to be "who they are." In light of Sartre's existential philosophy of bad faith, I'm posing the question of whether transgendered people are in bad faith because they are denying their facticity, or if they are simply in search of transcendence.
Sartre says bad faith "is constituted as a being which is what it is not and which is not what it is." Bad faith requires that "I should not be what I am" and attempts to "constitute myself as being what I am not." In layman's terms, bad faith is a lie to oneself that denies the facticity of what/whom one is so that one can pretend that one is what one is not, or it is denying the possibility of transcendence (the ability to change what one is by action). In Sartre's philosophy the only way to escape bad faith is to accept what one is IN FACT so that one can "transcend" or go beyond what one is. In other words, the only way that I can avoid lying to myself is to accept what I am. Based off of that knowledge, I can change (transcend) by taking action to become what I am not. I am a heterosexual. I now can act as a heterosexual or as a homosexual and not be lying to myself because I have admitted what I am.
If I feel like a man trapped in a woman's body, am I a man? Or, am I a woman that feels like a man? Firstly, what is a woman or man? Most would distinguish the difference by the sexual organs. If I have a vagina, ovaries, breasts, and uterus, then I am a woman. If I have a penis and testicles, then I am a man. However, if a woman has cancer and her ovaries and uterus are removed, is she a woman? If a man has surgery to create a vagina and breasts, is he a woman? Some people say that a man is a man if he has male sex organs that function. However, a man can have sex organs that don't function and still be considered a man. A woman can have surgery to create a penis that functions. Is she then a man? Perhaps the most popular definition of a man is that a man is a man if he is born with male sex organs. Why is it then that a transgendered man is so certain that he is really a woman? Do you decide or does the person decide what sex they are? If the sex of a person is decided by what sexual organs they are born with, is that denying transcendence? I am a man, and that is all I can be; as opposed to: I am a man, but I can be a woman if I choose to be.
To establish what one is we must first decide whether feeling or actuality decides what one is. I feel like a woman. Is that what makes me a woman, or is my genitalia what makes me a woman? Well, if I feel like a man, am I a man? Objectively, no one could say yes. It is impossible for anyone else to know how I feel. All that is known is how I appear. So is appearance the facticity or do I decide my facticity? Or rather, would I be lying to myself if I said that I wasn't a man when I feel like one?
These questions are important because if my "feeling" is what determines what I am, then what I am is not constant. I am changed by whatever emotion I happen to feel. Sartre says that a man who claims to be sad isn't really sad in the sense of his entirety being sadness, but rather he has the effects of the idea of sadness. Sartre believes that emotions and attitudes are chosen and that these choices color the world of our subjective lives. Do I choose to feel like a woman? And from that choice, do I shape my perception of the world and myself? That seems like an obscure thing to say.
On the other hand, I could accept that biology determines what I am. I have the female sex organs; thus, I am a female. That does not account for my feeling otherwise, but it would seem to be reasonable to say that that is my facticity. The idea of myself isn't really what I am. It is an idea. It is what I "should" be, if I were my ideal. That is why I feel like I "ought" to look like a man when I really look like a woman. So, my facticity is what I am, independent of what I feel like I ought to be. This viewpoint is less arbitrary than the viewpoint that my feelings govern actuality. After all, is reality arbitrary? I must reject that idea because reality IS. It is independent of what I wish it were.
So, a transgendered person could be either in good faith or bad faith. A transgendered male could say: "I am a man, but I feel like a woman"; or he could say: "I am a woman because I feel like one." If the transgendered man in bad faith feels that he is a woman when he is not, then he would have no need for sexual surgery. If he is a woman because he feels like one, then what does it matter that he doesn't look like one? But, he will not feel this way. He will say: "I am a woman, and I want to look like one." Doesn't this seem like a lie to oneself? Contrariwise, the transgendered man in good faith can say: "I am a man, but I want to be a woman." From there, he can have sexual surgery to conform his actuality to his idea of himself. That, it would seem, is transcendence.
I hope that it is clear from this that lying to oneself does not change what one is in fact. Feeling does not govern actuality. Ideas are not reality. What ought to be requires action, it is not already existent. This distinction, I believe, is very important for people to accept. Otherwise, we are all living a lie, denying what we are because it is not what we wish we were. This mindset could have an infinite supply of negative implications. What is good or bad is in the realm of ideas. That is to be decided by the individual. What ought to be is decided, not reality. But, we must live in reality. Why not at least acknowledge the way things are?
this is a hard one.
i believe that transgendered ppl that feel (for ex:) he is actually a she, is not lieing or denying, instead embracing who they are, when they state it (in whatever way shape or form e.i. voicing it/changing they're appearance)
"If he is a woman because he feels like one, then what does it matter that he doesn't look like one? But, he will not feel this way. He will say: "I am a woman, and I want to look like one." Doesn't this seem like a lie to oneself?" no. "he" is transcending farther into who she is.
as for: "I am a man, but I want to be a woman." that sounds like 'bad faith', it should b stated "I'am regarded as a man, but I am really a women." THAN surgery is transcending.
hm. idk. i feel pretty feeble-minded when i read some stuff on this site. lol.
---Stay Gold---
Yes, but transcending is not becoming more what a person is. Transcending is becoming what one is not. If a man accepts that he is not a woman, but thinks that he ought to be one, then he can transcend into a woman.
If he is denying his penis is actually his facticity, then he is in bad faith.
Its taking responsibility for ones thoughts and how they create actions. Thats my Idea of Good faith. I am a homosexual male and I struggle with this allot, because i know, not based on religious standards but just in thought. If I were to take away the emotions, a man and a woman are designed by natural law to procreate , bringing a new life form into place so that humans can continue to exist. Thinking deeper I try to look at emotionalist object like flowers. Why do they continue to exist. They exist because of pollen exchange between male and female of their species. In human existence though it becomes complicated because we can well articulate our emotions... I wonder if emotions are a being on their own or are they simply created by us. Well part of it is things like fear and anxiety are innate, created as defense mechanisms to keep us away from danger. If I apply that philosophy to all my emotions, is it okay to say that what i feel toward another man is innate or just preference. There is allot in my childhood that can explain why I am who am and justification for why it is believed that my path is chosen and not a birth defect. I only say birth defect because it goes against natural law. Not what we create as human beings but natural law on the most simplistic of thought. But Its weird I've tried to be straight before and it just left me an emotional wreck because I can't lust after a woman, I have full desire for a man. I end up just feeling numb all together. And then you end up questioning your reason for existence in the first place. Isn't those emotions that become you motive to live and without it, human will becomes pointless. So from experience I know that it can't easily be good faith and bad faith because you have to also take in the effects of how one reacts to certain paradigms, Human beings are way more complicated then anyone can articulate. I'm reminded of something I wrote some time ago thats similar to what you write in this blog
There are too many variables and explanations to that gump of tissue charged by chemical and electrical synergy. We all just have to find what we define as ourselves and these are questions that only the individual as a transgender or homosexual has to come in terms with, because in the end its the life that they have to live and they can't live and not feel because life without emotion and that rational.... isn't truly living at all.
Maybe Im just mentally ill But in the end I live and I die so I just cant live anymore feeling so lost so at least I will belong somewhere.
These are the thoughts I had before I decided to come out and Identify myself as homosexual I appreciate the thought put into this article and hope that others continue to put in their thoughts as input.
First of all I would say that just because you are a homosexual doesn't mean that you are good or bad. That is for you to decide. Who cares what anyone else thinks about your morality? It's YOUR morality. You have to live with yourself.
You know that you are a homosexual. If you were to say, I have homosexual tendencies, but I am not one, then you would be in bad faith. Sartre used the example of a homosexual in his explanation of bad faith, in fact. He says that you must admit that you are a homosexual first. Then you must allow the transcendence factor, meaning that you can choose to be either a homosexual or not. You can choose to go "beyond" what you are. This means that while you have accepted what you are, you likewise admit that because of your ultimate freewill, you are capable of making decisions to continue acting as what you are or not.
I do not deny that feelings are an important part of humanity. Sartre says that feelings are chosen, because we are not our feelings. I am not certain of this. I wonder how many of my feelings were immediate reactions, and how many of them I consciously chose. Most of them I must say were immediate reactions to outside (or internal) stimulus. Is that to say that reactions aren't chosen? I think that people are predisposed to have certain feelings. I tend to react with anger. I realize that. But, if I think about what is going on objectively, with as little bias as possible, then I do not react with such anger as I would otherwise. If I felt like an angry person, and assumed that I could not do anything about it, then I would be making excuses. Oh, well, I am an angry person; I can't help it. But really, I can because I have the freedom to choose how I act.
To say that a transgendered person cannot help the way that they feel is silly. That is what facts are for... to release us from the grasp of feelings so that we can see reality. He may not be able to stop thinking that he OUGHT to be a woman, as that is an ideal, but he can stop feeling like he is one.
I was just sharing my experience. As human beings we have to realize that we all feel and look at the world differently. Transgender people go through so much pain and suffering for this. I'm not one to judge that easily because I can't help but have compassion towards there disposition. I used to till I had to see the life for myself. I have tried not to dehumanize them.
I am truly sorry that i have made you go on the defense. That was not my intention. I think you should read my previous comment a second time. I was talking about me identifying myself as a homosexual based on good faith or bad. and what i was thinking at the time and the struggle I had with myself. If that was just me I can imagine what a transgender person must go through mentally spiritually because at the end of the day its not just as easy as choosing to be the opposite but its being brave enough to face the consequences of those actions.
I am not at all going against your beliefs, but simply bringing in a different perspective. Its too complicated to say what a person should and shouldn't think or feel about what they perceive as the world because to them... that is their truth and we all as individuals are responsible for what we define as truth. To make up the reason for our existence either that be defined by what we have read or outside influence or what we have developed through life experience.
You may believe that what they think is "Silly", but i guarantee if you look deeply into it, its so much more than a transgender person who "cannot help the way that they feel", because there is life to it and a life that is truly hard and painful and they could die for and have. You really don't know till that person is the one that you have chosen to stand beside and help them get through the tribulations of their life. I guarantee you.... its so much more.
And that was the point of my previous comment to bring to light that its just not that simple.
But i still think you put allot of thought into this that most don't and can support why you believe what you believe so i still commend the article. Befriend a transgender person and find out more. Most are fearless or as we say "Fierce" and very beautiful people inside and out.
Well, I didn't really feel like you were trying to debate me. I just had some thoughts while I read your post that I thought were relevant to the rest of my article.
I am not trying to be judgmental. I hope I didn't offend YOU! I have a tendency of misrepresenting myself. I think that empathy is important for humans as social beings. And, I don't try to place blame on people for how they feel. That is not my intention. I just think that it is more beneficial and puts things into better perspective to try and see actuality instead of only basing reality on feelings. I think it allows people to make better decisions, and I think it helps to prevent us from feeling trapped by our own feelings. I'm actually trying to be inspirational, in a sense, and hopeful.
However, I have enjoyed your input. Thank you.
I hope that I can alleviate at least some of your struggles, by pointing out that at least one of your assumptions is not really accurate.
I am a homosexual male and I struggle with this allot, because i know, not based on religious standards but just in thought. If I were to take away the emotions, a man and a woman are designed by natural law to procreate , bringing a new life form into place so that humans can continue to exist.
First of all...I have to ask what you mean when you say, "natural law?" This is a term that gets tossed around a lot, but that is often misused. You say that your struggles aren't based on religous standards, but the term "natural law" is usually associated with the moral, political and legal philosophies of (usually religious) societies. In particular, this term carries a lot of doctrinal baggage from western christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, who is one of if not the historically most influential proponents of this concept. Religious people very often use the "natual law" argument rather inexpertly in order to attempt to make exactly the argument you stuggle with, above. If however, when you say "natural law" you are referring to general assertions about the nature of the world around us that are based on scientifically empirical observations, then you shouldn't really have to struggle with this. In fact, there is a strong body of evidence that indicates that homosexuality is in fact quite natural, that it is found consistently in almost all animal species, that procreation isn't the only thing that we as primates use sex for, and that in fact there are biological benefits to animal populations that include same-sex oriented individuals within their boundaries. Here are a few articles that you might be interested in reading...
Male Homosexuality Can Be Explained Through A Specific Model Of Darwinian Evolution, Study Shows
Homosexuality Has Evolutionary Benefits to Individuals and Society
Evolution and Homosexuality
Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality
Re: evolution of homosexuality and why does it persist?
Evolution 101: Why Did Homosexuality Evolve?
On adaptive success and theories of homosexuality...
Evolution and Cross-Cultural Variation in Male Homosexuality
In general terms, homosexuality is an example of what is known as kin selection.
And just so this isn't a complete tangent from the on going philosophical discussion, I would suggest that while men like Satre and Freud and others were brilliant men in their times, the body of knowledge surrounding some of these issues has grown significantly since those men died, and (as the example above shows) not all of the assumptions on which their work was based have turned out to be particularly sound.
Anyway, that's my two-bits...
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
I took a class on existentialism but none of it made any sense. What the hell is "a being which is what it is not and which is not what it is"? The bit about Bad Faith is expression of angst, like Linkin Park (hmm, Bad Faith would be a terrible band name, and Bad Religion basically took it), more art than philosophy. We can debate what Sartre might think about sex changes, but that would say more about Sartre than about sex changes. Dude was crazy.
If you want sensible philosophy, read John Stuart Mill or Bertrand Russell. They would certainly be cool with transgender people.
Actually I have read John Stuart Mill and Russell. I think that Mill is a little naive, and I cannot fully agree that he is "sensible." Of course, this all depends on your definition of sensible. However, I love Russell so far. I have only read a small amount of his works, but I love that he tries to bring reality back from the traps of the cognito.
I really only used Sartre as a basis for my entry because I'm writing a paper over him. I disagree with a lot of the fundamentals that he bases his philosophy on. But, I think he has some valid points that need to be considered. And, I suppose that this does say more about Sartre than sex changes, but if there is something to learn from Sartre, then there is some perspective that we can gain on sex changes if we consider how he would view them.
A "being which is what it is not" is simply a person that lies to themselves, who tells themselves that they are something else because it is inconvenient or unpleasant for them to admit what they are. For instance, the homosexual (one of Sartre's examples) does not want to think of himself as a homosexual because of guilt or whatever excuse, and he tells himself that he is not really a homosexual, but that he simply has homosexual tendencies.
On Liberty:
Eccentricity has always abounded where strength of character abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.
This kind of philosophy, if widely held, would (I claim) vastly reduce human suffering. And he expresses it so lucidly! This is what I call "sensible philosophy". Where you see naivete I see a gleaming beacon, but I quickly gave up my search for valid points in the nasty cesspool of Sartre's bitterness and confusion.
Sorry if that was overly dramatic. I'm passionate about this stuff. Glad we can agree on Russell!
I mean only that the "greatest good for the greatest number" is kind of a naive ideal. What is the greatest good? Who determines what that good is? Everyone or some people? What I think is good may not be good for you. Good is relative or else we would all agree. Who says the greatest number matters? Most people are idiots. Most people do not try to benefit anyone but themselves. This would be a great system if we lived in an ideal world, but the world being as it is does not support an ideal of this sort.
Mill has a lovely way of putting things, and a lovely philosophy... but it is not practical.
Sartre is unnecessarily harsh, I think. But he has valid points just as most philosophers do.
I, too, am passionate about philosophy. I'm happy to discuss philosophy any time.
What is the greatest good? Mill wrote (and I agree with him):
I find this system both true (as an account of my moral feelings) and practical. What would you say are its problems?
Who determines what good is? I'm not sure how Mill answers that, but I like Blackburn's theory of Quasi-Realism:
What makes people happy? Is it something universal or something particular to the subject of experience that causes "happiness"? What is happiness? Even if there is a general happiness, that must exclude certain particulars (they must be sacrificed for the "good"), who actualizes this happiness? Who makes it happen? There must be someone/persons in charge. This seems easily corrupted.
If the good is being able to "express attitudes," if it is a "particular activity" then how can you make it universal? How can you impose on the individual's "good" if "good" originates from the individual? What Blackburn seems to be saying with his "quasi-realism" is that it is not something that is true/reality, but rather it is a moral attitude that is practical for human life. This is a matter of what should be. Should the majority say what should be? Or should the individual? Who tells you what should be? Do you decide or do they?
I assume each person is the subject of his own experiences. So you are asking, do different things make different people happy? Of course. But (and I think you were suggesting this) we are all biological machines with similar brain chemistry. We probably share the same chemical causes of happiness even if I like spaghetti and you like tacos.
Happiness is an emotion, so it must be defined by reference to experience or other emotions in the same way that the color red must be defined by reference to experience or other colors.
Why exclude anyone? You may value something yet find it outweighed by another priority, and therefore "sacrifice" it for the greater good. That is not to say there is some spooky object that embodies collective good; just that the mathematical artifice, of summing everyone's happiness, expresses my values. I actualize this general good and I'm not alone.
I'm in charge of what I do. You're in charge of what you do. We don't need anyone to tell us what's important in life. Or are you arguing against government?
You can't. You can pretend it is universal, for convenience's sake, when lots of people agree. But Blackburn denies there is any universal moral standard. I personally have an egalitarian moral standard, but it is a product of my mental states. It is not painted across the heavens.
Well if you're saying that "the greatest good for the greatest number" is a personal moral "code" that you choose to live by, then I obviously have no problem with that. I understood what you were saying to mean that everyone SHOULD agree with this standard, which of course they would not (so it would not work). The problem that I have with Mill is that the focus is entirely on the majority for what is "good," and generally speaking I think that the majority is constituted as idiots that do not want to think for themselves. Sheep, if you will. That is not who I think should be governing what is "good." The reason why I like America is because we have a system that supports the majority, and simultaneously protects the minority. The minority is often the interest group that promotes progression. That is why I think they are important. However, for everyday life, the majority rules and that makes life a whole lot easier... but not necessarily better. "Better" is for the subject to decide.
The argument might by a little less twisted if you looked at the chromosome level rather that just at genitalia of either the kind that one was born with or was later constructed or stimulated artificially with hormones.
The chromosomes usually don't lie. Females are xx and males are xy. No matter how hard the plastic surgeons try they have not figured how to change these.
There are very rare cases where the chromosomes are ambiguous and people are born with genitalia of both sexes.
Very good point. So genetics determine what we are? Sartre would say that genetic and environmental dispositions are only excuses for denying our transcendence. Does this "bad faith" reach even to the most basic concepts of what/who we are, i.e. our gender?
But I have seen others argue fairly convincingly that transsexual surgery is really just genitile mutilation.
The fact that people generally don't agree is not a problem; they might be wrong. You must maintain that they can't agree to prove that they shouldn't agree. Good luck with that.
I'm rereading Utilitarianism and I see where you're coming from about Mill - his democratic method of identifying "higher pleasures" is naive. But he admits "it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard". And he never lets the majority determine good; he says to use the experiences of others to determine the priority of various goods.
In fact, Mill was a HUGE advocate for minorities, especially in On Liberty. Your criticisms are his most emphatic beliefs! He said people are sheep, he mocked the fantasy of objective morality, and he said minorities need protection because they promote progress. I have quotes if you want them.
His ethics are at the core of progressivism: old beliefs and institutions can exceed their useful lifespan. Undisputed examples of progress, such as emancipation and universal suffrage, clearly improved happiness. What do other worldviews have to say? The ancient religious books clung to by conventional moralists are contradictory, and Sartre's doctrine of "bad faith" is a contradiction wrapped up in a truism (denial is bad, mmmk?). Mill's ethics are robust. But he seems more interested in debate itself, not utilitarianism per se but the cultivation of intellectual vigor, as the chief engine of progress. Does any philosophy, from anyone, ever, ring truer?
What I meant was, if everyone doesn't agree, then who decides what is right or wrong? Everyone has their own ideas about what is right and wrong. What is right is only an idea. It's not actual. So, saying that something SHOULD happen or that something is right is just a matter of opinion. Furthermore, what SHOULD happen isn't what IS happening. You can say SHOULD all day long, but it is merely a wish.
It is apparent that people CAN agree, but is it apparent that ALL people can agree? If so, it's never happened before. We're all coming from different perspectives and angles. We rationalize what is "good" in different directions. So, is it possible? Who knows?!
It's been a couple years since I've read Mill, and I appreciate you reminding me of his advocacy of minorities. However, under his theory of ethics, the aim is to provide the greatest amount of happiness (the least amount of pain) for the greatest amount of people. Suffering is part of the human condition. How can we eliminate this problem at all, much less without stomping on some people? Where do the individual's rights begin and society's rights end?
I get that morality is relative in the sense you describe. So do my favorite philosophers; but not most people, then or now. It isn't easy to accept because, as you said, we are social beings. But then we must ask: so what? So what if morality is all wishes? It shows that any moral argument must eventually devolve into the question, "What do you really wish for?". There is still room for persuasion there, when people are open minded. Our physical and mental machinery has so much in common, that it is hard to see why people's conceptions of good would vary, except due to environmental variety. Just thinking about the causal sources of morals/customs is often enough to undermine the arbitrary ones. As more people do this, humanity will approach a moral consensus (which of course will exactly coincide with what I believe at this moment ;-) ). That is the optimistic view.
Now for the other story. The question, "What should I wish for?", is a mindfuck of the highest order. Mill makes no attempt to answer it, and Blackburn gives a reasonable but unsatisfactory answer. He says that the only real ethical standards are our current wishes, and so we adjust wishes based on other wishes. This introduces a troubling kind of determinism to morality: you were given certain desires, and they adjusted each other to become what you now value. All I can say is, that seems to be true, and Truth doesn't care about our feelings.
Seriously, are you an ethics teacher testing if I've read Mill?
The happiness [...] meant was not a life of rapture; but moments of such, in an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a decided predominance of the active over the passive, and having as the foundation of the whole, not to expect more from life than it is capable of bestowing.
In other words, we should reduce suffering without neglecting positive happiness.
Mill denies the existence of natural rights (in society, and in individuals). Since rights are (according to utilitarians) rules of thumb which generally promote happiness, they should be violated whenever they fail at this purpose. Example: punishment of criminals. Conventional people would say that criminals "forfeit their rights", but in this they assume the rule is conditional, same as utilitarians do.
From a practical standpoint, The last chapter of On Liberty goes into individual versus social rights, concluding very much in favor of the former. Another fabulous quote, very applicable to transgender issues:
A person should be free to do as he likes in his own concerns; but he ought not to be free to do as he likes in acting for another under the pretext that the affairs of another are his own affairs.