Advanced Androgyne?

[Kendall]

I was reading some of the current posts on BC Holmes' website. One of hir posts mentioned that sie would like to read more advanced stuff , not just the average androgyne 101 stuff. It got me thinking as to what type of stuff would advanced AG stuff contain, or what type of stuff goes beyond the beginning. And if so, I would be one person willing to pursue such topics.

Taking It To The Next Level
Instead of repeating the same '101' discussions about class, race, (parenting, trans issues), etc., how can we facilitate a more advanced discussion of these issues?

Certainly the first thing that came to my mind was Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. I also thought of more stuff relationship oriented and even community oriented. The old "lets band together" isnt the community image that came to me , rather a "How can one person interact and influence those around them in a positive manner".

Now maybe there is no such thing as these things being advanced AG stuff. So more important to me is just asking the questions "After the looks, thoughts, and mind, what comes next?" Some of the older members might be best to give some insight. If not answers, what sorta realms or areas are along the lines where solutions might lay.

[Wendy]

K/K,

I guess I could use a little 101.

Does an androgyne favor male or female characteristics?

Can an androgyne start as a genetic woman or man?

..................................

What characteristics does an androgyne favor?

Example  physical strength is very useful when working in construction.  However too much T reduces the feminine side.  How does an androgyne balance physical looks with occupational needs?

W

[Kendall]

Depends on what type of androgyne one is: intergender, fluid, bigender, Neutrois (undefined), 3rd gender.

Depends on the mix: ex. some 50/50, some unequal like 60/40.

Depends on Relationship and Gender Role defined and accepted. [friend, coworker, family, subordinate, partner (s)]

Depends on the situation, moment, and just plain reaction/though process. [reaction, influences, obstacles, opportunities, rewards, threats]

Depends on where one is in the path compared to where they would wish or eventually will reach. [objectives, goals, strategy, desires, fears, emotions, efforts]

I think.

[Wendy]

K/K

Thanks.

Are there married couples that are androgynes in which the female becomes more male and the male becomes more female?  Is this accomplished by HRT?

I think I know a couple of friends on this site that are 3rd gender.

Since genders are really on a continuum  it makes sense that even if one changes gender they will still have characteristics  of the prior gender.  (We are not 100% male or 100% female.)

Do androgynes have cosmetic sugery to better fit a mix such as 60% female and 40% male?

W/E

[Kendall]

Sometimes. (I have read of one such couple where both partners where androgynous) and hrt was involved
Most the time, from the experiences I have read here at this site, it doesnt end up this way.
Most the time it is mainly androgynes are psychosocial and roles, not primarily biophysiological.
Asexuality and Pansexuality are common from what I read from others.

A few androgynes that I know live alone and dont have a partner or relationship, or have recently broken up troubled incompatible relationships and are asexual. Either by choice or by circumstance.

And when it does become biophysiological (desire and even pursue hrt and/or cosmetic surgeries), most the time its only one of the partners. (I know of like only 5 experiences in addition to myself where this happens.)

Although there is at least one that I know of where both transformations happened (Just like there are some trans couples of mtf and ftm). And there is a chance that a IS / AG or 2 bio original girls or 2 bio original boys now androgynes are together. Androgyne is a rare form of TG (or way of thinking) as you can see by the population at this site compared to the others groups. So definately there is more information is scattered throughout the world and harder to find then more common TGs.

So yes your questions are good things to ponder when considering relationship compatibility, and relationship roles, and gender make up.

As well exploring possible Pansexual, Polysexual, Bisexual, Asexual, Paraphilia, Homosexual, and Heterosexual relationships.

[Underground Panther]

I was reading a website that takes for granted that every person is underneath the illusion of a single self ,is a poly ego. Like an "internal village of many selves"
If this is true,and I think it is true ,then it's very easy to see how a person could appear male, female or something in between and shift around the gender spectrum at different times. Two spiritedness may be inherent in all of us but the crux is some of us are aware we are internal villages in our heads and some are not ,and because they don't know themselves and believe they are a rigid persona they will stubbornly  maintain the same "face" to the world. Some are terrified to think there are others inside thier own head they cannot control with thier central ego.What is an anima or animus but an archetype speaking as a part or different aspect of the internal 'village of selves that  we are on the inside that speaks to us in a dream state of the other?

http://www.growingaware.com/ALT_19_2004_Guidelines%20inner%20village.htm
Here is their newer  website Inner village dialog..stuff
http://delos-inc.com/Reading_Room/reading_room.html

[Attis]

The collective or swarm idea doesn't completely work, there is clearly a single integrated consciousness that we can define a metaphysically individual identity. It just simply changes from time to time. :3

-- Brede

[Kendall]

I was reading a website that takes for granted that every person is underneath the illusion of a single self ,is a poly ego. Like an "internal village of many selves"
If this is true,and I think it is true ,then it's very easy to see how a person could appear male, female or something in between and shift around the gender spectrum at different times. Two spiritedness may be inherent in all of us but the crux is some of us are aware we are internal villages in our heads and some are not ,and because they don't know themselves and believe they are a rigid persona they will stubbornly  maintain the same "face" to the world. Some are terrified to think there are others inside thier own head they cannot control with thier central ego.What is an anima or animus but an archetype speaking as a part or different aspect of the internal 'village of selves that  we are on the inside that speaks to us in a dream state of the other?

http://www.growingaware.com/ALT_19_2004_Guidelines%20inner%20village.htm
Here is their newer  website Inner village dialog..stuff
http://delos-inc.com/Reading_Room/reading_room.html

This is interesting. So is this sorta saying that each of our characters in the village are the roles that we have to various people like friends, strangers, coworkers, partners,  and organizations? If so, I can relate to that theory. If not, how does it differ? I do know we are different presented persons to different situations.

The collective or swarm idea doesn't completely work, there is clearly a single integrated consciousness that we can define a metaphysically individual identity. It just simply changes from time to time. :3

-- Brede

The article does say there is a central part of the village, that being the inner child, which cements everything together. Which is sorta like a single integrating consciousness.

[Attis]

I don't buy it only because the current work in neurology implicates a different organizing method. No archtypes, no id, just a holonomic brain. But that's just me. :3

-- Brede wuvs holonomics. ^_^

[Kendall]

You did use the word Holonomic. Are you referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_model?

If so explain and continue the explaination to how that view concerning the changing single consciousness a bit more, and how the view explains how one presents themself towards others and different people, at different times and places. And how our dreams help to organize our thoughts, versus have meaning. Its good to show that viewpoint also compared to the ego, id, archtype, unconcious, inner child system [more psychoanalytical]. Certainly a person should be well versed in both systems, theories, and facts. As well as other systems explaining consciousness (on down to the religious explainations).

Another approach is the Biological psychology approach.
How brain chemicals, injuries, and processes can affect personality and way one presents themself to others and to different people.
Biological Psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_psychology
http://personalitydisorders.suite101.com/article.cfm/brain_and_personality
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010205080513.htm

Ok so what can be explored from these areas of thoughts (systems)?

How could one looking at the animus/archetype/village of consciousness/unconsciousness use those methods and theories to expand, grow, and learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, and as a transgender person? Certainly Bem used this theory more when sie/zhi uses the schema theory in explaining the elements of androgyny, and developing androgyny behavior.

How can the holonomic approach be used (methods and theories) to expand, help one grow, and help one learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, and as a transgender person?

On the other hand what can biological-neurological psychology help one deal with the external world, and help one grow and develop. How can it help one learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, as a transgender person?

And what role does other views, such as religion play, or other systems?

[Emerald]

Does an androgyne favor male or female characteristics?

Androgynes favor characteristics that are shared by both males and females, by either males or females, and by neither males nor females. Androgynes are fully aware of gender, but strongly feel the typical male/female assignment, roles, and gender expectations do not properly apply to them.

Can an androgyne start as a genetic woman or man?

Like the rest of humanity, nearly all Androgynes ARE genetic men and women. The rest are Intersex.

What characteristics does an androgyne favor?

In my opinion, the best of all characteristics! They are known as virtues, and virtues have have no gender assignment.

Do androgynes have cosmetic sugery to better fit a mix such as 60% female and 40% male?

As a whole, very few Androgynes seek surgery or HRT to modify their bodily form for the sake of their androgynous state of mind. There are however, individuals known as 'Neutrois', who desire surgery to remove all sex markers in their physical form. As for Androgynes that desire a combination of male and female form, I defer to the wisdom and observations of Ken/Kendra.

Androgyne is a rare form of TG (or way of thinking) as you can see by the population at this site compared to the others groups.

I beg to differ... Androgynes are far from being rare! Their numbers most likely exceed that of Transsexuals. Androgynes are usually a minority on Transgender websites because most Androgynes are well adjusted and have little need for support. (Most Androgynes do not know they are Androgyne.) Among those that do appear TG forums, some seek more information about gender and their unique gender identity.  Some feel the need to know they are not alone. Still others are deeply troubled because they do not feel their 'gender' the way most people do. Some simply desire to socialize with other Androgynes. Androgynes are assets to TS/TG communities! Their very presence serves as a reminder that the traditional polar opposites are not all there is to know about gender.

-Emerald 

[Attis]

You did use the word Holonomic. Are you referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_model ?

Yeah.

If so explain and continue the explaination to how that view concerning the changing single consciousness a bit more, and how the view explains how one presents themself towards others and different people, at different times and places. And how our dreams help to organize our thoughts, versus have meaning. Its good to show that viewpoint also compared to the ego, id, archtype, unconcious, inner child system [more psychoanalytical]. Certainly a person should be well versed in both systems, theories, and facts. As well as other systems explaining consciousness (on down to the religious explainations).

It doesn't, but it none of those other theories even work. For example, psychoanalytic theory [aka psycho-dynamics] has many holes. First, the biggest hole is that none of the features of psychoanalytic theory is falsifiable as a means to test it experimentally. Second, the majority of psychoanalytic theory also varies greatly depending on the person. And third, more nominal theories explaining personality operate less on the need to pull the determinism card than others.

How could one looking at the animus/archetype/village of consciousness/unconsciousness use those methods and theories to expand, grow, and learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, and as a transgender person? Certainly Bem used this theory more when sie/zhi uses the schema theory in explaining the elements of androgyny, and developing androgyny behavior.

I see this as a problem, because there is no anima/animus, not anywhere in the human body. What we're talking about when we're discussing androgyny is rather the values a person contains. What they see as valuable, what they do to protect it and to ensure it. These are things you can't validate through deterministic theories. Nor should one need to determine them through other models beyond self-identification and valuation.

How can the holonomic approach be used (methods and theories) to expand, help one grow, and help one learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, and as a transgender person?

It explains the nature of free will, memory storage, and thought processes.

On the other hand what can biological-neurological psychology help one deal with the external world, and help one grow and develop. How can it help one learn more about themselves as a person, as an androgyne, as a member of society, as a transgender person?

It doesn't, that's an epistemological issue. An issue of philosophy. It's also an issue of ethics. And an issue of aesthetics.
Again, philosophy. Psychology should never trump one's philosophy, because it is one's philosophy that defines the person, not one's psychology. Psychology is the study of how we think, how we feel, how we remember, and so no. It's the how for our abilities, but not the why. It can never fill in for our values. It can never replace our free will.

]And what role does other views, such as religion play, or other systems?

I don't think it can ever explain religion, because religion every much like philosophy, and that requires free will and epistemological valuation. In essence, it requires us to ask questions, not science.


-- Brede

[Kendall]

This world at the moment lives in a holism and statistical approach, rather than a reductionism. A mixture of rationalism, pragmaticism,  and empiricism rather then skepticism and idealism.

Yes reductionism science can not observe meaning very well. Only changes in physiology and measurable changes, observation of cause effects,  and the use of logic. Although current science does use statistics and responses from a large body of represented subjects to find patterns that can lead to theories and statistical facts and probablities. This world now uses samples from graphically represented populations to derive theories of social psychological types.

Social scientists do use  Cognitive methods which argues that mental function can be understood by quantitative, positivist and scientific methods, and that such functions can be described as information processing models. This is also largely a reductionist goal, with the belief that individual components of mental function (the 'cognitive architecture') can be identified and meaningfully understood. The second is the belief that cognition consists of discrete, internal mental states (representations or symbols) whose manipulation can be described in terms of rules or algorithms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_(psychology)

Some social scientists use Phenomenology which  presents the notion that the main characteristic of consciousness is that it is always intentional. Intentionality, which could be summarised as "aboutness" of thought, describes the basic structure of consciousness. Every mental phenomenon or psychological act is directed at an object — the intentional object. Every belief, desire, etc. has an object to which it refers: the believed, the desired. The property of being intentional, of having an intentional object, is the key feature which distinguishes mental/psychical phenomena from physical phenomena (objects), because physical phenomena lack intentionality altogether. Intentionality is the key concept by means of which phenomenological philosophy attempts to overcome the subject/object dichotomy prevalent in modern philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology

Certainly you can look at the some of the scientific theories of consciousness.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_studies:_Table_of_theories and see mixed.

All theories do have measurable, observable, consequences. Even psychoanalysis, you can observe what "works" and "doesnt work". If something is tried and doesnt work then its not a solution. Test it with several subjects and patterns can emerge. Its how science tests medicines, test marketing tries products, politicians get approval ratings, and is how the world runs at the moment. Where statistics of multiple subjects can together help determine or figure out the probability of a single instance. This is how behavorists and social scientist measure behavior, trends, cause-and-effects, control stimulus and the environment.

Lets break out of talk about methods, since doing so leads almost nowhere unless supported by alternative cause-effect and conclusive explainations. It really comes down to what the theories mean, if they are usable, practical, and what such theories can be used (usability) to help lead to the future. And what tools can be used to help analyze, make sense, and come to conclusions. Thats why I was asking how the holonomic brain model can be used to help others explain how people present oneself to others and to different people (which is what the psychoanalytical Inner Village presents). I was mainly trying to explore the changing single consciousness a bit more versus the collective swarm with inner child approach. After all, presenting a claim to falsehood, without presenting an alternative that explains it usefully and meaningful, is incomplete. So it would be helpful to continue with the explaination of the single consciousness with only slight changes to present the full alternative theory.

I get the ideas of nature of free will, memory storage, and thought processes which is a start to the theory. And the use of self-identification and valuation. Just looking to expand those theories to be practical, useful, and entails covering the said example presented in the inner village example, or present an alternative that does explain such phenomenon. It just needs a little more reach since those ideas dont quite reach interaction with others , and explain the variations in interaction with different persons, or the variations in gender expression. I can sorta imagine where one could explain it with a few more sentences or examples, but I not going to put words in your mouth, and your conclusion might differ from what I am thinking. Just take those 5 concepts and create the process that explains the process explained in the inner village example.

I beg to differ... Androgynes are far from being rare! Their numbers most likely exceed that of Transsexuals. Androgynes are usually a minority on Transgender websites because most Androgynes are well adjusted and have little need for support. (Most Androgynes do not know they are Androgyne.) Among those that do appear TG forums, some seek more information about gender and their unique gender identity.  Some feel the need to know they are not alone. Still others are deeply troubled because they do not feel their 'gender' the way most people do. Some simply desire to socialize with other Androgynes. Androgynes are assets to TS/TG communities! Their very presence serves as a reminder that the traditional polar opposites are not all there is to know about gender.

-Emerald 

Certainly I believe in a gender spectrum / gender spheres and that gender androgynes are common in the world (both tg and non tg), though consciously or unconsciously androgynous psychologically, in gender roles, communication styles, and occupations. I was referring to conscious androgyne is a rare form of tg (way of thinking),  which is certainly those that read these posts represent. Thanks for the correction.

[Attis]

I will say for the record, being that I am an Objectivist, my basic ideas are radically different from most. Firstly, I don't buy into Phenomenology, since everything is an entity, not merely a sensation, for me. Secondly, I don't buy into most of the paradigms in psychology, although you could technically label me as a cognitivist only to the degree that I do think there's a real something between our ears which I think is indeed a mind. And thirdly, this pretty much sets up my views on gender identity to be radical, even for the post-modernists, to which I truncate it into our general identity rather than separate from it as many gender theorists attempt to do.

That's just for the record, beyond that, we can debate the wherefors and etc. :3

-- Brede

[Kendall]

I was just trying to find the process using the 5 terms of free will, memory storage,  thought processes, self-identification and valuation. And that there is a single integrated consciousness defined by a metaphyscial identity that changes from time to time.

For after all,  these are just terms unless they are used in sentences to explain what happens (aka the processes). Its one thing to list a bunch of terms, but until they are used to explain the phenomenon, they dont mean anything in beyond themselves. You refuted the inner child in a village based off of the evidence:

1.)The collective or swarm idea doesn't completely work, there is clearly a single integrated consciousness that we can define a metaphysically individual identity. It just simply changes from time to time.

2.) I don't buy it only because the current work in neurology implicates a different organizing method. No archtypes, no id, just a holonomic brain. But that's just me. :3

3.) It doesn't, but it none of those other theories even work.

4.)For example, psychoanalytic theory [aka psycho-dynamics] has many holes. First, the biggest hole is that none of the features of psychoanalytic theory is falsifiable as a means to test it experimentally.

5.)(continuing the many holes) Second, the majority of psychoanalytic theory also varies greatly depending on the person.

6.)(last of many holes) And third, more nominal theories explaining personality operate less on the need to pull the determinism card than others.

7.)I see this as a problem, because there is no anima/animus, not anywhere in the human body. What we're talking about when we're discussing androgyny is rather the values a person contains. What they see as valuable, what they do to protect it and to ensure it. These are things you can't validate through deterministic theories. Nor should one need to determine them through other models beyond self-identification and valuation.

Now whats the story with the 5 terms and one concept.

Concept: And that there is a single integrated consciousness defined by a metaphyscial identity that changes from time to time.

Terms:
1.) free will
2.) memory storage
3.) thought processes
4.) self-identification
5.) and valuation.

Tell us the story of what happens. And provide some mention to the scientific data and measurements backing such assumptions and theories (because after all you are an objectivist and leaving such things out would go against such claim making it subjective and intrinsic). [Objectivist= conception of knowledge and values as "objective", rather than as "intrinsic" or "subjective".]

The other paradigms of psychology can be judged true or false (or partially true or false) based off of the results of wheither they work, or dont work statistically to a population representing reality. And thus testing the merits of such theories, rules, methods, and processes. Measurable and sometimes near absolute.

[Attis]

1.) free will.

This is axiomatic due to the nature of the mind in the context that it's the starting point. Choice, essentially. There's no given intrinsic antecedents that define it beyond one basic proviso: the freedom to think otherwise. That's all there is to it. As for any scientific evidence? Science currently has no evidence either way. What science does have is questions as to why it seems people have a feeling of free will, and it really is. Some scientists conclude it's illusion, others are not so eager to abandon it. So, at this time it's unquantified beyond epistemology and metaphysics.

2.) memory storage

This one has already been cracked, they looked at something called the "Bill Clinton" neurons, or essentially neurons that responded faster to certain kinds of sensations than others. Essentially, this implied that neurons had to have some mechanism that allowed them operate intelligently, such that their behavior was not simply random. This was validated in a study on neurons, where they found a particular molecule seems to store some data inside each neuron for its processing. I'll find the URLs to both articles later on.


3.) thought processes

Again, science only knows a little bit about, what is known is that no one can decode the specific neurological representations of thought. This means currently science cannot quantify its nature beyond the fact that it does occur [through the old 1960s cognitivist experiments on rats and other animals].

4.) self-identification

This could be a combination of scientific and philosophical inquiries. Scientifically, it's simply self-reference. Philosophically, it's an issue of how one judges one's own actions and thoughts, and how one integrates them for one's own purpose. Essentially, this is a form of psycho-epistemological theory, it's not fully formed to my knowledge, but it's there, being worked upon.


5.) and valuation.

Same as #4.



As for a story, it's pretty simple. The mind evolves from basic propositions that one makes about the world around them, via volition [aka free will], to more complex propositions and self valuations [introspection]. This is all from the stand point of philosophy because science only tells the how of things working, but the intent nor the purpose thereof. Purpose and intent are outside the scope of science. Therefore, any demand that it be explained by science would be a contradiction to the nature of science such that it's a demand that it acts both as philosophy and as scientific inquiry. Science in this regard is the subset of philosophy, but in itself still does not do all the work of philosophy, so again contradictions would arise by demanding a philosophical explanation of theory of the mind from science.

-- Brede

[Kendall]

Fair enough that the terms explained a bit more the processes.

Does all this explain (or document) how people present themselves differently, sometimes using different gender expressions, behavior, and characteristics at different times, rather than than a single constant personage.

We saw 7 reasons why not to follow the inner village and psychoanalytical views. Lets see a the full statement of the objective version of what happens, and how the supporting reasons back up those processes.

As for Ayn Rand some of hir beliefs are questioned and not necessarily objective. I would like to hear how such Objectivism achieved these beliefs or assumptions. Here are 5 controversial issues with Ayn. After all, one can judge the results of any system, to see if they work, like I stated above. After reading these, I would like to see the psycho-analytical versions, or the village versions.

1.)View of femininity: "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man."

2.)View of Sex: sex is the highest celebration of our greatest values. Sex is a physical response to intellectual and spiritual values – a mechanism for giving concrete expression to values that could otherwise only be experienced in the abstract. "Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."

3.)View on Women being President: In a Playboy magazine interview, Rand stated that women are not psychologically suited to be President and strongly opposed the modern feminist movement, despite supporting some of its goals.

4.)View on Homosexuality: According to remarks at the Ford Hall forum at Northeastern University in 1971, Rand's personal view was that homosexuality is "immoral" and "disgusting." "There is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality" because "it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises."

5.)View on Businesses discriminating: Rand defended the right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, or any other criteria. Rand's defenders argue that her opposition to government intervention to end private discrimination was motivated by her valuing individual rights above civil (due to a rejection of the concept of "collective rights") and therefore her view did not constitute an endorsement of the morality of the prejudice per se. Rand argued that no one's rights are violated by a private individual's or organization's refusal to deal with him, even if the reason is irrational.

Throw in Ayn's view on gender roles just for kicks:

Rand's views on gender roles have created some controversy. While her books championed men and women as intellectual equals (for example, Dagny Taggart, the protagonist of Atlas Shrugged was a hands-on railroad executive), she thought that the differences in the physiology of men and women led to fundamental psychological differences that were the source of gender roles. Rand denied endorsing any kind of power difference between men and women, stating that metaphysical dominance in sexual relations refers to the man's role as the prime mover in sex and the necessity of male arousal for sex to occur.

How would Androgyny fit into hir beliefs using the objective approach that she followed, despite the dichotomy of the two gender separate polarity.

[Attis]

1.)View of femininity: "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man."

This is partly right, and I am critiquing Rand here. When a woman looks to a man, it's not as a superior as it were, but as a hero, as the best thing she can have in her life. Not to be a slave to, but to earn. Equally, men ought to look for the best in women, looking for something to earn in kind. In this context, it's the virtues that make the man and the woman. Rand pretty much injected more than the virtues in her analysis, probably from her own personal sexual experiences in her life rather than looking at it coolly as it should have been approached [remember she wrote her psycho-sexual thesis at the height of her affair with Nathanial Branden, and later on quietly revoked some of her ideas...].

2.)View of Sex: sex is the highest celebration of our greatest values. Sex is a physical response to intellectual and spiritual values – a mechanism for giving concrete expression to values that could otherwise only be experienced in the abstract. "Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."

Oh, I totally agree with Rand on this point. Sex that is empty is merely wrestling in bed. Sex that means something is the most worthwhile thing you can have in your life. How many times I've had to tell my sister that, and how many times her heart was broken that men saw her as a vessel for immediate gratification rather than the end itself.

3.)View on Women being President: In a Playboy magazine interview, Rand stated that women are not psychologically suited to be President and strongly opposed the modern feminist movement, despite supporting some of its goals.

Rand was a bit daffy at that time for the same reason at #1.

4.)View on Homosexuality: According to remarks at the Ford Hall forum at Northeastern University in 1971, Rand's personal view was that homosexuality is "immoral" and "disgusting." "There is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality" because "it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises."

She revoked that statement in 1976 in a private conversation with a friend. She stated she didn't know whether or not it was wrong then. In fact, she was reading at the time the possibility of a biological origin for homosexuality. So, she too was changing with the facts.

5.)View on Businesses discriminating: Rand defended the right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, or any other criteria. Rand's defenders argue that her opposition to government intervention to end private discrimination was motivated by her valuing individual rights above civil (due to a rejection of the concept of "collective rights") and therefore her view did not constitute an endorsement of the morality of the prejudice per se. Rand argued that no one's rights are violated by a private individual's or organization's refusal to deal with him, even if the reason is irrational.

I totally agree with her. I don't want to work with fundamentalist Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc, if they don't like me. Nor do I wish to sanction their values by frequenting their businesses. This freedom to be apart is a freedom we all earn. The problem comes when one party decides to take the power of government into their hands to force a single ideal. In this case, we've seen this with the Jim Crow laws, which prior to their existence, most of the South never had any segregation at all.

Rand's views on gender roles have created some controversy. While her books championed men and women as intellectual equals (for example, Dagny Taggart, the protagonist of Atlas Shrugged was a hands-on railroad executive), she thought that the differences in the physiology of men and women led to fundamental psychological differences that were the source of gender roles. Rand denied endorsing any kind of power difference between men and women, stating that metaphysical dominance in sexual relations refers to the man's role as the prime mover in sex and the necessity of male arousal for sex to occur.

How would Androgyny fit into hir beliefs using the objective approach that she followed, despite the dichotomy of the two gender separate polarity.

She would argue it's a valid choice on the grounds of virtues. You are not seeking to be just an animal of the field, you are seeking to be a human. You are seeking the highest values in yourself, to do the best you can do. Androgyny for me is part of my highest values, and I seek to reflect it in my being.

-- Brede

[Kendall]

The only measurable data and facts that I see in any of the above is that men and women are physiologically different. And I suppose one could say even 2 different women are physiologically different. Thats the only measurable data out of the 6 issues above.

Rand's Femininity:
Hero worship is not a scientific term. It cant be measured, observed, and is subjective.
Desire to look up to man doesnt isnt measurable. It can only be inferred from observations. Also one can observe desires to look up to women, and desires to look down upon both, as well as look equally upon each other. And even then the sentence is telling an intention and priority that may not exist. Women may not hold their partner as the most important thing in their life, wheither male, female, androgyne, or other. Work, children, caring for other, sports, money, and many other things can be the best thing in their life. And femininity looking down to men, could be a more seductive powerful women approach.

Rand's Sex: Values are subjective. Everyone doesnt have the same values. Certainly their are some universal more widely accepted values, but some change even culture to culture, person to person, family to family, belief to belief. Sex sometimes is merely wrestling in bed, sometime forced, or begrudged. Not good sex, or even traumatic. And the partners may have differing values and ideals towards sex. Certainly this is an idealist image of sex, not a scientific observation of measurable sexual processes and events. They are not absolute.

The responsibilities of the President or most leaders does not infer gender. Great leaders such as Cleopatra and modern days Margaret Thatcher who held Prime Minister officer one of the longest periods 1979 to 1990. Perhaps the most significant British politician in recent political history, she is also one of the most divisive, loved and loathed by citizens from across the political spectrum. These two examples prove with evidence that women can lead countries effectively. History itself supports such claims. Female physiological, Male physiological, or Intersexed physiological such differences can, have been, and will be no obstacle, except culturally created.

Homosexuality:
Revoking that statement was a smart move, since the original statement was one of popular opinion rather then biological and scientific based.

Discrimination:
Discrimination can and does lead to violence such as civil wars, revolts, and revolutions. (see internal strife such as IRA, genocides in africa, Hitler's holocaust, transgender killings, gay bashings, almost any revolution in history, LA riots from the Rodney King event, murder of Martin Luther King, Jr).  Scientifically there is no evidence to support discrimination (which is the supposed basis for objectivism) as something any government should allow. Evidence supports that discrimination is learned, rather than biological. And is something that can lead to violence, a public matter of importance. Thats why for transgendered persons, having laws that prevent discrimination based on gender are many times important, and do eventually work. History shows that such laws enacted have worked much more effectively in the case of women and even race, than before without. Things arent perfect, but much better then in the past.

[Attis]

The only measurable data and facts that I see in any of the above is that men and women are physiologically different. And I suppose one could say even 2 different women are physiologically different. Thats the only measurable data out of the 6 issues above.

Measurable by what standard?

Rand's Femininity:

Hero worship is not a scientific term. It cant be measured, observed, and is subjective.

By what standard? Remember, I never stated a single point that philosophy was science. You seem to mistake the two.

Desire to look up to man doesnt isnt measurable.

It can be measured in philosophy.

Rand's Sex: Values are subjective. Everyone doesnt have the same values.

They have the same drive though, virtues are determined there. In this regard, the desire to live well is a universal property among all humans. Even among all non-human animals.

Certainly this is an idealist image of sex, not a scientific observation of measurable sexual processes and events. They are not absolute.

Because science cannot give you the why. You seem to mistake that science can magically give you WHYs where philosophy is the only determinant of such.

Revoking that statement was a smart move, since the original statement was one of popular opinion rather then biological and scientific based.

No, it was because Rand had no scientific data to prove it was not a moral choice. Remember, anything that is not chosen cannot be decided by morality. Being taller, or a different ethnicity, or having a certain set of physical traits are never chosen, therefore cannot be judged by morality. So, that's why she revoked the statement later. When the science started pouring in, she concluded with science.

Discrimination can and does lead to violence such as civil wars, revolts, and revolutions. (see internal strife such as IRA, genocides in africa, Hitler's holocaust, transgender killings, gay bashings, almost any revolution in history, LA riots from the Rodney King event, murder of Martin Luther King, Jr). Scientifically there is no evidence to support discrimination (which is the supposed basis for objectivism) as something any government should allow.

Okay, this is where your argument totally fails. You cannot demand others to live by your ideals, period and end of story. It does not matter what the outcome is. All that matters is that when one acts in violence or fraud toward your person they have no right to do, because that in itself is anti-life. But, if they say they don't want to employee you, don't want you around their kids, don't want to give service to you at their business, that is a moral right to do so. It is the primary liberty that every human being enjoys: the freedom to be left alone, and to deny it is to deny the foundation of human existence: individuality. And in essence, you are also denying by antecedent claim, androgyny as a valid choice to live by since you cannot have androgyny if you deny individuality. Whether it's individuality in the choice of whom you do business with, whom you employee, whom you allow to educate your children, whom you choose to associate, and so on. These are necessary functions of our primary right to liberty. And a function of our primary right to be ourselves [e.g. androgynous or otherwise]. And to claim science has any say on the rights of humans is a moral farce. Science tells you how things are composed. Science tells you how things work, but science does not tell you intent, purpose, choice, expression, and/or volition. These things belong to the realm of philosophies, which deal in the unparticular, in the  isolated parameters of existence. To deny this as well, is to deny the nature of science itself.

And the fact that you're pleading to collectivist scientism makes me wonder if you have a grasp of the issue at hand, which seems to me not even now related to androgyny, or any theory of gender. But it does seem to me that you want to truncate it into the issue. And I will oblige it by stating that all the actions of an androgyne or a genderqueer person is based on valuation. Basically, what's more valuable to us at certain points versus others. Do we value our freedom? Do we value our choices? Do we value the attributes we come into world with? Do we value the attributes we gain over time? And so on, these can never be decided by science, ever. Science can't tell you why you love a certain film, or a novel, or why you choose a certain moral theory over another. Philosophy can, because the realm of values is indeed unparticular.

Also, this plead to another definition of objective and objectivity is very questionable considering that all mental entities are objective in the fact that they are isolated in their properties. Any entity that can have its properties isolated by mental focus, by empirical observation, or by a combination of the two is objective. And that objectivity is possible, otherwise how do we derive knowledge? By chance? Or are there atoms of objective thoughts that exist in all matter prior to their formation in our heads? Clearly, the existence of objective knowledge balks at the contradiction of the implicit definitions you derived by virtue that knowledge is not a material entity, but a mental one. Therefore, objective is defined as follows: any entity [mental or otherwise] for which anyone can isolate and extract properties thereof to derive conclusions [meaning] and/or formulate new entities [mental or otherwise] in kind. Objectivity follows as a state for which an entity [mental or otherwise] has properties which can be isolated and extracted.

So if you want an answer to your identity, don't ask a scientist, unless s/he is versed in philosophy, therefore can give you a valid answer. Science can tell you your aspirin is working, but it can't tell you why you got the headache in the first place. :3

-- Brede