>>2424>Can you guys please give me your honest and detailed opinion about both the video...
1:54: They said their relationship began in high school, and it is apparent - the way they act is typical high-schooler-ish.
I get the general vibe that both of then feel insecure about themselves and their relationship.
4:00: Thinking about what they just ranted about in the preceding two minutes, their tone and demeanor is conservative and reminiscent of someone who has not thought a lot about what they're saying. The couple's further interactions support the hypothesis that they are typical high-schooler-ish.
5:42: I agree with the idea that labels are just labels for things we encounter in reality, but in order for their to be communication about these things, certain constraints must be imposed on the uses of these labels. If you are going to define yourself as a man as opposed to a trans-man, then society has very fine constraints for that, including - in conservative households - being born and raised by society with the assumption that you are a man and all the societal and cultural expectations that go along with this.
Of course, different men will have different experiences in how they relate to their society, but the common thread is that they look like men and were raised as a man, with no serious discussion of and no expectation that they would ever be anything different.
People who try to re-define words confuse labels with reality. They desire a certain label, thinking that this label will bring them happiness. And so they identify as a "man," and then fight and try to change reality because they value the label over their natural self. It must be remembered that people define labels - labels should not define people. Mere labels are not something to fight over.>"If you wanna be what you wanna be - call it for what it is, and don't label it transgender."
So, as you can see, given the subtleties of the human mind, "transgender" is a more accurate label. It is not being anti-LGBT to make this argument. It is just the way the human mind works. For example, I could say that I'm the literal definition of a "unicorn," and if people started to believe it, what label do we have left to call an actual unicorn? We would have to invent a new term for that which was lost.
Ultimately, however, language comes down to convenience, and it changes naturally over time. The meanings of words today are different from their meanings as conceived of by people 100, 200, 1000 years ago. If you are transgender and want't to be defined as an actual man, then you have to accept that on the conservative end, some people will reject your label completely. Others might accept it, but then go on to further define you as a deformed version of a man. On the more liberal end are people who are intelligent enough to see that language changes naturally, and in seeing you as one of the first personified reflections of that change, aligning themselves with this natural process, they redefine "man" in their mind such that they are in alignment with the natural change of language.
Regardless, however, of the response - as to whether they are positive or negative in nature, my formerly-mentioned scenarios do not say. For example, a conservative might be aware that labels do not define or make a person any more or less valuable, but merely reject the notion of redefining the label on the grounds that its use is not yet prevalent enough in society. This would be a positive response, as the person is still genuinely valued. A negative reaction from a conservative might occur if they are attach their identity to the label and therefore take offense to someone else's perceptions of what that label should be.
A positive or negative response from a liberal would occur similarly. If they make any part of their beliefs into their identity and see labels as anything other than a convenience, then there can be problems.
10:00: I agree that whether or not someone should transition is a serious question that should be given a lot of thought. I also think that a basic understanding and constant application of philosophy - and learning how to know yourself from a young age - can solve a lot of society's problems. Without this understanding, it might be difficult to know if you should transition - especially if you have under-supportive or over-supportive parents and in dealing with societal pressures whether from family or broader society. Learning to know yourself is difficult for anyone, regardless of the specific nature of their challenges.
11:22: I tend to agree with him when he says you either are or are not trans... but this is where knowing yourself comes in. If you had the benefit of growing up in a relatively healthy family environment, it will may be black or white - you will basically know what you are. But if you grow up in an abusive environment, I can see how it might be more difficult to tell. I do not think being trans or not is based solely on genetics. I think it is environmental as well. This is why all of these different kinds of gender identities and such are coming into existence now. I'm sure they existed to some degree in the past, but it is only in this era that conditions are right for them to be expressed in this way. It's because we live in an environment that allows for this kind of expression. As technology continues to advance, transitioning will become easier and easier, and more and more people are going to do it. Eventually, trans-species will have its time - "species dysphoria" already exists, but will eventually become medically-recognized, and the national argument will be renewed in that generation, as early procedures will be similarly risky and life-changing. They key is to know yourself and what makes you happy.
tldr; Know yourself.