Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


WEED IS LEGAL IN CANADA! Live 420chan Q&A and Site Merchandise Giveaways on Stream

Live 420chan Q&A, 420chan merchandise giveaways, Logitech hardware giveaways, partying on Twitch tonight!
G502 Giveaway Ends @ Midnight     Q&A Discussion Thread
transphobia by Isabella Danningstick - Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:48:12 EST ID:D27gVweR No.208297 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1501174092415.jpg -(15352B / 14.99KB, 532x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 15352
Why is there so much more visceral hatred of trans people than gay or bi people? I've noticed this for a while but comment sections of recent news articles really brought it to light. I keep seeing over and over again people saying stuff like "I don't mind gays but trans people are mentally ill blahblah SJWs something something free speech" and people making a million "logical" excuses as to why trans people shouldn't have certain rights that don't really make sense and do nothing to really hide their irrational contempt but why is that really? Is it just because trans people are more noticeable? Less physically appealing generally to most people? "Icky"? I feel like anti-SJW crusaders have made this the hill they want to die on and it doesn't make a lot of sense considering the amount of trans people in their own community is vastly higher than average.

Also while I don't think it matters to save us some posts on this incredibly slow board I'm neither trans nor gay and I don't really get on the liberal outrage train very often I'm just a mostly neutral, vaguely left-leaning party.
>>
Esther Crobbercocke - Thu, 27 Jul 2017 20:13:06 EST ID:7RQyvIWs No.208298 Ignore Report Quick Reply
uh its not that hard to figure out man. if two dicks touching each other upsets people, you really can't grasp why cutting off a dick and carving it into a vagina upsets people a little more viscerally?

its a combo of "abnormal" sexuality but also the drastic alteration of genitalia, the whole pronoun thing, picking a new name, a lot of people just find the whole thing mystifying. and if humans fear anything it is that which they do not understand. your average cis normie can comprehend gays without too much effort, but comprehending the choices and actions of a transsexual takes more effort and empathy.
>>
Jarvis Pickshit - Thu, 27 Jul 2017 23:14:13 EST ID:UgAS1X+C No.208299 Ignore Report Quick Reply
memes commuting human nature to different points.

Different cultural scripts dictating different personal conflict that individuals use talent and subjectivity to get out of.

Plenty of republicans had to stand up for family and values without going bigoted or anti trans.

But cultural scripts can confound us. Philosophy once the gad fly prodding us into liberated thought weighs us down as well.

Allegorically though socrates demonstrates this in the end of his journey with the trial.

The key is after that many philosophers came about answering similar questions with great talent but it was incredibly difficult. Because they had to deal with thought in a literal way.

That's what it's like trying to be a creative type. Or a soul that loves communication. it's taking on a relation in a not so fun zon
>>
William Pockham - Sun, 30 Jul 2017 21:41:43 EST ID:TZJ9pn2C No.208311 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208297
it's a subconscious psychological threat to masculinity and a threat to masculinity is a threat to the social hierarchy. Homosexuality is as well but for the past ten years that slowly got accepted, all the hate against gays is just gettinng turned against transsexuals now.
>>
Albert Pittspear - Mon, 31 Jul 2017 01:13:34 EST ID:1kfT+DW9 No.208312 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1501478014709.jpg -(325267B / 317.64KB, 1000x1071) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I saw an "anti-sjw" transwoman basically say she misgenders other trans people because showing decency requires effort.

The whole "anti-sjw" philosophy I find to be mostly disingenuous. There are true believers among them, but most of the youtube set are just saying what they know gullible people want to hear, and even a guy like Mike "call everyone who disagrees with me a pedophile" Cernovich I think would have way less zeal if insecure men who have decided to blame all their problems "PC culture" weren't the perfect suckers for his poorly written self help books and snake oil supplements.

Transphobia is just another pillar of the status quo they can hold up while performing their mental gymnastics to some how see their actions as being rebellious.
>>
Walter Povingpack - Mon, 31 Jul 2017 03:46:43 EST ID:N0Eu5lTp No.208314 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Because society needs scapegoats so that when people realize how fucked a world (even personal world) they live in, they can distract themselves by pouncing on them and feel powerful. We're slowly taking them away, as the scapegoats are talking back: disabled people, blacks, women, gays, etc. What's left, besides trans and fat people? And what's going to happen when bullying is no longer available as a denial tool? Sex dolls, probably.
>>
Angus Sinderdit - Thu, 03 Aug 2017 15:51:59 EST ID:BM6m5aTl No.208326 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, they could be seen as trying to redefine the concept of sex and gender into something many people would say it isn't to protect their feelings, then insisting others accept this new definition, which could build resentment. If they can't pass then they're likely to just not look like someone worthy of respect, and it might make them seem mentally disturbed.
If you see an MtF who despite their best efforts just looks like a manly dude in drag, it's hard not to see them as just some poor deluded man, whereas you might feel differently if you don't even notice they're not biologically female until they tell you.

I'm not really sure either of those issues would inspire vicious hatred though, just mild resentment over political correctness and difficulty genuinely respecting them, but not necessarily in treating them with basic decency.
>>
David Greenson - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 00:56:17 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208328 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208297

Well, a tranny is a person who wants to voluntarily mutilate their genitals and take hormones to make themselves look like the opposite gender. It is similar to Apotemnophilia which is the desire for the amputation of a limb. Both can be categorized under body integrity identity disorder as they both involve a mental state craving bodily mutilation.

At this point it isn't a sexual preference, it is a mental disorder.

I personally don't have a problem with trannys or people who have cut off their limbs on purpose, but to pretend that it's healthy to crave either is ridiculous. I don't hate these people, I just know that there is something wrong with their mental health. It isn't irrational contempt, it is intellectual honesty.

As far as limiting their rights, I believe that all people are entitled to the same rights across the board. However the mentally ill are mentally ill and should be subject to limitations based on their intellectual and emotional capacity.
>>
Betsy Snodway - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 02:23:38 EST ID:D27gVweR No.208329 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208328
>It is similar to Apotemnophilia

It's not at all though, it's a completely different disorder, with completely different causes. The most effective way of treating gender dysphoria in most people is HRT or SRS, and there's no reason it can't be utilized. You can't just cut off the limb of someone with apotemnophilia because there's no way to make that a safe procedure and it would be permanently debilitating

>pretend that it's healthy to crave either is ridiculous

No one's pretending gender dysphoria is "healthy" (to use the term as you use it). That's why it's in the DSM-5, the push you might perceive as "normalizing" mental illness is really just trying to humanize the mentally ill, in particular I found it striking that you said:

>However the mentally ill are mentally ill and should be subject to limitations based on their intellectual and emotional capacity

Which seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of how mental illness works and how we should deal with it as a society. You seem to imply people who are mentally ill are inherently intellectually or emotionally stunted which isn't true but more importantly I'd be interested in knowing what limitations other than the ones given to them by their mental illness we should be imposing on the mentally ill? Obviously people who can't live independently because of some issue can't, and people who aren't fit to drive, operate heavy machinery, or own weapons shouldn't but I think the fact you left that so vague would indicate you believe the mentally to be people to be dealt with in the most efficient manner possible regardless of the personal rights you might afford "normal" people because it would require extra effort to elevate mentally ill citizens to the level of their peers.
>>
David Greenson - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 03:40:18 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208330 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208329

I was being vague because there are a variety of mental illnesses that have a variety of impairments, and I didn't want to say "ability to join the military," since that's what we're talking about here.

You insinuated that I believe that the mentally ill are below value in comparison to mentally healthy individuals. I believe that all individuals have equal rights except when those rights may cause harm to others. It would be in the best interest of the whole if violent people did not have access to weapons, narcoleptics didn't have drivers licences, and psychotics weren't left unsupervised.

I'm done addressing your strawman.

While body mutilation may be an effective treatment for GID, I don't understand why it should be treated differently from BIID. Whether or not the root cause is different, both result in the permanent loss of bodily function. I suppose that permanent reproductive loss could be considered non-debilitating, but self mutilation is self mutilation.

I would also like to point out that limb amputation is probably an effective treatment for apotemnophilia, and that drawing the line for amputation at the genitals is unfair and discriminatory towards apotemnophiliacs.

In any case, I wouldn't trust a person intent on self mutilation and actively altering their hormones/body chemistry to be able to make rational decisions in a combat environment, nor would I trust them with sensitive information.
>>
Lydia Blatherbury - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 07:55:06 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208331 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208329
It's healthy and it's not.

It's as healthy as the need to be authentic. Which can also lead people to suicide.

But yet was the number one inspiration means against suicide as well.

A search for purpose can still go on, a search for existence can still go on regardless of how far away it seems from reach.

Eventually you find that in authenticity, what once crippled you anxiety and dramtized you in adolescence.

The turbulence becomes apart of the weather, you're choices of millions become perceptible, and you feel human value/s, qulia, so many things that are questioned, problematized, and intangible through your own possibility and your own intangible

finding out your a woman as a man, and a man as a woman. Is also part of that but it's secretly an issue of self determinancy
>>
Betsy Snodway - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:40:04 EST ID:D27gVweR No.208332 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208330
>I wouldn't trust someone who does something I don't deem to be acceptable with doing something completely unrelated to their condition

Where is the concrete evidence that trans people shouldn't be trusted to make rational decisions or hold secrets? What specifically makes them incapable? You can't just go off of feelings and hunches when you're talking about peoples' rights.
>>
David Greenson - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 18:17:27 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208333 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208332

Bradley Manning.
>>
Alice Shittinghall - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 18:28:55 EST ID:lPajOC8h No.208334 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208333
Anecdotal. There are plenty of leakers who aren't trannies and plenty of trannies working in the government who aren't leakers. Also you can argue that people who leak info the public has a right to know are patriots. Try again.
>>
Reuben Billywill - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 21:11:05 EST ID:B8uhe8Qm No.208335 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208328
>equating Apotemnophilia with transgenderism.
This is why people laugh at and are horrified by the alt-right.
>>
Doris Brashgold - Sat, 05 Aug 2017 03:56:28 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208336 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208334

The military tranny community is a small population in the first place, so I'm working with limited figures here.

>>208335

>alt-right

Nice buzzwords you SJW white apologist stallion-lord hipster trash.
>>
Reuben Billywill - Sat, 05 Aug 2017 04:12:21 EST ID:B8uhe8Qm No.208337 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208336
well done dodging the point with irony, m80.
>>
Doris Brashgold - Sat, 05 Aug 2017 12:47:33 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208338 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208337

What point? I thought we were saying things that mean nothing.

Also to expand on what I was saying, there is a limited population size of transgendered in the military which means one of two things:

1.) There needs to be a larger population size before drawing conclusions
2.) Bradley Manning is an excellent example of the transgendered community and their emotional shortcomings

If case 1, then I doubt we will ever know, without reasonable doubt, whether or not the transgendered are emotionally stable enough for service; I doubt a tranny corps will ever exist.

If case 2, then Bradley Manning is a significant sample of the transgendered community and should be used as measure to show the transgendered as a higher risk group of individuals in emotional instability and inability to safe-guard intelligence information.
>>
Phyllis Fanway - Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:33:57 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208339 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208297
Simply speaking, it's based on ignorance. Just as being against homosexuality was based on ignorance. It took decades for gays to gain more acceptance over time because the degree of understanding increased. That same degree of understanding doesn't apply to Transgenderism because it hasn't been a part of the public discussion as long.

Trans are now, what gays were back then. You don't need to overthink this. It's not really that complicated.

Also, going back to homosexuality, many don't like gays because of the promiscuity stereotype. Again, based on ignorance rather than understanding.

A study showing that since Homosexuals have greater risk factor involvement explaining the HIV rate differential between sexual orientations. Risk variables, not promiscuity is the cause of high HIV rates among MSM:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096799/

Study showing a link between public perception of homosexuals being promiscuous with opposition to gay rights:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178534

At the end of the day, it's plain ole' fashioned ignorance. Same reasons why people are against vaccinations, GMOs, climate-change denialists, et al.
>>
Clara Hebberhet - Sat, 05 Aug 2017 21:07:41 EST ID:ctvShMjA No.208340 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208338
>What point?
>equating Apotemnophilia with transgenderism.
>>
Lydia Bunkinshit - Sun, 06 Aug 2017 01:29:36 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208341 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208336
if there is an sjw, then perhaps you are stuck in contempary values, when seeing ethics and society.

Transgender is not new, it's old. thinking it's a condition or a disease is more of a modern hysteria reacting to the some idea that the world is the press, that is severly against the press.

Despite the movements that are new there subjects and remotely there objects are old.

The idea of a man who is a woman, and a woman who is a man. Is an old human feeling.

You are as mentally unsound in this belief as being the kid in a community that is amish who feels in his heart he could grow up to be a game designer.

We knew of them in stories and popular culture quite accessibly as far as number one hits like lola and get back in the sixties. It was a huge part of punk rock, disco, and the seventies in general.

it makes it's way into stimga because we can juxtapose this position of wanting to live with the fear of surgery or going under the knife. The idea that i would do something that radical makes its way into human drama and storytelling.

And it tends to become a metaphor for human politics itself discussed by many people not even remotely transgender-transexual. If you were to look at that you could easily see how gender really is a sociological phenomonen on the scale of robert gibson and philip k dick. Because essentially and entire conversation about something relating to our nation and society is centering around it for remote substance and mass communication.

It's people talking as if people changing their gender changes the fabric of society itself in such a way that implies interconnectedness to other people's independent choices even more than the belief that they question on the surface. Which is that this is a social issue, that gender is a social construction. So much so that it heightens to security and safety, and other examples of gender, as if there was a form or nebulus connecting them all.

It's somewhat what we learned through barthes and focualt. There is a norm, there are people walking around in conation so thoroughly that they don't bother to denote anything that they seem a walking ad because there argument implies the thing they are so against that subtextually. To put it in jungian terms, it's how everything looks when a political spirit of the times takes roots and divides everything into single digit teams and sides.

the shadow gets so dense we can almost see how we are actually having a conversation about an older issue we are working out through our projection while cloaked, because the older societal trauma is that deep.

We got that repressed on good and bad, that we are having this dialouge completely within that projection of those qualities on others that are more and more virtual.

The irony being thick enough that we could say we are having this public discourse in psychological drag.

those values and qualities that we block get so removed from us we miss parts of our intellect. and even names literal denotations. We can't remember them except for our opposition to them things like Plagiarism, collective thought, trans, these are essential parts of thought that we know remotely in western thought through there shared tangents with inspiration, collaboration, and authentic identity.

But even with those values we don't recognize synthesis/familiarity/dialectic, shared identity, and liberated sexuality.

Punishement and sexuality, and punishement in discipiline are that tied to heavy thoughts that obstruct open mind and cognitive learning, because we have demons for whatever time period we took public stigmitizing and humiliation as nightmare scenarios.

so often as person i find myself backed into a corner, and as a society finding myself with some corner to yell at.

Those are all really trenchant metaphors for punishments we got as kids, that weren't effective and were about the idea of exile and people disliking you.

Those became so outrageous they often became lenses that didn't see society sharing those qualities and how those qualities were often good productive meanings.

It's suprising because america's peak creativities historically revolve around iconclastic expressions and ideals or being in the wave of one, usually with the disfranchesed finding a union or synthesis melting pot of ideas of coming together that would give us a new philosophical horizon.

However we never get this idea into education. So we as a society never become more creative study the parrellels in physical expression of bohemians and hippies, the constant tradition of perjorative terms being turned by the people into liberative terms through understanding of rhetorical signification in critical talking like yankee doodle dandy, suffragette, and others. And as a result as an individual when we get stigmatized and picked on, we don't ever get past it without severe learning of a side of education that has been left out of the curriculum because essentially it was always being projected on the other side of town. Which is hard for us to understand with our missing conceptual understanding of relativity and how that's a shifting reality, which we had scientifically done at the turn of the last century.

We don't get we were comfortable with spanish when we were using aye carumba with bart simpson, we don't get that we were hyper stimulated by interchangibility and synchronization of culture through pastische and synthetic non analytic construction as kids through the power rangers and saban. And we don't get that that idea is the identical zeitgest to the recycling movement that was so ubiquitous at that time.

That thought is plagiaristic false winning you didn't earn your acceptance sjw.

When in reality it's about the recognition and use of everything you are and have around you. It's a whole side of your mind that's fertive and ironically conserving, that we black ball out of proclivity, because we think it's to mass communication. That it prevents indivduality and is the reason people don't work.

Well as long as we project it on the russians, in an inverse rheotric and distinct logic it is.

People out of self preservation will feel odd thinking they have to earn things from people they already have, that are put in hostage mode to prevent other things from being earned, because they still operate the idea of themselves as removed from the process through some layer of community that doesn't suffer. That by playing this way they play hide and seek without ever leaving home.

Except instead of being that cool guy who realizes he can take homebase with him in a wagon and help everyone. You know like buddha or jesus, they still do the thing where they try to keep you from home, in terms of trying to take yours or keep you out of one you are on your way too.

So you know until that day comes when you realize that existence is not all messed up because of a man who is a woman, and that the tyrannical "soccer" invasion of the nineties was actually decent.

You're gonna keep excluding people on some level of connatation whether literal or not that causes some problem because it's still the norm.
>>
Clara Hebberhet - Sun, 06 Aug 2017 09:09:50 EST ID:ctvShMjA No.208343 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502024990819.jpg -(9352B / 9.13KB, 183x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208341
>>
Jarvis Bleddlemire - Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:21:32 EST ID:VQ1c6Oy1 No.208344 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208343
I'm glad friends is still a thing.
>>
Caroline Birringson - Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:38:14 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208346 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208341

tl;dr

you win
>>
Fanny Gandershit - Tue, 08 Aug 2017 23:31:11 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208347 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208346

well i'm not trapped in a meme of abbrieviations with semi colons about assumed attitudes. But slow thought is often best bet for a cautionary subject, like contemplating how your longterm social thought isn't you.

Later on in life you'll be plenty haunted by legacy to wonder which thought is you.
>>
Fanny Gandershit - Tue, 08 Aug 2017 23:41:17 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208348 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208347
lespecially because it's self memory and the subject as object with pointing to the elusive subject of influence and correlation in shared subjective and objective communication.
>>
Clara Weffingshaw - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:13:52 EST ID:Fmljrjw2 No.208350 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502252032007.jpg -(88123B / 86.06KB, 720x686) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208348
you and youre fucking shitposts, Fanny, fuck you!
>>
Fanny Gandershit - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 07:41:20 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208352 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208350
that's memory you still have to search the categories even though it's immensely enfuriating.

It's like finding chuck mangione actually behind the towels.

Needless to say you finally got through to me in this post.
>>
Martha Nocklemen - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 10:07:22 EST ID:vJOwXLxB No.208353 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502287642299.jpg -(90651B / 88.53KB, 650x650) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208352
>>
Fanny Gandershit - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:40:33 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208354 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208353
is a horse the next member on the evolutionary chain?

the memes go down and scale the previous burt and ernie one was good, but it's an exception to this image and ross from friends.

i'm sure the conversational attitude of i'm doing it best is not intended from the people who post you're doing it worst. but at some point the intention doesn't matter if they all exist at critical glare. Unless the speaker is stating that being in the position is description enough for the situation or hub bub being lampooned, but in a way that still suggests they think they could never be in this position.

Did anyone think that the rapid conclusions projected on writers and speakers was a good idea for a meme/imageboard/chang/internet culture that in 2017 pertains itself to be all about cbs theory and not the cryptic i'm being insincere pov of the past.
>>
Fanny Snodspear - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:59:27 EST ID:P+7faq3c No.208356 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502294367675.png -(226396B / 221.09KB, 424x318) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208354
>>
Fanny Gandershit - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:45:05 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208357 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208356
thank you for illustrating the point visually.

You can see in the example of stormy here, a depiction of something that represents the collective chaining of idea in a thread, around a moment/instance/person/idea etc all. In this case a person. In the past where the identity of that thought was cryptic or vague and constantly selecting over itself moments when it was sincere or insincere or provactive rhetorically to prove some point that it may or may not have sincerely achieved this made sense.

However when the shift from ideas like "for great justice" and "for the lols" which were often expressed as knowingly or baroquely costumed to literal internet justice and actual clear brief and sincere theory.

Stormy know longer appears on every occasion to be saying nonsensical gibberish from a nonsensical or non sequitur place. It doesn't even seem to suggest the sensical non sequitur that gave the thought it's efficacy. Because it's literally a proponent of the logical cbs theory.

Weighing down the ability to thread a thought with logical breaks with connections that are baroquely made often through exaggeration inherent vaguary, good nonsense, and connections that aren't logically made. The same way most good jokes work.

The mainstreaming of it so it can be used as a more regular tool for fast communication which is cbs ironically hurt it's actual credbility, because there are no lines with odd spaces much less the threads that wove through them.
>>
Albert Fishnurk - Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:58:01 EST ID:P+7faq3c No.208359 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502341081921.jpg -(41592B / 40.62KB, 519x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208357
>>
Samuel Bunham - Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:56:36 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208361 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208359
Alot of the you're in bad health because of your posts is disturbing too, even though it comes from some place and this picture offers a supportive touch and very comforting touch. Some are like the go home you're drunk non literal, and some become increasingly concrete in there assumptions.
>>
Wesley Dendlestone - Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:40:33 EST ID:t9tUZilr No.208363 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502412033872.jpg -(7514B / 7.34KB, 256x175) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208361
>>
Wesley Bunway - Thu, 10 Aug 2017 21:22:02 EST ID:aX2KHzGI No.208364 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208363
At this point I could have been ob confused as to who is who and what is what and which is which.
>>
Eliza Fanforth - Fri, 11 Aug 2017 09:44:27 EST ID:plK4RKYM No.208365 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502459067470.png -(28922B / 28.24KB, 186x208) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208364
>>
Charles Faddleshit - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:18:15 EST ID:qum7+esS No.208366 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208297
I think it's because most trans people really are mentally ill and the problem is socially normalizing a self destructive decision to undergo surgery and chop of bits or add bits to your body and take hormones which alter your appearance and personality.

Lots of people who decide to transition just do so because they feel like something is wrong with them, they don't fit in, they're different and they want to be accepted and coddled by people who will call them brave and instantly accept them into their social circle for their differentness. Not all of them are actually trans, in fact these people are in the minority. When you give someone hormones and surgery to fix a problem, you had damn make sure these people actually have the problem and that this will fix it, otherwise you're just turning them into a freak and they will go through life easily identifiable to everyone as a freak and if and when their support system falls apart they're going to kill themselves. It happens all the time.
>>
Jack Gimmlesid - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:31:53 EST ID:T7Wzpddk No.208367 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208366
Agree with what you said. Just to echo with my own datapoints
In 2nd hand contact with someone going through a transition (1 data point). Extensive hormone use has either exacerbated or caused serious mental health issues for said individual.

There is a reason suicide rates for trans people is so high. Its no joke
>>
Betsy Drorryspear - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 00:45:31 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208368 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208366
Except it's way older than that and the surgery and medicine is illustrative as your argument.
>>
Esther Durringway - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 04:06:15 EST ID:805FeSBo No.208369 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Most people dont give a fuck about gender issues.

What angers me is that much of the political sphere is based on gender issues when it should be based on class issues such as unemployment, lending practices, taxes etc.

So the media fills the communication arena with these non-issues that are important but not aa important. Society needs to get its priority right and quite frankly the social justice warriors arent helping because they arent aware of this game theyre playing.
>>
Jarvis Pattingcocke - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 10:11:28 EST ID:gtiC6Zs+ No.208370 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502547088561.gif -(815914B / 796.79KB, 400x474) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208366
you've got it ass backwards. You're a serious fucking idiot if you honestly think trans people are mentally ill. Don't you realise there have been trans people for millenia before there was any kind of surgery involved?
> don't fit in, they're different and they want to be accepted and coddled by people who will call them brave and instantly accept them into their social circle for their differentness. Not all of them are actually trans, in fact these people are in the minority. When you give someone hormones and surgery to fix a problem, you had damn make sure these people actually have the problem and that this will fix it, otherwise you're just turning them into a freak and [...]
> It happens all the time.
citation needed
>>
Betsy Drorryspear - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:51:40 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208371 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208369
Iconoclastic roots was how America progressed there being suppressed because that tendency once had a phobia of thinking it had become too big. And thinking it got a big head.
>>
Hugh Farringdock - Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:03:06 EST ID:qum7+esS No.208375 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208370
There's a difference between people who actually are transgender and people who aren't but want to change their gender anyway. I know actual transgender people exist but the massive increase in the numbers of so called transgender people now is not due to an increase in actual transgender people, it's due to an increase in mental illness that people try to fix by changing their social identity. You have people in their 20's now suddenly realizing that they totes must actually be a girl or a boy. That's not how it works. If you were actually trans you would have always known that your sex did not match your gender. The people who suddenly decide that they're trans are usually just riding high off the social acceptance they get by coming out to blindly supportive leftist groups who worship the ground trannies walk on and instantly take them under their wing and make them feel special and accepted which is all they really wanted. People are trying to fix loneliness, low self esteem, feeling different/like an outcast by changing their gender and having people support them, not trying to fix the gender of their brain not matching the sex of their body.
>>
Hugh Farringdock - Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:05:50 EST ID:qum7+esS No.208376 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208368
Well, the concept of hegemonic masculinity and hatred of anything abnormal pretty much cover it up until recently. It's not like it was a hot button topic until recently though, people just pretty much ignored it unless they were confronted with it. They dynamics have changed recently, as have the numbers of people identifying as trans.
>>
Cedric Sanderstock - Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:59:26 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208377 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208376
on the contraire, it's perhaps true that we were less insular. It was quite a known subject.

Alow me to use a metaphor, when we see a remote view that despite are differences creates an awareness of likeness it usually happens like the beatles.

The beatles didn't think everyone had to be the same, nor did they think everything was always the same everywhere in every way, but they also did often give detailed accounts of the past and noticed changes in the music climate, sometimes percieved ones that hadn't yet happened.

These often led to their greatest successes.

And also comparisons. For they were also once forged out of a similar public perception that got them rejected from i believe delta.

It wouldn't be that transvestite culture was never there much like the guitar group it reexploded and experienced an expansion that creates a newness on the political spectrum that itself has age old issues and memories.

Rupual was a hit show, back when mtv was ubiqtous, cher, donna summer, the rocky horror picture show, the drag queen itself, elmer fudd wearing garters...the list goes on.

So while it's odd to argue how we now public awareness by the acknowledgement of it as a phenomenon we can explore it's documents. We can at least know from this vantage point that whatever public awareness is and that it may like the nielson box not always line up perfectly with eyes and where they are pointed that it did exist in this phenomonen as complex and contradictory as fame and acceptance are hard to pin down, there easy to notate.
>>
Cedric Sanderstock - Sun, 13 Aug 2017 15:06:44 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208378 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208377
People found rock n roll. People found rock n roll again. Artists who hadn't played it since there youth reconnected with there youth as roots. It's ethos then made it's way into poetry and folk. The concept of your youth being your actual past in the same since that ancient people talked to there ancestors, made it into america's fufillment in self and identity.

Many people found acceptance and belonging in it, many people found it helped lift repression.

Many people searching for acceptance looked there, and found it.

So it happens all the time.

They had the same ideas of hip and square which in the seventies became more of an issue as in punk, often explaining so stringently what it took to have integrity and an increasingly trenchant and not even agreed upon in name musical life it often sounded on some outsets because of the deep questioning of authenticity of self and others like it was anti punk.

Like integrity and self recognition were side by side with battles of self esteem and your direct opposition.

That's what the climate is like now.
>>
Shitting Cundernit - Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:06:55 EST ID:wHhTFxph No.208381 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208375
What the fuck is your source? you may have watched too much south park to realise mr garrison isnt real or representative of transgenders...
>>
Thor07834 - Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:11:29 EST ID:tZO25Yzk No.208383 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I heard a shrink explain that "sex is between you legs and gender is between your ears". Most people believe that is you look like a duck, etc., etc. that it has to be a duck. In humans we all fall along the continuum of straight on one side, gay on the other. But Bi- sits between those two points. All of us fall somewhere along the continuum. I believe that people are terrified to admit exactly where they rest on the line. As a result you have stupid people who believe they are either 100% straight or 100% gay. Not true, and remember all embryos start off female. Hormones change everything along the nine months. Try to sell that to the Mormons.
>>
Hannah Turveyworth - Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:01:34 EST ID:+oDzYIVl No.208384 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208383
well i understand people can fear categories. Categories being imposed upon us often makes us act incredibly awkward. Somewhat like new situations. But situations are often fine but categories while often most sought after because when we categorize we often specialize. But in a long situation or even anight out a group or situation imposing categories implies we might have to struggle to endeavor in a long night. Just like getting relegated to a certain duty at a job dramatically specializes but potentially narrows the field.

However you need the detail of the the method you work out of. And the category and organization you use.
>>
Samuel Buzzbanks - Thu, 21 Sep 2017 21:36:35 EST ID:dTd47cE1 No.208428 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't hate trans people simply for being trans. I do, however, think they are making a huge mistake. Trans people who transition have an increased suicide rate. Also there is something inherently incoherent about the ideology supporting the treatment of gender dysphoria with hormones and sex reassignment surgery. When somebody has a delusion, such as a hypochondriac, treatment for them would not be to tell them that what they believe is true is what matters. You don't humor them, you confront their delusion and help them to accept reality. Transgender people have a delusion, a very serious and dangerous delusion that severely affects their quality of life. Despite overwhelming evidence that they are in fact a male, they believe they are female. And their inability to self actualize this perception, and be perceived as such in the eyes of society causes them severe distress. There is no way for a man to become accepted as a real woman, even by the most liberal and progressive circles. They try their best but they can't help but treat them differently, and think of them differently. And trans people themselves feel this especially acutely, and it eats them up when they look in the mirror and see what they've become. They also realize there is no turning back. Hence the suicide rate. I feel nothing bad sadness and pity for these people

The people I hate are the parents and psychiatrists who did this to their children/patients
>>
Sophie Grimman - Thu, 21 Sep 2017 23:40:15 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208429 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208366
It's interesting to see how delusional people can get when faced with anything that makes them feel threatened. It takes a lot of formulate an explanation like this that comes from thin air. It uses self-contained logic but omits any facts or realities of the situation.

One can see the same posturing from those trying to explain why some people are gay. "Well, you see, if only they had a strong male role model and didn't have a dysfunctional thyroid. I imagine some are that way because they are beta and can't get women so they go for the best next thing."

It's all tangential and based on personal misjudgment.
>>
Sophie Grimman - Thu, 21 Sep 2017 23:44:21 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208430 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208428
The DSM doesn't list it as a delusion. That's why treatment doesn't entail working around their delusions but by actually embracing it. Stop pulling nonsense out of your ass.
>>
Samuel Buzzbanks - Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:18:01 EST ID:dTd47cE1 No.208431 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208430

Would you consider the possibility that most psychological and psychiatric associations and university departments are politically motivated in this matter? I think there is a high chance that in the future this will be looked at as a professional mistake. The strongest evidence for this is the suicide rate among transexuals. How could we possibly trust the psychiatric organizations endorsing a treatment plan which is resulting in 40-45% suicide rates?

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

And to the other poster, I think my view is not analogous to that straw man. Reason being, "lacking a male role model" is a vague and unsupported statement to make a generalization on. Compare that to the hard fact, suicide rates among these people are out of control. Notice how in those stats I posted, trans people who tell others they are trans or feel as though everybody knows without them telling, aka people who are trying to live as the opposite gender, people who transition, have an even higher suicide rate of 56% I believe. Something is going very wrong with their treatment. And I think that thing is the political-cultural notion that people get to define themselves in every conceivable way, this insane interpretation of the ideal of freedom that a person gets to personally determine facts about themselves, and it should be frowned upon or even illegal to challenge their perception of themselves.
>>
Beatrice Cebbernitch - Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:21:33 EST ID:HNJfvXnY No.208432 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208431
To clarify, when I say that liberals want this to be illegal or frowned upon, they are essentially implying it is actually injurious to question the judgment of a person that they are such and such gender. Which should be a matter subject to rational debate, no? Shouldn't all matters of fact be subject to discussion?
>>
Molly Worthingstone - Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:27:51 EST ID:qFV6v+im No.208434 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208431

Suicide can be caused by a lot of factors, marginalization being the first and easiest one that comes to mind. You want to push this direct causation between reassignment and suicide, and it really doesn't hold water except in your head.


What I wonder though is, they haven't really treated gender as a social construct. If you realize something is a social construct, meaning only imaginary, you detach from it, you fake it for your purposes, you realize it's not something you are but something you use, so you don't feel the need to change it.. At that point it becomes a matter of pragmatism, you use the tool you know how to use more, and the one you've always had is that: you've had more experience with it, so you know how to use it more.

So there's no sense in changing it. There is no transcendence if you change it, you're still treating it as real, as something you identify with. Why else would you change it otherwise?
>>
Sophie Grimman - Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:53:47 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208435 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208431
I can consider any possibility, but is it happening? I haven't seen any reason to think it's politically motivated. To go back to my example, the same exact explanation of political interference was the cause behind homosexuality being removed from the DSM as a mental disorder. It seems justified to make this comparison because we've seen this same line of reasoning in the past.

What's more likely? Some political infection spreading through international psychological/psychiatric institutions, or their being a scientific consensus of the proper course of action based on facts and experiences on how to treat gender dysphoria? Occams razor is on my side of things. The same logic is used by those that deny man made climate change; That it's some massive international trickery for scientists to make a few extra bucks and not actual scientific consensus.

Trans men and women were accepted in the military when they realized that they were using outdated information that considered transgenderism as a fetish. It wasn't some Obama liberal conspiracy to feminize men, but rather boring adjustments in management adapting to new information.

I find it hard to imagine that international psychological associations haven't thought deeply about the suicide issue. Your perspective entirely rests on your interpretation of why the suicide rates are so high without proving an exact link.

I can prove that homosexuals have higher instances of suicide, not because homosexuality is attached to mental disorder, but because social stigma and suicide rates have been linked. The same can be applied to the black community or the atheist community. People are social creatures. The mind breaks down when that one is excluded from an essential human need.
>>
Simon Bundale - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:26:05 EST ID:y8IvU11n No.208478 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's mostly the fact that people mutilate themselves because of a mental illness. I don't know how people became okay with that.

It's not irrational to be weary of trans people either. I simply don't want mentally ill people in my life. That extends to trans people. This leads to another reason for peoples dislike of them, the fact that you have individuals such as OP that feel it necessary to push this acceptance on to everybody, even those that have never met a trans individual.
>>
Simon Bundale - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:30:22 EST ID:y8IvU11n No.208479 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208435
Science is never concrete. It's always evolving. That's why we don't use x-ray machines to see our shoe size anymore, we found a better way. People saying that the current approach is the best way are going to probably be in for a rude awakening in a few years once all the negative effects of the trans lifestyle start coming out with age.
>>
Shitting Callybat - Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:54:07 EST ID:XU0wBvEL No.208482 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Have you ever met trans people? It's not even the fact that they believe in self-mutilation to achieve a desired look-- models may do that-- but it's also the fact that they parade themselves as an honest "man/woman" rather than their original sex because "I always chose dolls as a child instead of trucks"/"I liked the color pink as a kid"/"I just wasn't that girly" where you begin to think to yourself "Their parents/community/peers must have been awfully inconsiderate of their children to push things onto them to the point where they didn't believe they were their own gender" because gender is a social construct created to group things that **most** women like and **most** men like and then misc. others into three easy categories for marketing. People take it like something that chooses what gender their brain is which is simply not true. They disrespect women by thinking all women like pink, frilly dresses, makeup, and dolls. They stereotypicalize people's sex and further lock them into a concrete box that dictates what their gender should be.
Not only this, a lot of trans-people seem to dismiss any advice non-trans-people have because "They just don't understand." It's juvenile behavior that people usually grow out of but these people delve themselves so far into deluding themselves about their gender assignment project that they lack any self-image (how could you have any when your "peers" blindly agree with everything you do?), logical thought about WHY you believe dressing like a caricature of a woman will actually make you feel happier, or why you think other people would accept you for dressing like a flamboyant caricature of a woman, and why they can't even imagine WHY OTHERS don't like their lifestyle.
I understand that some men dress up as women to attract other men. That's difficult. I feel bad they can't be themselves around other men without societal pressures. It's just the ones who lack self-awareness of how disrespectful they are to women and their peers while claiming that their disapproval of their actions is them being oppressive on them.
>>
Nicholas Drirringstone - Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:40:50 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208485 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208482

That sounds like the caricature of a transexual person..
>>
Ebenezer Pockridge - Sun, 29 Oct 2017 11:28:30 EST ID:XU0wBvEL No.208486 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208485
I've met dozens of transpeople because I live on the west coast and it's a popular thing here.
I don't know how it is in the other major cities and in smaller communities because I've heard they're different there.
>>
Priscilla Mublingcocke - Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:24:44 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208487 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208479
So what should we base all of this on, your gut feelings? Anecdotal posturing? Stereotypical caricatures of how you personally think of trans folk? Sorry, but that's not how this works or should work. Everyone said science would change when people were starting to accept homosexuals. Sounds like you are hoping against hope that your side will one day be proven correct. And all the facts and knowledge we have now, will suddenly vanish is a puff of smoke. People are still waiting for the "science to change" concerning homosexuality; That it ACTUALLY is a mental disorder and all we've learned was false. That's a fantasy. If anything, time will allow us greater perception into transgenderism.
>>
Priscilla Mublingcocke - Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:36:55 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208488 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So far your argument has been that transgenderism is a lifestyle, a disorder, and deleterious to society, but you haven't proven this or demonstrated how. The onus is on you to prove it, especially since there is a consensus among international psychiatric associations. If the best you could do is make a baseless prediction that one day, and somehow, what you say is true, then there isn't much else to say, because it's just speculation.
>>
Rebecca Worthingdock - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 04:35:04 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208491 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208486

You may have met them, but it doesn't seem like you really got to know them. You likely were fed the superficial parts of their story because they didn't feel close enough to you to give you more.. And can you really blame them? Just talking about them as if they were a homogeneous group says much about your attitude towards them, no wonder they gave you the normie version of their story. You just mistook their distance with superficiality.
>>
Nicholas Sondleson - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:21:32 EST ID:TkUnip9C No.208492 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208482
>>why they can't even imagine WHY OTHERS don't like their lifestyle.
check this out: no one gives a shit what you don't like. How are you so far up your own ass you think that you need to be protected from the mere *awareness* that other people are doing things you don't like. I don't like how you're being a bigoted piece of shit, but that doesn't mean I'm going to come to your house and try to tell you how to live in your life. Why is it that everyone who goes on these same identical rants against trans people have the same false belief: that somehow their feelings about their opinions which prop up their little charicature of the world are more important than the actual lives of other people? In the real world, the only thing you have any control over is yourself, and frankly no body gives a shit about what you like or don't like.

If today you feel entitled enough to control trans people's lives based purely on your sense of aesthetics, what group are you going to next try to control and oppress based purely on your personal opinions, mein fuhrer?
>>
Isabella Barringbore - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 16:23:22 EST ID:XU0wBvEL No.208493 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208492
I don't speak German.
That said, I also don't care about aesthetics. I've seen enough women and men with their faces injected with plastic surgery that I'm unphased by how they look. But transgendered folks usually have the absolute worst personalities I've ever been around. I have heard that it's different in different parts of the state/country but from my experiences I rather not hang out with these upper-class hedonists whether trans or not. There's nothing but bullshit and "me, me, me" attitudes.
>>208491
I don't care about their life story. I care if they're doing their job, nothing more and nothing less. And I especially hate it when anyone tries buttering me up with the friends-act since that just gets in the way with work, especially the rich snubs who think I care about how much money they want to give me.
I know the difference between being distant and being superficial and I know the ones around me are the latter. If I had unknowingly met a transperson who actually acted properly, then that's great. Unfortunately, they don't have any influence on the louder group so I don't see a reason why I should be blindly accepting them all.
>>
Fucking Turveyson - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 20:22:14 EST ID:TkUnip9C No.208494 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208493
By aesthetics I don't just mean the colloquial definition of the term, I'm using it in the technical philosophical sense; the study of the pleasing and the good, affinity and dislike, not just physical or visual beauty. And that's what your whole argument boils down to: "I don't like trans people or find them disagreeable because of x, y, and z reasons, and because of that, they are wrong, or shouldn't exist, or something." Your only evidence is your own visceral aesthetic response, so your argument is circular, regardless of whatever other merits it may have. none

Which brings me back to my original point: no one cares about what you like or dislike, it's totally irrelevant. If you're advocating against the existence of a kind of person, or telling them how to live their life solely because your can't manage your own emotional reaction to them, then you're the problem, not them.

>> upper-class hedonists
Trans people and LGBT people in general are disproportionately poor compared to the general population. So either you're deliberately hawking a fabrication, or your saying 'I hang around some X-description assholes, and because of that, I believe all X people are assholes.'

Besides, you're conflating a legitimate thing, disliking someone because of their attitude or disposition, with disliking someone because of their inherent characteristics like race or identity (it's totally okay to not like hedonists, although I would disagree that you should, but that would be an argument in aesthetics, rather than ethical debate like you're casting it as.)

If you even sought out the very trans people who inhabit this very chan, you would see that no one stereotype fits, and aren't very much like the image you're painting. So my tl;dr: point is; even if so, even if trans people were worse than you're describing and you disliked them twice as much as you actually do, it wouldn't change the fact that some people *do* like and accept trans people, and you would'nt have even made a compelling argument about why they should or shouldn't, just ranted about how an easily targetable group with well documented problems 'are like, totally weird, and that shouldn't be allowed!' What comes of that other than pumping your ego as a certified non-tranny 'normie'?
>>
Simon Ninkinmurk - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 00:08:45 EST ID:dWvanT/s No.208499 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208488
>transgenderism is a lifestyle
Just like heterosexualism is a lifestyle. The only difference is 99.xx of humans choose the former(which is progenerately viable) vs a evolutionary dead end. If you want to redefine the species, expect the breeding members of that species to object. There have always been transgendered people in human society, and they have always been accepted as a public secret, as long as they also conformed to societal parental roles. Theres always been the man who likes to dress like a women and get barebacked at the Christmas orgy, or the woman who likes to put on a fake beard and dj women. As long as the rest of the year he dresses in a suit in public/raises children and doesn't upset the necessary human breeding society.

>transgenderism is a disorder
If you are unable to create offspring, that is a genetic disorder because you cannot continue your genetic line.

>transgenderism is deleterious to society
If you cut off your genitals and remove the ability to pass on your genes, you are deleting your genetic line from the first spark of life until you from the human gene pool.

Trans and homosexual humans are welcome to start and run their own society, I don't know why they think they deserve a seat at the table that hetero humans have built to further the human race, especially since we are no where near the technological level to make that possible, or worthwhile.

I don't hate trans people, my aunt is a MtF, and my sis is a lesbian who looks butch who gets missgendered as a male by people trying to be "politically correct" and hates it. I just don't understand why someone who has left the bounds of humanity wants to change the status quo of those still abiding by the rules.

Trans/homosexual humans can only procreate and have children through heterosexual means. My trans aunt has adopted, and my lesbian sister already has multiple guys lined up to be sperm donors. Until I see science be able to have any two humans have one child with only themselves, these humans are lowing our birthrate, demanding social services which are to ensure new taxpayers without delivering, and generally fucking up to social image humans have worked thousands of years to build to further, you guessed it, human society.
>>
Esther Blemmlesod - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 04:26:18 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208501 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208499
>Just like heterosexualism is a lifestyle

I mean, not really? Heterosexual people and transgenders coexist peacefully in other cultures you might call more primitive, so it's definitely not being heterosexual that defines our own. It's just the specific traditions we blindly repeated for fear of reprisal by our neighbors and the state. Hell, if anything I think that blind, fearful acceptance of traditions defines us way more than heterosexualism.

> If you want to redefine the species, expect the breeding members of that species to object.

This is a great example of that. If all that mattered was breeding, well, what would you have to fear from people unable to breed? As you said, it's a dead end, a temporary issue that will fix itself by them not replicating themselves. If anything, by forcing them to exist as breeding members of society, you make them more numerous, because their children will be gay or transgender too. If we had let them not reproduce in the first place, there would have been way less of them, so if you want to keep the breeding running smoothly, the best thing you can do is to NOT worry about them. The only way they're not a dead end is if they breed against their will, which is what we made them do for millennia.

>I don't know why they think they deserve a seat at the table that hetero humans have built

Maybe because the society they come from is where all their loved ones live? I mean, you can see why they'd try to remain close to people they love, right?

> to further the human race, especially since we are no where near the technological level to make that possible, or worthwhile.

Your narrative that we did all this to further the human race is just that, a narrative. Another narrative is that the human race got furthered because sex feels fucking good and we didn't have decent contraceptives.. Except in ancient Greece we had a plant which acted as one, and then we used it so much we ate it out of existence. Why would we have even used that, if all we wanted was breeding? And when males will get a decent contraceptive that won't impact feeling (example: https://www.parsemus.org/projects/vasalgel/ ) you will see how your theory is flawed with your own eyes. When having children will require a decision that needs planning and time (going to the doctor and remove the gel, in my example), we'll see how important breeding is in our list of priority. Spoiler alert: not very. Hell, I bet we'll discover fucking will trump having a stable relationship, in our list of priorities.

>these humans are lowing our birthrate

And? I mean, aren't we enough? We're past 8 billions, and even if we had food for all of us (and we do), space is not infinite. Do you think it's normal that we live like ants in buildings stacked right after another? Don't you think our numbers are depriving us of a quality of life that we would all be better for having? I mean, if we live badly, what's even the point of breeding anyway? Are we in a secret competition with an alien race and the ones who pops more babies win something or some shit?
>>
Simon Ninkinmurk - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 07:40:11 EST ID:dWvanT/s No.208502 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208501
>Heterosexual people and transgenders coexist peacefully in other cultures you might call more primitive, so it's definitely not being heterosexual that defines our own.
I believe your referring to the island or w/e with the third gender? I can't exactly remember their name or anything, but I specifically remember the part where as Auntcles they supported their hetero family members children giving them an advantage, which was why they were accepted, and therefore resulted in the much higher then normal rate of transexualism(it was like 4-7%?). Still, your dealing with an outlying tribe of people on a much smaller scale, which has been proven to fail on civilization scale with the fall of Rome. And even still, like I said before, if you would like to change the breeding pattern that almost all of society(human collectivism) conforms to, expect resistance at the idea, and at the extremes war for the form of human identity.
>so it's definitely not being heterosexual that defines our own
Except that, it does, and since the majority of humans agree on that, I'd even call that a democratic subjective truth. Homosexuals still observe all the right of a sentient human, and for the most part are still completely considered human. But no one will ever say that they can reproduce sexually as humans, and that is a intrinsic part of humanity in most peoples eyes, so even the "activists" that are promoting and helping these things don't really drink the Koolaid.
>It's just the specific traditions we blindly repeated for fear of reprisal by our neighbors and the state.
When the monkies beat up the monkey going for the banana, they aren't being evil. If reaching for something hurts the group, and the group responds by stopping the offender, is that not a correct social immune system response? I'm not saying there aren't blind traditions that we follow that we lost the meaning of, I'm just saying that there is a very high possibility that it isn't some random hogwash but probably something that really helped us gain an advantage over every other group of humans with their traditions.
>Hell, if anything I think that blind, fearful acceptance of traditions defines us way more than heterosexualism.
I will agree, only if you agree that blindly throwing out traditions without understanding them is equally as bad. Am I misunderstanding this, are you just saying humans follow traditions? That's just what society as a whole is, the collection of traditions of each cultural group expressed in everyday interaction. Language is a tradition, the maths are a tradition, workmenship, engineering, every single facet of society is a single piece of information passed down, grown, refined, expanded, generationally, which is outside the reach of trans/homosexuals unless they concede and breed heterosexually, at which point they need to just human the fuck up and stop trying to promote something that just doesnt work.

>what would you have to fear from people unable to breed?
I never said I fear them, I'm pretty sure I stated it, but again. I just want them to shut up and stop demanding special protections and an equal media presence. I don't want them to have a gay character on every show, I don't want to give them free reign over which bathrooms they get to choose which has never been a right any other human has ever gotten.

They exist, they are not a cultural element that furthers society, therefore they should be censored from children, and children should learn that they are free to be whoever they want to be, but that that doesnt mean that they should remove the option for heterosexual reproduction. Proper socialization requires proper propaganda, and other agendas trying to butt in on the londstanding human rearing techniques we've evolved over the span of the human race to elevate our offspring to adult level is causing massive failures in adults across the board from skill level, emotional stability, mental stability, you name it.
>If anything, by forcing them to exist as breeding members of society
Every human is forced to exist, no one gets a choice, the only other choice is to an hero. Like I said before, we had a working system where gays and transgenders were all part of society and accepted, as long as they kept it private and did not disrupt the social face of humanity. Also, most of them are largely rational humans, and whos to say in 1000, 10,000 or even a million years later these genes won't prove to be useful in creating the next species to evolve from us as asexual beings that are part machine dna etc etc genetic diversity. But in the here and now, those genes are shit(not to exactly say being gay is genetic, but you have to have a brain where that decision is possible, therefore genes) so they should be accepted, but not promoted.

> I mean, you can see why they'd try to remain close to people they love, right?
I do, I never said they couldn't interact with their family. I just don't think media should pander to them.

>our narrative that we did all this to further the human race is just that, a narrative. Another narrative is that the human race got furthered because sex feels fucking good and we didn't have decent contraceptives.. Except in ancient Greece we had a plant which acted as one, and then we used it so much we ate it out of existence. Why would we have even used that, if all we wanted was breeding?
I never said that the only thing being done to further the human race was breeding, or that breeding at an uncontrolled rate was somehow a great achievement. Every single invention or piece of knowledge that we have obtained, that every one enjoys, is the social child of everyone who has had children. I'll even admit that non-hetero humans have contributed to this, but in a very hetero way of making their projects their child and then passing that into hetero society, the only place that will continue its existence for their future generations. If the total amount of humans breeding is not high enough to replace and add, the total amount of humans in that society is going to shrink, and it will not be able to maintain the structures it built at higher population levels.

If genital stimulation was the peak of pleasure, we'd all be monkies masturbating in the canopy of some jungle. Theres a reason they ate it out of existence, because it was useful, therefore economically/socially viable. You tell me, is there a correlation between the discovery of this drug, the rise of Rome, and the extinction and fall?
>we'll see how important breeding is in our list of priority. Spoiler alert: not very. Hell, I bet we'll discover fucking will trump having a stable relationship, in our list of priorities.
And this is why western countries birthrates are plummeting. This is why quality of life is dropping, why societies cannot be maintained anymore, why social programs are going to start to fail and we see more and more dangerous people slip through the weakening social net.

>And? I mean, aren't we enough? We're past 8 billion
Yes. I do agree on this point. And if you could get every human to agree on this we could all shake hands and begin a true human eugenics program and really improve the stock. But until that point, if you allow your opponents to gain an upper hand on you, you lose by default.

>I mean, if we live badly, what's even the point of breeding anyway? Are we in a secret competition with an alien race and the ones who pops more babies win something or some shit?
Yes. The name of these aliens are the universe and time, and they always win. You forget one very simple but very powerful truth. We. Are. Still. Here. Every single dna machine from the beginning of life is dead except for the ones that arent right now, because they put in effort to do so through so many hardships that it would probably take multiple human life spans just to enumerate them.

And honestly we need a few billion people to throw at a planet at a time in the future, need to spread our eggs into more baskets before our planet gets gamma rayed back to primordial ooze or some other catastrophic event.
>>
Priscilla Pennernerk - Tue, 07 Nov 2017 15:45:29 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208505 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208502
You have conflated a bunch of ideas about natural selection, eugenics, human evolution, etc. into a mish-mashed lump of hogwash. Your central insight seems to be 'homosexual people cannot reproduce heterosexually' and from that you've built this whole system of thought that boils down to 'you're useless if you're not fucking.' Which is frankly quite ignorant of the history of the world and the reality of how it exists right now, which would be bad enough. You then go on to use this idea to prescribe a social program of isolation and oppression. Off to a pretty bad start altogether for this ideology! Let's break it down piece by piece and see if we can find where you went wrong:

>> As long as the rest of the year he dresses in a suit
This is a very primitive and inaccurate mischaracterization, your whole little image of how society 'traditionally' dealt with trans people. For one thing, in many societies, third genders were permanent members of society in that role, not this idea of people crossdressing only on a holiday that you suggest (although there are certainly some patterns of that.) These people would often have roles as shaman or medicine workers, and their status as being outside of the normal gender dynamic was seen as being integral to their ability to see outside of the normal mores of society to obtain help and healing for the tribe from the mystical forces. Thus in many 'traditional' societies the 'traditional' role of trans people was very much present, and not at all contingent on them hiding or minimizing their identities, and was seen as being an integral part of the health of the society (even to the extent that -- you'll love this -- the knowledge of how to be third gender spirit workers was passed on, generation after generation. Funny how humans, being intellectual beings, have the capacity to pass on things other than genetic material, and that these informational patterns are even *more* coherent and long lasting than mere assemblages of nucleic bases?)

>>if you would like to change the breeding pattern that almost all of society(human collectivism) conforms to, expect resistance at the idea
Why? We changed all human breeding patterns when we invented the contraceptive pill. If you want to look at the force that caused population growth to go negative in the West, then that's it, if you think it has anything to do with increasing acceptance of LGBT people then you simply don't understand the population numbers involved. LGBT people barely put a dent in the overall fecundity of the west, contraceptive technology changed it radically. Why does this not cause an 'extreme war for the form of human identity'? Oh right, because human society is about more than raw breeding numbers, and most humans other than you are smart enough to pick up on that.

>>since the majority of humans agree on that, I'd even call that a democratic subjective truth.
Truth is not a democracy, get your shit straight.

>>But no one will ever say that they can reproduce sexually as humans, and that is a intrinsic part of humanity in most peoples eyes
[Citation needed] on the 'most peoples eyes' bit. Also, can you explain to me how so many gay people have children that is the biological child of at least one of them if 'no one will ever say they can reproduce sexually as humans' ? Hmm lets see, we're talking about humans so check on that part. One of the guys splooges into a cup which one human takes and inserts into another human, that human carries half of that splooge mixed with another human's eggs to term, and the resulting human infant is raised by the guy whose splooge they were made out of, with splooge-mans values, beliefs, hopes and dreams. Sounds like human sexual reproduction to me, man. Are you saying adopted people don't count as actual humans because they weren't raised through your cookie cutter family model?

>>When the monkies beat up the monkey going for the banana, they aren't being evil
More appeal to 'the truth as whatever the mob enforces with violence.' You're essentially saying 'humans enforce their norms with violence, so isn't violence the correct thing for humans to enforce their norms with?' It's painfully circular, and oversimplifying to boot. From the idea that this is a norm that humans enforced with violence, you go on to say that because we enforced it with violence, there's a high probability that there was a good reason to. You've managed to circle around twice on your own premise without bringing in any actual evidence outside of your own circle of reasoning, but, like the dog chasing its own tail, you seem to imagine you're actually getting somewhere. This is borderline incoherent at this point.

>>blindly throwing out traditions without understanding them is equally as bad.
Yes, blindly throwing out a tradition as you describe would be bad. However, that's not what we're doing. We do understand these traditions -- you are trying to present a spin on that understanding as a dogmatic 'truth' along with a propagandized social control objective, and so really the onus is on you as to why we should accept this vision of 'human society as mass breeding project.'

>>which is outside the reach of trans/homosexuals unless they concede and breed heterosexually,
Are you seriously suggesting that gay people can't use language or math unless they acquiesce to heterosexual dominance? How do you imagine this works? Or are you saying that gay people are dependent on the continuation of human civilization in order for there to continue to be a human civilization? In which case that statement is so obvious and self-referential as to say nothing. If you're suggesting that because gay people don't 'contribute' to the production of new generations and so don't deserve to have new generations pass on the informational contributions they make, well, that's just stupid and I'll assume that's not your intent, but even if so, again, with reference to adopted people or children brought about through surrogacy or artificial insemination, it's also totally inaccurate, as gay people do contribute to the production of future generations.

>>stop demanding special protections and an equal media presence
The only mechanism that brings this about is democracy and capitalism. If you believe in democracy, then you believe that every person has an equal voice. If they have an equal voice, then they will have an equal presence. We live in a capitalist society, and there is a capital incentive in giving such people voices. Who are you to say we should throw out that system, and for what?

>>I don't want to give them free reign over which bathrooms they get to choose
Nobody wants that. What we want is for people who look like women to go in the womens bathroom, people who look like men to go in the mens bathroom, because that is a safer situation for everyone than doing the opposite, where women and men with vaginas go into the womens bathroom, and men and women with penises go into the mens bathroom. If you don't understand why that is an inherently dangerous and untenable situation, then wake up.
>>
Priscilla Pennernerk - Tue, 07 Nov 2017 15:46:15 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208506 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208502
>> they should be censored from children
Uhm, why? First of all, LGBT people do further society by any metric you could possibly analyze society under. Why exactly should the existence of a group of people be hidden from children? Why are you advocating lying to children? Who is going to run this oppressive system which controls how parents raise their children and chooses what information you are allowed to teach them?

>> that doesnt mean that they should remove the option for heterosexual reproduction
How much of a fucking nutter are you that you believe someone is trying to outlaw being straight?

>>Proper socialization requires proper propaganda
Are you some kind of crypto fascist? Where do you get the idea that society needs MORE propaganda?

>>causing massive failures in adults across the board from skill level, emotional stability, mental stability, you name it.
Late state capitalist post-industrial society has tremendous problems across the board, which exacerbate all the cultural changes you just described, which really began at the beginning of industrialization. The constriction of fixed capital into tighter and tighter pools, along with the globalizing power of high-tech are largely responsible for this. If you think that gay people are the reason western society is crumbling, then unfortunately the victim of propaganda is you.

>>we had a working system
Oppression is not a working system. A system that can only survive by keeping down a lower class can only remain stable for so long. Censoring the existence of people does nothing good for anyone, and only exacerbates the tension between the classes. Our system of acceptance is working pretty well right now, except for people like you who are so entitled as to think their own sense of order is more important than the lives of other members of society. You are wrong about that.

>> whos to say in 1000, 10,000 or even a million years later these genes won't prove to be useful in creating the next species to evolve from us as asexual beings that are part machine
Wake up and smell the coffee. We are becoming post-sexual, post-gender, post-biological machines this century, or else, there won't be any humans left. The reason this is all coming to a head right now is because this is all coming to a head RIGHT NOW, in our lifetimes. You can't kick the can of figuring this shit out further down the road, we're already at the end of the road. LGBT people's genes are manifestly useful because LGBT people are manifestly useful in the current environment, and those ideas will become more and more essential to the average human throughout this century. The fact that you acknowledge that there will be a use for this but then have to do a shell game with what we all know to be the current situation of the world in terms of the rate of technological advancement suggests intellectual dishonesty to me.

>>Every single invention or piece of knowledge that we have obtained, that every one enjoys, is the social child of everyone who has had children.
This is moronic. Are you saying that only parents are capable of benefiting from or using technology and culture? No, culture is the child of human society, and all humans have equal rights and access to that culture. We do not determine who is or isn't a member of society based on the degree to which they breed; we've never done it that way, and so you are advocating to us a change from the traditional to this new breeding based world order you suggest, and again, why? The world is already overpopulated, there already aren't enough jobs for the people who are alive right now, and soon robots will be doing everything. Biological evolution stopped seriously modifying our DNA as soon as we got to the agricultural revolution, so that's all over man. You're trying to fight stone age culture wars in the post-information age. It looks really exhausting, and is totally futile and meaningless.

>>You tell me, is there a correlation between the discovery of this drug, the rise of Rome, and the extinction and fall?
Yes. So let's see what lesson we can take from that; uncontrolled reproduction is very dangerous, and humans are too stupid to not do it to the point that it destroys themselves. The rate of people being LGBT is a genetic hedge against that phenomena. And it's not useful then because....?

>>And this is why western countries birthrates are plummeting.
Why do you think that? There is no causative correlation between birth rate and economic prosperity, but every time you bring it up you conflate the two. Maybe society is crumbling because the idea of an economy based on endless infinite growth is inherently untenable for a finite planet full of dumb, greedy humans, did you ever think of that?

>>begin a true human eugenics program and really improve the stock
Ah, so the cryptofascist shows their hand. So who gets to determine what is the 'master' kind of human in this social order? I guess we look to you, clearly the arbiter of what is true and good, as to who lives and who dies in this clearly 'enlightened' planetary breeding chamber?

>>need to spread our eggs into more baskets before our planet gets gamma rayed back to primordial ooze or some other catastrophic event.
Well, sure, no one can argue with that. Did you know that LGBT people are disporportionately involved in STEM fields? Did you ever think that your testosterone-drenched social policy might brain-drain you of the very kind of people who have the knowledge and skills to solve the very problems you complain about, much like how the Nazi's anti-Jewish policy caused all Jewish scientists to flee and thus lead to Germany ultimately failing to win the technological race -- and thus survive at all? Can you not see how following the eugenic, propaganda driven social program you describe might not have the exact same effect but on the scale of our entire species?

Do you think gambling that it wouldn't is worth it when all that comes of it is that you don't have to be exposed to a kind of people that, for your own personal reasons, you find icky, and thus try to dream up massive systems of social control and oppression just so you don't have to think about things you don't like thinking about? Maybe that kind of need for insularity and homogeneity is the deadly weakness of our species, rather than that just sometimes we don't like to fuck exactly the way you think we should? If you were to choose which property is more likely to bring about the end of our race; that sometimes we fuck the wrong hole, or that we are unable to accept and integrate difference healthily, which would you think? Which makes more logical sense?
>>
Esther Tootshit - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 01:10:40 EST ID:9k2Lr/yb No.208507 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Did you know that LGBT people are disporportionately involved in STEM fields?

Did they achieve anything?
>>
Lillian Chiggleworth - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 01:43:29 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208508 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208507
Mhmm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_scientists
(This list is far from exhaustive, excludes major notable figures like Turing, etc.)
>>
Nigel Fondlewon - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 06:37:30 EST ID:dWvanT/s No.208509 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208506
>LGBT people do further society by any metric you could possibly analyze society under.
Not without all the resources that hetero society invests in them, with no return. Especially since the lifestyles/professions they choose are largely useless(statistically), and they spend the investment in them in furthering their social ideal, at the expense of the rest of humans social cohesion.

We lie to children all the fucking time for their own good, don't pretend that this isn't a part of human society

>Who is going to run this oppressive system which controls how parents raise their children and chooses what information you are allowed to teach them?
Preferably an A.I. or something along those lines, that simulates what helps humans breed at managable but replace+ level.

> How much of a fucking nutter are you that you believe someone is trying to outlaw being straight?
I think you misunderstand. I think It should be illegal to outlaw mutilation of your reproductive system. Regardless of whether or not you think you are a man or a woman. Either "gender is a social construct" or "I need x genitals to be x gender." And a mutilated non functional organ is NOT the genitals of the other gender.

>Where do you get the idea that society needs MORE propaganda?
To propagate. No seriously, its not that society is hurting for propaganda, and I'd guess its been going on since the beginning of human culture. What that means is, either the propaganda is controlled by you, or someone else.

>If you think that gay people are the reason western society is crumbling
I didn't say that. Western Society is crumbling because we've forgotten the basic of how to raise a good human being. Gay/transexual people are more of a symptom and feedback cycle, then the cause.

The cause is things like gay(or any really) propaganda taking the place of our regularly scheduled human rearing propaganda.

>except for people like you who are so entitled as to think their own sense of order is more important than the lives of other members of society
Except for people like you who are so entitled as to think their own sense of order is more important than the lives of future members of society. So its ok for you to oppress a large portion of society with your veiwpoint, but not them?

>We are becoming post-sexual, post-gender, post-biological machines this century
We are becoming yes. But we are becoming another species, and to not understand that the majority of people who are happy being human beings are rejecting it, at this point in time where it doesn't have a positive evolutionary advantage is beyond me.

LGBT people's genes are manifestly useful because LGBT people are manifestly useful because LGBT people with LGBT people's genes get us ready for LGBT people with LGBT genes being part of humanity. This is circular logic and pretty weak if this is your only argument for why they're useful.

I mean, its pushing it to say I acknowledge its useful. All I said is I have no idea whether or not in 10 million years it WILL be useful, so I don't think its smart to remove it from our gene pool. And not only that that we are moving towards not being sexual at all, so different sexual profiles are useless.

Heterosexuals are pushing the majority of technological innovation, if homosexuals and trans would band together and actually work on genetic manipulation to further their new species it'd be a completely different story. And every cent they get directed away from heterosexual medicine is a net loss to that society.

> Are you saying that only parents are capable of benefiting from or using technology and culture?
No, only children. If you dont have multiple generations, then that knowledge dies with the group that made it. Its only because parents have a vested interest in keeping social gears oiled that it happens, and when you remove that incentive more and more people just don't care.

>We do not determine who is or isn't a member of society based on the degree to which they breed
Maybe, but we have certainly built a system that rewards them over others. And we definitely have/had social hierarchy that up until recently also measured your social status partially on that. Heck even words like bastard are a direct result of this. And its also not a coincidence that since this have been changed, the quality of life around the globe(as a total) began to go down for the first time in hundreds of years.

>uncontrolled reproduction is very dangerous, and humans are too stupid to not do it to the point that it destroys themselves. The rate of people being LGBT is a genetic hedge against that phenomena. And it's not useful then because....?
>There is no causative correlation between birth rate and economic prosperity, but every time you bring it up you conflate the two. Maybe society is crumbling because the idea of an economy based on endless infinite growth is inherently untenable for a finite planet full of dumb, greedy humans, did you ever think of that?

Yes, uncontrolled breeding is stupid. Letting all the stupids fuck you into a minority is even stupider. If you aren't here anymore, you lose. Also, I'm not the one conflating GDP and birthrate, the biggest argument out there for immigration from the 3rd world is lowered birthrates maing social programs nonviable.

>So who gets to determine what is the 'master' kind of human in this social order?
The maze. If you make it out alive, you get to breed. obstacles set to median human IQ, every 50-100 years the difficulty is increased.

>Did you know that LGBT people are disporportionately involved in STEM fields? Did you ever think that your testosterone-drenched social policy might brain-drain you of the very kind of people who have the knowledge and skills to solve the very problems you complain about
I don't believe it. people in the stem feilds are largely non-sexual workaholics nerds. LGBT people are overwhelming represented in the "soft" social sciences, and focus only on their goals and problems of their communities.

See I can do that too, citation please.

>https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/opinion/manil-suri-why-is-science-so-straight.html
Statistics are hard to come by, but an analysis by Erin Cech, a sociologist at Rice University, of federal employee surveys found 20 percent fewer L.G.B.T. workers in government STEM-related jobs than should be expected.

There's no doubt it would need to be kept in check so that it doesn't come down to just paranoia and stupidity like Hitlers eugenics program which was only about aesthetics .

>Do you think gambling that it wouldn't is worth it when all that comes of it is that you don't have to be exposed to a kind of people that, for your own personal reasons, you find icky
I think its silly you think I'm gambling, but your the one taking a chance on a none genetically viable lifestyle in a time where technology cannot bridge the gap. I don't find all gay people to be icky any more then I do hetero people. A large percent of people are shit anyways, but at least they have a chance to make a decent human being by accident.
>>
Lillian Chiggleworth - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:25:06 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208510 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208509
Hmm...I don't know man. I'm inclined to think you're just a concern troll at this point. I can't believe you seriously hold such a ludicrous world view, and you slip up on your character from time to time, like with the maze bullshit. Who seriously would think something like that? The fact that you post links to articles that, if you even bothered to read them, you would see disprove your own point -- like this article, which contains juicy nuggets like
>>the L.G.B.T. STEM work force is closeted (43 percent, according to a 2015 estimate)
means you're just rage researching from Google's top results, so you can't have thought these ideas through very clearly or hold them very deeply.
So either you're an edgy 14 year old who thinks a world order based on a eugenic fucking maze sounds cool, or stimmed out of your mind, or something, because you sound like a fucking psycho if you look at the picture you're painting from an objective standpoint. On the off chance you're sincere, I will answer the points you bring up, but at least try to stay in a more sensible concern troll character for me to take you seriously m80.

>>with no return.
You seem to be under the impression that the contribution of human beings to the creation of human society is limited to our production of genetic material and breeding stock. This is false, the value of the mere mechanics of reproduction is a very small part of the economy, whether you measure the economy in dollars, calories spent, hours worked etc. LGBT people have and do contribute both to the furtherance of present society and participate in the education and training of future generations, so I don't see how society isn't getting a return on them. Again, to most peoples' non autistic minds, there isn't a 'hetero' society and a 'homo' society like you've been programmed to believe, there's just one 'human' society, and creating false divisions within it like you're trying to do here is one of its most insidious cancers.
>>Especially since the lifestyles/professions they choose are largely useless(statistically)
There are gay people in every single profession at statistically significant numbers. You lie, or you believe some kind of 4skin fantasy about what gay people really do.

>>they spend the investment in them in furthering their social ideal
The ideal of a unified peaceful diverse human society is an ideal shared by many straight people, so again, this is work in furtherance of human society, not 'homo' society.
>>at the expense of the rest of humans social cohesion.
Actually, the mere fact that a LGBT person (or any kind of person different from you) exists doesn't do shit to human social cohesion -- it's when people like you start getting so triggered by the mere fact of their existence that you have to start imagining AI propaganda planetary breeding machines to erase their existence (only for a million years or so, you're so generous) and thus start trying to agitate other humans to behave repressively and violently against each other, that human social cohesion is damaged. The splinter you see in your brother's eye is the beam in your own.

>>We lie to children...
Yeah, some parents do lie to their children, but it hasn't always been that way, apart from fairy tales and things...however, unless you're talking about Santa and such, I would incline to say that in general we think it's appropriate to teach children what the world really is, rather than fill their heads with some false fiction, right? We would be bad parents if we trained our children for a world that didn't exist, rather than giving them every possible skill to cope with life.

>>Preferably an A.I. or something along those lines...
Along this line, we should not assent to condemning our children and all future generations of humanity to be controlled by the propaganda of an all encompassing information censorship and control AI. Are -- you -- fucking -- insane? It will be hard enough to prevent such a thing from coming about naturally (we will hopefully rely on a natural ecosystem of AIs where no one AI is all powerful) but you want to create one specifically for the purpose of indoctrinating humanity -- and for the laudable goal of, get this, fucking, obviously something humans have been unable to achieve here to fore and need a super sapient AI manipulating us into doing. Can you even fathom how quickly we would end up in a rule 34 version of Nick Bostrom's Paperclips?https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
This is an insane idea, and I can't believe you hold it sincerely. 'Please breeding-farm my planet, AI God!'

>>I think It should be illegal to outlaw mutilation of your reproductive system.
Ah, here comes the straight set of trolling statements, unvarnished and gleaming in the sun. Those ideas are all stupid, that's as much evidence as is needed to dismiss them because that's as much as you offered, that the state should be able to control what we are allowed to do with our genitals, that you think we need to enforce some kind of universal genital homogeneity through the violent force of the state,..
>>a mutilated non functional organ is NOT the genitals of the other gender.
... and then you make a metaphysical claim about semantic qualities of descriptors of human body parts and human gender, without any evidence -- merely asserting that it is so. Well, it's not so, and there are a lot of good reasons why, just from a logical standpoint, the statement you made is easily deconstructed and meaningless. Consider that the concept of an organ as well as the concept of sex are both social constructs, in fact all biological knowledge, while it may attempt to describe a physical reality, is in fact just itself a social construct. In reality, all there are are aggregates of nucleic acids encased in protein sheaths tumbling across a thin shell of stone enveloping a liquid sphere of iron, hurtling through space around a ten billion year explosion. All our semantic understanding of the world being relative to our primitive protein based cognition, if gender is a construct that describes a condition of a person, and the physical configuration of the genitals are referred to by their shape, then calling a person with one gender and one configuration the genitals their aggregate of protein molecules most closely visibly resembles, rather than the one a very small percentage of one part of their nucleic acid chains resembles is at least as good of a way of talking about things than doing what you're proposing, and whether it is or isn't is entirely an argument in relative semantics, which is itself a social construct, so what's your statement really getting us other than more trolling?
>>
Lillian Chiggleworth - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:25:33 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208511 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208509

>>either the propaganda is controlled by you,
No, that's why we invented the scientific method in the first place. We are just barely crawling out of the dark ages and you want us to go back. Living under a state of constant delusion and informational coercion is not a given, and the suggestion that it is is dangerously wrong.
Besides, you seem to think propaganda has always existed. Propaganda is a relatively novel concept for humans. Hell, relative to how long humans have been breeding, any kind of written language is a novel concept, and we got along breeding just fine before that so...I think humans and all sexual lifeforms really have enough incentive to fuck without you MK-Ultra'ing the planet's whole noosphere.

>> So its ok for you to oppress a large portion of society with your veiwpoint, but not them?
You are suggesting the oppression of a large group of people in a literal sense; you want them erased and hidden, and AIs to hide evidence of their existence from children. I and civil society just want all people to be able to live together in peace. How is someone else's mere existence oppression to you? How can a VIEWPOINT be oppressive? You're saying that, if there are more X people than Y people, the mere *idea* that X and Y people should live together somehow takes away from X people, simply because there are more of them and their configuration is somehow more normal (I'm just reading in that reasoning between your lines, you don't really give much in the way of reasoning.) It's nonsensical, you're saying that wanting no one to be oppressed is oppressive to people who want some people to be oppressed, well, sure, but then the only real problem is you, the person who wants oppression. How long until it's not gay people we're talking about, but the disabled, or minorities? What about language, region, or social class? Where does the entitlement of the chosen of the master race stop?

>> at this point in time where it doesn't have a positive evolutionary advantage is beyond me.
Except it does. Has it occurred to you that if it didn't have a positive advantage, evolution would have eliminated all traces of LGBT behavior millions of years ago? Yes instead we see it evolve independently over and over again, in species that don't even have culture or propaganda. Plus, we don't run society based solely on genetic fitness, cultural factors have always been more important, at least since agriculture.

>>LGBT people's genes are manifestly useful because LGBT people are manifestly useful because LGBT people with LGBT people's genes get us ready for LGBT people with LGBT genes being part of humanity.
Oh man that's so not what I'm saying. It's like you're seeing your own circular logic everywhere, but you have to repeat the same point which I never say to make it sound like a circle ('LGBT genes') when I'm specifically talking about technology and its advancement, the outside force. If society is transitioning to a state where , because of technology (not anything genetic), identity is inherently more flexible and fragmented, where we have gene-line and mass-data driven control over all expressions of human possibility, then necessarily all kinds of social structures will start to break down and re-orient. LGBT people aren't precursors to this in the sense that they are causing it (although there are, of course, many influential queer futurists like Martine Rothblatt who have done more as individuals to further these kinds of goals of protecting the future of humanity than whole scores of your supposedly more useful 'breeders') but will be better suited to adapting to that scenario, on average, simply because they have more experience adapting to ambiguity of identity in general.

>> every cent they get directed away from heterosexual medicine is a net loss to that society.
Again, only for autists who think that there is a 'homo' and a 'hetero' society instead of a human society i.e. the opposite of the opinion of that 'vast majority' you keep referencing. For most people, society is not a zero sum game, advances in medicine for one kind of people can lead to non-linear unexpected gains for other kinds of people, and in general we're all in this together, because that's what makes humans strong and great, is the expansiveness of our spirit, rather than the miserly character you're presenting.

>>And its also not a coincidence that since this have been changed, the quality of life around the globe(as a total) began to go down
Well no, it's not a coincidence, but this is a case of 'correlation does not imply causation'. Changes in the laws around the social status of children born of out wedlock, say, and the economic boom of the 19th-20th centuries had a common cause; the industrialization of the West. During that entire time living standards increased, whereas they have only ever decreased in the past handful of years, decades after all these changes had been long cemented. So your suggestion is anachronistic, the timing doesn't add up.

>>Letting all the stupids fuck you into a minority is even stupider.
More unvarnished cryptofascism. Who are these stupids we're railing against now, I thought this was about killing off the gays?

>>immigration from the 3rd world is lowered birthrates
You have no idea what you're talking about. Immigration goes down as birth-rates go down, because again they have a third causative factor; economic prosperity and industrialization.

>>The maze. If you make it out alive, you get to breed.
Lol no I trole u.

>>in a time where technology cannot bridge the gap
False, technology bridged the gap you're worried about thousands of years ago. If you sincerely think there is some technological problem, please talk about that instead next time instead of giving us a run again through the hackneyed old culture warrior talking points (with spicy new dystopian eugenics flavor.)
>>
Rebecca Nicklefuck - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 17:02:15 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208512 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>It would be in the best interest of the whole if violent people did not have access to weapons, narcoleptics didn't have drivers licences, and psychotics weren't left unsupervised.

None of these things are done in society. It's like saying hurr prosthetics is bad because it allows the armless to drive. If we can fix it, there's no functional difference from a normie.

You people scream at psychologists and then pull out desperate armchair theories like this out of your ass. How about actually helping your fellow man instead of shitting on them constantly and wondering why they don't like you?
>>
Nigel Fondlewon - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 18:00:51 EST ID:dWvanT/s No.208513 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208508
Eric Anderson (born January 18, 1968) is an American sociologist and sexologist
Jacob Appelbaum (born 1 April 1983) is an American independent journalist, computer security researcher, artist, and hacker
>>Polly Louise Arnold OBE FRSE FRSC is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Edinburgh in the School of Chemistry
Gavin Arthur (born Chester Alan Arthur III; March 21, 1901 – April 28, 1972) was a San Francisco astrologer and sexologist
Sir Edmund Trelawny Backhouse, 2nd Baronet (20 October 1873 – 8 January 1944) was a British oriental scholar, Sinologist, and linguist
>>Sara Josephine Baker (November 15, 1873 – February 22, 1945) was an American physician
Robert Hayward Barlow (May 18, 1918 – January 1 or 2, 1951[1]) was an American author, avant-garde poet, anthropologist and historian
>>Ben A. Barres is an American neurobiologist at Stanford University
Joachim Bartholomae (born 1956) is a German author and sociologist
Ruth Fulton Benedict (June 5, 1887 – September 17, 1948) was an American anthropologist and folklorist

3 of the first 10 are actual STEM, 2 of which were married heterosexually at one point, the rest are soft sciences with 5/7 focusing on their sexuality.
>>
Charlotte Chublingstock - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 20:04:24 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208514 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sir Issac Newton never had kids, so according to this guy, his usefulness to society was null and void. What a dunce.
>>
Charlotte Chacklelock - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 22:29:17 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208515 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208513
Do you think that somehow proves your point, 'well I didn't even read your source, but out of the part I skimmed, even though 100% were the thing you described, because I'm going to dismiss an entire branch of the sciences as not really being sciences, then only about half were the thing you described, even though my assertion was that there were none of the thing you described.' oooo, how damning.
Do you have anything else at all to say in defense of your pathetic argument, or is this your last gasp?
>>
Sidney Hommlechot - Thu, 09 Nov 2017 04:01:38 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208516 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208511

I don't agree at all with the other guy's points, but I feel this is a good springboard for another discussion that I think is related.

>It's nonsensical, you're saying that wanting no one to be oppressed is oppressive to people who want some people to be oppressed, well, sure, but then the only real problem is you, the person who wants oppression.

See, but you admit that you're still oppressing a human being, no matter how backwards his viewpoint is. And it's not like waving away his viewpoint as backwards will make his reaction to your oppression nonexistent, quite the contrary. By not even acknowledging his position as a valid position, you're treating him as less than a human being, which is something no one likes, even people who effectively act as less than human beings. So you HAVE become the oppressor, you just don't feel like that's the case because, like any oppressor, you don't really think the oppressed deserve to be heard or respected. You think of them as less than human. Even if the only reason for them to exclude trans people were that they find them "icky".. I mean, would you want something you find icky forced upon you? Do you think you'd react favorably if everything you said against it would be dismissed and handwaved? Or do you think your tendency would be to make it an even bigger deal than it is just to spite the insensitive asshole that didn't even bother to acknowledge your ickiness as a human feeling that deserves to exist like any other?

THIS is why Trump happened. Not because the white race is actually in danger, but because suddenly the backwards people suddenly saw a huge number of people treating them as if they were less than human. Can you really blame them for hating you and everything you represent? However open you are, you're not open to having a dialogue with them, you don't even consider them people like you, needing to be addressed and acknowledged, and since that viewpoint is that of an oppressor, you were surprised when they reacted like any oppressed human being reacts. It's like they were reminding you "Hey, you're wrong, we're people too, we exist, and we live here too".


>How long until it's not gay people we're talking about, but the disabled, or minorities? What about language, region, or social class? Where does the entitlement of the chosen of the master race stop?

The opposite side uses the slippery slide argument against your position too. Like, tomorrow we'll marry dogs and brooms, where does the inclusion stop? That's just dumb, let's everyone stop it, what do you think?
>>
Sophie Mozzleman - Thu, 09 Nov 2017 16:11:14 EST ID:B821HT2m No.208517 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208516
While I appreciate you coming at the idea from a more sensible angle, I think this also invites dragging the conversation pretty far afield of its intended scope. Nevertheless...
When someone oppresses someone else, and is thus oppressed in turn from continuing to do so for the health of society, the person responsible for the oppression that the oppressor experiences is...the oppressor, not those protecting others from oppression. It's simply the law of karma, of causation in action; by attempting to oppress, the oppressor sets up an inevitable circumstance in relation to the rest of society where inevitably they will eventually become the 'victims' of oppression themselves...but only in the same way that a murderer ends up becoming the 'victim' of murder at the hands of the state, yet humans call that justice. Do I wish we could have our cake and eat it to? Sure. It would be grand if it were possible for our friend here to have his exclusionary fantasy and live fulfilled in it to the maximum extent...unfortunately, his fantasy includes the extinction of what many other people would like, and thus we arrive at the tragedy of the commons. But certainly it is not the fault of the groundskeepers that the commons become soiled? And who would you blame if you let the commons be utterly destroyed on the principle that preventing their destruction is its own kind of oppression?

Put another way, it's not the person who points it out's fault when someone else wants something that's inherently logically inconsistent. To want to oppress, but not want to experience oppression yourself, is an intrinsically incoherent position, and the universe will ultimately correct it wherever it occurs. Put another way, of course I acknowledge the humanity even of someone who denies the humanity of another person, but that doesn't mean I might not try to expose them to a taste of what they themselves are dishing out. Isn't that one of the most fundamental techniques of rhetoric?

If you think I'm implying people who don't agree with an inclusive philosophy don't have the same rights as everyone else, you're just projecting. Of course there's nothing wrong with people feeling icky, or not liking anything. However, the idea that we should use the power of the state to legislate around what people find icky is horrifically dangerous. It's the reason, for instance, that alcohol was prohibited -- and how did that turn out?

tl;dr: why is it that every time someone points out that having the right to exist is not the same thing as having the right to force other people out of existence, someone has to say basically 'telling people who believe logically inconsistent things that what they want doesn't makes sense is the reason they are mad at you' well that's obvious -- but maybe the most dangerous idea is coddling the notion that oppression is an equally valid philosophy just in order to seem even handed -- when, if we just corrected the behavior, if people's ideas and behavior were consistent and examined rather than based on propagandized emotional furor, we could move past these tribal trivialities and everyone (yes, even the 'white race') could get on with their lives.
>>
Simon Crittingville - Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:26:17 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208518 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208516
This position is garbage. If you take a stance in public, expect to get critiqued by SOMEONE. Have you never heard "everyone's a critic"? You can't just expect to force your opinions down people's throat and expecting people to go "o-oh okay that's nice everyone has a right to an opinion". That's circlejerking, and it doesn't the factors that brought together such a divisiveness in the first place. All you're saying is, you should be allowed to shit on people without people being allowed to shit on you. Free speech for you but not free speech for the people who take offense to you. You can have whatever stance you want free from the evil critics in private, but as soon as you voice your concerns in public it becomes a public matter. Period. All you're doing is the typical stormfag "i should have the right to oppress people without being oppressed myself because I'm special and superior and whiittee".

Nobody's buying it these days. And I'm sorry, but so many internet kiddies pretend they know how Trump was elected based on internet psychoanalysis I've seen the lot by this point. Can't you just accept the fact that clinton stuffed it? Because if you're going into the full "hurr gamers gate elected trump /pol/ did it's all actually YOUR FAULT stupid liberals for inspiring us!!!", it's not an argument.
>>
Edward Toothood - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 04:33:08 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208519 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208517

I wasn't really talking about the guy per se, but rather the people who have been opposing all these social changes and ended up voting Trump.. Which I think is more on topic than that lunatic's world domination desires.

>It's simply the law of karma, of causation in action

Ehh, that sounds like washing your hands of it and pinning the blame on the universe. If in the causation chain there's you, you have free choice, responsibility, and that means nothing is set in stone, no matter how many times it happened a certain way.

>To want to oppress, but not want to experience oppression yourself, is an intrinsically incoherent position

And yet, you're holding it? You (and I, this part at least) want for trans people and gay people to be out in the open freely and live their lives the way they want to, but at the same time you don't give a fuck if some people are going to feel uncomfortable by the change. And yet you don't want them to stop you enacting that same change. You're oppressing some people, and yet don't want to be oppressed.

>If you think I'm implying people who don't agree with an inclusive philosophy don't have the same rights as everyone else, you're just projecting

Your actions prove it by themselves, if you voted. Sadly, using the state is inherently oppressive toward someone. It's just that this time yay for the state because you're not on the losing side.


>>208518

Problem is though, you're not really having a direct confrontation with these people, once you get the state involved. You're basically going to mummy and daddy and asking them to threaten the opposing side with their force (the police). You're not really criticizing in the sense of having a dialogue, it's more of a whine to the state, a request for abusing who "deserves" it. Or rather, it's not a discussion you're having, it's a race to get the other side to shut up by acquiring the ultimate censoring weapon: the threat or force and/or death.

And my point wasn't to imply "oh we should let the bigots have whatever they want because they're special snowflakes", but that the way these changes happened was just brutal, for them, and it underlies the fatal flaw of any government: by acting as an arbiter and an enforcer, it takes away the chance for these people to work it out among themselves. The ability of the people to talk to each other, reason with each other, and arriving at compromises and mutual agreements, gets weakened more and more, because the state does it for them. And they also get more and more divided, because they remain stuck at the point of the conversation where there's just animosity toward each other, without understanding. The winning side remains angry at the losers for having a different opinion, and the losing side the same, with the added humiliation of having been abused by the state.

Am I for anarchy? But we're already in it. It's just that in this particular anarchy we decided that we can't be trusted to make, and respect, agreements we make with each other, and thus asked a gang, or rather, paid money to a gang, to force one side's position onto the other. Then the gang rebranded themselves as government, got more paperwork to organize our requests, then we gave up on our ability to organize ourselves even in matters of resources, and paid the gang to intervene there too, and so on. Depending so much on this gang is making us weaker as a society, and every win, even for the side I agree with, seems bittersweet, because we pay a heavy price for it.
>>
Hamilton Clivingmedge - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:02:36 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208522 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208516
It's not oppression or treating them less than human when people say, "Hey, stop it, we are trying to have a functioning society here. Kicking a gay couple from your restaurant hinders the freedom of the public space."

You're trying to reverse the blame but it isn't going to work. The reason Trump won is numerous. I'm sure part of it is that a select group people felt oppressed. I don't doubt that at all. But is it oppression, or is it bellyaching over losing their complete grip on society? I'm sure the KKK feel very much oppressed that they even have to share the same street as a black person. It doesn't make their complaints valid.

No one is stopping them from voicing their opinions. The reason why people shout down people with these views is because people with these types of views are completely oblivious to how they appear to others or are completely unapologetic and unwavering about their views. They simply don't listen to reason because many attempts have been tried, and you can't blame people for losing their patience. Sometimes you can reach out, but many times you can't.

Just give me one example of being "treated less than human". If the harasser is being talked down, the harasser isn't being oppressed. The harassed is. Talking down the harasser is a reaction by these ones being harassed.

If the worst thing they have to experience is feeling uncomfortable, or getting an ear full, I'd consider them lucky. You can't compare that to being completely excluded and stigmatized by society as a whole. That's what it looks like when things are balanced, and power isn't centered on one side of the scale. At the end of the day, who doesn't get an ear full once in a while? Who doesn't feel uncomfortable in various social situations? I don't like a lot of things in society, but I deal with it.

If you can show me anti-homosexuals (Or whatever politically correct phrase you want to give to homophobes) having the same suicide rates as minorities (blacks, gays, trans), maybe then I'll consider the validity of their oppression.
>>
Hamilton Clivingmedge - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:18:37 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208523 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208516
> So you HAVE become the oppressor, you just don't feel like that's the case because, like any oppressor, you don't really think the oppressed deserve to be heard or respected. You think of them as less than human

No one's stopping them from being heard. Your definition of oppressor is a bit odd. It's almost a slippery slope. Maybe we should allow burglars the right to rob peoples homes without the threat the mummy and daddy state interfering with threats of jail/death? So you HAVE become the oppressor, because you didn't allow these robbers to oppress your home space.

That's essentially what you are saying when you try to say preventing people from oppressing others creates oppression of the oppressors. It's asinine. You don't view kicking minorities out of their homes, employment, public space, marriage, etc as oppression, so of course you would view enforcement to prevent rights abuses as oppression.

"You murdered my husband! Get him officers/judges/jail system!"
"HELP! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!".
>>
Hamilton Clivingmedge - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:26:41 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208524 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208516
> I mean, would you want something you find icky forced upon you?

I have to deal with Trump supporters all the time. It's pretty icky but it's a free society, so sure. Why should my feelings of ickiness circumvent their rights?


> it underlies the fatal flaw of any government: by acting as an arbiter and an enforcer, it takes away the chance for these people to work it out among themselves.

Or it'll never "work itself out" and it'll just continue on mistreating groups of people. We aren't going to stand around and wait for you guys to change. We have laws for the very fact that it forces people to play nice.
>>
Frederick Smallspear - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 00:06:05 EST ID:1S+QAQOX No.208525 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208522
>It doesn't make their complaints valid.

When I say "treating people as less than human beings", this is the kind of arguments I'm referring to. We might disagree with their complaints, but to say they're not valid and proceed to shut them up is just a refusal to understand what's going on with them.

>Kicking a gay couple from your restaurant hinders the freedom of the public space

But it's your restaurant, don't you find it intruding that an external entity forces you to choose how to run your business under the threat of violence/incarceration and all that entails? It's the same as if government would force you to exclude black people, except now the polarity is reversed. Can we really complain if we'll end up under a fascist regime, considering we're all right with these tactics when they serve our interests? Wouldn't it be better to not have that external entity at all?

>They simply don't listen to reason because many attempts have been tried, and you can't blame people for losing their patience.

Actually that's the only time when judging how people behave has any meaning. Everyone can act nice when they haven't lost their patience. It's what you do when you have lost it that defines you.

>You're trying to reverse the blame but it isn't going to work

When have I said that it means these racist bigots have no blame? All I'm trying to show is that you effectively act the same way. I'm not saying their ideas are good, yours are bad, I'm saying they're all bad, because they're the same idea. No sin, first stone, and all.

>You can't compare that to being completely excluded and stigmatized by society as a whole

But isn't that what they're watching happen? The whole of society trying to exclude and stigmatize them for having certain opinions? Isn't that the whole reason they banded together as they have?

>If you can show me anti-homosexuals (Or whatever politically correct phrase you want to give to homophobes) having the same suicide rates as minorities (blacks, gays, trans), maybe then I'll consider the validity of their oppression.

Well of course it hasn't happened NOW, because they're not socially isolated like blacks, gay and trans are and were. But if it happened, they'd kill themselves too, because, you know, they're humans, and all humans would react that way in that position. And really, you'd consider their position valid only after suicide among them increased? Isn't their feelings of being uncomfortable enough for you to sit down and listen? And if you don't have any problems for dismissing their feelings, don't you really see how them dismissing your feelings makes you more alike than you're comfortable with?


>>208523
>Maybe we should allow burglars the right to

Still, you're implying the intervention of the government. I'm saying we shouldn't have the power to "allow" or "deny" anything, not through means of a gang at least.

>You don't view kicking minorities out of their homes, employment, public space, marriage, etc as oppression

When have I ever said that? Of course that's oppression too, the argument wouldn't make any sense if I wouldn't consider that oppression. I just really have a bad taste in my mouth when the oppressed become the oppressors.. Kind of like victim of sexual abuse becoming abusers. You'd think they'd develop understanding of the pain they had gone through, but no, apparently they were just waiting for an excuse to become the monster.


>>208524
>Or it'll never "work itself out" and it'll just continue on mistreating groups of people

When have I ever said that without external intervention we'd leave the resolution to fate or to wait for them to change their minds on their own? This is really just another demonstration of how the presence of government have warped our thoughts, you don't even consider for a second confronting them personally, maybe with some friends, with the power of empathy or understanding. I didn't say "it'll work itself out", read again, I meant "they'll work it out among themselves". And of course I mean in your local area, not the world. If everyone took care of their own little place like that, these things would happen less. And really, if you don't want to take care of it personally, what are you there for? If all the efforts you're going to put in is paying for the police to deal with it for you, did you ever really care at all?

>We have laws for the very fact that it forces people to play nice.

We have laws because we avoided dealing with our neighbors for too long and now we need someone else to do it for us because we're too chickenshit to do it ourselves.
And from the government's point of view, we have laws because they enjoy the power and status they get from being the ones enforcing them, either directly (cops), or by making decisions (judges, lawyers, etc).

What you actually have is an entity with massive, concentrated force, that when, not if, will turn its back on us and become fascist, we won't know how to stop. Even more if our relationships with our neighbors are dependent on that force and not actual relationship and mutual respect. It's a disaster waiting to happen, and it happened countless times throughout history already.
>>
Jack Tootwater - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 17:33:29 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208526 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208525

>this is the kind of arguments I'm referring to. We might disagree with their complaints, but to say they're not valid and proceed to shut them up is just a refusal to understand what's going on with them.

Disagreeing with someone is not akin to mistreatment. I understand what is going on with them. They were brought up to think a certain way about gay people. There's a reason why people become less homophobic when exposed to homosexuals. We don't need to baby your emotions.

>But it's your restaurant, don't you find it intruding that an external entity forces you to choose how to run your business under the threat of violence/incarceration and all that entails?

No. We have laws to ensure peaceful comings and goings of peoples. I would no more want to kick out people wearing MAGA hats from my place of business than a homosexual. In order to ensure freedom of the public space, we enact and enforce the Civil Rights Act.

Of course it would be ideal had we no need for such an enforcement, but things are far worse without them, so thus we have it in place.

Your example of forcing to exclude people misses the point. The Civil Rights Act is a maximization of freedom and peace. The reverse is a limitation of peace. Your right to kick people out doesn't supersede the whole.

>. It's what you do when you have lost it that defines you.

Anything short of violence is permitted. Freedom of speech doesn't entail you the right of a platform and doesn't entail you the right from being excluded of others viewpoints.

> I'm saying they're all bad, because they're the same idea.

But they aren't. One is designed to include more people. The other is designed to exclude the most people. It's exclusive by design, while Civil Rights is inclusive by design. It's not equal. Civil Rights Act is justice, and it's balance. The other way around in imbalance.

It's an important distinction that anti-Civil Right Act proponents don't quiet get. All we'll do is have an eternal back and forth and hope against hope that you gets one day get it.

>The whole of society trying to exclude and stigmatize them for having certain opinions?

I think it's a good thing when society stands up against certain viewpoints. Just as I wouldn't at all feel bad if the whole of society pushed back against neo-nazis and white supremacists. Some ideologies are inherently inferior and dangerous to the maximization of peace and stability.

We are definitely having a cultural clash. But it's not so much stigmatization as it is balance. There is no compromise with the neo-nazi worldview. Because if we give them an inch, they will take it all then design a system of exclusion against our system of inclusion.

> Isn't their feelings of being uncomfortable enough for you to sit down and listen?

I don't think they'll have the same emotional baggage as though with genuine grievances. You can't compare society fighting back against a dangerous ideology as equivalent to homosexuals literally being treated less than human. Again, like I said, I'd consider them lucky if the worst thing they have to worry about is that society is fighting about against their ideas. They can still do everything a citizen, not treated as second class, can do.

I do tend to acknowledge their feelings. I know exactly what they are feeling, but at the end of the day a person is responsible for their own emotions. I'm acknowledging their views by even communicating with them. That doesn't mean that I have the sugar coat my opinions about their worldview. I give them the harsh truth of their views and hope that I put them into a sense of cognitive confusion so they are forced to think about their views. It's the only way they'll ever get it, because their views aren't tied to logic; It's all gut.

The times that I changed my views the most was when I was directly challenged to the point of feeling shaken. What you do with that momentum is up to you.
>>
Jack Tootwater - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 17:52:11 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208527 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208525

>Still, you're implying the intervention of the government. I'm saying we shouldn't have the power to "allow" or "deny" anything, not through means of a gang at least.

I just want to say that I appreciate these responses even though I disagree.

I mean; how else do we keep the peace? The gang is what society wanted. We pay them with our taxes because a majority believe it's better than not having it. That's all government really is in the end. If you tear this all down, you will end up with the same system at the end of it eventually. We'll go through the civil rights movements all over again then come to the conclusion that we need a Civil Rights Act.

Ideally, people would just play nice, but people can be extremely childish and need something in place to make sure this thing holds. We all need each other.

>Kind of like victim of sexual abuse becoming abusers.

Come on, man. Are these two things really equivalent? It's more like friends stopping their friend from getting raped. It's preventing the abuse in the first place. Because that's what being excluded from public space is, it's abuse of a group of people that don't deserve exclusion.

Apply your empathy to these one's like you would want me to apply my empathy to shop owners forced to allow a black couple in their place.

I get the shop owner feels uncomfortable and apoplectic over not being able to keep this one out. I sense that furry, but the furry of being removed from a significant portion of public space hurts far worse. That white gentleman can still go down to his local pub and meet his friends. The black guy can't even be exposed to the opportunity.
>>
Jack Tootwater - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 18:20:44 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208528 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208525
> I meant "they'll work it out among themselves". And of course I mean in your local area, not the world. If everyone took care of their own little place like that, these things would happen less.

You didn't outright say it but the logic leads down to it. When we leave it to people to handle it, many times we find it's never handled. If anything, they band together to make sure they exclude groups of people.

What do you do when you are a black man or gay man living in a time and place that completely excludes you, and everyone there is against you? What do you do when you have no one to help you?

It's nice to think that society would just handle it, but it doesn't work this way. It just ensures groups of people remain second class.

It'll happen far less to none if it's enforced. No black man should ever run into a situation where he is barred from stepping foot into a public domain. Like I said before, we aren't going to wait around for you guys to take care of it because many times, they WILL take care of it. Just not in an inclusive way.

>nd from the government's point of view, we have laws because they enjoy the power and status they get from being the ones enforcing them, either directly (cops), or by making decisions (judges, lawyers, etc).

The government is an extension of the peoples will. Getting together to try to figure out everything from what type of roads we should have, to what you can and cannot have on your front lawn, to what should be done if one person scams another.

It's the culmination of millions of peoples wills crashing into each other. The only time it becomes fascist is when the people no longer get to influence their governance. Someone like Trump and Pence are a threat towards that goal of literal fascism, or autocracy, or oligarchy.

Civil Rights Act is certainly not fascist. It's anti-fascism. Ensuring that corporations can do whatever they want and letting people hash it out among themselves ensures power is taken from the people.


And going back to the above stated points in your reply, concerning listening to people. At the end of the day, people on the far right view your compromise and earnest communication as a form of weakness. They use this against you in order to control the conversation.
>>
Jack Tootwater - Sat, 11 Nov 2017 18:45:59 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208529 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Group A wants to include blacks, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Gays, Trans, seniors, women, whites, asians, et al

Group B wants only to include white people, and let most of the influence fall to men of that singular group.

Group A is protecting their view of society

Group B wants to eliminate all but their race from their society.

Which one is superior, and how do you think Group A will react to Group Bs demands? Which one is more inclusive?

Which one is worth protecting and dying for?
>>
Nathaniel Fogglepet - Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:39:40 EST ID:yZAkBhxT No.208531 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208519
>>And yet, you're holding it?
No, I'm not. I keep claiming 'A and B are different things.' You keep reiterating that 'A and A are the same thing!' without any new argument for why what I'm calling B is actually A. Until you come up with an actual response rather than reiterating your same claim, I have nothing further to say to you.
>>
Nathaniel Fogglepet - Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:41:29 EST ID:yZAkBhxT No.208532 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208531
To be clear, I'm referring to A and B as arbitrary variables, nothing to do with >>208529 's use of 'Group A & B.' nb
>>
Martin Wadgebanks - Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:39:23 EST ID:F9/5mVqX No.208538 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208529

"include" in what exactly?
>>
Shit Blipperfun - Fri, 26 Jan 2018 23:42:12 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208636 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Transgender people are hated by both the misogynistic anti-SJWs and the man-hating TERFs for the exact same reason:

Trans people are the clearest proof that both their theories of gender are bullshit.
>>
Thomas Donkinwater - Mon, 29 Jan 2018 11:56:03 EST ID:O5i1dbzH No.208644 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Can someone comment - what are the distinctions between BIID and Gender Identity Disorder? In both cases aren't you refusing to accept the reality of your body? And in both cases doesn't it start improving when you make physical changes, like amputating or getting surgery? I don't hate or even disapprove of trans people, just wondering what people have to say on it
>>
Henry Nennerfutch - Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:27:19 EST ID:+rc6wY6+ No.208645 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208644
Broadly they are both within the same category of bodily dysmorphias, but the similarities mostly end there. The key distinction is that GID involves perception or identification with a different category of normal, healthy, and complete human body, whereas BIID involves perception of an incomplete or unhealthy human body. Yes, in both cases surgery is the beginning of improvement.
In many cases of BIID, there is some kind of structural damage to the part of the brain that interfaces with the 'phantomized' limb. In this way we can also say the two disorders are similar -- they both result from an incongruity between the brain's state and the body's state. Ignoring other factors, since it is medically impossible for us to change those brain states, and allowing the incongruity to persist is dangerous and unhealthy, the only course of action is to change the thing we do know how to change -- the body.
>>
Charles Croddleridge - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 02:01:07 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208646 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208644
They are similar in the sense that they involve a misaligned self-perception, and they are similar in that they have an inherent moral quandary in treatment. Do you "harm" the patient physically in order to treat them psychologically?

>In both cases aren't you refusing to accept the reality of your body?

It's more than simply not accepting. It's an inability to perceive yourself any other way. The reason the treatment takes the angle it does is because changing a perceptual misalignment is EXTREMELY difficult with purely psychological therapy. The danger is that the patient will harm themselves because of the stress of their problem. That's what's being avoided.

Incidentally, that last part is why it's so offensive to misuse stats on trans suicide rates. The suicide rates are exactly the reason why sex reassignment is the preferable treatment.
>>
Phyllis Purryridge - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:00:58 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208649 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208644
Based on hypotheses I've read about, it's noot about refusing to accept the reality of your body. But your body not matching up with your body plan.

Your brain has a body plan. A schematic that details all your organs and limbs and models them in the 3D space you inhabit. This body plan gets queried pretty much all the time, since you're inhabiting 3D space all the time.

So when your body isn't the same as what your brain expects based on your body plan, you will constantly get a feeling of OH FUCK SHITS FUCKED. Because that's what happens when your body plan doesn't match your body. Your brain will send out OH FUCK signals because clearly something has gone horribly wrong.
>>
Jarvis Nammlemedge - Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:58:21 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208652 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208649
'Refusing to accept' and 'unable to perceive any other way' are more or less the same phenomena distributed across a spectrum as to the individual's insight into their condition. Some individuals with bodily dysmorphias will flat out refuse, be absolutely incapable of integrating the narrative that their body is 'different' from how they perceive it, whereas others, when pressed, will of course admit that there is an external 'reality' that is different from their internal 'reality.'

This doesn't invalidate the feeling or the general point of your observation, just to say that it's not an either-or thing, but rather a continuum of grey-areas.

This is true even in the general population. At what point does a sincerely held ideological belief stop being a desire to see things a certain way and become an inability to perceive things any other way, for example? It's inherently fuzzy, mostly because epistemology is inherently an incomplete philosophy.
>>
Charles Blackshaw - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 02:49:20 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208658 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208652

It is fuzzy, and part of the difference between BIID and GID is the fuzziness of the reality. Obviously, someone's claim that their arm is missing is much more easily confirmed with reality than someone's claim that they are a different gender to their sex. Both the idea that gender is tied to sex and the idea that it isn't are both interpretations of a reality that doesn't have a solid right answer.

>a sincerely held ideological belief

Let's just say you had a keyboard. You could type out a sentence, and maybe you might spell a word wrong. That's something you can correct and change next time you type that word. However, lets say you had a keyboard with all the letter keys mislabeled. You might understand that this is the case, and memorize where the keys "actually" are, but the mechanics of that problem are much deeper than not knowing how to spell a certain word.

That's kinda how I look at beliefs. There are beliefs that are considered views about the world that are simply wrong, and there are beliefs that result from a fundamental error of mechanism. The latter are the real difficult ones to deal with.
>>
Fuck Buzzshit - Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:24:09 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208661 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208658
>Both the idea that gender is tied to sex and the idea that it isn't are both interpretations of a reality that doesn't have a solid right answer.

I'd say it doesn't have an answer at all.

Long hair used to be something normal for men in medieval times, high heels began as male (military) fashion. Same with frilly fabrics. Gender and sex have always been dissociated from each other.
>>
Edwin Fuckingfuck - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:29:05 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208697 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oddly I have a few trans and SJW friends but I've always thought SJWs were a bunch of dumb tools.
Actually most minority/gay/trans people I know think SJWs are dumb. But the white suburbanite SJWs love to fly off the handle if you tell them that. They think "If I get offended about something, that makes me right. And I don't have to think about it."
But that's wrong.
>>
Edwin Fuckingfuck - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:30:51 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208698 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208697
And I should add that Newspaper comment sections are notoriously the dumbest places on the internet. And if you look at a right-leaning paper like WSJ you're going to find what you were looking for.
>>
Matilda Smallforth - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:23:27 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208699 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518301407262.jpg -(82972B / 81.03KB, 651x489) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208697
"SJW"s (whatever that retarded circlejerk the future stormfront immigrant word might mean) tend to have pretty large virtue-signalling and white savior complex.

The kind of people that'd chew out a white rapper for using the word jolly african-american, completely oblivious to the fact that said rapper got a solo career after being part of an almost-all-black rap crew for 10 years.
>>
Cedric Gishdale - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 02:26:13 EST ID:3sTElr79 No.208709 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208431

i know this is a late reply, but this just really annoys me.

people always go to this study and say that it shows that transgender people are more likely to kill themselves after transitioning. it doesn't show anything like that. if anything, it shows the opposite.

if you look at that study, you can see that, for transgender individuals who are never perceived as transgender by their peers, suicide rates are actually much lower. so, clearly, if it's caught early and dealt with, and the individual has a good transition, then they will experience less stress in their day to day lives and be less likely to kill themselves.

moreover, this is showing lifetime suicide attempt rates, not suicide attempt rates since transition. so, if a person felt like killing themselves their whole life until they transitioned, that type of data actually isn't represented in this study.

this study actually shows that people are less likely to have tried to kill themselves if they are perceived as the gender they identify with and have support from those around them. yes, on average, transgender people have a high lifetime suicide attempt rate compared to the rest of the population. i think the reason for that should be quite clear: gender dysphoria is terrible and no fun to deal with. so we should be helping alleviate that problem.
>>
Cedric Gishdale - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 03:04:45 EST ID:3sTElr79 No.208710 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208513
wow, well done, very exhaustive research

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Conway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Roughgarden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachael_Padman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deirdre_McCloskey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Craig-Wood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Clayton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Barres

and these are just transgender people from that list. so, you're welcome?
>>
Samuel Segglefudge - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 15:00:36 EST ID:Z8O31R6V No.208713 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208431
>>208709

Ex-fucking-actly. It's more than a little disgusting that the people who are more or less directly responsible for higher suicide rates among transpeople use that statistic as their main argument as to why a certain group of people shouldn't have ultimate authority of their own bodies.
>>
Isabella Blugglenatch - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:43:11 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208718 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208710
While Lynn Conway and Deirdre McCloskey may be transgender scientists, the way they acted during the J Micheal Bailey saga really doesn't speak well for their academic conduct.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/
>>
William Hiffinghotch - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:01:33 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.208756 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208699
I actually have a lot of gay and black friends and I don't think any of them ever hang out with any white SJWs or people who would consider themselves passionate about social justice.
As a matter of fact I know they hate a lot of them, because a lot of the social justice types tend to be really narcissistic and rip people off.
It's a good point that they're virtue signal a lot; they do it because they're narcissists and virtue signalling is an easy way to get attention/popularity on social media, which is of utmost importance to them.
>>
Lillian Sabberham - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 22:29:30 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208762 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208756
>a lot of the social justice types tend to be really narcissistic

Par for the course with online activism, unfortunately. Part of it is that the white (especially male) SJWs have actually argued themselves into a corner in which their own logic precludes them having an opinion on the topics they care about. So they have to present themselves as extra enlightened to gain leeway to comment on topics that aren't "for them" or their demographic to discuss.

Kinda how the /pol/ alt-right can build conspiracy theories in which Jews run the world and stop them being allowed to say racist or sexist things, and yet they spend all day saying racist and sexist things. It must be because they're so extra redpilled.
>>
Clara Druzzleville - Sun, 25 Feb 2018 21:22:00 EST ID:DZx7Z2p3 No.208804 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208710
Lynn Cheney's books is what convinced me that although natural, lesbianism should not be chalked up as just a preference.
>>
Shit Worthingcocke - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:27:22 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208811 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208713

wow i am "more or less directly responsible for higher suicide rates among transpeople" because i notice that they are not the sex they claim to be, and yet the leftist ideologues who convinced these people that there is something unchangeable about their brains and the only solution is bodily mutilation, are not to blame at all?

>>208709

there is no such thing as a good transition, the only transgender individuals who are never perceived as such are the ones who dont transition, its the ones who learn to live with their gender issues and stick it out the best they can as their real sex, that have lower suicide rate.

there is no such thing as "passing" (at least without photo-shop)

here's how you know transitioning does not help, in the Williams institute study (ill link it again here https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf), notice how "cross-dressing males" have HALF the suicide rate of MTF trans. In other words, those people with XY chromosomes that demand society treat them as if they had XX chromosomes, full stop, are bitterly disappointed when reality cannot be molded to their desires. whereas "cross-dressing males" aka, males who feel a femininity to their personality and desire to affect female gender signals, etc but do not claim to be objectively female, do much better

another stat for you, in the table which shows how suicide rates break down relative to the medical treatment undergone, the column with the lowest suicide rates across the board are with the trans who do not desire any of these insane frankenstein treatments, the ones who go without are best off.

and for almost all of the categories of treatment, including hormone therapy and vaginoplasty, the suicide rate for those who desire it in the future but havent had it yet is either equal or better than those who have undergone the transition treatments

the only one that shows some signs of reducing suicidality is the phalloplasty, but there are only 21 in that sample, and i think given how ridiculous and disgusting the phalloplasty is im very confident that further study will not bear that out
>>
Shit Worthingcocke - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:35:40 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208812 Ignore Report Quick Reply
the accusation is being made in this thread that those who are against transgender transitioning are basing their view purely on subjective dislike

its true that I am viscerally and utterly disgusted by genital reassignment surgery, and its true that i will never consider a MTF transexual person to be the same as an actual woman.

but that doesnt mean i hate trans people. when i say that a MTF person is not the same as normal female, i am not implying that they are automatically lesser, all im saying is that they are clearly different and that its NOT bigoted to notice this difference. on the contrary it is a marvelous example of the power of marxist propaganda that so many people have been convinced that its wrong to notice obvious facts

what i care about is well-being for both society and individuals, and the evidence is quite clear that hormone treatment and bodily mutilation does not make these people happy in the longterm. and the propaganda being pushed by liberals to encourage this tragic self-destruction among them is disgusting.
>>
Hedda Gusslebit - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:29:55 EST ID:w8qDl8j3 No.208822 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208811
I don't know if you intentionally have a poor understanding of what that study entails, or seeing complex patterns in such a data set is simply beyond your grasp, but you're missing the point in these data by quite a wide margin.

Why does the rate spike exponentially the more co-morbid negative social factors you tack on in these data (like negative police interactions, homelessness, etc?) If merely transitioning or being trans were the problem, wouldn't we expect suicidality to be unresponsive to other life factors?

There's other problems with your assertions, but your whole argument is so lazy I have a hard time finding the energy to respond to it. But would you explain how anything you said changes the fundamental arguments against that line of thinking like
  1. you are blaming the victim, it's not trans people's fault they are trans, just like it's not autistic people's fault they are autistic. Both are factors that increase one's future potential for negative outcomes, but only one do people seem to think they can legislate or moralize away (simply because it violates precious gender power roles) When one has a predominance of negative factors affecting oneself, suicide rate naturally climbs. You can't eliminate the problem by simply blaming the individual who has it, it's a non-solution.
  2. in these data transition outcomes are not being compared to some hypothetical alternate reality where no one accepts trans people like you are proposing. If it were, we would expect the suicide rate to be even higher, but the prevalence of transgender people in the population would be the same, so the death rate would just simply be larger. That's what you're advocating?
  3. Of course crossdressers have a better outcome. They are able to retain the privilege, they are 'passing' as part of straight society. That again is not a blow to trans people, but to how society responds to them.
  4. No one (well, exceptionally few) people 'deny the reality' of the situation. Trans people are aware that they are trans, they aren't delusional in the sense of say, disabled people who create confabulations to sustain the belief they are actually healthy. No one is attempting to get you to say something is 'the same as' something it is not. However, people are trying to get you to adhere to social mores about acceptable behavior, and one of those relates to how people are referred to. In civilized society it is generally accepted that it is polite to refer to people how they wish to be referred to, in all circumstances. You are in violation of this norm, and so naturally society is trying to take you to heel. If you think this norm ought to change, you need to make an argument against that, not why you think trans people are icky or ramble on about 'Marxists.'
>>
Shit Worthingcocke - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:59:12 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208828 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208822

>Why does the rate spike exponentially the more co-morbid negative social factors you tack on in these data (like negative police interactions, homelessness, etc?) If merely transitioning or being trans were the problem, wouldn't we expect suicidality to be unresponsive to other life factors?

that is absolutely retarded, of course we should expect other negative factors to affect the suicide rate of any group

>>you are blaming the victim, it's not trans people's fault they are trans, just like it's not autistic people's fault they are autistic. Both are factors that increase one's future potential for negative outcomes, but only one do people seem to think they can legislate or moralize away (simply because it violates precious gender power roles) When one has a predominance of negative factors affecting oneself, suicide rate naturally climbs. You can't eliminate the problem by simply blaming the individual who has it, it's a non-solution.

how am i blaming the victim? i never once claimed that this is the fault of mentally ill people who think they are the opposite gender. i very specifically said it is the fault of enablers who support bad medical practice because they think it corroborates their political ideology about gender. the solution is for trans people to learn to live with themselves. the vast majority of chidlren who experience gender dysphoria learn to accept their real gender when they get older, yet we have insane pedophiles mutilating their bodies with surgeries and hormones before they are old enough to make decisions for themselves

>in these data transition outcomes are not being compared to some hypothetical alternate reality where no one accepts trans people like you are proposing. If it were, we would expect the suicide rate to be even higher, but the prevalence of transgender people in the population would be the same, so the death rate would just simply be larger. That's what you're advocating?

actually no, did you forget that this transgender thing exploded not even that long ago? it did not used to be the practice to mutilate children who experience gender dysphoria, and guess what? the vast majority of those ended up coming to terms with their birth gender. the suicide rate is much higher among gender dysphoric people who transition than those that dont

>No one (well, exceptionally few) people 'deny the reality' of the situation

the "medical consensus" that transitioning is good for gender dysphoric children is totally fraudulent. there has not been enough long term studies to prove that these practices are effective at all, and what studies we have show the opposite. we have politically charged leftists who are hateful of traditional gender conceptions that are pushing this stuff because they feel it fits their view of gender

the majority of people who havent been actively indoctrinated in leftist propaganda disagree with you, it is only insane people like you who think this is progress

>Trans people are aware that they are trans, they aren't delusional in the sense of say, disabled people who create confabulations to sustain the belief they are actually healthy

right trans people notice there is something wrong with them, but it is leftist ideologues in the gender reassignment business that convince them to embrace what they instinctually know is incorrect. and the results are devastating. sterilization, mutilation, isolation, all caused by decisions made when they were children

look up John Money

>No one is attempting to get you to say something is 'the same as' something it is not

really? so you dont think the transgender rights activists want society to treat FTM as if they are the same normal women?

>However, people are trying to get you to adhere to social mores about acceptable behavior, and one of those relates to how people are referred to. In civilized society it is generally accepted that it is polite to refer to people how they wish to be referred to, in all circumstances. You are in violation of this norm, and so naturally society is trying to take you to heel. If you think this norm ought to change, you need to make an argument against that, not why you think trans people are icky or ramble on about 'Marxists.'

society isnt actually trying to change me at all, normal people dont buy any of this crap. its actually only insane leftists you find on college campuses and in the media that want anything of the sort

as for the politeness argument, i actually agree with you, when i meet a random trans person who has already transitioned, i dont call them by their real gender, i treat them how they want to be treated

just like if i meet some random person who believes that god speaks to them with a voice in their head, i dont take it upon myself to challenge their delusion, i just met them, i humor them and go on with my day

but im absolutely opposed to the disgusting abuse of gender dysphoric children occuring in society today
>>
Sidney Snodfield - Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:40:51 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208831 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208828
Yeah, I see through your bullshit you cocksucking frogposting the future immigrant. Fuck off with your shitwank out of bad faith. Go jump off a tall building.
>>
Rebecca Pidgebet - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:41:59 EST ID:w8qDl8j3 No.208834 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208828
>>of course we should expect other negative factors to affect the suicide rate of any group
Exactly...which is why it's absolutely retarded to keep pointing to suicide rate as telling us anything useful in this case.

>>the solution is for trans people to learn to live with themselves
I mean, this is obviously babby's first concern troll, but I'll just point out this is also a non-solution. If people are willing to kill themselves because of the suffering brought on by being trans (which is, after all, a centerpiece of your own argument) then by what logic do you think 'just suck it up and walk it off' is going to work? Ignoring everything else wrong with it, taking this as a solution will inevitably lead to *more* deaths.
>>before they are old enough to make decisions for themselves
If you want to advocate for legislation that introduces an age-barrier to transition, that's a separate argument. There's no reason to bring it in as justification for de-legitimizing trans people on the whole.

>>this transgender thing exploded not even that long ago?
That's simply not true. We have evidence of transgender people existing going back to the dawn of human history, and they probably existed for the hundreds of thousands of years of human existence before that, there is just not enough material culture from that time to prove it.

>it did not used to be the practice to mutilate children who experience gender dysphoria
I guess you've never heard of eunuchs? People have been modifying their bodies to control puberty, as well as doing other things to control their hormones (like drinking mare urine) for thousands of years.

>>the suicide rate is much higher among gender dysphoric people who transition than those that dont
That's another example of correlation not implying causation. Obviously the degree of gender dysphoria is more severe in those who transition than those who don't, so how can you say it is the transitioning and not the dysphoria itself?

>there has not been enough long term studies to prove that these practices are effective at all
Actually, modern medical science has been studying transsexualism for over 60 years. As care practices have improved, so have outcomes. If the treatments really were making things worse, we should see the outcomes worsen, right?

>>leftist ideologues in the gender reassignment business blah blah blah
All that is is a blustery declaration with no evidence. Another interpretation that fits the exact same facts is that trans people are aware of their identity, some people encourage them and help them pursue it, while others attempt to tear down and thwart them. Medical and social interventions help integrate the individual's identity in society, although like all people they will still face problems, and the history of their past problems may make them more or less difficult to deal with. Also, the vast majority of trans people transition as adults, so the 'made for them as children' line of argument is bunk.

>>John Money
seriously, what the fuck does that old fruit have to do with shit? Yes, people have been doing all kinds of fucked up shit since for ever, it has no bearing on the legitimacy of trans people.

>>FTM as if they are the same normal women?
You either mean MTF or normal man, but whatever. Treating something the same as something is not the same as saying it is exactly identical to the same something, but that's the very point you're trying to confuse us on, so you don't get to throw it back at me. To reiterate; trans people by and large are aware they're trans, and can very competently explain to you the difference between the cis and trans members of a particular gender. We are asking you to treat cis and trans members of a gender the same, mainly because there is no other category that society has developed and again, because of the underlying social pressure to refer to people in a polite way, which necessitates not attacking their identity.

Put another way, you have no right to make any declarations about any one else's identity, nor should you. Where did you get the idea that other people's identities (or anything else about them for that matter) is dependent on what you think or say? And if it's not -- why should you act like it is?

>normal people dont buy any of this crap
Perhaps in your hug box, but studies have shown that (at least in the western world) the majority supports trans rights.

>>for the politeness argument, i actually agree with you
That should be all there is to it. There should be a full stop after that for you. The idea that there is some conspiracy against children is a boogeyman, and if you actually were familiar with all these statistics as you claim to be, you'd know the number of child transitioners is minuscule compared to all transgender people, so using the one to argue against the other is absurd.
>>
Oliver Shakewell - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 03:12:19 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208836 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208834

>>Exactly...which is why it's absolutely retarded to keep pointing to suicide rate as telling us anything useful in this case.

your logic makes no sense here, just because other variables exist doesnt mean that this variable means nothing. if you mean to say that suicide rates dont tell the whole story then of course i understand what you mean there, but to deny that the data means nothing at all seems like you just refuse to accept them because you dont like them

>>I mean, this is obviously babby's first concern troll, but I'll just point out this is also a non-solution

you're basically arguing that cognitive behavioral therapy as a whole is a non-solution. nowhere did i say "suck it up and walk it off" is my solution, thats an obvious strawman which you would never apply to a less politically charged case of mental illness.

>>If you want to advocate for legislation that introduces an age-barrier to transition, that's a separate argument. There's no reason to bring it in as justification for de-legitimizing trans people on the whole.

okay thats fair in that i agree its a separate argument, its unfair i think to characterize my position as "deligitimizing trans people on the whole", which is a vague and exaggerated description of what im saying. In what way am i deligitimizing them? by disagreeing with their philosophy on gender identity? i still respect them as human beings going through unique suffering

>>That's simply not true. We have evidence of transgender people existing going back to the dawn of human history, and they probably existed for the hundreds of thousands of years of human existence before that, there is just not enough material culture from that time to prove it.

thats not what im saying, obviously we've had gender noncomforming people throuhgout human history, but the practice of providing hormones and surgery to them, as well as the practice of promoting them as actual factual members of their fantasy gender, IS relatively new. cross dressers, and feminine males, or "butch" females are not the same thing, third gender or two spirit generally corresponds to the latter types on not this new brand of transgender ideology

>Actually, modern medical science has been studying transsexualism for over 60 years. As care practices have improved, so have outcomes. If the treatments really were making things worse, we should see the outcomes worsen, right?

there is 0 evidence that outcomes are getting better. here is one of the few longterm studies done on transgender transitioners:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

the experiment found that mortality rate, suicide rate, and psychiatric inpatient care were all higher in transgender people who underwent hormone treatment and surgery

a particular problem in transgender research is that longterm follow up studies is difficult due to the high rates of suicide, depression, and homelessness among transgenders. its hard to follow up

>>All that is is a blustery declaration with no evidence

the evidence is very clear: the attitude toward transgenders in humanities classes at universities and in media attention toward transgenders, does not correspond with the facts regarding transgender research. there is no evidence that hormone treatment and surgery are effective, yet the media doesnt question this at all. And humanities professors (not just in gender studies classes only, mind you, also in completely unrelated classes) will actively mislead people on this point

the peer-reviewed research just isn't there in these in insane leftist pseudostudies classes, most of these lunatics are writing bullshit thesis that arent cited even once by their fellow blue-haired dumbasses. they are leeches on the tax payer, manipulating you by inventing problems only they can solve, and then digging their heels in, expanding their entitlements, while circumventing accountability

>>Treating something the same as something is not the same as saying it is exactly identical to the same something

okay true, i grant you this. that was poor wording on my part to say "exactly identical", that was a mischaracterization of the transgender orthodox view on my part

however, what i really mean is treating two different things as if they are the same is the issue.

cont-
>>
Oliver Shakewell - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 03:12:47 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208837 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>We are asking you to treat cis and trans members of a gender the same, mainly because there is no other category that society has developed and again, because of the underlying social pressure to refer to people in a polite way, which necessitates not attacking their identity.

my problem with this comes from the implicit attack on dissenting ideas regarding gender identity. this is a philosophical and political problem that is unresolved in our society, but the left has attempted to shut down this argument by essentially saying "we've already won, therefore you must be wrong", and also making attacks on our psychological character. Basically the lefts argument (on this as well as most other issues) is that we are evil and don't care or empathize with victims of various injustices or even just tragedies of any kind. Their arguments generally run as follows

1-We, the Left, care more about victims than the Right
2-We, the Left, are right about social justice, derived from 1
3-The Right are wrong about social justice, derived from 2
4-The Left, care more about victims, derived from 1, 2, and 3

they just assume we are hateful, and this informs all their arguments

my problem here is not with merely calling people a different name and pronoun, my problem is that treating XY as women, and XX as men, undermines what it means to be a woman or a man. Part of being a woman is the psychological and physical process of pregnancy and child-rearing. Being a woman does not consist of wearing dresses and makeup and having a wet hole between your thighs. The female and male bodies and brains are different. There is a social structure binding men and women together and this leftist ideology undermines that by saying you don't need to form biological families, or pair-bond with a single mate, because its all just dicks and pussies.

for example, a man who is attracted to and has sex with MTF trans are not heterosexual according to most americans, especially those not in a 4 year university. Yet i personally experienced trans people arguing that this opinion consittutes hate speech, now maybe they are a minority but it doesnt seem like it from media and academic rhetoric on this stuff in general. most people would say that they would not date a transgender person who is claiming to be the gender they are attracted to. most people would say that a MTF should not be playing in women's sports competitions. The leftist is watering down language by introducing confusion

you are right in that most people take the view of live and let live regarding sexual identity, thats definitely true, but i think that results in people having no desire to look into this deeply. a lot of people will hardly come into contact with transgenders at all, so they are perfectly willing to buy any propaganda that comes along about it, especially if it fits snugly into the easy to digest oppressor-victim narrative that leftists paint over everything

>>The idea that there is some conspiracy against children is a boogeyman

im not claiming that leftists are conspiring with the intention of harming children, they are conspiring with the intention of dominating the world with globalist neo-marxist identity politics, and they are ignoring the harms of what they are doing because they believe the ends justify the means, and they also have abandoned basic first principles of morality and logic which means they can no longer properly recognize justice or injustice to begin with

>>if you actually were familiar with all these statistics as you claim to be, you'd know the number of child transitioners is minuscule compared to all transgender people, so using the one to argue against the other is absurd.

i never implied that child transition was more common, i realize its quite rare but that doesnt make it any less of an injustice, and furthermore even though its rare, its being actively promoted in the media and on college campuses, which makes it very relevant.

the idea that these are unrelated is loose. one does not imply the other on its own, but simialr facts inform both conclusions. the transgender transition is ineffective in objective real terms. the transgender person is NOT accepted as their preferred gender, they are NOT satisfied with pretending and modifying their body to appear their preferred gender. and their overall mental well-being in the long term is NOT better. The fact that its worse when its done to a child who is not old enough to make permanent life-shattering decisions for themselves is NOT an argument against the view that doing it as an adult is still harmful
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:37:42 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208841 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208837
>im not claiming that leftists are conspiring with the intention of harming children, they are conspiring with the intention of dominating the world with globalist neo-marxist identity politics

I'd be more inclined to respond to your arguments if you stopped with this irrelevant right-wing virtue signalling.
>>
Oliver Shakewell - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:43:32 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208843 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208841

tbh im not really sure what virtue signalling is, i realize many conservatives accuse the left of doing so but i never understood what they were trying to say. if im right-wing then how can stating my views not in some sense signal to my fellow right-wing people a kind of virtue associated with upholding our values?

but regardless of that, i dont think the globalist neo-marxist identity politic agenda is irrelevant at all. its a very real attack on american and european values and the results have been absolutely devastating in every case, particularly the undermining of family structures
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:45:44 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208844 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208843
I'll give you a hint. Continually going on about "leftists" and Cultural Marxism is right-wing virtue signalling and is the entire reason everyone here is calling you a frogposter.

Take that shit to /pol/. It adds nothing to your argument except to make it insufferable.
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:48:40 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208845 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208843
>i dont think the globalist neo-marxist identity politic agenda is irrelevant at all

Well, it's literally a retarded far-right conspiracy theory that's been floating around in some form for 70 odd years. You may as well be talking about this great book you've been reading called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for all the good it'll do you.
>>
Oliver Shakewell - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:58:58 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208847 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208845

whether or not there are secret conspiracies behind these events and developments is unknown. but the destruction of europe from muslim refugees, which was specifically pushed for by leftist politicians, is not a matter of secrecy or investigation. its happening before our eyes. rape increased 20% concurrent with mass immigration of poor muslims and sub-saharan africans. fatherlessness and the continued falling number of children being raised by both biological parents is caused by the libertine leftist social ideology. these are real tangible issues.
>>
Oliver Shakewell - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:02:50 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208848 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208844

im sorry you find the truth insufferable, but all i care about is the discourse of ideas. "frogposter" means nothing to me, you're just repeating "BUT I DISAGREEEEE" in various ways
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:05:01 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208850 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208848
>all i care about is the discourse of ideas

Alright, then please tell me your understanding of the history of the rhetorical terms "leftists", "globalists", "neo-marxist" and "identity politics".

Tell me where these ideas and their use in discourse came from.
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:09:20 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208851 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519812560611.jpg -(76431B / 74.64KB, 640x787) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208847
>but the destruction of europe from muslim refugees
>specifically pushed for by leftist politicians
>rape increased 20% concurrent with mass immigration of poor muslims and sub-saharan africans
>fatherlessness and the continued falling number of children
>caused by the libertine leftist social ideology

I would bet 200 bucks right this second that I could find a thread for each of those things on /pol/s front page, probably using the exact same wording.
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:11:58 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208852 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519812718611.jpg -(205875B / 201.05KB, 1397x349) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Yep, there's one.
>>
Ernest Chushpadge - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:54:25 EST ID:RKov9N0c No.208854 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208850

A scholar could write a 200,000 word book answering that question. I think what you're specifically getting at is that nazis and neo nazis are very concerned with all these things, yes? If so, I think you'll find that historically those are not the only people who have noticed these worrying developments, and the nazi prescription of enforcing racial purity and invading the rest of Europe is not the only way we can address these problems
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:57:50 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208855 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208854
>I think what you're specifically getting at is that nazis and neo nazis are very concerned with all these things

Not exactly. What I'm getting at is that you are repeating neo-nazi talking points word for word and with the same dog-whistles.
>>
Ernest Chushpadge - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 06:10:40 EST ID:RKov9N0c No.208856 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208855

I don't think thats fair. When you say dog-whistles, your implying I'm an anti-Semite. The nazis falsely believed they could destroy Marxist ideology by removing all the members of the race of those most responsible for it, a totally ineffective and unjust response, and in their misguided war they actually provided Marxism with exactly what it needed to survive: a totalitarian enemy to be opposed to.

Again my views are also held by American conservatives historically too, and I did not need to read mein kampf to notice the media actively promoting marital infidelity, the welfare state and abortion practices incentivizing Women not to pair bond and form families with men, or the popular music industry being populated almost entirely with degenerate hypersexualized lyrics and image
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 06:18:11 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208858 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519816691611.jpg -(42925B / 41.92KB, 625x573) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208856
I'm not saying you're anti-semitic. I don't know if you're anti-semitic.

I'm telling you that if you use terms like "leftist" and "marxism" (and especially "degenerate") to mean anything you've decided you don't like about Western society, your rhetoric is indistinguishable in both form and content to neo-nazis, and you will be dismissed as a /pol/tard frogposter.

This goes double if you pretend that anyone who takes issue with your views is a degenerate Marxist globalist in disguise. It's just shitposting.
>>
Oliver Shakewell - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 06:32:16 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208859 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208858

>>I'm telling you that if you use terms like "leftist" and "marxism" (and especially "degenerate") to mean anything you've decided you don't like about Western society

its not "anything i dont like about western society", its specific things i dont like which ive been very clear about.

listen to what you're actually saying here, the only people, in your mind, who would criticize the SELF-PROCLAIMED proponents of leftism and marxism, are neo-nazis. Have you not already admitted today that you yourself are a marxist anti-capitalist? Its not a conspiracy theory that people exist with these views.

>This goes double if you pretend that anyone who takes issue with your views is a degenerate Marxist globalist in disguise

arent you unironically a marxist globalist? i dont see why i would have to pretend something that you have actively expressed in your posts today. you stated you're in favor of communism and that you believe capitalism is totalitarian and unjust. In other posts you have expressed exactly the views regarding gender and sexuality that I see as a problematic force in society today.

its confusing to me that you would take this angle, we were having a direct debate of ideas and it feels now like you've stepped away
>>
Oliver Shakewell - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 06:36:28 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.208860 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208858

as for the term degenerate, im sorry that it offends you but i think it has a distinct use here. Society is degenerating, ESPECIALLY in urban, leftist-controlled places, values are being undermined by marxist ideologies like feminism and globalism and the result is dysfunction en masse
>>
Hamilton Dartwater - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:58:13 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208861 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208859
>its specific things i dont like
>marital infidelity, the welfare state and abortion practices
>the popular music industry being populated almost entirely with degenerate hypersexualized lyrics
You mean those sort of specific things? You mean "the marxist attempts to take over philosophy departments on college campuses"? Those sort of vague, vaguely sinister things that you can blame whatever you want on without any citation or critical analysis?

>the only people, in your mind, who would criticize the SELF-PROCLAIMED proponents of leftism and marxism, are neo-nazis
No. There's plenty to criticize, and maybe if you came across differently we could discuss the problems I have with the people in certain fields of academia. What I've tried to tell you is that you are repeating, word for word, far-right conspiracies, dog-whistle phrases and talking points. You've implied you're not doing so, but every part of your rhetoric is straight from that neo-nazi playbook. The fact you've implied you don't know you're doing so is the only reason I'm pointing it out.

>Its not a conspiracy theory that people exist with these views.
Of course there are people who believe in communism and revolution and stupid cultural theories. The insane conspiracy is the idea that these people are A) influential outside their echobox niches and B) plotting world domination through echobox niches.

>arent you unironically a marxist globalist?
No. If you really cared I would classify myself as a vaguely center-left market socialist, but I'm sure that's all marxist globalism to you.

>that you believe capitalism is totalitarian and unjust
I believe Capitalism is a totalitarian ideology and that resources are often unjustly distributed. If you want to have a discussion about that I'm happy to, but not if you take that to mean that I'm a godless communist who hates freedom.

>Society is degenerating, ESPECIALLY in urban, leftist-controlled places, values are being undermined by marxist ideologies like feminism and globalism and the result is dysfunction en masse
If your evidence towards this is abortions and rap music, then you're participating in the same sort of pseudo-intellectual wankery of many of the academics you're complaining about. Cite something. Say something even vaguely falsifiable.
>>
Ian Cenningfuck - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:58:25 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208866 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208836
The thread progressed since your long reply to my post, so I'll be brief on those points.
>> cognitive behavioral therapy as a whole is a non-solution
CBT is used concurrently with treatment for transition, so painting it as transition vs CBT is false. (that is, if the psych in question follows the APA and WPATH guidelines. Obviously you can never achieve 100% compliance with anything.)

>> In what way am i deligitimizing them?
People's identity is a core aspect of their legitimacy. If you claim someone's identity is false, then by the basic definition of 'legitimate' (i.e. real, authentic) then they are not, and you hamper them in all other areas of life by denying them that legitimacy (especially if you are in the role of some kind of gatekeeper.) You justify doing so because of a tenuous philosophical position, and I would argue that even if your position was correct, it would still be wrong because of the amount of harm it causes to take it.
>> providing hormones and surgery to them
Clearly you missed my bit about eunuchs. A eunuch is a person who has had their testicles removed to prevent male puberty, and humans have been performing this surgery for thousands of years. The ancient Scythians pioneered the use of mare urine to increase the level of female hormones in a male body. So, yes, the practice of providing treatment to transgender people has been around for as long as people have treated anything medically. Obviously, they wouldn't think about it in modern terms, but how could they? For the individual, the reality of gender-non-conforming (and we have evidence of extremely non-conforming individuals all throughout history) is largely the same.

>> rate, suicide rate, and psychiatric inpatient care were all higher in transgender people who underwent hormone treatment...
You have consistently dodged my point that those who have more severe dysphoria are inherently more likely to seek transition and also more likely to suffer more and therefore commit suicide at a higher rate, and so it is a classic example of a confounding variable and you have merely ignored how it undermines your argument, so I won't address anything further on that tack until you respond.

>> treating two different things as if they are the same is the issue.
Why? You treat different things the same all the time. The whole idea of gender roles is spurious, really, because there is more variation within genders than between them. Yet despite how different those people are, you have no problem treating them 'the same' right? So how is this any different?

>> implicit attack on dissenting ideas regarding gender identity
You're making an argument. People disagree with you, they will tell you. Dissent doesn't mean 'I get to say whatever I want and then you can't say anything back to me!' the moment you open your mouth you invite argument. That's what 'dissent' means.

>> treating XY as women, and XX as men
XY and XX are sexes. Sexes refer to a biological phenomenon, and are not in dispute. Men and women are genders, which is a social construct. You cannot see a person's chromosomes, but you can see a persons performative gender. To insist on calling something the opposite of what it appears to be based on something you can't see will rightly earn you derision from all sensible people, especially when it's only use it as fodder in political and social conflict.

>>Part of being a woman is the psychological and physical process of pregnancy and child-rearing
So childless and infertile XX humans aren't women? What word would you propose we call them?

>> The female and male bodies and brains are different.
That's true, but brain studies on trans people have shown their brain configurations more closely match their experienced gender than their chromosomal one. In fact, for example, there was a very large cohort of MTF transsexuals born in the mid-80's-early-90's who transitioned at a much higher rate than normal (40% within the set compared to <.01% in the general population) due to the presence of a particular fertility drug which reshaped the brain during natal development to be much closer to the female brain. Don't rely on the brain differences angle, it will not save you and is actually evidence against your case.

After that you get all foamy about Marxism and stuff, so I'll move on to the posts that deal with that:

>>Family values
You keep saying that the main problem with the 'leftist' support for the advance of LGBT rights is it undermines 'family' or 'american/european' values. Why exactly are these values good and worth keeping? Also, since the disintegration of the extended family began with the advent of industrialization, but LGBT rights didn't gain steam until nearly 150 years later, why aren't you more mad at industrialization? It's clearly the deeper culprit of what you're complaining about.

>> enforcing racial purity and invading the rest of Europe is not the only way we can address these problems
How do you propose banning only muslim refugees without enforcing racial (well, technically, religious) purity?
Hey, here's another idea. You wan't muslims to stop coming to europe? Stop supporting the western military hegemony that has destroyed their countries. Like any humans, they just want to survive, and having robots drop bombs on your head is not conducive to that.
>> you stated you're in favor of communism and that you believe capitalism is totalitarian and unjust... we were having a direct debate of ideas and it feels now like you've stepped away
That was me, not the person you were replying to. You have been talking with multiple people, on 420 we have an ID system. You're not on 4skin anymore bud.
>>
Ernest Chushpadge - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:28:58 EST ID:RKov9N0c No.208867 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208861

How are those vague? I'm talking about the actual rates of marriage and divorce and fatherlessness and the actual leftist policies that incentivize destructive behavior like child support laws, no fault divorce, abortion "rights", etc

Conservatives have always been against these developments, not just nazis, you're basically so entrenched in leftist propaganda that you've been convinced that only nazis have ever had these beliefs

How can you claim the globalist Marxists aren't in power right now? In point of fact their destructive immigration policies are the norm in most of Europe. All of the major American media outlets besides Fox News regularly promote transgender ideology, feminist ideology, and open border ideology

First of all abortions and rap music are not a joke. Millions of fetuses are smashed and sold as organs and tissues, psychologically destroying the value of motherhood and child rearing in many young women. Rap music (and pop music made by Katy perry types too, this is not race oriented) is being listened to by children promoting drug use and glorifying violence and promiscuity. Where once this was something degenerate adults kept to themselves, the culture has degraded such that this is what children and teens are listening to

Secondly the negative effects we statistical realities, it's not just that rap music is atrocious, we are actually seeing single motherhood rise out of control
>>
Clara Cravingspear - Wed, 28 Feb 2018 20:15:08 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208875 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208867
>How can you claim the globalist Marxists aren't in power right now? In point of fact their destructive immigration policies are the norm in most of Europe.

Would you care to explain how the variously centrist/center-right controlled European nations have a marxist immigration policy. Would you care to explain what exactly makes an immigration policy "marxist"?

>All of the major American media outlets besides Fox News regularly promote transgender ideology, feminist ideology, and open border ideology
It's hilarious to me that you should consider this Marxist infiltration.

The reason they're all, including Fox News, playing identity politics and gaming the demographics is because they are all thinking about commercial interest. They've seen the drop in viewers that comes with being politically incorrect (or vice versa for Fox News), so they're in competition to look more progressive and LGBT friendly.

People say what they want, and the overly customer sensitive and perversely incentivized news media gives them that. This is capitalist society at work.
>>
Lydia Turveyman - Fri, 02 Mar 2018 19:53:16 EST ID:gFx76Omm No.208884 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520038396638.png -(77526B / 75.71KB, 576x324) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208867
>>First of all abortions and rap music are not a joke
>>
Henry Gonningfoot - Fri, 02 Mar 2018 20:31:13 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208885 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1520040673216.png -(152702B / 149.12KB, 500x502) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208867
Fuck off with your /pol/ posting, you cocksucking stormfront immigrant. Fucking end your existence already.
>>
Edwin Sullerture - Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:20:30 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208925 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208867
Conservative talking points truly are thoughtless.

I'm convinced that you have no clue what Marxism is. Sadly, you legitimately are a victim of actual propaganda and misinformation, but you are too ignorant to know why you are ignorant.

You want a more thorough and nuanced worldview? Learn how the world works. The only way to do this is it obtain your information from reputable sources with well thought out expertise knowledge that's based on facts. Instead of going to FOX, which is just infotainment and piss poor journalism, maybe focus more on official statements by expert authorities. One of those being the American Psychiatric Association. Learn from those in the know, and you will better have a handle on the realities of the world in which we live. Stay away from shoddy anecdotal opinions of people online or actual misinformation campaigns. Gain access to quality sources of information because you sound completely confused and deeply affected by misinformation.
>>
Augustus Brookhood - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:10:38 EST ID:6BLLNWte No.208974 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A big part of it is how they demand society around them accept them fully for what they are in a very attention seeking way.

Put it this way, in the 90's it was the hip thing to get your nipples or tongue pierced if you were a dude. That was some punk shit, really owning your sexuality be it whatever part of the spectrum you fall on. But then you got the punk kid wearing fishnets in the supermarket, showing the whole world his pierced up nips. Now the wholesome white bread catholic 65 year old man is thinking about your fucking nipples in line to cash his social security check. He's wondering if you are gay, or if you just like it when people play with your nipples, if people suck on them. He wonders if it hurt. He wonders what choices in that persons life led them to having metal driven through their nips.
All that old fuck wanted to do was go home and watch Matlock and now he's got to confront all this weird emotions that are new to him.

Its one thing to pierce your nips, to get back at your dad or what ever the fuck. Its another to make a big deal about your nips. Just put a shirt on when you go to the store.

A lesbian woman I worked with who looked like a boy and dressed like a boy and had a haircut like a boy through a fit when some one called them a boy from behind. Just let that shit slide.

Being hyper aggressive in coming up with new labels to describe your orientation and gender and shit only annoys and creeps people who don't care out. You can go from being a young white boy to being a grown black woman with enough cosmetic surgery and hormones. But everyone around them who doesn't really give a shit now suddenly has to cope with this weird body transformation taking place. They don't know the right prefix or pronoun and are afraid to offend, or they are so appalled that they get aggressive and push back with hate or religion.


Obviously I am not saying that its wrong for the trans people to put others through this shit. Society itself can change to become more tolerant. Most people these days wouldn't bat an eye at some Chad walking into walmart with his nips pierced up wearing a fishnet shirt.

There are a lot of other angles involved like religious sexual guilt and repression, but that's a whole other can of worms.
And seriously if I said I was a 5 foot man in a 6 foot tall body everyone would think I was nuts if I wanted to cut off my shins and attach my feet to my knees like Cotton Hill. But that may not sound so crazy in the future. I would replace my legs with some bionic Kenyan racer shit in a heart beat
>>
Cedric Chucklehall - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 02:11:31 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208975 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208974
The future of augmentations and biological life extension technologies along with 3D printing of organs and automation of surgery will rewrite society's rules on what is and isn't bodily acceptable.

They can't stop it, because it would mean losing the one chance to extend human lifespans and they know they wouldn't be able to compete with an augmented man. All they can do is stare on in horror and pray for the Rapture to deliver them from evil.

Unfortunately, like all times Christians have prayed for the End, mankind will not be lucky enough to end. We don't get an easy way out and then everything's wonderful. We will be forced to be held accountable for our actions, and it will be the true Hell.
>>
Phyllis Nenningville - Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:46:09 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208987 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1522208769657.jpg -(44170B / 43.13KB, 500x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208974
I think we should all just fucking kill all conservative and old people to the beat of Vital Remain's Dechristianize. Would solve a lot of problems. And all those retarded caveman believers can all go meet their maker in oblivion. Win win for everyone.
>>
Oliver Dartbanks - Mon, 02 Apr 2018 18:09:14 EST ID:PeV65nn4 No.209004 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208987
I bet an old man would kick your ass lol, leftie druggo. This isn't social science, this is a circle jerk for self entitled drugged out college dropouts lol.
>>
Archie Barryham - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 06:03:13 EST ID:jxB3eYCC No.209085 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208987
>Let’s just kill all conservatives.
Let’s just bash every leftist fascist like you. It’s not like you people work or aid society in anyway, you just cry and threaten violence while strung out on narcotics.
>>
Phoebe Mammlenodging - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:26:14 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209086 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523795174430.jpg -(197904B / 193.27KB, 826x984) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209085
>waaah people do drugs waaah

Yeah, you totally fit in on 420chan.
>>
Hamilton Pummlestock - Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:19:37 EST ID:JyDTI0YA No.209110 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209086
>>208987
>>209085
>>209004
Why do you people even stay in my country anymore? Just move retards. Move to a shithole that caters to your personal tastes. There's plenty of them. You just bang your heads against the wall over and over again knowing you're too inept to do anything but threaten violence against people you never even met in an obscure online shitpost forum devoted to drugs.

It's not even about "an argument" anymore. You're not interested in fielding arguments. You're interested in violence. So go do violence, already, you fucking pansies. Stop saying you will and do it.
>>
Emma Goggleville - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:34:31 EST ID:fqkrV/cz No.209128 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209110
Every society that has failed to resolve the issue of territory and resource allocation through words has resorted to solving it through violence.
As soon as you say 'if yer dun like it yer can get out!' you invite the very violence you are decrying. You move the debate from the intellectual field to the field of physical force by that very statement.
>>
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:16:51 EST ID:SGCbMw+u No.209147 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>OP here.
>I have no credentials but trans therapy is the same as suicide.
Good fucking job. You’re a real philosopher now. You also clearly lack sympathy for the mental patients who may need trans therapy.
>>
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:21:02 EST ID:SGCbMw+u No.209149 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oh fuck I put this comment in the wrong trans thread. Ignore it. ^^
>>
Rick Winterboard - Fri, 11 May 2018 08:57:02 EST ID:JwXDzmFv No.209205 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Can't people just be nice to trans people and see how that works out?

Internet nerds should get this, being (most likely) somewhat isolated people. Imagine how these people are feeling being even more isolated from society. JUST BE FUCKING NICE
>>
Ebenezer Clannerfot - Sun, 20 May 2018 19:19:13 EST ID:Cqjy7Wuw No.209217 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Trans, gays and other are same thing DEGENERACY
>>
Shit Drocklewuck - Sun, 20 May 2018 19:58:10 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1526860690097.jpg -(36913B / 36.05KB, 684x384) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209217
Do you even know what degeneracy means?
>>
Rebecca Nonnersack - Mon, 21 May 2018 03:37:40 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209218
When you thonk about it, homosexuality and transgenderism is the least degenerate of all things... because you cannot degenerate the next generation when you don't procreate... :thinking:
>>
Charlotte Ficklewut - Mon, 21 May 2018 12:39:32 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209219
I know you mean this as a joke, but in all seriousness LGBT people contribute greatly to the production of the next generation. Not only in that many LGBT people have or raise children, but also by creating and advancing art and culture.

If Ebenezer up there really wants to know what causes degeneracy, it's generacy. We keep making too many people, and because of that, the quality of life for each subsequent generation will become less and less however far we drift from the actual carrying capacity of our current mode of production.

If you want degeneracy to stop either a.) stop having kids b.) invent a more efficient mode of production or c.) find a new planet to colonize.
>>
Priscilla Gagglemit - Mon, 21 May 2018 12:56:11 EST ID:4+oWREai No.209221 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209205
No, that's too hard to do. We have to be mean to them because Steven Crowder and Jordan Peterson said they are no-no's.
>>
Eliza Mirringshit - Mon, 04 Jun 2018 18:21:47 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209279 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209276
Hey mr. alt-right troll, in most states and countries in the west LGBT people already can adopt children. Cry some more about it. Also, as the group of people who always complains about the consequences of single motherhood, why are you trying to put more children in the foster care system (i.e. raised by the state?)

Btw, anyone who thinks gay people need to have kids for gay genes to be passed on needs a refresher in evolutionary genetics spoiler: if that would have worked, it would have happened a million years ago. Even if you exterminated every single queer person in the world, within 1 generation they would re emerge to virtually the same prevalence.
>>
Hugh Wonderdut - Wed, 06 Jun 2018 04:48:28 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209287 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209276
Fuck off and kill yourself. Take a knife, slit your fucking faggot wrists and then disembowel yourself you goddamn cancerous fucking immigrant. End your fucking existence. No one will miss you. No one will remember you. You are a waste of flesh and you will never contribute to society.
>>
Nicholas Brookbanks - Thu, 07 Jun 2018 02:04:41 EST ID:4+oWREai No.209292 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209276
If a bot watched/read nothing but anti-sjw videos/posts online, you are what it would become.

Are you even capable of individual thought? Did you just one day decide to turn your brain off and become a mindless sponge to absorb nothing but pseudo intellectualism nonsense online? Because it sure seems like it... either that or you really are a bot.
>>
James Snodridge - Thu, 07 Jun 2018 02:09:54 EST ID:hIXQ3Qbs No.209293 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209287
Just saying, stuff like this is exactly what they want. You're just gonna give the troll a giggle saying stuff like this. That's what they're after. Just ignore them. They won't go away but they will not get the validation that they need.
>>
Basil Dennerfoot - Thu, 07 Jun 2018 18:53:30 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209294 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209293
While don't feed the trolls is probably generally good advice this dude seems to have bailed immediately upon seeing the reaming he was getting from multiple quarters...if the culture of a board/site/whatever is anti-troll enough it can prevent them from getting a foothold and decide to go somewhere more fruitful.
>>
Martin Pittham - Sat, 08 Sep 2018 01:49:16 EST ID:Q2wCcWf6 No.209441 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209205

the problem is what do you mean by "be nice" ??

i agree that being unnecessarily rude or cruel to them has no upside. But I also think that the hormone treatment and "gender confirmation" treatment are terrible mistakes, and I think people in my family and friend circles who are thinking about that should know. Am I not being "nice" by trying to save them from bodily mutilation and suicide?
>>
Wesley Trotbury - Sat, 08 Sep 2018 16:15:26 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209442 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209441
It's not nice to presume you know better about people's own problems than they do themselves, especially if you have never experienced the problem they are dealing with. It makes the pretense of 'giving advice' manifestly disgenuine.

Also, by preventing people from taking a therapy known to reduce their likelihood of suicide (if they are indeed gender dysphoric) you are, in a sense, promoting their eventual suicide, which is also afield of anyone's definition of 'nice.'
>>
Ebenezer Backledatch - Tue, 11 Sep 2018 01:12:52 EST ID:3p8/qtux No.209443 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Transgender people are freaks of nature. They shouldn't exist.
>>
Simon Nickleson - Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:49:43 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209445 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209443
Observe how reactionaries, when confronted with rational argument, will quickly retreat to 'I'm right because I say so.' Well Ebenezer I think you're a freak of nature because of your twisted belief in being able to declare who should or shouldn't exist. Ergo, you shouldn't exist, since you would deny existence to others.
>>
Page Heart - Sat, 15 Sep 2018 23:04:35 EST ID:nZXup4hE No.209449 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1537067075048.png -(108731B / 106.18KB, 263x378) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Cisnormativity is a component of the superstructure necessary to maintain male supremacy by protecting the gender-sex association that is necessary to distribute misogyny among the female reproductive class. The association of femaleness with womanhood and maleness with manhood is itself a set of gender roles surrounding the body and without said roles, gender would serve no purpose.

The maintenance of cisnormativity requires transphobic action which maintains/creates cissexism which reinforces cisnormativity; it's a circular process.
>>
Page Heart - Sat, 15 Sep 2018 23:17:40 EST ID:nZXup4hE No.209450 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208431

By simply existing, transgender people are challenging patriarchy, even if they may not be aware of this fact; they are by definition gender revolutionaries, and this scares the reactionaries, so they attempt to prevent us from being accepted by parading around false notions such that we're inherently mentally ill when in reality gender dysphoria is a result of violence and social rejection thrown our way (https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30165-1). They come up with sophistries such as Gender Identity Disorder, and manipulate statistics to their advantage. They'll make claims such that transition just makes us more prone to suicide -- by using statistics that come from drastically different countries.

>>208431

They'll throw around that one statistic from Sweden without thinking about how possibly Sweden has a relatively high suicide rate, while comparing it to the American 40% suicide statistic.
>>
Sidney Bardlock - Sun, 16 Sep 2018 17:50:55 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209451 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209449
>>The maintenance of cisnormativity requires transphobic action which maintains/creates cissexism which reinforces cisnormativity
Sssh! If the cishets know we understand this, they will get even angrier and more bent out of shape than they are now. Some of them even suspect things like this, but twist and distort it. We need, as a separate and seemingly disconnected project, to demonstrate the good that the dismantlement of this larger system will actually do for the world, and for everyone -- cismales included -- within it

>> even if they may not be aware of this fact; they are by definition gender revolutionaries
Again, sshh! We know, we don't broadcast it because we understand the full implications of the first point. The subversion of structures is occurring at multiple points which form the Interlock. The avalanche starts with a pebble, and all the pebbles are in their right places; we're just trying to survive through the cascade.
>>
Lillian Bottingstock - Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:06:49 EST ID:OaolgcgK No.209456 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1537787209201.jpg -(56971B / 55.64KB, 429x207) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208312
It's hard to tell to what degree but this image appears to be a digital collage of multiple photos with the dolls moved around to appear in greater numbers than they really are.
>>
Henry Pocklepit - Mon, 24 Sep 2018 22:10:57 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209457 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209456
Dude are you crazy? Every single doll and box has different angles and features. This would be impossible to accomplish with image manipulation
>>
Rebecca Tootfuck - Tue, 25 Sep 2018 02:16:34 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209458 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1537856194291.gif -(1572294B / 1.50MB, 250x233) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209449
[THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE]

>being this silly
>>
Thomas Chemmerpet - Tue, 25 Sep 2018 05:41:09 EST ID:OaolgcgK No.209460 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209457
No it's actually very easy and you can see in the image I posted that the inner and outer two dolls have identical stances. They just took a photo of them standing in one slot, moved them over to the other slot, took a new photo then overlaid those. A digital collage. Simple as you.
>>
Thomas Chemmerpet - Tue, 25 Sep 2018 05:55:10 EST ID:OaolgcgK No.209461 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209457
Look, it's the same basic principle as crowd replication for film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rJ8rJREAIA doing it with dolls for a still image in a steadily lit environment is a hell of a lot easier.
>>
Phoebe Sillerlet - Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:54:25 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209463 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209460
As someone who works in photoshop professionally, I can promise you this is not a manipulated image. I can't believe I wasted the time to actually look again to actually confirm, but just look at the image at a pixel scale. There are a huge amount of differences between each box and frame, the positioning of clothes and tags are all subtly different in a way that would be impossible to digitally manipulate without leaving a trace or thousands of hours of work. Every single box contains such variations, every single posed doll contains such variations. I challenge you to show me two dolls or boxes that have identical poses and tag placements.

What is more believable; that someone spent thousands of hours manipulating a picture of a handful of dolls to make it seem like there were hundreds of dolls, or that somewhere in the world, there is a toy store with hundreds of dolls?
>>
Ebenezer Hillerdock - Wed, 26 Sep 2018 09:12:38 EST ID:OaolgcgK No.209464 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209463
Aside from the fact that no shop wastes that much horizontal shelf-space on the same few products, it is very much easy and possible using the method I just described to you and provided step-by-step examples of other people doing.
Why are you lying so hard?
>>
Ebenezer Hillerdock - Wed, 26 Sep 2018 09:17:11 EST ID:OaolgcgK No.209465 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209463
>As someone who works in photoshop professionally,
Whatever they're paying you, it's too much. Here's a tutorial by an 11 year old who's better informed than you.
https://northrup.photo/using-photoshop-creatively-to-make-clones-of-yourself/
>>
Phoebe Sillerlet - Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:41:16 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209466 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1537994476814.jpg -(18760B / 18.32KB, 259x194) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209464
>>Aside from the fact that no shop wastes that much horizontal shelf-space on the same few products
I don't think you've ever been in a toy store. Children want toys in fads, so they necessarily stock up on vast quantities of the hot items. It's not like there are even that many dolls in the photo. It takes up the equivalent of two shelving racks.

>> it is very much easy and possible using the method I just described
Both methods you link describe moving the same people to different locations and then splicing together the images to make a composite. That simply won't work in the image we are discussing, because the tags on the boxes are different. Even if you repositioned the same handful of dolls and composited them (which, again, is a stupid amount of work to achieve an image of something you could just go to a toy store to see) but the boxes would still have the same arrangement of tags. I challenge you to show me two boxes that have identical tag placement (I challenged you last post, and you ignored it.)

>>Here's a tutorial by an 11 year old who's better informed than you.
>>I'm someone who has read about photoshop online and think I can tell when any image is photoshopped because of some of the pixels, and insist I am right in the face of logical arguments and expert experience demonstrating its impossibility because I can find even MORE articles about photoshop online, demonstrating techniques that have nothing to do with what I'm claiming was done (but I can't tell they don't, because again, all I know about photoshop comes from chintzy articles)
>>
Phoebe Sillerlet - Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:48:37 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209467 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209466
The stupidity of this argument was sticking in my craw, so I decided to just find out the truth once and for all. This photo is from Oprah magazine, and was photographed by Chris Buck, for a special on inequality published in May, 2017. The photo was so poignant it was covered in several news outlets:
https://www.elitedaily.com/life/culture/lets-talk-about-race-photos-chris-buck-oprah-magazine/1954524
https://qz.com/1009338/in-a-photo-series-for-o-magazine-racial-dynamics-between-white-women-and-women-of-color-are-flipped/
>>
Ebenezer Hillerdock - Wed, 26 Sep 2018 17:53:00 EST ID:OaolgcgK No.209468 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1537998780042.png -(800522B / 781.76KB, 563x724) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209466
>I don't think you've ever been in a toy store. Children want toys in fads, so they necessarily stock up on vast quantities of the hot items. It's not like there are even that many dolls in the photo. It takes up the equivalent of two shelving racks.
The example you just provided has a whole mixture of different toys. There are maybe two in a row at most. In the picture we're talking about they've repeated the same dolls over and over 15 times. Yes of course shops stock up but they don't put them all on display like that, when they can put other models there and just replace the ones that are taken. Or put them deep instead of wide.

>tags tags tags muh tags
What the fuck are you talking about? All the boxes with the same dolls in are identical. The ones I attached to my first post shows two pairs of identical dolls with identical hair in identical poses in identical boxes. Even the folds of the skirt are the same. Yet not all the dolls in that row have the exact same hair, which shows the hair isn't made to be identical.

>The stupidity of this argument was sticking in my craw, so I decided to just find out the truth once and for all. This photo is from Oprah magazine, and was photographed by Chris Buck, for a special on inequality published in May, 2017. The photo was so poignant it was covered in several news outlets:
None of that mentions if the photo was digitally altered or not and looking at his website he routinely uses photoshop and/or trick photography. I'm not really sure why you think this adds anything to what you're saying. Are you going to tell me this is a real bear?
>>
George Dartham - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:40:16 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209469 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1538023216641.jpg -(72692B / 70.99KB, 429x362) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209468
I am honestly astonished you are still at this. A good person would have seen the evidence, realized their mistake, and admitted it. A normal person would get mad about having been proved wrong, and post nothing to save face. But you are actually the kind of deluded that will ride your bad takes all the way to hell rather than admit for a second 'I was wrong.' You are literally the 'this shooped, i can tell because of some of the pixels' meme right now, and are seemingly oblivious to it. Why die on such a meaningless hill?

>> but they don't put them all on display like that
No. Go to a toy store in an actual big city. Displays like this are very ordinary. Besides, we now know for a fact that this was taken as a photo opp for Oprah magazine, which makes all arguments about the 'realism' of the display irrelevant. Your claim was that it was a digital manipulation of an existing image to make it seem as though there were more dolls. That has been proven false.

>>All the boxes with the same dolls in are identical.
No they aren't. This is obvious if you examine them on a pixel scale, which I said you should do. Since you obviously can't be assed to do so, here, your own pic, your own selection of supposedly identical dolls. The little tags on their dresses are in no way the same. There are tons of other subtle details about them that are different, that are obvious to a trained eye but clearly invisible to you, but lets just focus on the tags -- the little white squares on the dresses of the purple dressed black dolls -- for now.

>>which shows the hair isn't made to be identical
"isn't made to be identical" what do you think this means? If the claim is the image was created from an image of a smaller number of dolls, what magical button do you imagine there to be in photoshop that says 'make these ones look exactly identical, but those, change them in random ways that is totally realistic.' You have been brainwashed by cop dramas to believe computers can do things they simply can't do.

>>None of that mentions if the photo was digitally altered
Professional photographers do not traffic in digitally manipulated photos, especially ones they sell to high profile magazines. The authenticity of the photograph is key to the craft. If he worked in photoshop (in the sense you mean it, of using it to do manipulations and composites) he would have clearly photoshopped images within his portfolio to show his skill level.

>> looking at his website he routinely uses photoshop and/or trick photography.
Trick photography is in no way the same thing as using photoshop and you are preparing to move your goal posts. There is not a single photoshopped image on that site within his portfolio, that's completely obvious to anyone with eyeballs. What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?

The irony is that if you had chosen some other random photo to object to, you might have gotten away with it if it was just your non-expert hot take against my photoshop knowledge, to a crowd of non-experts who can't tell the difference either way. But you picked a photo that has been viewed by millions of people, deeply focused on and studied, with thousands of words spent on it. You are basically making the claim that all those people are lying -- and to what end? Why in the world would there be a conspiracy to hide the photoshopped status of a very simple image?

So are we to disbelieve; Oprah magazine, Chris Buck, the well known photographer, half a dozen news outlets which covered the image in the context of it being a real, unaltered photograph, and the simple observation that it would be vastly cheaper for Oprah magazine to construct that shot using actual dolls than to digitally manipulate it vs. your gut feeling from looking at the picture for a second. I don't know who you think you're convincing, but you're starting to look really pathetic. Again, why die on this hill? Just admit you were wrong, or stop posting. Where can you possibly go from here? "Uh no obviously everyone is lying to cover up the photoshop conspiracy; there are no actual dolls anywhere in the world, all of them are made by computers in people's basements."

>> Are you going to tell me this is a real bear?
>>HURR, I CAN FIND PHOTOSHOPPED IMAGES ON THE WEB. THAT PROVES ALL IMAGES I SAY ARE PHOTOSHOPPED ARE, DESPITE MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY
>>
Thomas Pisslewell - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:07:02 EST ID:pdpqZQMH No.209471 Ignore Report Quick Reply
most people find men in drag to be physically repulsive. I don't think anybody really wants to deny them their rights, but nobody wants to work with a tranny because they find it to be disgusting.

You wouldn't let somebody come to work as a lawyer dressed in a clown outfit.
>>
George Dartham - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:38:00 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209473 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209471
most people find white men to be physically repulsive. I don't think anybody really wants to deny them their rights, but nobody wants to work with a cracker because they find it to be disgusting.

You wouldn't let somebody come to work as a lawyer dressed in a KKK robe.

See how that's not different at all from what you said?
>>
Phyllis Wurryfot - Fri, 05 Oct 2018 13:58:47 EST ID:tnwvVuEo No.209482 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1538762327403.jpg -(14708B / 14.36KB, 450x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Okay there's a lot of very long wordy posts in this thread and I'm not going to read any of them before giving my point of view, just in case what I say has been covered already.

I think there's definitely a point in trans people being more 'visible'. It's a lot easier to tell if someone is trans than to tell if someone is gay most of the time. So that makes it easier for bigoted people to target them.

But there's another side of it too. If someone is gay, there's no ideology that comes along with that necessarily. Everyone knows men are attracted to women. It's not exactly hard to expand on that idea to say that some men are attracted to men, or some women to women or some people to both. With trans people though, there's usually some ideology that comes along with it. A lot of the time it's the idea that gender is a social construct, and that there is a new system of gender now ready to supplant the previous one. The problem is, if gender is a social construct, isn't it equally as valid to call an MtF male as it is to call them female? There's an authoritarian, dogmatic vibe to this stuff. You have to believe in this new subjective model of gender or you're 'transphobic', even if you don't hate trans people, even if you want them to be accepted by society and treated fairly. A lot of the time, people crying transphobia aren't doing it because someone instinctively hates their guts for being a tranny, they're doing it because someone just doesn't buy into their gender dogma.

I think ultimately the issue is with how the current zeitgeist is attempting to integrate trans people into society without pushing them to the fringes or treating them like second class citizens. It's a good thing to try to do this. Society should work for everyone, even the minorities. It's absolutely not a good idea to go back in the other direction and have them be seen as weird deviant outcasts simply because of the way they are, they're not hurting anyone afterall. The problem is though, the method that's been chosen to do this is far too heavy handed and in dire need of some sober realism. You can't force people to view you as the gender you wish you were. You can try to pass as that gender, but it's not gonna happen if you don't pass. That's just the unfortunate truth. The current 'trans ideology' wants to just force people to play along while they never, at any point, attempt to meet in the middle. I mean, how about, instead of getting upset when someone doesn't call you 'she', you could be honest with yourself about the type of human being you are and accept that either pronoun is valid? How about, if someone thinks the 'old' gender model is a more accurate and useful system, you respect that belief and maybe they'll respect your belief in the 'new' system? Again, if all of this is just a social construct, there's no right answer, there's just what's more pragmatic.

I know it's not all trans people who act this way or who necessarily believe this stuff or who all buy into the exact same theories of gender and sexuality, but unfortunately these are the kind of voices that are speaking for them. And that's partially why there's a kind of pushback against trans people that you don't get with the L's, the G's or the B's. There's no one belief system like this heavily intertwined with the gay community in the same way there is with the trans community.
>>
Emma Chombleset - Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:49:57 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209483 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209482
>> if gender is a social construct, isn't it equally as valid to call an MtF male as it is to call them female
If that were so, then it would be equally valid to call a cis man a woman. It's just a construct, so why should you care? If you do care, then that means you recognize that constructs can have real, tangible effects on the lives of people. It's all nice and rosy to say that people who don't believe gender is a construct should be allowed to do so, and I would agree IF those people weren't the very ones who are trying to control and suppress the expression of trans people.

You can't have it both ways; if transgender philosophy is a loaded political ideology, then denying transgender philosophy (or rather, asserting gender naivety as realism) is also a loaded political ideology. If the other side were all about live and let live, and this was a purely philosophical discussion, no one would even care. But the fact is that along with that philosophical belief comes practical politics. I don't have a problem with people who have simplistic ideas of gender; except that they try to force those simplistic ideas on me and use them to tell me how to live my life.

So; since we live in a democracy, where people's beliefs directly go to manifesting the power of the state against those who those beliefs target, it *is* incumbent upon me for me to try to convince you of this philosophy; for my own safety.

Essentially, we can't claim that the philosophical discussion and political ramifications are disconnected. They are one in the same, and both occur in service of the other, for both sides.
>>
David Greengold - Fri, 12 Oct 2018 01:25:08 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209492 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209482

A concern I would have with that position is that trans people are already "integrated" into society in and of themselves. My contention would be that it is not proper to draw a box around a group of people either legally or socially then try to reintegrate the group.

What is worth fighting, it seems to me, if peoples biases when they are unfounded.

If a person is attacking a trans person it doesn't matter to me who is what in that situation. The first condition of harming a fellow human being is met without any consideration to the superficial features of the participants.
>>
Nigel Drullydock - Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:23:26 EST ID:0HtbXfvm No.209506 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209483
>> if gender is a social construct, isn't it equally as valid to call an MtF male as it is to call them female
>If that were so, then it would be equally valid to call a cis man a woman. It's just a construct, so why should you care?

But cis men don't claim to believe that gender is a construct: transgender people do. So it follows logically that them being the ones claiming to consider it nothing more than a social construct, they shouldn't care about being called male or female. Cis people on the other hand don't have that view, so it follows logically that they care about being called he or she.

And yet transgender people care very much about their pronouns, thus betraying that they don't really believe gender is just a social construct, just like cis people don't believe it.
>>
Betsy Corrybury - Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:50:05 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209507 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209506

>>But cis men don't claim to believe that gender is a construct
I'm not a cis man, but speak for yourself. I know this will leave you salty, but its just science, and also, incidental to the actual purpose of the board -- which, believe it or not, is not to constantly argue over the existence of trannies -- is good philosophy, based on the current state of debate at the cutting edge of philosophical inquiry. Gender is indeed a construct, and we can demonstrate that scientifically or logically, and the simple fact is more people accept that idea than don't, while most people are so ignorant of philosophical discourse that the 'construct-hood' of gender doesn't even enter into their thinking on why trans people should be accepted or not (if they have any ideas on the matter at all.)

>> they shouldn't care about being called male or female
Did you read past my first sentence?
>> If you do care, then that means you recognize that constructs can have real, tangible effects on the lives of people.

>> thus betraying that they don't really believe gender is just a social construct
Ok I'm entirely convinced at this point that you don't even know what a construct in the general sense is. Can you tell me what a construct is, and why gender isn't one? You're the one making that claim, supply the proof.
>>
Molly Chupperdad - Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:35:49 EST ID:L0+PAHDD No.209516 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209482
>Gay with an ideology
"Please allow me to fuck other dudes and not be hated for it so I don't an hero"
>Trans with an ideology
"Please allow me to pretend to be a girl so I don't an hero"

They're almost identical. You're just pulling shit from your ass because Tumblr is your idea of what queers actually believe. This thread is garbage btw. "muh birthrates" "muh mutilation" "you should be allowed to do whatever you want that doesn't hurt others until it offends me :((((("
Tired of all the fake libertarians who ought to fuck off to the far right or far left where they belong.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.