1,000
3.00Transgenderism has NO ontology, which we Christians have recognized for millenia. Soon, our side will win when ambivalent liberals realize that the uniting thread between "trans rights," between all "trans rights," fundamentally depends on the ontological status of gender, which is contained within the soul and is an immutable nature that CANNOT be changed by man.
When ambivalent liberals realize that any acceptance of transgenderism at all results in the the worst excesses and complete destruction of beauty, trans bathrooms, trans athletes, transing kids, etc., and contrariwise any rejection of transgenderism, such as any of the above necessitates the complete rejection of transgender because you are essentially denying gender ideology, that's when the paper tiger of "transgenderism" will fall.
@stardust Why do you say that? There was a "pregnant man" in the 90s, but only recently did the wokes start talking about "birthing people". I can think we can accept trans people without accept the whole "gender ideology". Look at Brianna Wu. What problem do you have?
@nathanwei For all the credit I give to young men these days, this one's a clear reminder of the work that needs to be done.
What are "the wokes"? I ask you. You laugh at them because they're ridiculous and degenerate and not normal but, you defend the existence of a "pregnant man". Men can't, didn't, and never will be able to get pregnant. You are the woke... from 10 years ago. And if you were born 10 years ago, you would be rightfully ridiculing (modern) yourself as "the woke".
RE: Brianna Wu, what about him? The best thing he could do is find the LORD and enter into the Orthodox Church. The second best thing he could do is cease the destruction of his body and soul, grow out a mustache, and stop harming children.
I will give it to him, he's a lot smarter than the modern "woke" -- as is the woke from 10 years ago, which is no less degenerate. Unlike most transformers, who must stump for the agenda at every turn, he realizes that the American people, especially men, have repudiated transgenderism. And he realizes what is to come not only in the next 4 years, but the next 400 as the LORD reclaims His Earth. So Brianna got his win and now wants to jump ship and wave the white flag to us Christians and say "I won't shill for the trans movement aggressively and I'll only like harm your children let's say half as much? So I'm one of the good ones so please choose me over the LORD".
Not falling for it, Satan. Dave Rubin, Brianna Wu, Blaire White, and whichever other ones you want to throw at me are the woke. They can pretend they're not. I have eyes and ears, and the degeneracy they glorify speaks another story.
There is no "trans" without gender ideology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8yytR2pGUw
"Trans" people do not exist anymore than "rapist" people or "murderer" people or "pedophile" people do. It is a sin that the devil tempts, that you may resist or succumb to. In a sane society, it must be stamped out with the full force of the law.
@skibidist by overcompensate in the over direction do you mean a far right takeover and accompanying genocide?
@skibidist fair enough, I don't think it's remotely likely for radical Islam to take over the west before the singularity, but I certainly don't support it, harmful ideology is the main thing I think should be vetted for in border control
@skibidist do you agree that current LGBT trans people should at least be provided the same human rights as the rest of the population? e.g. police protection from crime, access to basic needs like healthcare, housing, food/water if they can't afford it etc?
@TheAllMemeingEye Of course. However, all of those things except maybe police should be in the remit of private charities and not the state (police should probably be private, too, but it's trickier).
@skibidist Pediatric endocrinologists have been using hormones, medications to alter God’s handiwork since the sixties. Far from dubious it is a scientific fact, (spoiler alert, recently validated by Hollywood) that some people are born with ambiguous genitalia and/or an ambiguous physical/ hormonal gender expression that could be pharmacologically or surgically nudged in one direction or another based on a variety of personal or parental factors. While it is certainly true that the psychologically vulnerable could find a refuge of sorts in the current misplaced hysteria around trans rights, it is hardly a stretch to imagine that psychological ambiguity of gender expression is just as legitimate as ambiguous physical gender expression. Unless of course you don’t believe in the neck.
@DevdaDavid With all due respect though, the argument you are making is analogous to "mental illness is real, therefore lobotomy is a valid procedure"
@skibidist My point is that God/nature definitively creates individuals with ambiguous gender expression. That is an indisputable fact. The notion that nature or God creates only two forms of gender expression is obviously false. Those with ambiguous gender expression whether psychological or physical or both are between a rock and a hard place in that if they choose to live in their God given ambiguity they are punished by our culture and if they choose to achieve a man made more definitive gender expression they are considered to have had a lobotomy?
@DevdaDavid God given ambiguity they are punished by our culture
This sounds like an incredibly bad motivation for transitioning. A literal Procrustean bed. I find it hard to imagine that there is any place in the world where a trans person person would fare better than a tomboy or similar.
had a lobotomy
Not a lobotomy, but a very invasive irreversible medical procedure/treatment that may completely miss the actual issue. If someone does it and it works for them, I am happy for them. What I am against specifically relates to the current frontline in the cultural war. My issue is with:
- transing of kids in any shape or form
- any form of advertising promoting gender transition
- putting people with penises / male bodies together with regular women in prison cells, sports competitions, and similar
- not ruling out mental illness with a very high confidence before diagnosing gender dysphoria
- claims that men can menstruate or get pregnant
- putting a outsized % of trans people in every work of fiction for no good reason
If you say, "There exist individuals with ambiguous gender expression who can benefit from nudging their biology in a particular direction", I have no disagreement with that.
@skibidist I suppose it could be perceived as a weak motivation by those who are not living with the dilemma. If we can agree that ambiguous gender expression exists at birth, if we can agree that the brain and body are connected , and if we can agree that divergence between physical and psychological gender expression exists and creates the possibility of conflict then we are pretty much on the same page! After all I agree with your perspective on the issues you note above, with particular emphatic agreement on the mental illness piece.
Of course [they deserve human rights]
Ok, good to know you're not part of the "suffering is good actually when it's the outgroup" camp that I far too often come across
However, all of those things except maybe police should be in the remit of private charities and not the state (police should probably be private, too, but it's trickier).
Certainly an out-there take lol, aren't you worried that societal coordination problems will cause severe underfunding for important basic services?
What I am against is the extremely-dubious-yet-not-allowed-to-be-questioned claim that some people are born in a wrong body and must be modified pharmacologically and surgically to be somehow made right.
[...]
What I am against specifically relates to the current frontline in the cultural war. My issue is with:
- transing of kids in any shape or form
Would you say that puberty blockers are permissable if the kid really wants them and has been made aware of the negative effects?
- any form of advertising promoting gender transition
Is education and awareness-spreading about it acceptable to you as long as it isn't active encouragement?
- putting people with penises / male bodies together with regular women in prison cells, sports competitions, and similar
Arguably for prisons and sports the solution isn't to declare that trans people aren't really their identified genders, but rather to admit that segregation in prisons and sports isn't about gender, it's about penis-wielders and muscle weight classes, a heavyweight cis woman boxer would destroy a featherweight man or trans woman boxer easily
- not ruling out mental illness with a very high confidence before diagnosing gender dysphoria
Would you accept the proposal that gender dysphoria be classed as a mental illness (since it's a mental state bringing suffering) but that gender reassignment (via hormones or surgery) is a potential cure (with a surprisingly positive outcome track record in the actual data, excluding negative effects of discrimination)?
- claims that men can menstruate or get pregnant
Would you agree that under descriptive linguistics the meaning of words changes to fit their usage, thus plausibly if a group of people are agreeing to use gender terms to describe gender expression rather than biological sex, then such claims can make sense?
- putting a outsized % of trans people in every work of fiction for no good reason
Does this happen? The only trans representation in fiction I can think of is Lilly in The Danish Girl (which was a movie specifically about trans rights) and the president's sister from Designated Survivor (which seemed like a reasonable degree of inclusion in a show with many dozens of characters). I tried asking Bing Copilot for more examples but it misidentified Captain Holt from Brooklyn 99 as being trans lol so I don't think I can trust that
aren't you worried that societal coordination problems will cause severe underfunding for important basic services?
Nah, I think how it's done now is at the lower end of what's possible at the current level of development. The real problem is that it's basically impossible to dismantle the state intentionally without destroying a lot. It must happen very gradually and organically.
Would you say that puberty blockers are permissable if the kid really wants them and has been made aware of the negative effects?
No, a child cannot informatively consent to such a thing. Few adults have sufficient self-awareness, let alone children.
Is education and awareness-spreading about it acceptable to you as long as it isn't active encouragement?
Yes in principle, would oppose it at the moment. Given how poor mental healthcare in general is, any campaign on the trans issue would be likely a suboptimal use of resources and politically motivated. At the moment, I would allow a brief pamphlet distributed to doctors.
Arguably for prisons and sports the solution isn't to declare that trans people aren't really their identified genders, but rather to admit that segregation in prisons and sports isn't about gender, it's about penis-wielders and muscle weight classes, a heavyweight cis woman boxer would destroy a featherweight man or trans woman boxer easily
In sports, not just weight, also body composition. The only reasonable solution is probably to have trans- as two separate classes.
Would you accept the proposal that gender dysphoria be classed as a mental illness (since it's a mental state bringing suffering) but that gender reassignment (via hormones or surgery) is a potential cure (with a surprisingly positive outcome track record in the actual data, excluding negative effects of discrimination)?
Sounds good. I think it already is a disorder under DSM-5. This creates a contradiction with the point on children, which I would resolve in favor of caution / no treatment (seems that there was an inquiry in the UK that did not find it beneficial).
Would you agree that under descriptive linguistics the meaning of words changes to fit their usage, thus plausibly if a group of people are agreeing to use gender terms to describe gender expression rather than biological sex, then such claims can make sense?
Only if it happened organically. Currently it is being pushed in a top down manner that is quite inflammatory. The truth is that trans women and trans men are distinct, biologically and psychologically, from women and men.
Does this happen? The only trans representation in fiction I can think of is Lilly in The Danish Girl (which was a movie specifically about trans rights) and the president's sister from Designated Survivor (which seemed like a reasonable degree of inclusion in a show with many dozens of characters). I tried asking Bing Copilot for more examples but it misidentified Captain Holt from Brooklyn 99 as being trans lol so I don't think I can trust that
Latest example is the new season of Squid Game. Feels inorganic and manipulative.
@TheAllMemeingEye All of this is gender ideology nonsense, but you're beginning to get it... somewhat
Arguably for prisons and sports the solution isn't to declare that trans people aren't really their identified genders, but rather to admit that segregation in prisons and sports isn't about gender, it's about penis-wielders and muscle weight classes, a heavyweight cis woman boxer would destroy a featherweight man or trans woman boxer easily
Then, why segregate sports by gender at all? Why even have a female and male category? Plus, this is blatant casuistry ignoring the open women's category. The fact remains that if a real woman were somehow born with, whatever you want to proxy, whether it be muscle fibers or testosterone the same as or on the level of a very convincing "transformer", everyone would unanimously agree she should be allowed to complete, but you even are acknowledging the merit for a complete and total categorical ban of the trans. So that very convincing "transformer" couldn't compete, and not only that, but his entire group.
The simple fact that liberals will not acknowledge is because fundamentally this is because transgender has no ontology, "trans women" are men, and "trans men" are women. I hope you will see this truth
Then, why segregate sports by gender at all? Why even have a female and male category
That is what I am saying, it makes way more sense to segregate by muscle weight / hormones than by gender / biological sex.
The fact remains that if a real woman were somehow born with, whatever you want to proxy, whether it be muscle fibers or testosterone the same as or on the level of a very convincing "transformer", everyone would unanimously agree she should be allowed to complete
Well clearly the agreement wouldn't be unanimous because I would disagree lol, under my proposed system she would not be allowed to compete against typical women if she was born with typical man level body attributes, she would be in the higher strength category of typical men and similarly atypical women.
but you even are acknowledging the merit for a complete and total categorical ban of the trans.
No I am not, I think they should be competing in categories of similar strength, a complete ban would be super discriminatory and needlessly mean
Latest example is the new season of Squid Game. Feels inorganic and manipulative.
Are there any more examples you can think of? In general if we assume even just 1% of Western world population is trans it kinda feels like they're actually still unrepresented in almost all popular media
That is what I am saying, it makes way more sense to segregate by muscle weight / hormones than by gender / biological sex.
Oh, my bad. I misunderstood then. But you included male genitalia havers as a category to demarcate things by, so you're indicating something that isn't pure body weight or composition or the like?
Also, not to self-promote, but I made a more detailed version of this poll. https://manifold.markets/market/how-protrans-agenda-is-manifold
Partially because it needed more detail, partially because I was curious about the opinions here (I was spot on), and partially because I wanted to see what the line is for when someone considers him/herself "pro trans rights" or not.
@TheAllMemeingEye
Are there any more examples you can think of? In general if we assume even just 1% of Western world population is trans it kinda feels like they're actually still unrepresented in almost all popular media
It's more like 0.7% according to Wikipedia, which I think is still an overestimate, but let's not go into that.
There was Orange is New Black and Sense8 off the top of my head. Of the series I have watched it's like 30% (I don't watch many tv series). It's also not just the presence, but the mostly heroical portrayal of the trans people.
If we can agree that ambiguous gender expression exists at birth
Certainly, but the thing I agree exists is generally called intersex rather than transgender.
if we can agree that the brain and body are connected
They sure are connected.
if we can agree that divergence between physical and psychological gender expression exists and creates the possibility of conflict
Yes, but only when caused by physical differences such as anomalous expression of hormones. I don't think I can accept gender dysphoria as a purely psychological condition. I don't think the biological mechanism is properly understood, same as in the case of conditions such as autism or schizophrenia.
But you included male genitalia havers as a category to demarcate things by, so you're indicating something that isn't pure body weight or composition or the like?
My bad, I wasn't clear enough, the segregation of penis-wielders was for prisons, to reduce sexual assault, not for sports (unless there is somehow a sport that is actually directly influenced by it? are athletes winning races by their member crossing the finishing line first like lightning mcqueen sticking his tongue out?/s)
@skibidist You are getting to the heart of my non professional speculation which is what is the difference between “intersex” and transgender people? I might argue that theoretically the only difference would be macroscopic quantifiable differences versus invisible molecularly complex differences. Or explained versus unexplained differences. Or brain versus body differences. If we accept that most psychiatric conditions have poorly understood complicated molecular biological underpinnings why would gender dysphoria be any different? It is my understanding that many intersex people present with sterility or pubertal development abnormalities. Many also present with the feeling that they are not fully their assigned gender. Obviously the latter would be similar to the psychological state of true transgendered people. (I say true because many people with other psychological vulnerabilities are drawn to a setting which is culturally enabled and reinforced.) No one would refuse to treat an adult or child with depression or psychosis with an appropriate medication, so why is there a debate around medical treatment for gender dysphoria? We just don’t have good evidence for what treatments actually work for gender dysphoria and with lack of good evidence first do no harm , particularly when children are involved. Once we have good evidence and a better understanding of gender dysphoria then debate over medical treatment should be confined to Scientology. Thanks for the interesting discussion!
My bad, I wasn't clear enough, the segregation of penis-wielders was for prisons, to reduce sexual assault
Can men not rape other men and women not rape other women?
@stardust they can, it's just statistically much less frequent, such that the segregation would likely significantly reduce the total rate. Obviously the segregation would not be the only measure, ideally there would be enough measures in place that there would be zero sexual assault, I'm very against the idea that sexual assault should be informally considered part of the sentence, even for serious crimes.
@TheAllMemeingEye Nope! This train of logic makes no sense. If you... don't put a rapist in one prison, then you're putting them in another prison (why do you think rape rates in male prisons are so high. They don't just go away, duh), and that's not even to account for the rest of the philosophical incoherencies with your position if you don't reject transgenderism as I do.
A. Suppose you have a female rapist, let's call her Alice. A female rapist who is not afraid to rape other women, and a "trans-woman", we will call him Brittany. In this case, we mutually agree that Alice should go in the womens prison and Brittany should go in the men's prison, despite the rape factor being equalized or possibly Alice may be more likely to rape.
This equalizes the so-called rape factor, but we agree that categorically the distinction still applies. So in reality, in the essence of what you're saying the justification is really categorical -- because ultimately, as much as you may not say it verbally, you acknowledge that transgender identities are BS.
B. To elaborate on you acknowledging trans identities are BS, I would suppose that you wouldn't be okay with segregating prisons based on expected sexual assault rate based on race, correct?
There are certain categories that are okay to discriminate on and others that aren't. In other words, sex is real and gender identity is fake.
If you... don't put a rapist in one prison, then you're putting them in another prison (why do you think rape rates in male prisons are so high. They don't just go away, duh)
I mean, sure, without other measures it won't go to zero, but I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that only a fraction of rapists are bi/gay, and only a fraction of straight rapists are willing to make do with their own gender, and for men in particular there is a smaller fraction of their own gender that is physically weaker than them enough to be a potential victim, so there is still probably a reduction.
Suppose you have a female rapist, let's call her Alice. A female rapist who is not afraid to rape other women, and a "trans-woman", we will call him Brittany. In this case, we mutually agree that Alice should go in the womens prison and Brittany should go in the men's prison, despite the rape factor being equalized or possibly Alice may be more likely to rape.
No, we do not mutually agree on this. Alice should probably be in the high security sex offenders wing of the penisless prison, and info on offense and gender transition level are needed to determine where Brittany should go (e.g. if full transition and financial crimes, then in the low security wing of the penisless prison).
as much as you may not say it verbally, you acknowledge that transgender identities are BS
Why do you keep insisting on this? I'm not being dishonest about my beliefs here.
I would suppose that you wouldn't be okay with segregating prisons based on expected sexual assault rate based on race, correct?
Only if the scientific community had somehow confirmed that the differing sexual assault rate between races was actually due to a causal link to race, rather than correlation with poverty, less progressive cultural values etc.
sex is real and gender identity is fake
If sex is real then how come I've never had it? Check and mate conservatives 😎
I mean, sure, without other measures it won't go to zero, but I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that only a fraction of rapists are bi/gay
Suppose the rapist does suffer from the sin of homosexuality. We still agree he should go in the male prison.
only a fraction of straight rapists are willing to make do with their own gender
The rate of rape in male prisons in the US outnumbers the rate of non-male-prison rape in the US. Now, I'm all for the point of gays being degenerate. I'm with you there. But the sheer rate here indicates that rather than it being primarily a sexual phenomenon it's more like wartime rape.
No, we do not mutually agree on this. Alice should probably be in the high security sex offenders wing of the penisless prison
See? We agree. She should go to the prison that corresponds with her sex, rather than whichever group she has more similar rape rates with.
info on offense and gender transition level are needed to determine where Brittany should go (e.g. if full transition and financial crimes, then in the low security wing of the penisless prison).
Suppose he has male genitalia and is in there for a marijuana offense.
Why do you keep insisting on this? I'm not being dishonest about my beliefs here.
I believe that your beliefs are probably more reasonable than the average leftist's, but are also incompatible with transgenderism. I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt -- that you would choose these more reasonable beliefs over defending transformers.
My argument is very simple:
1 - You claim that the principal goal of your system is to reduce sexual assault in prisons.
2 - So, the men go with the men and the women go with the women so that the women don't get raped like it's the Soviet Union. Or I guess you proxy it by genitalia. This is reasonable enough.
Then suppose you have a case where a woman is a very high rape threat, or a man is either a very low rape threat (e.g. male testes blown off in war) or has a very high could-be-raped risk (probably the type of guys that the gays like to assault). In this case, if (2) is merely instrumental, it serves to reason that she should go in the predominantly male prison and he should go in the predominantly female prison.
But you deny this, or at least, you denied this. Which implies that (2) is not instrumental, but rather an end in of itself. The men should go with the men, and the women should go with the women. Now you aren't all the way there using the Christian definition, but nonetheless. Rather than (2) being an instrument for (1), (1) is a justification for (2).
Only if the scientific community had somehow confirmed that the differing sexual assault rate between races was actually due to a causal link to race, rather than correlation with poverty, less progressive cultural values etc.
I mean, if you're getting raped, does it matter to you whether the rapist is necessarily a rapist or merely coincidentally one? We're in the age of AI, I'm sure you could update weights if you really wanted on all sorts of things... not just race, you mentioned poverty, drug use could be one, age. Doesn't this sound a little dystopian, giving everyone a social credit score and throwing them in the nice prison or the 24/7 rape prison?
The reason why we segregate prisons and other aspects by male and female is because God created them male and female, male and female each have a proper nature and a proper telos, and that the male and female persons are fundamentally different. Of course the empirical world will justify this, because it is correct, but you are getting the causality backwards.
That's why (1) should sooner bend than (2).
If sex is real then how come I've never had it?
Please wait until marriage. God bless you!