Chud General Trans Discussion And Questions

[ILoveVesna]

I get it, certainly, how effective such a thing might be. However, from a religious standpoint, which is the whole basis of my life and morality, I put my entire trust into the processes of God, and so I will abide by what He tells me is my duty, and my duty excludes mass murder, as God is that who will enact whatever judgement of mortality He wants on this Earth, so I leave it up to Him, and I don't want other Christians thinking that their duties involve getting their own hands dirty with judgement that only The Almighty is capable of handling properly. I hate to blabber on for more moments since this thread isn't about morality and killing, but about trannies, but, no matter, I will still state that Christ's word first spread through martyrdom and a devout trust in the fact that God will protect His elect as He wills; He protects us, the believers, for He loves us, and He already knows who will and won't come to Christ, so to try and usurp His position as the life-taker and enact our own, imperfect wrath upon sinners is ignorant to The Lord.

If we can help fix the problem why not do it. (((They))) already control the government, institutions, media, and army. (((They))) might as well be winning.

 

[Pepsilord]

They're valid.

Pagansissies…

 

[Nihilma]

I thought that was the "If people with intersex conditions can be born with XY chromosomes and be considered women, or have facial hair, or have deep voices then me having a dick and balls is no big deal" argument. It's basically weaponized SNCA to support themselves

No that's simply a fallacy I'll talk about when I tackle the other definitions.
The fallacy basically goes : "This abnormal illness exists outside the norm therefore the norm doesn't exist"

 

[Nihilma]

I get it, certainly, how effective such a thing might be. However, from a religious standpoint, which is the whole basis of my life and morality, I put my entire trust into the processes of God, and so I will abide by what He tells me is my duty, and my duty excludes mass murder, as God is that who will enact whatever judgement of mortality He wants on this Earth, so I leave it up to Him, and I don't want other Christians thinking that their duties involve getting their own hands dirty with judgement that only The Almighty is capable of handling properly. I hate to blabber on for more moments since this thread isn't about morality and killing, but about trannies, but, no matter, I will still state that Christ's word first spread through martyrdom and a devout trust in the fact that God will protect His elect as He wills; He protects us, the believers, for He loves us, and He already knows who will and won't come to Christ, so to try and usurp His position as the life-taker and enact our own, imperfect wrath upon sinners is ignorant to The Lord.

Yeah from a religious standpoint, the whole argument can basically be summed up by "Yeah but God said no", and it would still work.

I'm just going the extra mile because I think it's extra funny that the whole concept doesn't even work based on it's internal logic.

 

[HACKERMAN88]

I'm overdue on doing this, so I'll try to do it once and for all in here, albeit it won't be perfect, and it'll also be a condensation of arguments without demonstration because selfish. Also this will be from a purely psychological perspective,I'm leaving theology behind for once.

Anyway, here's an exposition of why I find the concept of transgender absurd and incoherent with it's own goals.

Gender
​

A transgender person is a person who claims that their real gender differs from the gender assigned to their sex.

But for this to be possible, the concept of gender and the concept of sex would need to be separated entirely, and I argue that this is not the case.

The whole problem of the transgender issue can essentially boil down to this : What is gender ? Because there is no real consensus on this word, yet countries are still willing to go as far as to promulgate a ban on any alternative research to cure dysphoria that isn't transition.

There can only be four definitions of the word gender, because the whole of the observable person can still be divided into two parts :

1. The body​
2. Personnality and behaviour.​

These four definitions therefore are :

• Gender is defined by personnality and behaviour, nothing else
• Gender is defined by the body, and nothing else
• Gender is defined by neither body nor personnality
• Gender is defined by both body and personnality

Only one of these definitions make sense, and I'l first going to start by the ones that don't make sense.

Gender is defined by personnality and behaviour, nothing else
​

This is not officially a very popular definition, but in practice it is what most modern western people base their definition of gender on : How do people or I act and look like, what do they wear, how do they present themselves ?

Under this definition : feminine = woman, masculine = men, and whatever more if you're in a culture that has more than masculine and feminine (dogshit tier cultures btw).

This definition however very quickly reaches multiple problems :

1. What are the objective universal definitions of masculine and feminine ?​
2. What about masculine women and feminine men ?​

Indeed, in a hecking diverse world, the definitions of masculine and feminine vary greatly between cultures, nay within every culture. you won't find a single person who has rhe exact same definition of masculinity and femininity, because men of different parts of the world experience this masculinity in different ways, and so do women their femininity in behaviour and personnality. Certain tomboys would call themselves feminine in their own ways, and be in the complete opposite of what femininity is to others. Matriarchal BBC societies have also had vastly different definitions of femininity than in the west. And if two people have two completely opposite definitions of what it is to be feminine, then you have a problem.

Then, it also becomes sexist in nature because it argues that men cannot be feminine and women cannot be masculine. (Whether this is a good or a bad thing is another discussion).
But anyone holding to this definition should go uo to a woman and tell her that she needs to be feminine, lest she isn't a real woman, and to go up to a man and tell him to be masculine lest he is not a real man.
This is sexist in nature. But it is the reason why some trannies hate femboys, because they hold to this definition.

So defining the western modern definition of masculinity and feminity as the absolute objective truth of these words is racist, biggoted and reductive.
Ultimately. This doesn't even matter because this definition just begs the question. Being a women is being feminine, and being feminine is acting however a woman acts.

It is circular reasoning that leads nowhere, because it bases itself upon societal norm that has no measurable universal objectivity to it.

wordswordswords

 

[Nihilma]

wordswordswords

Don't read if you're not interested.

 

[HACKERMAN88]

Don't read if you're not interested.

i took this cool picture of a sunset

 

[Nihilma]

i took this cool picture of a sunset
View attachment 29056

Oh you're footjob, Ight I understand now.

 

[HACKERMAN88]

Oh you're footjob, Ight I understand now.

does he know?

 

[Chairman]

does he know?

Did you mean:

 

[Fagon]

Don't read if you're not interested

I'm overdue on doing this, so I'll try to do it once and for all in here, albeit it won't be perfect, and it'll also be a condensation of arguments without demonstration because selfish. Also this will be from a purely psychological perspective,I'm leaving theology behind for once.

Anyway, here's an exposition of why I find the concept of transgender absurd and incoherent with it's own goals.

Gender
​

A transgender person is a person who claims that their real gender differs from the gender assigned to their sex.

But for this to be possible, the concept of gender and the concept of sex would need to be separated entirely, and I argue that this is not the case.

The whole problem of the transgender issue can essentially boil down to this : What is gender ? Because there is no real consensus on this word, yet countries are still willing to go as far as to promulgate a ban on any alternative research to cure dysphoria that isn't transition.

There can only be four definitions of the word gender, because the whole of the observable person can still be divided into two parts :

1. The body​
2. Personnality and behaviour.​

These four definitions therefore are :

• Gender is defined by personnality and behaviour, nothing else
• Gender is defined by the body, and nothing else
• Gender is defined by neither body nor personnality
• Gender is defined by both body and personnality

Only one of these definitions make sense, and I'l first going to start by the ones that don't make sense.

Gender is defined by personnality and behaviour, nothing else
​

This is not officially a very popular definition, but in practice it is what most modern western people base their definition of gender on : How do people or I act and look like, what do they wear, how do they present themselves ?

Under this definition : feminine = woman, masculine = men, and whatever more if you're in a culture that has more than masculine and feminine (dogshit tier cultures btw).

This definition however very quickly reaches multiple problems :

1. What are the objective universal definitions of masculine and feminine ?​
2. What about masculine women and feminine men ?​

Indeed, in a hecking diverse world, the definitions of masculine and feminine vary greatly between cultures, nay within every culture. you won't find a single person who has rhe exact same definition of masculinity and femininity, because men of different parts of the world experience this masculinity in different ways, and so do women their femininity in behaviour and personnality. Certain tomboys would call themselves feminine in their own ways, and be in the complete opposite of what femininity is to others. Matriarchal BBC societies have also had vastly different definitions of femininity than in the west. And if two people have two completely opposite definitions of what it is to be feminine, then you have a problem.

Then, it also becomes sexist in nature because it argues that men cannot be feminine and women cannot be masculine. (Whether this is a good or a bad thing is another discussion).
But anyone holding to this definition should go uo to a woman and tell her that she needs to be feminine, lest she isn't a real woman, and to go up to a man and tell him to be masculine lest he is not a real man.
This is sexist in nature. But it is the reason why some trannies hate femboys, because they hold to this definition.

So defining the western modern definition of masculinity and feminity as the absolute objective truth of these words is racist, biggoted and reductive.
Ultimately. This doesn't even matter because this definition just begs the question. Being a women is being feminine, and being feminine is acting however a woman acts.

It is circular reasoning that leads nowhere, because it bases itself upon societal norm that has no measurable universal objectivity to it.

iirc the actual meaning of gender is just anything that is determined by sex, but not biologically. For example, women are gatherers and men are hunters, but technically both could do either and be fine. But under that definition doing the things the other sex do wouldn't make you a woman lol, that'd mean things like a stay at home husband is suddenly a woman.

 

[soysoog]

i took this cool picture of a sunset
View attachment 29056

you made a mistake, now everyone can find where you live, its very beautiful picture though.

 

[Soyteen Liker]

No that's simply a fallacy I'll talk about when I tackle the other definitions.
The fallacy basically goes : "This abnormal illness exists outside the norm therefore the norm doesn't exist"

Yep, that's what I meant, I was saying that that image was a fallacy.
Nice part 1 earlier btw, are you going to describe Blanchard's theory on AGP/HSTS eventually? A lot of TiMs and especially TiFs don't even bother to try behaving like the other sex or think they do.

 

[encrusting_acro]

I don't know how I can make you understand that we aren't to mass-genocide disbelievers. You make us sound like jihadists.

Well, maybe if we were more like the jihadists, we'd be less cucked. Look at all the mainline denomination--Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians--affirming homosexuality and other sexual degeneracy.

 

[Nihilma]

Yep, that's what I meant, I was saying that that image was a fallacy.
Nice part 1 earlier btw, are you going to describe Blanchard's theory on AGP/HSTS eventually? A lot of TiMs and especially TiFs don't even bother to try behaving like the other sex or think they do.

No not really, my goal is not to prove that trannies are degenerate in this argument, just to show that the concept in itself is incoherent and self rebuking.

But it is a very interesting subject nonetheless, were I to see trannies from a clinical perspective and not a philosophical one here then yes I'd absolutely go into this

 

[Hydrosophy]

Well, maybe if we were more like the jihadists, we'd be less cucked. Look at all the mainline denomination--Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians--affirming homosexuality and other sexual degeneracy.

Your religion is inherently cucked and teaches to wash the feet of migrants and criminals. Read the Bible for once and you'll see it for what it is, a religion for slaves and old ladies.

 

[baqqrih]

Well, maybe if we were more like the jihadists, we'd be less cucked. Look at all the mainline denomination--Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians--affirming homosexuality and other sexual degeneracy.

Yeah, maybe if we were more like the violent heretics and barbarians, surely that would make everything better. No. We remain firm to how God tells us to act because He says so, for He is infinitely wiser than you and I and every other form of intelligence combined. There's a reason even those churches you admire so much, like the Tewahedo or the Oriental churches, haven't become dens of bloody militancy, and that's because God doesn't want us to stray down that path, quite simply, and even they understand that, so I'd rather trust in what He says instead of any of what our corrupted, gruesome minds try and make us believe.

 

[XXX_SKIBIDISIGMA_XXX]

Q: Why are you against trans identification?
A: Becuase you can't change your gender on a whim.

Q: Were you ever supportive of trans identification?
A: No

Q: Should cross-sex HRT be banned for adults?
A: Yes.

Q: What should trans-identified individuals do instead of taking cross-sex HRT and/or getting surgery?
A: Seek help from a professional like a therapist or a expert theologian (expert in religon)

Q: Is gender identity a legitimate concept?
A: No, gender is a biological thing that revolves around the state in which you were born in.

Q: Why do you think trans-identified individuals decide to take cross-sex HRT and/or get surgery?
A: God has left these people.

Q: Should any trans identified individual be recognized as the gender of the sex they were not born as?
A: No.

 

[Chairman]

Well, maybe if we were more like the jihadists, we'd be less cucked. Look at all the mainline denomination--Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians--affirming homosexuality and other sexual degeneracy.

"... Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death." - Leviticus 24:15-16

 

[baqqrih]

"... Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death." - Leviticus 24:15-16

I myself wouldn't take ancient Jewish law as a direct commandment.