Yet instead of allowing learning from others mistakes, this stuff will get thrown out as misinformation or hate. You know that wasn't "real" castration surgery (or whatever the fuck they call it). Just like Stalin's killing sprees wasn't "real" communism. We are doomed to just have stupidity on repeat anymore, because any experience that doesn't support the narrative are removed.
They use kleinfelter and related genetic conditions as a midwit trap ignoring that it's the presence or absence of the Y chromosome that matters. Then they'll bring out the 46XY DSD midwit trap and claim that some people are born with Y chromosomes but present female, but again what they wont' tell you is it's a birth defect of the genitals and they'll still present male in all other ways once they hit puberty unless given HRT.
If this were a surprise I might disagree. But it's a pretty well-known fact that these surgeries don't have the desired effects and are more mutilation than anything else. But of course mentioning that fact is "transphobic" so it's hard to sympathise when reality doesn't match their delusions.
When all the data about how disastrous these surgeries are is suppressed, gullible people are being tricked and lied to. They're being convinced, through lies of omission, that it's safe and everything will go fine and they will suddenly be whatever their mental illness says they are.
Not much different than tobacco companies doing their best generations ago to disguise the health effects and addictive nature of cigarettes.
Some of it sounds like botched surgery but it also doesn't sound like doctors are capable of converting male genitals into passable female genitals capable of sexual pleasure like a real vagina.
I'm now concerned that much of what I took as a gender dysfunction might have been nothing more than a neurotic sexual obsession. I was a cross-dresser for all of my sexual life and had always fantasized going fem as an ultimate turn-on. Ironically, when I began hormone treatment my libido went away. However, I mistook that relief from sexual obsession for validation of my gender change. Then in the final bit of irony, after surgery my new genitals were non-orgasmic (like 80% of my TG sisters).
(EDIT: Because I don't trust archive.org to not purge problematic lived experiences: https://archive.is/IN7D3 )
It's weird that progressives constantly bring up their career, as if it's the only thing they have. The anti-capitalists create and engage in capital slavery.
I've always been of the position that sex organ body dismorphia is a very tragic ailment that we clearly have no idea how to treat given the lackluster results when comparing those treated to those untreated. Just a very unfortunate situation for them, since the current solutions clearly don't work, and the political pressure around those treatments ensures no NEW treatments will be investigated. The autogynepheliacs, though, need to wake up, since they're a primary source of that political pressure.
I can sort of understand the appeal of looking like a sexy lady. After all, ladies look cool. I don't really understand at all the appeal of having your meat and vegetables refactored into an approximation of a quim.
Just be a regular shemale. You can still sit down to pee if you want.
What makes you think Dr. Money's an exception? These are not pro bono castrations, and if not sexual pleasure they're at least getting an undeserved sense of righteousness out of it.
I don't want to get in between you two's slap fight but crime rates and gender aren't exactly a solid data point. Women barely get even reprimanded for crimes, let alone charged, let alone the full actual charge instead of a lesser crime.
Its actually a real problem, especially in the "molesting and/or abusing kids" sector of crime.
I question how common it is that women don't even get 'charged' as a general rule. But even if true, that would actually support my point. Look at crimes such as murder, which are pretty difficult to hide. If women are barely punished for crimes (so less of a deterrent effect), and still they commit far fewer crimes, that really does show something.
And it most certainly shows that "only wahmen would do bad things, because men couldn't live with themselves" is the usual from this poor victim of the 5'1" Assassin Squad.
I'm not trying to take a side here, just point that the data you are using isn't a solid metric to simply say "this disproves you instantly."
If women are barely punished for crimes (so less of a deterrent effect), and still they commit far fewer crimes, that really does show something.
This does assume though that women and men are equal, and therefore respond to the same draws towards crime and the same deterrents out of it. Which is a very reductive idea.
Men are more than perfectly capable of crimes, I'd agree even that they commit far more. But only in the sense of defining crime as an illegal activity in the eyes of the court/law, which is also not a solid metric of defining the "badness" of the two genders either.
This does assume though that women and men are equal, and therefore respond to the same draws towards crime and the same deterrents out of it. Which is a very reductive idea.
I think you may have misunderstood. Even if women and men were exactly the same in every respect except size and strength, women would still be less likely to commit crimes due to lesser ability.
But if you're going to talk about how capable people are of doing bad things, then surely the crime rate is relevant.
But only in the sense of defining crime as an illegal activity in the eyes of the court/law, which is also not a solid metric of defining the "badness" of the two genders either.
I think it is folly to try to brand people as bad or good because of their biology. But that was my point entirely. Even though crime rates don't prove that men in general are worse than women, then surely they do prove that men are capable of doing bad things, and to a greater extent than women at that (see the rate of violent crime).
But if you're going to talk about how capable people are of doing bad things, then surely the crime rate is relevant.
And crime is only measured by data and things we enforce as illegal. Its hard to make something criminal when you can't prove it in a court of law. And the only reason this is relevant is because most of the "bad things" women are responsible for are immeasurable, such as warping the minds of children they are rearing. Unlike him I don't think they are orchestrating some grand conspiracy of evil you can nail them on.
But that was my point entirely
And I didn't disagree with your point, because his was so outright foolish enough that anything could honestly disprove it. Only that "crime rates" are not solid metrics for disproving it, because of how imperfectly they are enforced between the two genders.
And the only reason this is relevant is because most of the "bad things" women are responsible for are immeasurable, such as warping the minds of children they are rearing.
I think that is more due to the Zeitgeist than an evil inherent to women. Throughout most of history, women did just fine raising the young. However, men have always been more violent.
This obviously results in criminal violence, but also in good things, like defending your home and country.
Unlike him I don't think they are orchestrating some grand conspiracy of evil you can nail them on.
I'll never understand. Hell, I wondered if he's a troll, but he's so anti-Stormfag that this seems unlikely.
Only that "crime rates" are not solid metrics for disproving it, because of how imperfectly they are enforced between the two genders.
Well, even if male crimes rates were 1/5 of those of women, I think it would still do a good job of disproving his claim that men are literally incapable of doing anything bad.
No, that's moronic. Are you really denying that there are biological predispositions? One more way in which you're like your GC friends. They too believe that there are no biological differences between men and women and that men are 'socialized' into being more violent.
Get over it, men are just as good as women if they try, no matter how much you insist otherwise. That includes being good at torture or political deception for profit.
Yet instead of allowing learning from others mistakes, this stuff will get thrown out as misinformation or hate. You know that wasn't "real" castration surgery (or whatever the fuck they call it). Just like Stalin's killing sprees wasn't "real" communism. We are doomed to just have stupidity on repeat anymore, because any experience that doesn't support the narrative are removed.
They use kleinfelter and related genetic conditions as a midwit trap ignoring that it's the presence or absence of the Y chromosome that matters. Then they'll bring out the 46XY DSD midwit trap and claim that some people are born with Y chromosomes but present female, but again what they wont' tell you is it's a birth defect of the genitals and they'll still present male in all other ways once they hit puberty unless given HRT.
Biological truths are sexist or bigotry or some other such bullshit reeeeeeeeeeee
The DS game "XX/XY" is clearly notoriously transphobic.
So no different from the other 'surgeries'?
Sorry, trannies, just yell at your open wounds and call them bigots for not rearranging themselves automatically. Surely that'll work.
Cysting abscesses are a social construct.
I love you.
If this were a surprise I might disagree. But it's a pretty well-known fact that these surgeries don't have the desired effects and are more mutilation than anything else. But of course mentioning that fact is "transphobic" so it's hard to sympathise when reality doesn't match their delusions.
When all the data about how disastrous these surgeries are is suppressed, gullible people are being tricked and lied to. They're being convinced, through lies of omission, that it's safe and everything will go fine and they will suddenly be whatever their mental illness says they are.
Not much different than tobacco companies doing their best generations ago to disguise the health effects and addictive nature of cigarettes.
From Special Note to Those Thinking About a Sex Change:
I'm now concerned that much of what I took as a gender dysfunction might have been nothing more than a neurotic sexual obsession. I was a cross-dresser for all of my sexual life and had always fantasized going fem as an ultimate turn-on. Ironically, when I began hormone treatment my libido went away. However, I mistook that relief from sexual obsession for validation of my gender change. Then in the final bit of irony, after surgery my new genitals were non-orgasmic (like 80% of my TG sisters).
(EDIT: Because I don't trust archive.org to not purge problematic lived experiences: https://archive.is/IN7D3 )
I've read specifically about the fetish of being seen as a woman.
It's weird that progressives constantly bring up their career, as if it's the only thing they have. The anti-capitalists create and engage in capital slavery.
https://github.com/Y2Z/monolith
I've always been of the position that sex organ body dismorphia is a very tragic ailment that we clearly have no idea how to treat given the lackluster results when comparing those treated to those untreated. Just a very unfortunate situation for them, since the current solutions clearly don't work, and the political pressure around those treatments ensures no NEW treatments will be investigated. The autogynepheliacs, though, need to wake up, since they're a primary source of that political pressure.
But hey lets encourage kids to transition. There is so much fun in their future.
Just imagine what kids will be able to consent to in the coming years
no refunds
I can sort of understand the appeal of looking like a sexy lady. After all, ladies look cool. I don't really understand at all the appeal of having your meat and vegetables refactored into an approximation of a quim.
Just be a regular shemale. You can still sit down to pee if you want.
Dr. Money did it, and he died at the age of 84 of Parkinson's disease. So clearly that's not true.
He did other things as well, yet it was only his prime test subject that couldn't live with it.
What makes you think Dr. Money's an exception? These are not pro bono castrations, and if not sexual pleasure they're at least getting an undeserved sense of righteousness out of it.
Magnus Hirschfeld, Harold Gillies, Ludwig Levy-Lenz, Erwin Gohrbandt...
Ever looked at the crime rates, champ?
I don't want to get in between you two's slap fight but crime rates and gender aren't exactly a solid data point. Women barely get even reprimanded for crimes, let alone charged, let alone the full actual charge instead of a lesser crime.
Its actually a real problem, especially in the "molesting and/or abusing kids" sector of crime.
I question how common it is that women don't even get 'charged' as a general rule. But even if true, that would actually support my point. Look at crimes such as murder, which are pretty difficult to hide. If women are barely punished for crimes (so less of a deterrent effect), and still they commit far fewer crimes, that really does show something.
And it most certainly shows that "only wahmen would do bad things, because men couldn't live with themselves" is the usual from this poor victim of the 5'1" Assassin Squad.
I'm not trying to take a side here, just point that the data you are using isn't a solid metric to simply say "this disproves you instantly."
This does assume though that women and men are equal, and therefore respond to the same draws towards crime and the same deterrents out of it. Which is a very reductive idea.
Men are more than perfectly capable of crimes, I'd agree even that they commit far more. But only in the sense of defining crime as an illegal activity in the eyes of the court/law, which is also not a solid metric of defining the "badness" of the two genders either.
I think you may have misunderstood. Even if women and men were exactly the same in every respect except size and strength, women would still be less likely to commit crimes due to lesser ability.
But if you're going to talk about how capable people are of doing bad things, then surely the crime rate is relevant.
I think it is folly to try to brand people as bad or good because of their biology. But that was my point entirely. Even though crime rates don't prove that men in general are worse than women, then surely they do prove that men are capable of doing bad things, and to a greater extent than women at that (see the rate of violent crime).
And crime is only measured by data and things we enforce as illegal. Its hard to make something criminal when you can't prove it in a court of law. And the only reason this is relevant is because most of the "bad things" women are responsible for are immeasurable, such as warping the minds of children they are rearing. Unlike him I don't think they are orchestrating some grand conspiracy of evil you can nail them on.
And I didn't disagree with your point, because his was so outright foolish enough that anything could honestly disprove it. Only that "crime rates" are not solid metrics for disproving it, because of how imperfectly they are enforced between the two genders.
I think that is more due to the Zeitgeist than an evil inherent to women. Throughout most of history, women did just fine raising the young. However, men have always been more violent.
This obviously results in criminal violence, but also in good things, like defending your home and country.
I'll never understand. Hell, I wondered if he's a troll, but he's so anti-Stormfag that this seems unlikely.
Well, even if male crimes rates were 1/5 of those of women, I think it would still do a good job of disproving his claim that men are literally incapable of doing anything bad.
Correct. But the point was not that "men are bad", only that it's stupid to think that "men can't be bad", like this guy believes.
Being mothers. Quite important. None of the great scientists were the product of parthenogenesis.
Seems to me then that you realize how important having children is.
Almost as if both men and women have pros and cons.
Crime rates are "racist".
Only my one true fictional anecdote tells me the real picture.
You're getting more incoherent by the minute. I think this past month has broken you.
Nope, there are biological differences between men and women. That's what your whole hatred for women is based on, isn't it?
Besides, you ran away from your initial claim that no man would ever do anything wrong, despite crime numbers showing showing otherwise.
No, that's moronic. Are you really denying that there are biological predispositions? One more way in which you're like your GC friends. They too believe that there are no biological differences between men and women and that men are 'socialized' into being more violent.
Get over it, men are just as good as women if they try, no matter how much you insist otherwise. That includes being good at torture or political deception for profit.