Have you heard the term distinction without a difference?
That's what we're arguing over. The problem you're having is you're insulting people's intelligence and their media literacy not even because we don't neccesarily understand the distinction without a difference you're trying to make (and the film is trying to make). It's because we reject the framing. You see the framing as legitimate. Most of us here see the framing as contrived, arbitrary and done for agenda based reasons.
Take the movie Lethal Weapon 2. I don't like that movie. I can't watch it. The reason? The framing of the movie is based on the idea that Apartheid was racist and bad and evil whitey oppressed the black people. The villain of the movie is a physical manifestation of "apartheid is evil".
Seeing how good South Africa used to be, the gold coast, vs today, I cannot enjoy Lethal Weapon 2 because I reject the framing.
Now Silence of the Lambs, I can still enjoy because the movie isn't framed or encompassed by that framing of Buffalo Bill not being a true transexual. Without the line, the movie doesn't change. It's still a great movie with a clap trap line and framing thrown in to cover their butts in terms of political correctness. If the movie were made in the 1960s, I'm pretty certain that line and framing would not be included. Likewise, if Buffalo Bill were not a bad guy, but were portrayed as misunderstood gentle person who helps the FBI and doesn't murder people, that line would be cited as "transphobic" by the modern film watchers and that line would never be in there in the first place. But again it's a small framing and line that can easily be ignored.
On the other hand without the "Apartheid bad, whitey bad" framing in Lethal Weapon 2, you don't have a movie, so that's why I can't watch Lethal Weapon 2. Same reason I can't watch Die Hard with a Vengeance because it's so race preachy. The point of Die Hard with a Vengeance isn't to be an action movie, it's to be a racial message delivering mechanism in an action movie dressing, same with Lethal Weapon 2.
Rejecting the framing is not the same as lacking media literacy and you're insulting people's intelligence for no good reason.
Taking you're view and taking it as face value that he merely wants to be transexual because he's a mental hydrocondriac, I still say, yeah and? I bet plenty of "trans" are mental hypochordriacs. Maybe in high school, they thought being a scene kid, or an emo, or a furry, or a goth, or a weeb would make them have an identity that made them feel fulfilled.
Maybe when they entered their 20s, they dropped that identity, and became hipsters, or got really into punk music, and tried to be fulfilled by the punk scene. Now they're still miserable in their 30s and they think being a transsexual will fill them with happiness but it never will. The very core of "transgender" is identity crisis, so you're calling people dumb and media illiterate over a distincition without a difference.
I'd imagine many older "transexuals" often go through many identity hopping abouts chasing a "correct fit" they'll never find outside of the identity in Christ.
But here's the real crux. You're accepting the original framing because that's how "transexuals" were diagnosed back in the day with clear criteria as a mental disorder as opposed to a "faker".
Hindsight in the modern day (though anyone with discernment knew this from day one, it's just not up for debate at this point even among secularists, though they try to debate it, reality is crushingly against them) has shown us that any attempt to legitimize certain as being "true transexuals" if they fit certain criteria was all just part of that slippery slope of post truth "define truth in your own eyes" rejection of the Biblical reality of male and female.
The way they diagnosed people back in the 80s was just as stupid as the self diagnosis now.
It's you're a male or a female, and anything else is delusion, mental illness. There's no such thing as a "true transexual" anymore than there's such a thing as someone who truly believes they're Elvis Presley compared to someone who merely wants to think that they should be Elvis Presley. Both the person who thinks they're Elvis Presley and the person who believes they should want to be Elvis Presley both would be put in the same wing in the psych ward and would be treated exactly the same.
Which is true of all trannies, that's why they call themselves "MtF" and not "woman".
Yeah I'm back on the illiteracy train.
Your brain might be cooked my friend.
Have you never met a tranny? Or are you, in fact, a tranny?
Those are the only people I know of who have such delusional takes on this subject.
Its pretty basic linguistics. Wanting to have a specific delusion is delusional. But it isnt the same as having the initial delusion.
If you genuinely can't see the difference between a schizotypal delusion and hypochondria I'm not sure were going to have much in common.
Have you heard the term distinction without a difference?
That's what we're arguing over. The problem you're having is you're insulting people's intelligence and their media literacy not even because we don't neccesarily understand the distinction without a difference you're trying to make (and the film is trying to make). It's because we reject the framing. You see the framing as legitimate. Most of us here see the framing as contrived, arbitrary and done for agenda based reasons.
Take the movie Lethal Weapon 2. I don't like that movie. I can't watch it. The reason? The framing of the movie is based on the idea that Apartheid was racist and bad and evil whitey oppressed the black people. The villain of the movie is a physical manifestation of "apartheid is evil".
Seeing how good South Africa used to be, the gold coast, vs today, I cannot enjoy Lethal Weapon 2 because I reject the framing.
Now Silence of the Lambs, I can still enjoy because the movie isn't framed or encompassed by that framing of Buffalo Bill not being a true transexual. Without the line, the movie doesn't change. It's still a great movie with a clap trap line and framing thrown in to cover their butts in terms of political correctness. If the movie were made in the 1960s, I'm pretty certain that line and framing would not be included. Likewise, if Buffalo Bill were not a bad guy, but were portrayed as misunderstood gentle person who helps the FBI and doesn't murder people, that line would be cited as "transphobic" by the modern film watchers and that line would never be in there in the first place. But again it's a small framing and line that can easily be ignored.
On the other hand without the "Apartheid bad, whitey bad" framing in Lethal Weapon 2, you don't have a movie, so that's why I can't watch Lethal Weapon 2. Same reason I can't watch Die Hard with a Vengeance because it's so race preachy. The point of Die Hard with a Vengeance isn't to be an action movie, it's to be a racial message delivering mechanism in an action movie dressing, same with Lethal Weapon 2.
Rejecting the framing is not the same as lacking media literacy and you're insulting people's intelligence for no good reason.
Taking you're view and taking it as face value that he merely wants to be transexual because he's a mental hydrocondriac, I still say, yeah and? I bet plenty of "trans" are mental hypochordriacs. Maybe in high school, they thought being a scene kid, or an emo, or a furry, or a goth, or a weeb would make them have an identity that made them feel fulfilled.
Maybe when they entered their 20s, they dropped that identity, and became hipsters, or got really into punk music, and tried to be fulfilled by the punk scene. Now they're still miserable in their 30s and they think being a transsexual will fill them with happiness but it never will. The very core of "transgender" is identity crisis, so you're calling people dumb and media illiterate over a distincition without a difference.
I'd imagine many older "transexuals" often go through many identity hopping abouts chasing a "correct fit" they'll never find outside of the identity in Christ.
But here's the real crux. You're accepting the original framing because that's how "transexuals" were diagnosed back in the day with clear criteria as a mental disorder as opposed to a "faker".
Hindsight in the modern day (though anyone with discernment knew this from day one, it's just not up for debate at this point even among secularists, though they try to debate it, reality is crushingly against them) has shown us that any attempt to legitimize certain as being "true transexuals" if they fit certain criteria was all just part of that slippery slope of post truth "define truth in your own eyes" rejection of the Biblical reality of male and female.
The way they diagnosed people back in the 80s was just as stupid as the self diagnosis now.
It's you're a male or a female, and anything else is delusion, mental illness. There's no such thing as a "true transexual" anymore than there's such a thing as someone who truly believes they're Elvis Presley compared to someone who merely wants to think that they should be Elvis Presley. Both the person who thinks they're Elvis Presley and the person who believes they should want to be Elvis Presley both would be put in the same wing in the psych ward and would be treated exactly the same.