After taking estrogen for three months!

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

II. Historical Background: The Big Gay Lie
Back when gays were first fighting for the rights they deserved, they used identity politics. They claimed, falsely, that gayness was intrinsic to who they were, born that way.

I get what are you saying - fundamentally it's about liberties and not about biology.

But then all the gay rights advocates are / were lying, when they were insisting that being gay is natural and you are born with it. Now you say they aren't born, but choose to be? Can "gayness" be treated, then? Not that it should be treated, unless the person wants it. But if "gayness" is not biological, then you also can't blame anyone that tried to "cure" it in the past.

Similarly, can straight men just choose to be gay? I don't think so. Obviously there has to be a biological basis for it. It's not just a sexual preference.

-------
Ontopic. A question for experts here: from my noobish observations, it seems that there are a lot more men wanting to become a woman and a lot less women trying to be men. If that is true, why it is so? Why are there so much more trans women? Is it a consequence of a more and more "emasculated" western society, ie. a consequence of feminist politics?

"

morbo wrote:

Ontopic. A question for experts here: from my noobish observations, it seems that there are a lot more men wanting to become a woman and a lot less women trying to be men. If that is true, why it is so? Why are there so much more trans women? Is it a consequence of a more and more "emasculated" western society, ie. a consequence of feminist politics?

Have you seen the video about a lesbian feminist who decided to go undercover in enemy territory and posed as a male for months? Quite controversial and IMO relevant to your question :)

https://youtu.be/OQ2fREo3Tjc

edit: changed the link, it was to a version of the video with some guy's commentary

Is apple an apple to you or you clarify an apple as a rounder pear? You give meanings to terms that already have specific ones, trying to make a point that seems blunt

Dysphoria might not be easy for you to understand (its from the greek word : Δυσφορία) and it doesnt include hate or fear, its literal meaning from greek is hard to bear, in english the meaning is more like a state of unease/discomfort, a constant distress about something. In this case their body and furthermore the gender their body has.

Its ofcourse a state of mind that your body and the experiences you had lead up to it (emotions are all inside our mind, and even feelings come from those experiences you have facing those emotions). Does that not make it an identity of who you are though? Isnt your personality and identity your state of mind that is shaped after your personal experiences and baptized by your social environment?

Its highly improbable that we can understand exactly what is going inside a person's mind and what experiences he had to lead him up to a decision of this scale. But what that person tries to achieve is a body state that matches his mind state. Not necessarily replace the genetalia his/her body has but definetaly replace the body's hormones to match what the person identifies him/herself with. It has also nothing to do with sexual orientation. A person who feels unconfortable beeing inside a male body can still be atracted to females even after going through HRT or even surgery.

And again its not all set in stone. These people need to reach a level of harmony between their body and their mind. You and i for examble are men and feel ok/comfortable acting/behaving like males cause in our mind there is this agreement, this mind and body compatibility. Does that mean everything else that isnt as simple must be labeled as an illness or defect or or or? Because its the most common doesnt mean its the only acceptable scenario. Categorizing it as illness shows that we are just not advanced enough to accept it for what it is, a case of having a different feature/combination of features that most commonly appear on that species.

Its also quite interesting to know that there are some studies that show this dysphoria might actually be affected by genetics at least in the start, and later close to adulthood it evolves
to a transgender mentality/tendency which if you think about its totally natural when your body is x and your mind is y.

I cant get why you try to link drag with gender dysphoria, or say gender dysphoria should not be normalized? Why the one is ok and the other not to be normalized? What is normal? Something that comes natural or something that is affected by our society or a combination? There are societies that have a 3rd and a 4th genders as normal for centuries now. The above studies show a hereditary tendency aka genetics involved aka natural to have a constant fight between their body and their mind about their actual gender and the role they want in the society they live. It started biologically and evolved as part of their personality. Its both a liberty and an intrinsic of who they are. Its the identity their mind tries to give to their whole personality and body.

I really dont know if i used the correct english words to describe everything. What i want to say is for example that while gay people and their rights are indeed a liberty and something completely affected by the social environment and personal experiences and preferences, transgender people are in a place where more variables play their role and in some cases if not all genetics play their role too. Its literally a male/female mind (mental and social traits) traped inside a female/male body. Think of effeminate men, some grow up and become fathers, other choose to become gay and others transgender. Its their state of mind combined with their genetical data personal experiences that leads them to each decision. And then there are gay men for example that are more masculine than alpha males, their sexual orientation is purely a personal choice.

A small history parenthesis : Gay people for example were often mocked in ancient world, but they were common too, and socially recognized as having different sexual orientation. Most of them were actually bisexual. In ancient Greece women were deemed unworthy of playing roles in the theater and other art forms, and every role was played by men, even the female one, and Plato had written about this drag phenomenon since then, cause male actors were overplaying their female roles. In mythology there was the son of Hermes and Aphrodite too, who was named Hermaphrodite, and as the myth has it it was a male and a female traped/fused inside the same body. Phrygians and later Greeks and later Romans, had a deity named Cybele whose male followers were willingly castrating themselves and then wore women's clothes possibly the first transgender people, NOT to be confused with eunuchs (though technically they were) that still (usually) maintened their role or had another role inside their society.

If the Phrygians and Greeks had gods and deities with transgender characteristics i cant but believe that those people existed then too, 3k years of "illness" or 3k years of not knowing that this is one of the possibilities of the human species? Monetheism really fucked up societies globally.

"

Bars wrote:

Have you seen the video about a lesbian feminist who decided to go undercover in enemy territory and posed as a male for months? Quite controversial and IMO relevant to your question :)

https://youtu.be/OQ2fREo3Tjc

I had. Great video.

So in a nutshell: women know that women are generally a bigger problem than it's worth, so as a natural defense mechanism, they tend to transit less into the opposite sex? Women deep down know that men aren't really the privileged sex :)

Yes, more or less. No woman in her right mind would want to become a male.

"

morbo wrote:

Ontopic. A question for experts here: from my noobish observations, it seems that there are a lot more men wanting to become a woman and a lot less women trying to be men. If that is true, why it is so? Why are there so much more trans women? Is it a consequence of a more and more "emasculated" western society, ie. a consequence of feminist politics?

I dont know if there are "so much more" but those articles make sense and definately taking estrogens has those effects
http://www.ewg.org/research/dirty-dozen-list-endocrine-disruptors

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478717

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/

"

morbo wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

II. Historical Background: The Big Gay Lie
Back when gays were first fighting for the rights they deserved, they used identity politics. They claimed, falsely, that gayness was intrinsic to who they were, born that way.

I get what are you saying - fundamentally it's about liberties and not about biology.

But then all the gay rights advocates are / were lying, when they were insisting that being gay is natural and you are born with it. Now you say they aren't born, but choose to be? Can "gayness" be treated, then? Not that it should be treated, unless the person wants it. But if "gayness" is not biological, then you also can't blame anyone that tried to "cure" it in the past.

Similarly, can straight men just choose to be gay? I don't think so. Obviously there has to be a biological basis for it. It's not just a sexual preference.

Consider taste in food. I recognize that you can't just will yourself to love vagina and hate cock, but I also recognize that you can't just will yourself to love broccoli and hate bacon. You could more easily will yourself to joylessly consume broccoli and avoid making your daydreams of bacon a reality, but tastes are difficult to force.

Still, the idea that taste in food, or sexual partner, is biological is nonsense. Tastes can change, and to a large extent early childhood experiences — nurture, not nature — help to form tastes that persist into adulthood.

I mean seriously, don't you think an alarm bell should be ringing in the critical thinking areas of your brain when someone tells you that an aversion to heterosexual intercourse, without which human breeding was impossible until the advent of modern laboratory genetics, is passed down through the genes?

Can "gayness" be cured? I don't know. Just because it's mental doesn't mean it's curable. According to Alcoholics Anonymous, alcoholism isn't curable. People flush millions of dollars away yearly on exercise equipment while never developing the taste for exercise itself. I feel like the question is similar to "can cancer be cured?" Long-term, maybe, maybe not; for now, no. (Not saying gayness is like cancer, mind you.)

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I mean seriously, don't you think an alarm bell should be ringing in the critical thinking areas of your brain when someone tells you that an aversion to heterosexual intercourse, without which human breeding was impossible until the advent of modern laboratory genetics, is passed down through the genes?

It's possible that society fixed that, by being anti-homosexual for the most part of human history. A gay man who would in a free society completely ignore women, is in a gay hostile society "forced" to marry and conform and thus still pass genes.

"

morbo wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I mean seriously, don't you think an alarm bell should be ringing in the critical thinking areas of your brain when someone tells you that an aversion to heterosexual intercourse, without which human breeding was impossible until the advent of modern laboratory genetics, is passed down through the genes?

It's possible that society fixed that, by being anti-homosexual for the most part of human history. A gay man who would in a free society completely ignore women, is in a gay hostile society "forced" to marry and conform and thus still pass genes.

Forced to marry? Yeah, I can see that part. Forced to fuck? Eh, no. Especially not fuck often.

If gayness was genetic, the overwhelming probability would be that the genes would be simply extinct, and if by some miracle they'd persisted, they'd be so phenomenally rare as to be an insufficient cause to explain the size of the gay community.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Forced to marry? Yeah, I can see that part. Forced to fuck? Eh, no. Especially not fuck often.

You don't need to fuck often, just a few times, to show to society that your woman is fertile and you are a proper man.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If gayness was genetic, the overwhelming probability would be that the genes would be simply extinct, and if by some miracle they'd persisted, they'd be so phenomenally rare as to be an insufficient cause to explain the size of the gay community.

Well, the same genetic logic could be used on straight men. If homosexuality is so anti-evolutionary, that biologically it should not even exits, then virtually all human males should be 100% disgusted by homosexuality.

Whay are there relatively many gays then? It's either that homosexuality is biologic, but not that strict, ie. a gay man would still settle down with a woman, if there is a lack of gay alternatives. Or is as you say that homosexuality is completely a social construct or sexual prefference - but that is not what the progressive left has been saying all this time (tho they are saying it now for genders, which IS ridiculous)

Is the progressive left completely retarded and they've flipped around the underlying sources for homosexuality and transgenderism?