Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
Hi, hello, im glad to see y'all missed me.
Over years of development i've come to this website for a lotta' things, a way to "sharpen" my brain, a way to develop my argumentation- and in some ways it did do that, but in other ways it stunted me. This place is a cesspot of conspiracy theories, bigotry, and fierce anti-intellectualism(really ironic considering the website's supposed purpose). In some ways, it did help me learn to format my arguments and how to argue against some....real...... opinions- opinions are the very charitable version, but in others it made me so so defensive, always assuming people were arguing disengeniously or with such poor frameworks they needed to be deconstructed on the basic level.
The simple truth is that most regular people have better opinions than the vast majority of people here, and they don't need to justify it with increasingly less intelligible excuses. And, i think i've finally moved past the need for this website. Thanks for all the time i spent here, thanks to all the people who weren't bigoted and folk who really wanted to just learn and explore. I think the fact that I haven't participated in a debate in YEARS now and yet still sit in the Number 11 spot is really telling of whats happening to this website. I want people to remember that I moved between spots in the gap of a few months, and I was all the way down in the 20s for a while, its not like i was staying high up.
I hope the people who stay here get something out of this website. I hope you bigots learn empathy, for others and yourselves, i hope all of you who still believe all you need to do to stop bigotry is extend a hand and have a conversation learn to give yourselves more kindness.
Bye, i guess, have fun keepin' on.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Actually, I happen to be ranked number 12 on this website- after several-several-several months of not doing anything here. So yeah, you could say I've been in a few serious debates.
I am aware that attacking a person doesn't have to do with the argument, but when the person is.....a liar or an asshat, there's no point in expending the energy. Im not gonna debate donald trump about how mexican's aren't rapists and criminals- im just gonna call him out on the obvious lies. Your lie/manipulation/naive belief is obviously a lie- not gonna bother arguing you about it. You can either click on the link i first provided you or not.
Now, normally i really don't like the idea of "go do your own research" but this is like the SIMPLEST shit- just google your source "fact check" and you get SO MANY examples of the poll being dunked on.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You argue like you constantly need to be perfect in the way you phrase things. Like everyone needs to be as precise as necessary. I'll be honest, I didn't follow precisely what you were saying at first- this entire time your position has been largely neutral-at least from what you've explicitly said.
However, it doesn't take a genius to see that what you imply is far from neutral. You're the type to use the lack of certainty necessary in science to be an asshat.
Its pretty apparent that you never actually investigated FLRW's source did you? Don't worry, i did your homework for ya-
"In the discovery samples (UK Biobank and 23andMe), five autosomal loci were significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior. Follow-up of these loci suggested links to biological pathways that involve sex hormone regulation and olfaction. Three of the loci were significant in a meta-analysis of smaller, independent replication samples. Although only a few loci passed the stringent statistical corrections for genome-wide multiple testing and were replicated in other samples, our analyses show that many loci underlie same-sex sexual behavior in both sexes. In aggregate, all tested genetic variants accounted for 8 to 25% of variation in male and female same-sex sexual behavior, and the genetic influences were positively but imperfectly correlated between the sexes [genetic correlation coefficient (rg) = 0.63; 95% confidence intervals, 0.48 to 0.78]. These aggregate genetic influences partly overlapped with those on a variety of other traits, including externalizing behaviors such as smoking, cannabis use, risk-taking, and the personality trait “openness to experience.” Additional analyses suggested that sexual behavior, attraction, identity, and fantasies are influenced by a similar set of genetic variants (rg > 0.83); however, the genetic effects that differentiate heterosexual from same-sex sexual behavior are not the same as those that differ among nonheterosexuals with lower versus higher proportions of same-sex partners, which suggests that there is no single continuum from opposite-sex to same-sex preference."
Pretty interestin' i'd say, to dumb it down for ya' they found some loci (specific points on a chromosome) that were associated with same sex behavior- hormone production and the like- they investigated these and found that 8 to 25% of VARIATION in male and female same-sex behavior.
Whats the point of all this? That you like to hide behind, "we can't confirm that" or "we have no way to know that"- no we can't be 100% certain but it can certainly be argued to be likely. If you truly believe people mean, "I think it 100% a fact that x is true" when they same "x is true", then your a bit more naïve then i thought. What i have realized is that your logic isn't very sound most of the time- lemme give you an example though- you like those.
There are not percentages in causality, there are percentages in quantities. If 50% of people who get wet could avoid being wet by wearing a raincoat that does not mean raincoats are 50% the cause of dryness nor that the absence of raincoats are 50% the cause of wetness.People who wear raincoats don't get wet. People who don't wear raincoats do get wet (if it rains).50% may come from a statistic but it has nothing to do with the mechanics of the phenomenon. This is why they say statistics lie, because people who use statistics without understanding deductive logic shoot themselves in the foot and produce pseudoscience.
"people who wear raincoats don't get wet" (the implication being that its raining)- but thats...false? Like completely, your neck gets wet, your forehead, your nose, your face in general. Your hands, your legs, etc, etc, etc. Yes you do. The raincoat does however protect a certain region of your body-almost a PERCENTAGE. Yes yes, obviously i understand causation and correlation- cool not the point here.
There absolutely is percentages in "causality" or- "the relationship between cause and effect." i.e, something happens which causes something else to happen. The cause of an effect. If i were to say, "there is a chance eating spoiled food will make me sick", i am saying that there is a certain percent chance that the cause- eating spoiled food- will result in an effect - getting sick. Quantities certainly help to specify those numbers, absolutely, without the statistics providing a sample to test how likely someone is to get sick from eating certain things, I couldn't give you a specific percent chance that I'd get sick from eating that spoiled food.
What am I saying then? Im saying that you make 0 sense and frankly i don't wanna talk to you anymore. You come off as insincere and manipulative. You can call me manipulative if you like in response- don't care- but the longer we've talked the less i believe im gonna get anything outta conversing with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
never implied it was a inherently positive action.
you have a weird ass thing of trying to come off as "neutral", but you aren't. you are clearly biased- cool, everyone is, stop trying to pretend your neutral. like, the fact you say "transexual" proves it. using that word isn't "neutral" its as bad as using "transgenderism" in most contexts. usually bigots use it, not saying you are one-just that you happen to share vocabulary with them.
i don't give a shit if they don't want it to be a norm, im gonna fight like hell till it is, and you can either accept it and be a good person or be an asshat.
Created:
Posted in:
Circa 2004, born in a mid-sized city in southern Oklahoma, parents have a worrying gap between ages and a spotty military past- one me was born. Though they try their hardest, over the my siblings' and I's early years the parents separate and eventually divorce. My sense of self-worth ruptures and I believe myself to be a "bad-luck curse". My brother believes he has to be perfect or he isn't worth anything. My sister is 2. Luckily.
Over the years, I develop the idea that the only thing separating me from sucking is that I'm smart. I was told I was smart, expected to do well in school- not pressured necessarily, just expected. So as the years continue I use my supposed intelligence as a mask to hide feelings of inadequacy and depression, familiar enough no? As a result, I don't really explore my identity, I'm smart- thats all I need. Thats all I am.
Enter: Covid pandemic, Entirely too hot summer roommates, and Text roleplay (superhero to be specific)- and I discover more and more about myself. Develop a sense of self worth independent of my "intelligence", find a support network, develop my own identity. It takes years, incredible work, and a entirely too many break downs and stints of depression and sucidation.
But then...this year, less than a month ago- enter: The Owl House, a show from Disney Channel and created by Dana Terrace in early 2020 (woo) - about a girl that accidentally stumbles into a simultaneously horrifying and gorgeous magical world and chooses to stay. A show that, had I seen earlier, would have helped me dramatically. The show has themes of choice, self-expression, and familiar bonds (both blood and found) - and it has some of the best depictions of romantic relationships I've seen on TV.
One character, Raine Whispers, casually used they/them pronouns- no explanations- no forced trauma in regards to it, just- casually. This character is important to the plot, this character is a character-developed and nuanced. Them using these pronouns really isn't of much relevance- and that is quite a new phenomena. It also demonstrates some of the best representation we've had for us nonbinary folks in...forever! Just a character who happens to be x. A show which shows grief over one's own choices, how to rely on those you care about- how to provide support to them as well. A show that shows how one can overcome great obstacles by relying on others, how seemingly innocuous decisions can result in huge changes later on.
Really, its hard to explain how great it is- definitely would recommend- but what do I mean it would help so much? Well, as a fresh enby, having an example of causal enbies woulda helped me find comfort in the concept without all the long searches in my psyche. See, as I noted I have an issue with self-worth- and what i didn't say (explicitly) is my imposter syndrome. Even though I am clearly not straight, I've had looong hours of suffering in my mind-thinking "am i not-straight enough?? i haven't had as bad a life as others, do i deserve to call myself x, y, or z?" Obviously suffering isn't what makes someone somethin- but anxiety and imposter syndrome aren't exactly using syllogisms.
Getting to my point, representation is useful for establishing a concept or group of people who are underrepresented in popular media as a "norm" in some way or another. One of the most common ways people who were previously biggoted come to accept queer folk is by having family or friends who come out as queer. As it turns out, people tend to form parasocial relationships with characters on tv shows and in books they consume! So, when such things are more and more established in common media it creates more and more characters for people to care for and then shed their bigotry. Its not just that though! See, now I'm gonna have to discuss privilege- but hey you got this far so just stay with me for a sec'. Privilege, broadly, is what someone gets when they are treated as the norm. You see people like you everywhere, as every sort of role-model, in tv-shows as heroes and villains. Society expects you to succeed, because thats just what you do. Society helps you even.
By establishing more norms, you begin to break down that privilege into something that is more shared. By no means does it solve all the systemic issues within a lotta' institutions or even completely on a more personal level- but it certainly helps and establishes a foothold that can be used to fight from.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Actually- ad hominems can relate to things that are quite important. When someone doesn't do any work to establish the trustworthiness of their source we're relying on your trustworthiness that your source can be taken seriously.
If your behavior is that of a manipulator or someone who is deceived easily, its important to note so we know to investigate your sources more thoroughly. As it turns out, you are either willing ignorant, a liar, or easily deceived - at least, given the nature of your poor sources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Businesses harm the poor, harming businesses is necessary to help poor people.
Guess what, businesses aren't people- they can fuck off. More than willing to let "businesses" suffer to let people not suffer.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
And here ya are bein' a hypocrite, you oughta know that just because something isn't necessarily hereditary that doesn't mean there isn't genetic factors. We seem to actually share a fairly similar opinion about how sexualities form.
A combination of genetic predispositions and experience. Although you like to be obtuse about it all.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So- actually, yes population IS linked to suicide? Like, this is such a basic extrapolation of data that its a test question for high school ap students?
Lets do some math!!!
If the suicide rate for a town with 1,300 people and a town with 13,000 people is 5%, how many more people in the latter town commit suicide?
585.
So! It seems that, given a similar rate of suicide, a difference in population results in quite a difference numerically.
Again, if you have a hard time parsing this argumentation then I do believe you oughta take some time to do some studying =D
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
You say- your own source being a bullshit trumpian poll maker.
No sources are better than poor ones.
Created:
Truly its ridiculous how infamously bad your source is at making polls. I mean, i could list half a page of google, but its really not that hard to find out how bullshit this source is.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You have some strange rebuttals....
The biological complexes in charge of attraction- because its not a single chromosome or gene or anything like that- aren't necessarily quantifiable by ease because we don't exactly know. We have ideas, but we don't have an exact estimation. Doesn't mean we have no estimation.
Further....its just so-obtuse the way you argue, its very interesting. Honestly not gonna engage too much, you don't seem particularly invested in hearing people out.
I'll be plain- the idea that gay people "choose" to be gay is both correct and incorrect. You do indeed, "choose" to engage in consensual sexual acts- that part is a choice sure. Being attracted to someone though- thats another thing entirely. While i believe being in love with someone eventually comes down to a decision to put effort into a relationship- that initial attraction is not a choice. It'd be like saying "why can't you just not like root beer, i can't believe you like root beer". Frankly its ridiculous that this concept has to be explained to someone who has such clear diction.
The concept should be clear enough if you're done with middle school. Which you clearly are- so?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Ah yes, the 1950s where famously our technology matched todays standards
First of all, our population has more than doubled since the 1950s.
Second of all, the idea of suicide has been blasted recently therefore it is not a surprise that we find more suicides - we're looking for more.
Third of all, correlation is not causation- there is also much better medical technology now than in the 1950s- does the fact that we have more suicides somehow mean that our ability to prevent people or save them from an attempt has lowered?
Your argument is not very convincing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
In regards to this, i think my other post shined some light, but I'll respond more directly.
It is a fact that crime will drop when less cops are patrolling. This is an extremely obvious truism. If no one catches you it isn't a crime, what makes it a crime is the interaction of whatever action committed and the labeling of society. Even if there wasn't a truth to "taking care of poor people reduces crime", forcing less people to go to jail will reduce criminals because people leave jail more criminal than they went in.
However, it is true that taking care of people will reduce crime- because as I've alluded to before- desperation is the real motivation behind the majority of escalation of violence within crime (the worst sorts of crimes generally). So you take away the desperation you take away the escalation, thereby taking the bite out of most crime.
In your hypothetical, the person would be restrained until a reasonable alternative could be found. The person would be provided shelter, food, medicine, entertainment, etc- it does not do well to isolate someone who is convinced that murdering others sporadically is a good idea. Of course, everyone's saftey must take precedence- but it can certainly be done. The therapists, doctors, and restrainers need to respect the murderers basic human rights out of pragmatism.
(HINT HINT: if you're worried about the budget, just take some money from the military/former prison industry/rich fuckers in general via redistributing, higher taxes, or other forms of financial mischief)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yup, most people suffer from some form of cognitive dissonance in some way or another- i don't think its particular to leftists though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I'm not sure- i kinda got disillusioned with debating, its has more to do with oration than reasoning- enough of my votes told me that. Now, obviously reasoning matters-truly it does- but people don't really care about the truth in debates-at least not the voters- no they care about who can appear more truthful and convincing.
Fundamentally that doesn't jive with my principles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
While I'm no expert in this field and will not pretend to be one- I will start with some basics:
- The goal of such an establishment is to better society
- The goal of such an establishment will be reached without breaching human rights
- The establishment will not be managed by corporate/private interests
As such, it would have to go hand in hand with police reform- really, the entire justice system in America. But-as you might be aware- that's a bit daunting so I'm gonna be a bit light on details for those two and focus mainly on the prison parts.
In order to properly establish something which isn't just prison 2.0 we need some fundamental changes to the way the people who are incarcerated are seen. In my view, one of the only ways to do that is to provide people here with: water, food, shelter, medicine, social activity, privacy, entertainment, etc, etc- all the basics of human life. While it may seem like a very basic one, its one that would have to be made from the ground up. Activities like random cell searches and searching prisoners are some of the most basic functions of one.
This can all be fought by giving the accused a choice in their sentencing. This might seem strange, but in a reparations based justice system- forced incarceration should only be used for the passionately violent with no justification. The choice can be simple, community service in a way which helps repair the crime in question or to work with therapists and psychologists to become better. And- by allowing the incarcerated more freedoms the amount of rebuke will drop dramatically. Mirrored by how, say, decriminalizing certain drugs would (and have) drastically decrease arrests. All in all, if a society was more understanding of the whys people wouldn't need to commit as much crime.
Afterall, the impoverished are more likely to commit crimes due to desperation, worsening situations, etc, etc- so if you correct those situations you correct a large portion of crime. Then, if you further destigmatize criminals, you decrease desperation- which is the biggest factor in escalating violence in the average crime. Anyways, all of this to say- my idea would be a system which allows more choice-and focuses on bettering all parties involved rather than punishing any specific person. If someone is in danger from another, separation might be used to protect.
I know, there are issues, there are problems, I won't pretend like their aren't. But i think striving for something better and not being perfect is better than suffering through injustice of today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Slavery is literally legal when done to imprisoned. So even if separation is part of it, it is clearly not the main component. You can separate people without stripping them of rights. You have not interpreted my ideas correctly.
Created:
Posted in:
Was this blatantly clickbait?
Maybe, you don't know.
You're here aren'tcha?
Ah, so nice to be back, can't believe this is where im starting-actually it makes perfect sense-aka -THE PREAMBLE
Anywho, its not unknown to most...*ahem* serious leftists that there's some serious hypocrisy within the democratic party and most who know themselves to be "liberals". See, the biggest differentiation between "leftists" and "liberals" tends to be (in my mind at least), that Liberals believe there to be a way to salvage capitalism and that our current system of governance is mostly fine with some hick ups (mostly conservatives). Leftists on the other hand, believe there to be a systemic issue starting at the very foundation of our government.
Now, leftism and liberalism are both extremely broad and varied- but this seems to be the primary difference. That being said, this post is not about liberals (you know who you are), no, this post is about Leftists proper. Ancom/soc's, communists, collectivists, etc, etc. This is necessary to point out because I really don't feel like digging through the pointless objections and generalizations.
Okay, but WHAT hypocrisies best friend Weakeredge?? aka -THE POINT
Simple, on our base level Leftists are people who want equality-we want to do so in a way where people don't get hurt- we want to do so in a way that betters society. And yet, soooo many of us advocate prison. Now; there are certainly situations where there is no other outcome, particularly when the individual is violent and is unable to be soothed. But that archetype makes up such a low percentage of such situations that its sad people would pretend otherwise.
Its not just prison though, fundamentally so many "solutions" offered by leftists buy into the idea of retributive justice. Really, if I were more organized, I woulda introduced the idea and talked about why i think its bad- but nah im not so here we are- thats the main point. We can't just default to the idea that people arbitrarily deserve x or y. There's a reason why so many of these moral quandary's are fundamentally flawed.
What if- and here me out here- it doesn't particularly matter what people deserve? The core principle of mercy is the idea of abandoning justice, ala, forgiveness OR the ability to let live. Now, Im not saying to embrace your abusers-have a chat and let bygones be bygones- not my point here. Abandoning retribution does not mean accepting abuse or evil. It means recognizing that retribution for nothing more than the sake of retribution is useless- less than useless considering prison usually creates MORE violent criminals.
Leftists need to abandon retribution as the answer, The Right tried that- it. did. not. work. We cannot preach equality and wanting to better society and then default to retribution as our answer to everything.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
As much as I agree that Former President Trump is an: asshat, bigot, and all together criminal - I don't agree with the idea that we should "lock him up" at least not in the way most people are advocating.
Staunchly I'm prison abolitionist, the much better punishment in my opinion is to permanently strip him of any means of building power and enforce rehabilitation. Imagine if Trump ever renounced his old ways? Imagine how many people's minds that would change? Certainly it wouldn't end maga cults or do more than make some people change figureheads- but there are certainly a LOT of people who would be convinced by such a thing.
Teach him empathy, and employ him to make a better world.
Created:
-->
@Ehyeh
did you read the post above this one...
Created:
-->
@Bones
thats nice. I would say im beyond arguing such basic facts but i did accept that debate with Mall... well i say "debate". The fact of the matter is that i really don't want to do that. Not gonna' get into it to personally, but the type of beliefs you hold have hurt people I care about.... to an extreme degree, so no, I don't really like debating the subject. Since you were a bit more polite than our other friend, you get an explanation.
Created:
-->
@Ehyeh
Im willing to learn - from experts and people who aren't gonna' do devil's advocates position. Have you considered your the arrogant one for assuming you have something to teach? Do you think because i haven't heard an argument in one debate server I've never heard it before? You reek of condescension.
Created:
-->
@Bones
.... did... you actually READ that article?
Your environment affects your sexual and romantic relationships.
In fact, it even makes a point to say that biology can't be the only explanation...
Created:
-->
@Ehyeh
No need to debate, they are.
Created:
-->
@Bones
There are a lot of untaught things that need to be taught, misconceptions, and just the science in general. "Transgenderism" and homosexuality are influenced by society, as are all experiential identities - doesn't make it bad, doesn't make it a choice to be that.
Created:
-->
@Puhovpeny
This is a pretty good take, yeah.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Yes
Created:
Posted in:
sigh
"Female brain" someone hasn't listened to a word leftists say
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, I wasn't disagreeing? Why is this here?
Created:
Posted in:
Not to randomly appear but--
its almost like Greyparrot thinks kids (and by internal logic fetuses) are property of the mother - instead of thinking about it as literally APART of the mother. A separate consciousness does not exist for a while.
On a separate note, I just wanted to leave a comparison to the sort of thinking that a fetus WILL BECOME a baby.
A pedophile would love that argument, I mean that child WILL BECOME an adult, right?
Its almost like time changes things and the properties which they hold changes as time goes on.... hmmm, as if, I mean- IT COULDN'T BE???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
To answer you last question first - I would consider them in the same "class" of gender, I answer this first because it reveals an underlying bias in your thought-process. Do with that what you will.
So... here's the difference between gender and race: race doesn't really have a biological counterpart, like gender does in sex, the most some could argue is a consistency in tone (but even thats not true), people in the same "race" have more differences, genetically, apart from each other than they do from people of different races.
If we were to engage on a more social level, then we can get into this... poor analogy a little more: because, this isn't the best one - for example, if I were to use money to make an example (since I claim gender is a social identity with real impact, similar to money in my opinion), then I'd be making a poor analogy, because unlike money - people are people have very different social interactions than money. Similarly, race and gender are extremely separate in the ways that social interaction occur.
But again, ignoring this, and going on from a raw social perspective while ignoring the inconsistencies: if that person experiences a "white" experience fundamentally, what part of them if fundamentally African? Their skin tone? Again, keep in mind this is an extremely non-comparative example, but even if it was, I wouldn't see your point.
In trans people there is a dichotomy, the name for which we give physical characteristics, and the experience of the individual: i think what you kinda' have to realize, is that that name it doesn't hold some sacred right, its a tool we use a humans. But if someone doesn't find that tool helpful, than I care about that person - and, as I have shown before - most people are a lot better at identifying their own experience than we are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I consider myself omnisexual, because I do not have a preference when it comes to gender. I'm more attracted to personalities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I'll try to explain it all from my perspective, but I have to say - it seems like less its your theory and moreso your axiom. Whenever you engage with my arguments its not from a perspective of exploring the logical conclusions of my arguments but from your position with my argument set in like an axe to a tree trunk.
So you say it’s genetic, or at least has to do with genetics.
This right here (and I won't do this with every point, i just think this is important in particular) kinda' shows that at the very least you aren't entirely engaging with my arguments. And I don't mean that in a "oh well you're dishonest" way, I mean that in more of a, that's not exactly what I meant way. I should have been more clear or more research should have been done.
Epigenetics is not necessarily referring to the genetics themselves, its more or less along the lines of how your actions and the environment interact and cause your genes to behave differently. So take it more as a way of addressing a rate of change, almost like inches per year - I've grown 5 inches in 2020 - but in the way I'm using it, the rate of change of your identity. As it matures and gathers more depth, truths that are hidden, buried, or just not realized come to the forefront.
So your next point to really dig into is this more philosophical and/or skeptical approach to how someone of population y could possibly also be this contradictory x. And I could reiterate the same point I've been making, but I don't know/think its actually a solid way to approach your ideas in particular. You ask me if I believe a gender identity is a choice, and my answer would be - on the most part - no. Why is this? Its not a bad question, especially when not explained in proper depth.
I believe that gender identity is not a choice for the same I don't believe a black person might become offended at some exploitations of culture, not that its exactly the same, but hear me out for a second. From the moment your born you are socialized as something: male, white, black, female, smart, dumb, etc, etc - each and every part of your life contributes to a narrative which builds a social perspective of your identity, how the world sees you. Places which do this early on in development and significantly contribute to this are called social institutions, some examples would be: church, school, even your home, each of these places contribute to how people see you - but also - how you see yourself. The values you might aspire to, the values you might reject, the friends you consider part of your societal ingroup and outgroup.
All of this to say, society defines a lot about how you see yourself and how others see yourself. At a certain age, it is not just the fact that someone might have a penis and testicles that makes them a man, but how society has defined certain traits which you have, and establish your manhood. In order to more colloquially demonstrate this point, consider how a lot of guys are bullied for not being manly enough, for being "cucks" or for being "cringe", which makes them, at least to some parts of society, "not men". So, going over all of this, how do we get back to my first sentence? Well, that first sentence is establishing that how society and we treat someone's identity - created not necessarily by initial gene change, but by our interactions with others and the values society set upon us- can drastically affect them as a person.
So then, in the same regard, a lot of trans people don't really choose to be offended by what has been created by experience, by interaction, by socialization. However, instead of being created by a slow adoption of principles and values, it is the recognition that unlike others - who have that experience - they have a fundamental difference of interpretation. It is very hard to precisely explain the idea even for a lot of trans people I talk to, but I think the very core of it is: that same identity that most people go to: to either fail or succeed by, is a non-starter in the first place.
There is a sort of kick-back of the idea at its conception, this is why its not really or even necessarily a dysphoria idea, while it can certainly follow, being trans or non-binary in general is not necessarily the cause of the issue. Like what some people might make in analogy to people who are overweight and feeling dysmorphic, with trans people instead there is a rather fascinating thing is that how society views them and associates their body with is what causes them gender dysphoria.
For example, I've dated trans men who have had no problems with their natural body - they just wanted to be called by their preferred name and associated as a man. This is the fundamental flaw I see in your ideology, that for every 1 trans woman who is having surgery, there are 10 others who do not, perhaps they go on hormones? A lot don't though. And while some of it is for money or laws, a lot of it is because they don't want to.
Why would that be if it was like anorexia or other issues where there is a false belief or an overexaggerated perception of negative stigmas - because, simply put, the dysphoria is referring to a conflict between an internal perception, an identity, and the false belief or overexaggerated perception that society has of them, in this case, their adherence to the same social fabric of gender as their sex is the false belief.
Because what I've skipped over, is that sex - or how your hormones, chromosomes and some other stuff come together to structure you - and your brain's idea of things are pretty different. Because your brain is not a closed system, it constantly is addressed, and whenever the idea of gender is introduced - the brain maps out experiences which relate to one gender or another - and most people map that with sex, but not some. Sorry if its confusing, sorry if its philosophical, but fundamentally this is what I can give you. I'm not coming at you like a debater, i don't think that's helpful in comprehension, I would recommend though, finding some people who have actually experienced it and asking them in a non-aggressive way.
And even if you don't believe that they are what they say they are, with the empathy to understand that they are hated and are feeling fundamentally lesser as people because they feel ignored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Oh, I see the separation here: There are different parts of the body, some cause dyphoria - for example a trans man breasts or other stereotypically phenotypical female traits - and others identify gender - such as the part of your brain where consciousness is emergent from.
When I say experience, I am talking about the epigenetics of your brain and body, in other words, how your genetics interact with the stimuli from your surroundings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You've completely ignored my answer, in which case, have fun repeating your questions to a wall :]
the difference is the brain's epigenetic experience versus the social connotations labeled as one thing or another. The question you pose is as ridiculous as asking how its possible that someone is attracted to multiple genders and not one. The body can do different things at the same time, some under duress and others not.
I mean, if your wanting me to describe the individual differences between every female and male I wouldn't, because I'm not talking about that. Perhaps I wasn't clear, so I'll give you one more explanation. I am not making the claim that there is a difference between a female and a male mind intrinsically, there are some slightly different structures which don't impact too much in regards to brain matter in stereotypically considered male and female (which I've went on in length in a debate or two), but besides that that isn't the point Thett.
The point is how people experience gender, which you have seemingly missed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
However you like to put it man, I'm pretty secure in my righteous correctness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Another proud warrior in the fight against corporate kingdomship
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Thats great, something we can agree on, when people call other people mentally ill as an insult its disgusting and ableist. When people treat an entire group as one that's kinda sucky, like saying "you people" when referring to atheists... I've recounted my experiences that I, and a lot of other (not just atheists) non-specific theists share, but never have I grouped all religious people as apart of this problem. In fact I've specifically ensured that I don't.
If you aren't going to share the same regard, then you aren't helping the problem, you're part of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
This is a weird accusation? I'm not dualistic, its a pretty simple material separation we can view in other contexts. An improper but example regardless is cognitive dissonuance -- keep in mind this is purely to show there can be physical differences in people when referring to things.
Here, the difference is the brain's epigenetic experience versus the social connotations labeled as one thing or another. The question you pose is as ridiculous as asking how its possible that someone is attracted to multiple genders and not one. The body can do different things at the same time, some under duress and others not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So you fail to actually reply to me, as per usual. You can keep up the strawman, but if you won't engage with my arguments you aren't being very rational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
This comes across as disingenuous ngl - people have explained to you over and over that atheism is just a label for if you believe in god(s) or not, my two theories, this is for attention or you refuse to stop conflating a bunch of positions for one. Like, personally not a fan of orogami's positions here because I don't think that the atheist position has anything to do with any world view besides the god thing. Just like theist doesn't have anything to do with any other world view by itself
Sociologically speaking, the church is a social institution, it molds you into a particular sort of person with a particular sort of beliefs and values - this tends to create a sort of "us v them" mentality in regards to atheists, and that gets kinda hard to do whenever a lot of atheists are just normal people, so other positions are correlated overtime to make sure that people don't see them as normal people. See: the satanic panic, the new leftist=atheist label, etc, etc... So socially its very easy to point out that "its cowardly to say you don't have any worldviews" but that doesn't actually describe the very technical logic side of it.
So... I don't necessarily think your doing it for attention, could just be a misattribution of social conflation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
F*** them
beside that your entire argument is strange, here's why: I don't debates very often anymore, not something that is particularly healthy for my mind, just isn't. But uh, I kinda' have to sometimes, why? Cuz' of shit like: "Do not be friends with bad people, they will only make you bad" the problem here, a lot of times atheist are those bad people. So uuh, that's my social relationships down, second of all - it literally causes my emotional distress to perform what a lot of theists consider helpful, that's fine, its when a lot of em socially cast me out or treat me as lesser when I don't (or just force me to go into those scenarios).
So.... I kinda do have a dog in the race? And I'm kinda thinking you should take a step back to think about this in more depth, about people not populations. Cuz' people matter, and when there are theists who screw 'em over systematically it kinda' is everyone's race then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You don't have two arguments you have speculation and a weirdly confident first premise.
Sex is a state of multiple biological factors convening, some of which have affects on gender, such as: hormones, chromosomes, etc.. How you might ask? Couple reasons, whenever your brain identifies your gender as separate from the typical biological state of sex a couple of things happen. Your brain becomes more stressed with the dichotomy, your body is forced to deal with that increased stress, thereby making other symptoms worse. Considering that whenever people are considered others they are treated harsher this all compounds.
In other words, you'd get stressed as shit when you have a penis (which in social context is usually associated with boy-ness) but your brain tells you that your experience is female. So then, transition is an attempt to stem that "stress" which is a simplified term for what you might better know as dysphoria. The biggest difference is the categorically dehumanizing position it puts them in socially and the degree of stress. This can complicate the precise medical or psychological route to helping these people feel not horrible all the time.
For example, there is a difference in treating general anxiety disorder and OCD specifically, why is this? Even though the share a bunch of common symptoms they coagulate in different ways. General Anxiety is (generally) a feeling of stress, paranoia or (anxiety) caused by something which is not proportionate with the actual impact of the effect. Conversely, OCD refers to the compulsions we have whenever some of these events can occur (not all who have compulsions while in anxiety have OCD, its mostly for people who cannot control such things).
Thusly, the way we treat these two issues are vastly different due to the specifics in the case: General Anxiety deals in a lot of coping strategy, learning to realize that the impact of the event is not as we perceived and learn how to function while we figure this out, OCD is treated through habituation and exposure, as it attempts to stop the compulsions which can become progressively more time consuming and anxiety inducing as you do it more. So... what is this all to say? That's simple, comparing gender dysphoria to dysphoria of body image is simply... ignorant. Like comparing phyto-estrogen to actual estrogen because they share the same name you see?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
Here's the thing:
" believe there could be genetic predisposition, but it is a preference thing"
clearly demonstrates you merely say that to account for the fact that you are factually incorrect to call it "a preference thing" because liking pizza can indeed be caused by genetics, just as being gay can be.
You are dismissing the importants of genetics, someone can absolutely be born gay, or be born liking some foods and disliking others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
How would you have responded to Matt's question of what do you define as a women? From my perspective, it seems that you are defining gender as broadly as you can, so that anyone can morph into, or in your terms, discover their gender. Do you not think that a term such as "sex", of which is grounded in biology, is more stable?
Nope, because gender is grounded in biology as well - your mind is as biologic as your junk, thats something that needs to be expressed very clearly. What being a woman is, is how you experience it, it seems to me like you are trying to needlessly narrow it. But I always priortize the brain to the junk, sorry buddy.
I don't think a successful transition indicates anything regarding the empirical status of a being. What do you think of trans-speciesism? Does not your stance allow for the switching of species? Mere thought does not, in my opinion, have the weight to alter biology.
You have no idea what your talking about friend - and I mean this in the nicest way possible - you have utterly ignored my entire argument if this is the level of feedback Im getting this won't happen anymore cuz you aren't reading my responses. I said that this is a discovery, which does not imply change. You have misunderstood as a very fundamental level.
Furthermore, again sex and gender are different, this is why its important - just like sex describes phenotypical features, species does too, i have never claimed that being transgender changes your sex - I have said that you discover your gender does not match and ought to be priortized. Trans-specieism is not an apt comparison to transgender "ism" for that very reason.
This is a false equivalence. Phobias and other anxiety disorders are caused by some type of dysfunction in the amygdala and related brain areas. Trans activists do not believe there is anything dysfunctional about transgendered people. Moreover, when someone switches their gender, there is no inspection on whether there are any biological ties to the reason they believe they are the opposite gender. If you have a phobia, there is a quantifiable and understandable reason for your reaction.
You have utterly missed the point of the analogy. I am a trans activist, once again "switched" is the wrong verb here, you have truly learned nothing. But I'll explain this before ending the conversation. The point of the analogy was to point out how it depends on individual experience and how what seems irrational or unintuitive for one person is not for another. I would reccomend trying to look a bit deeper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
This is false, you said:
"With homosexuality not being genetic.." (Incel-Chud, #17)
You did not agree with me, do not pretend as if you did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
This is blatantly false. While social influence can certainly effect your sexuality, genetics do in fact have a role to play in homosexuality. Let's back this up with sources shall we?
So while no single gene is responsible for causing homosexuality, there is a sexual basis
"Studies have indicated that same-sex orientation and behavior has a genetic basis and runs in families, yet specific genetic variants have not been isolated (1). Evidence that sexual orientation has a biological component could shape acceptance and legal protection: 4 to 10% of individuals report ever engaging in same-sex behavior in the United States, so this could affect a sizeable proportion of the population (2). On page 882 of this issue, Ganna et al. (3) report the largest study to date, comprising almost half a million individuals in the United Kingdom and United States, identifying genetic variants associated with same-sex sexual behavior. They provide evidence that genetic variation accounts for a small fraction of same-sex sexual behavior and uncover a relationship to the regulation of the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen as well as sex-specific differences. They also reveal complexity of human sexuality." [1]
Just in case you weren't sure, there is a very complex underlying genetic/biological factor underpinning homosexuality and sexual preference as a whole
"We review research supporting biological mechanisms in the development of sexual orientation. This research includes studies on neural correlates, prenatal hormones and related physical/behavioral correlates, genetics, and the fraternal birth order effect (FBOE). These studies, taken together, have provided substantial support for biological influences underlying the development of sexual orientation, but questions remain unanswered, including how biological mechanisms may differ in contributing to men's and women's sexual orientation development." [2]
To be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, a combination of genetic and environmental factors influence and cause differences in sexuality
"Research on the causes of human sexual orientation has been marshaled in support of predetermined and opposing theological viewpoints. Whilst acknowledging that there is still much that is not known, the peer reviewed scientific literature clearly shows that a combination of genetic and environmental factors contribute to sexual orientation, with approximately one third of variance currently attributed to the former. Much of the known environmental influence appears to be intra-uterine and there is no currently convincing evidence that social environment plays a significant part. This body of evidence is relevant to theology. Greater attention should be given to critical interdisciplinary engagement of the theology and science of sexual orientation." [3]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
What are they expressing? If they are expressing gender (a non biological thing in the mind), why do they need surgery? What happened the gender not gaving anything to do with biology? What's with the alteration of the body then?
What are they expressing? Epigenetics, which as you may know is how your brain adapts to external stimuli, in other words - how you perceive the world. Why do they "NEED" surgery? First of all, not all trans-gender people even want surgery and most do not get it, second of all, because while realizing that you have a specific identity as opposed to the one you were prescribed, some people do not feel comfortable in their body, and have anxiety due to it. This anxiety can become extreme and dehabilitating.
Question.
Why do people sometimes have panic attacks when it comes to harmless spiders or snakes? Because the brain is not always rational, because sometimes societal expectations label themselves onto them, and - this is important - gender expression is unique to the individual. Which is to say some people feel like to express that they individually are male they have to do x or y. The big problem is when you expose your own individual gender expression on other people, because this causes this dehabilitating effect.
Created: