HRT as an identity addiction

maybe this doesn't belong here but couldn't think of any other board i am afraid of addictions. i smoke cigarettes, but it started in a natural way when i was younger. instead now, as a trans woman, i have to do the conscious choice of relying my whole life on estradiol, and i am hesitant to do so. i am afraid i will regret it, even though i feel really dysphoric at times. i am afraid to become addicted to seeing myself in a way that is completely dependent on the drugs im taking. a good example is liking how you look with makeup so much more that how you look without it, that you see yourself as disgusting when youre not wearing it. are there any lainons who can relate, or have had similar experiences? any advice, or different perspective is welcome.

I don't have any experience with transitioning, but I take an SSRI daily. It's not an addition, it's treatment for a medical condition. In the same way you wouldn't say someone taking insulin for diabetes or antiretrovirals for HIV/AIDS is addicted to those medications, even if they depend on it for their life, I don't think you have to worry about addiction in needing to undergo gender affirming therapy like HRT. If you possibly can, try to speak to a therapist about this. The intersection of therapists experienced in discussions about both gender dysphoria and addiction might not be very big, but they may be able to help with some of your concerns.

>>12932 thank you so much i do realize that my perspective on my transition is kinda weird (conservative religious strict family and whatnot) and sometimes i just need to get reminded that i am not doing it because i want to, but because i need to. i definitely will talk about this with my therapist, thanx again ^~^

>>12932 This might sound like a nitpick but comparing SSRIs to insulin or antiretrovirals for HIV is not fair. A person with diabetes would die without insulin and diabetes is much better understood disease than any mental illnesses and the treatment (insulin) is works in much more direct way than SSRIs. The only thing that would be comparable to diabetes and insulin would be Parkinson's disease and L-Dopa.

>>12931 Being "trans" is an addiction to a state of mind that gives people a feeling of a high.

>>12936 It's this but more fundamentally it's a deeper issue that they are trying to fulfill by changing their gender. People are really good at suppressing and displacing their root problems onto something unrelated as Freud already noticed in the 1900s. This "option" of changing ones gender has been promoted as is without real acknowledgement for the underlying problems. It's always the troubled that seem to transition. The only real trannies are the one's that showed real signs of the opposite gender at age < 10 years old. Most people are just searching for something in a completely wrong place and eventually kill themselves or cope with a miserable life for never getting to the root

>>12931 I tried cigarettes once. Now i'm GAY

>>12937 But who would believe you?

>>12938 this is... not what i said??? >>12936 >>12937 i was looking for perspective, not for transphobia. you should talk more carefully about other people's problems, especially when you talk about complex issues you don't, and don't want to, understand. educate yourselves.

>>12941 Sometimes you might need to take a good look within before anything else. Educate yourself.

>>12942 i am the one looking within myself. you have no idea about my history, my life, my mind. you shouldn't just assume yourself as being the fuarrrking god of introspection.

>>12943 Your post amounts to "you are wrong" without any elaboration. I'm am quite familiar with the space overall but it looks like you aren't or aren't willing to share any of your perspectives. It's conversation (and lainchan) etiquette 101 to not talk down on people and elaborate. Some introspection is probably needed on your side when it comes to conversing

ATM, both sides of the argument are just spouting talking points instead of having a discussion OP, you must understand that contemporary understanding of biology and medicine does not allow for absolutely safe transition. It is still very experimental and due to political pressure from both opponents and supporters, it's a field that Normal scientists avoid like a plague because it's a careel killer no matter how you go about it. This only those with strong convictions for or against go into it. That's pretty bad science. My source is several interviews with biologists and doctors explaining that this is one of those subjects (like abortion or race) that level headed people tend to avoid because their rigorous research would become twisted by ideologues anyway So you're essentially might be like people that got teflon on their pans or lead in their gas and only after years of legal battles the companies conceded that they just lowered the intelectual capabilities of a whole young generation or two around the world (lead poisoning is incredibly bad for children) or just spread cancer (Teflon is incredibly carcinogenic. So is asbestos). I'm not trying to scare you of, though. Many people say that you don't need the HRT or surgery to be yourself and live your truth. If you still want to, that's your choice. It's just a little weird that there are people who feel like they need to amputate their arm but we seem them crazy and not let them. I'm for bodily autonomy, that includes abortion, euthanasia, cutting your arm of (medically in a surgery room), whatever makes you happy. People perform ridiculous plastic surgeries on every other part of their body including genitals to make them more attractive in theory but nobody is against that it seems. Just be aware that you are essentially a test subject for a meta study about 10-15 years into the future. There is a chance that they got it more or less right already, of course... About 10% I'd say looking at the track record of hormonal therapies for other ailments. I have a mental condition. Meds can help but there are lots of complications and it's a grueling process to finding the right medicstions and doses that is all but guaranteed to make me have both physical and psychological adverse reactions. And after that most psychiatrists would keep you on that regimen for some time and then suggest trying to lower it and that can have more adverse reactions as you get off of it. So what's the point other than following protocol and spending money on big farma products? I don't want to kill myself RN or in any observable Future. Yes, I'm much less productive and unstable but so what? I'm in no obligation to be a functioning member of society or whatever. I can support myself and my loved ones, have a pretty happy life despite the dark stuff that my neurodivergency produces. If you're thinking your life is in danger or Is not worth living the way you are biologically, go for it. At the end of the day it's your choice. But be aware that there are companies that will profit from this. So there's an incentive to advertise it and withhold adverse effects just like with SSRI (they are usually the first to get prescribed no matter what but many mental conditions that have depression as a symptom can have very bad adverse reactions to them). Take from that what you will, I support your choice whether you succeed or fail in getting more peace of mind, because it's your body and you do with it what you want to. The other lainons that oppose their wishes to go through with HRT or even denying his identity: If you're not just concerned for their well being and have some data to support that this is a dangerous procedure your position is also not reasonable. Mind your own business, just because you read some 20th century psychiatrists writings doesn't make you an expert. Please keep in mind that their conclusions read without reading their refutations that ceme later does not give you an understanding of a modern landscape of the science.

i've started to see some transgender threads on lainchan. i got two questions for the transgender people on lainchan. 1. why are transgender people obsessed with that ikea plush toy shark? 2. why do so many transgender people go for engineering as a profession?

>>12948 3. why do you wear programming socks and watch sissy-hypno all day?

>>12948 Aren't all women generally interested in those sharks? Not really sure where that came from, my stereotype is that trans people become YouTube essayists and editors and writers for other YouTube people. Aren't engineering people mostly furry if you have to choose a subculture to assign?

>>12948 Not trans but I do follow the community closely. >1. blahaj it's cute :3 but it's also because of memes that warped the lil shark guy into an icon within the community. >2. Engineering That one I can't tell you. I can, however, say it's a nice way to being able to afford the drugs. I do want to hear from others about their experience with HRT and engineering. >>12949 >3. socks and hypno Where do you think we learn our sick l33t programming skills? :) >>12950 >Aren't engineering people mostly furry if you have to choose a subculture to assign? I'm noticing that the two subcultures are closely linked together to a degree when it comes to engineers. I think it wouldn't be unlikely to say that, because we are so terminally connected to the wired, especially in the IT/CS field, we are determined to eventually fall into these niche subcultures out there. just a buncha computer nerds falling into niches to which they feel welcome in. be it chan culture (lmao) or whatever.

>>12947 thank you, you make a very good point. at this time, i do not feel like my life is not worth living as is, even though there are many people who transition that feel that way. on the other hand, it's pretty sucky that gender is seen by society the way it is, and not as it should be, as just another aspect of one's expression to the world around. also, there is the fact that yeah, i don't really feel like kmsing right now, but my body can still change, and if i were to become an old man instead of an old woman the probability of me going to sleep forever starts to skyrocket. about the depending on companies: even though you're right, i will be dependent on them, i always keep in mind that diy is always an option. i am very thankful to those who came before me, that laid down alternatives for trans people and helped me and all the t community in having what we need without reliance on capital, biomedical state of control, and "mainstream science". >>12948 happy to reply! 1. because memes, but memes come from the fact that it's a very adorable plushie to hug if you're a lonely person (many transgender people are). also, ikea is somewhat progressive so it kinda works 2. i have no idea, might have something to do with the fact that engineering is often about going very in depth about one specific topic, and the big intersection between neurodiverse people and transgender people.

>have to do the conscious choice of relying my whole life on estradiol I'm not trans so I may be wrong, but don't some transwomen get an orchiectomy after 2-3 years of HRT so that they can maintain the gains without needing to take estradiol? Not to say that's what you should do that since you're currently "afraid i will regret it," and that fear means you need to spend more time reflecting and living as a transwoman before committing to something like testicle removal.

>>12951 That picture should have the shark from 12oz mouse instead.

>>12954 it really depends. i know girls who consciously decide to keep everything, because they like it as it is. everyone can express being a woman the way they prefer, that's why i think twomen really are the accelerationist section of the feminist movement.

>>12953 Well, as I said it's up to you IMO. I have a suspicion that by the time both of us get to the "old" stage there would be many countries where the distinction would be basically meaningless. At least Canada. And I support that because I think the more diverse the world's cultures are, the better. It sure is like kicking dead whales down the beach that you might have to move somewhere to be recognised the way you want to be, but that's better that everywhere being the same in my opinion. There are Amish people and they deserve to live their truth I think as long (as they allow people to leave of course) Like, you know, you can't have children at that old age (old man sperm is capable, but that's a bad idea for many reasons) so who cares if you're a grandpa or a grandma really? You've seen a lot of soykaf, no one can just change your opinion at that point nor do you really care. If there are people who still are not ok with you being who you want to be they are just pricks. Are you sure you're just not afraid of growing old? Being an old woman is like kicking dead whales down the beach too it seems. I support your right to DIY your stuff if you want to, but be careful and don't do it if you're mentally unstable. Otherwise your body becomes your crazy project and that's not a good idea, I think.

>>12951 I mean most subcultures from furries to flat earthers got an incredible boost due to the propagation of the internet. I still can't really understand how the hell is tick-tock a place where conspiracy theories and niche subcultures thrive, I'm more of a 2 hour documentary or obscure articles on the internet that require some knowledge of the field to follow, but here we are with 40 seconds of just statements said with confidence without any attempt at backing them with evidence, I guess.

>>12959 i mean, i am pretty sure of my identity to be honest. only issue is, my body is pretty feminine as is, even though i do feel dysphoric at times. however, i truly believe the real indication of transition should be euphoria, not dysphoria. and as far as that goes, well, growing boobs would be pretty fuarrrking awesome :3 in short, i tendo to see this as euphoria-->identity societal expectations-->dysphoria also, bwing an old woman without going into menopause and having to deal with old women soykaf, would be a pretty hard kick in the balls to terfs and that's pretty cool imo

>>12960 doesn't that kinda make sense tho i mean, a statement said with confidence is much harder to logically deconstruct, and it's much harder to find scientific fallacies, and all you can say is "that's not true" and at that point the two "opinions" kinda are at the same level to viewers

>>12962 I'm not sure I can support you on the idea of being euphoruc about your body. As someone whe experiences euphoria as a part of hypomanic episodes it is certainly pleasant but can have very bad consequences if you can't control it and controlling it is hard when your mind races at 90mph when everyone arround seems to be on 60mph. Being euphoric all the time makes you into an asshole to people who don't experence the same emotional state. You also become too confident and can make a lot of mistakes because you didn't think things through So I recommend some temperance. As with love and hate not being the opposites but 2 sides of a coin, dysphoria and euphoria are 2 sides of a coin too. Just be comfortable. Happiness is nice in short doses, there can be too much. As for winning one over for turfs... I don't think making misery of others your own motivation is a good idea if you can avoid it. Especially at old age. All true warriors fight for peace and all. Sy you win and all terfs have been sent into the Shadow realm. Does that mean you now feel empty and purposless until you find another object to struggle against? At a certain point it's time to put down the sword and do poetry or something, Don you agree? There's the whole mythos about Excalibur braking If it is used in anger and other similar notions. Finding joy in battle is not exactly a virtue, I think. Just some food for thought.

>>12960 I think that Maybe it's because it's so easy to make bait on that platform. it's easier to do content because people in the know, who don't know, and that are against "the thing amabob" and agree with it. at some point, they all get to see the short 40 sec clip of "the thing amabob" because everyone is reacting to it and is being shared among everyone on that platform and some outside. i'm also scratching my head, otherwise. it's interesting.

>>12966 That's precisely the the thing. Everybody is laughing at that Arthur clip where people say "Why would someone go in the internet and tell lies" but that's part of it. In the second stage of the internet when it opened up to the general public no one expected to need to sort through disinformation and so they took stuff at face value. Later on they discovered the fact that it was lies but it was simultaneously with discovering that legacy media was lies so new accounts that raised the banner of "fight the power!" Got their audience. At least that's something for stuff like flat earth conspiracy. For general subcultures it's just that about 10% of a given population would be into stuff like that but that's a lot of people if you can gather them together. Internet did that. Even today you don't expect that if there is a furry living in a flat there's another furry anywhere in the building, right? Hard to grow grass roots movement like that.

>>12931 >i am afraid to become addicted to seeing myself in a way that is completely dependent on the drugs im taking. You're more likely to have the opposite problem: no matter how many drugs and surgeries you do you'll never look the way you imagined. And from the doctor's perspective you're just a cash cow so they have no incentive to stop you or warn you about the road ahead. >>12948 >why do so many transgender people go for engineering as a profession? Autism. >I liek cute girls so if I become a cute girl people will liek me >>12953 >ikea is somewhat progressive so it kinda works All corpos are "progressive" because the billionaires who own them are malthusians. They have 20 Pride months a year and force LBGT content into every product and TV show and news article because they think the world is over populated and what's the one thing LGBTs can't do. Especially the Ts. It's a eugenics program.

>>12965 i mostly joke when talking about terfs to be honest but yeah your point is good and many people should give it more thought ^^ about euphoria: sure, i get your point. however, when you live your whole life being insecure, the gender euphoria makes you only as confident as you normally see other people be. i used to be really closed in myself and insecure as an egg: now, i am more confident, enough to sympathize and empathize with others, make meaningful connections, and live the life i want to live. >>12969 kinda missing the point of what transitioning means. this is exactly what i'm saying: it's not about getting rid of gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia. it's more like having your hair made in a way you feel comfortable with, even though you will never look as good as that one actress you got inspiration from. gender is just another layer we put on the person, and transitioning is about giving control of that layer to the person that wears it.

>>12969 >they think the world is over populated and what's the one thing LGBTs can't do You're overlooking the B in LGBT. >>12965 I don't think gender euphoria refers to the same type of euphoria one gets in a manic episode. I think it's more of a sense of comfort and a sense of feeling like something that was always off is now "correct." >>12970 >it's not about getting rid of gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia. it's more like having your hair made in a way you feel comfortable with, even though you will never look as good as that one actress you got inspiration from. gender is just another layer we put on the person, and transitioning is about giving control of that layer to the person that wears it. That's a nice way to put it, lain. Thanks for the insight.

>>12931 I'm not trans but I do experience a kind of dysphoria, albeit one that can't be fixed with meds or surgery. I guess it could be, but I don't want to be dependent on psyches and doctors that are less interested in actually helping and more interested in turning me into a "normal person." I guess this is one of those things you need to spend a long time reflecting on. Research stuff, sift through it logically, philosophically, see how you feel about it. If your afraid you've got a vulnerability for addictions, you can test that out by seeing how hard/easy it is for you to quit smoking. >i am pretty sure of my identity to be honest You say this but beware, identity is not this static thing. You might be secure in it today but in a few years or even days it can change. I'm not even certain I'm the same person I was a minute ago or if my memories are real. Like I said, I'm not trans so I'm not sure if I should be saying this but anyway... trans people seem to think there is a true identity and once they pin it down they can alter their lifestyle/body to suit it and align everything mentally. Instead of digging for your ''real identity'' you should be more concerned with inventing one. Instead of finding something hidden like a psychiatrist, instead focus on creating something like an artist. Then look at transition meds, surgery etc. as like paints or a paintbrush, tools for creating art, and experiment/research which you think works best. I dunno what the fuarrrk I'm saying at this point.... sorry. >i truly believe the real indication of transition should be euphoria Again, beware. Happiness can be a massive illusion. Thinking that way can lead you down a dark path that begins with "things are right and good if they make me feel happy." On the surface, that's fine but it can mess stuff up. Maybe this is just personal differences, but I'm always suspicious if I'm happy. If I'm happy I know there's something wrong, like I'm not seeing or realizing something. There is genuine happiness, but there's so much soykaf out there designed to drug you up on false happiness for whatever reason, from getting you to buy trash to manipulating you. >>12969 LGBT is an imaginary community, an illusion created by mass communication that establishes weak links between people who have no real world connection. By shoving people into a "community" with strict identity parameters and gatekeepers, you effectively keep people controlled. It's a good example of repressive tolerance, create the illusion of freedom by giving people an alternate lifestyle choice that you manufactured for them. Notice how the violent student radicalism of the 60s and 70s declined as LGBT culture became increasingly dominant? Other than social control, another reasons corpos force this soykaf on everyone is good old fashion capitalism: sell people a set of values, then connect your product to said values and they'll keep on buying. That stupid ikea shark is an example of this. Population control isn't about preventing births or making the frogs gay, it's about forcing people into channels where there's an illusion of freedom and choice in a way that breeds passivity and a sheep like herd mentality.

>>12970 Oh, then we just had a misunderstanding of terminology there. Carry on. You never know on the internet, people have often assumed "they must be just exaggerating or joking" until it was revealed that no, they were dead serious in what they said For example this lainon is probably dead serious >>12969 While I agree with being conscious of powers that be having their reasons to encourage you to live your life a certain way and be a constant revenue stream and defend them on occasion or be a hostage if their practices are in question ("We can't shut down this factory despite several labour code and environmental violations, people WILL die without its products" kind of way) it shoul ld not deter you. The percentage of trans people is miniscule compared to gay or lesbian people (some are both) and they don't really have a huge effect on birth rates compared to them. Now, they sure are a loud minority when it comes to speaking, but I suspect it's also because left and right both find this topic volatile enough to motivate their voters and donors so they conspire to put some controversial bill so both sides get a boost (that's been documented in US, probably the same in other countries, the politicians have more in common with each other than their constituents so they fight for their privileges as a social class when all of them are threatened and then go back to stabbing each other in the back when the crisis has past). Anyway, that should not deter you from living your truth, do what you want, you have no obligation to have children, all that nationalism is soykaf.

>>12974 >trans people seem to think there is a true identity and once they pin it down they can alter their lifestyle/body to suit it and align everything mentally I think a lot of the discourse about trans people implies this, but that it's not really true. All of the trans people I know personally just view gender as another attribute (and one that may change) and would greatly prefer if people stopped treating their transness as if it was their identity. I think the idea that trans people have to pin down their "true" identity is from people trying earnestly to empathize with gender dysphoria but failing because it's a pretty weird feeling that gets oversimplified to "they feel like they're really a woman trapped in a man's body, and they need to live that truth" all the time.

>>12974 >I'm always suspicious if I'm happy. If I'm happy I know there's something wrong, like I'm not seeing or realizing something. Textbook depression symptom

>>12977 this this this this this this. gender is one of the biggest psyops of our society, once you get a bit redpilled about it you begin to see how capitalism really really likes to gender things, and mark a strong distinction line between genders. the way trans people see it, is much more natural, human, and generally freeing. gender accelerationism truly is one of the big pillars of XXI century revolutionary ideals.

>>12931 needing a medication isn't the same as addiction

>>12941 >i started this discussion only so I could hear opinions that align with mine!!! That's a basic tranny moment. You call yourself a woman but you have a man's understanding of what a woman is. It's easy to close your eyes on this because you want to believe, and I'm sure you'll find many techniques to do so. But the old adage is simple truth, you will just never be a woman. (If truth hurts something in you is built of lies)

>>12988 How nice of you to ignore the fact that we went past useless name-calling and actually delved into some sort of discussion and to drag it back to the surface lest we actually make some progress other than owning people on the other team.

>>12989 Anon just made a note that OP is hostile against differing views. No need to take it personally

>>12988 >seething because of someone else's perspective on life that doesn't absolutely affect you in any meaningful way >YoU dOnT hEaR dIfFerEnT oPiNiOnS touch grass ;3

>>12991 "seething because of someone else's perspective on life that doesn't absolutely affect you in any meaningful way" is exactly what OP was doing. you need to read. looks like my different opinion really triggered your ass apart, eh?

>>12977 Huh... I don't meet many actual trans people so I don't know. Sorry. > "they feel like they're really a woman trapped in a man's body, and they need to live that truth" That does sound pretty annoying. >>12979 Explain. How do trans people see it? What is gender accelerationism?

>>12990 I didn't take it personally. Check out 2 posts below to see what the discussion turns into if you point out these things. If someone who you are having a discussion that you are interested in gets overly emotional the best course of action is to try to deascalate and keep the ball rolling instead of trying to shed light in logical inconsistencies in the statements made under duress.

>>12994 I don't know how that lain is using gender accelerationism but it's this https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vikky-storm-the-gender-accelerationist-manifesto The tl;dr of it is "abolish gender with communism and a splash of violence." It's one of those niche philosophies that only exists on the internet and has support by only a handful of people and is actively adhered to by even less, so I don't think it's worth much time to look into or discuss. The basic idea of "abolish gender" is more widely supported as it just entails the belief that gender is made up, shouldn't matter, and should be done away with (or as I've seen someone here phrase it before "gender is a spook"). That has more real world support, especially outside of the trans community since it's been fairly popular in feminist groups for over half a century now, but it's also one of those things where I think the trans community's general belief ("general" is a key word because it's not dogma and there's plenty of varying takes on it) is "abolishing gender would be cool and worth working toward, but it's a pipedream and not practical for day-to-day life."

>>13003 That manifesto was really badly written and cringing why is the idea of abolishing gender appealing to trans people? what do they mean by it?

>>12997 i wonder what trans people ever did to you to make you say stuff like this and feel this hostile. i hopw that whatever it is, you can manage to get over it eventually. good luck <3

>>13005 Ignore them anon. to be honest I'm pretty mixed about if we should accept trans people or not. But I get the feeling there are a lots of trans larpers out there who are basically middle aged men with fetishes, people see that and go "see their all tr00ns! it explains everything!" etc and it gives them the ammunition they need to attack people unnecessarily.

I wonder if it's possible to trial being transgender just to see what it's like. But that also sounds patronizing and dumb.

>>13007 most of HRT's effects are completely reversible, though if you're male taking estrogen, you would have to risk small amounts of breast tissue which would shrink upon discontinuing it, but not completely go away, if female taking testosterone, some body and facial hair may be permanent (but it will lighten and thin out upon discontinuing it), any voice changes will be permanent (though you can train that away, and clitoral growth will also be permanent. You have to look at the effects to see if they'd benefit you, I think morphological freedom, hrt as a bodymod is very cyberpunk. If you're smart, you can easily source both estrogen and testosterone without seeing a doctor indefinitely.

>>12931 Why are we expected to be limited to only a single sexual organ?

>>13013 there are some doctors who will create a vaginal canal while preserving the phallus you'd have to research this as it's more experimental, this is mostly because of a modern technique Peritoneal Pull-down Vaginoplasty which in the case of neo vaginas, creates one that has lubrication and better blood flow, so better recovery. Don't expect a penile preserving vaginoplasty to have the aesthetics of a neo vagina though, as you're not using a lot of donor tissue that wold otherwise be used to make it look close to the real thing.

>>13012 Important to mention that HRT slightly increases the risk of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and sometimes womb cancer. So be careful if you have bad medical history or were exposed to high levels of radiation or carcinogens. It won't be too bad on it's own but a combination 2 or more factors is best avoided if possible.

>>13015 sure, for effects of long-term use, if you're amab, estradiol's risk factors should reduce your chances of more male oriented cancers and cardiovascular problems, as well as cognitive decline as it's neuroprotective, but obviously vastly increase chance of breast cancer, those chances will all go back to male levels if you quit. As for breast cancer risk, it will be elevated vs never going on hrt if you quit, but it won't be high, as estrogens causing breast cell proliferation are mostly what causes that soykaf[spoiler][/spoiler]

>>13016 >as well as cognitive decline as it's neuroprotective Didn't know this. Preliminary duckduckgo results indicate it is likely true. Guess I have to add estrogen to my nootropic stack now.

>>13017 If I were to put my 20th century evolutionary biologists hat on and shoot from the hip it is generally true that females of the species are noticeably more robust and conservative in terms of genetic variation and instinctual behaviour. This is in no way shape or form to be turned into social Darwinism, we are talking broad strokes that apply to animals and in humans it can me modified by culture and remains mostly in domains of physiology. I cannot stress this point enough. That said, one of the reasons is the cyclical nature of the menstrual cycle. The cycle goes through phases, even if one phase is out of whack, the subsequent are more normal usually. In males there is no such thing and so if your hormonal profile is compromised it will take much longer to self correct if at all. As for the reasons? Well, the knee jerk reaction is to say that makes are the cannon fodder since there is usually no issue with offspring even if there are less males around. There were significantly less males around after WWII and we still got the baby boom in almost every country that was affected. There are plenty of stories of soldiers not returning home to ir original families (some were changed too much psychologically or physically and decidex it would be best if they were considered dead for everyone they knew before) and just wandering around and having children with many women, who were sometimes willing as it was their best chance to get to be a mother.

>>13012 Sure, it's not surgically removing any sexual organs so unlike those procedures it's still going to be somwehat reversible, even if not entirely as you pointed out. But a big issue, asside from the increased risk of cancer and suicidal depression when treatment is stopped and the patient finds themselves with bottomed out testosterone, it's the use of HRT and puberty blockers during formative years, thus stunting the normal growth and development that also will not be "caught up on" later. Look into some of the "transgretter" stories and what they go through after "reverse transitioning". So considering these issues, I just don't think that transitioning therapy can be prescribed in good faith as often as it is to all those confused teens who likely just need someone to talk to or be left to figure out things for themselves without leaving them with regret, permanent damage or worse.

>>13021 puberty blockers are definitely not an issue in "formative years". in fact, it gives people more power over their own bodies, allowing them to pick which puberty they want to undergo, if any, later on, without much difference. hormones? sure, giving them to kids might be wrong, just as it might be wrong to let them undergo "natural" puberty while they clearly display symptoms of gender dysphoria.

>>13023 yeah the only real long term downside of puberty blockers, is being taller than you'd otherwise end up.

>>13012 I don't think I'd go far as HRT for a 6 month trial. I still have no idea where I'd start. Maybe I'm too old for this? Gender experimentation seems to come easily to Gen Z but I still find it hard being a regular functional human being.

>>13025 6 months is about the max length that you'd wanna do as a trial, more reversibility

>>13014 i am living to see man made horrors beyond my comprehension

>>13021 I've watched a few detransitioner videos and for pre-op mtf who detransition it's just, "I stopped shaving, stopped hormones, and started using my masculine voice again." preop ftm get a soykaftier deal since they'll need to laser their facial hair away and the voice changes are permanent, but it's not the end of the world. The only detransition stories I've seen where I felt bad for them is ones where they had surgery and regret it. >who likely just need someone to talk to The ideal solution would be a cheaper and more available mental healthcare system so that those kids can get the treatment they need. The detransitioners I've seen usually had some other mental illness, like BPD, depression, drug addiction, and didn't have those addressed before transitioning. >>13023 >just as it might be wrong to let them undergo "natural" puberty while they clearly display symptoms of gender dysphoria. I agree. Much riskier medicine is considered okay for teenagers. The extremely low occurrence of true detransitioners (where "true detransitioners" mean those who detransition because they realize transing is not for them, not those who undergo detransition as a result of not having access to medical care) makes it seem like a more acceptable risk than many other medicines.

>>12941 none of that was "transphobic", the people who react this way to sane commentary are usually the people who arent actually trans and will regret it later. You should probably consider looking deeper and waiting before you do anything irreversible to yourself, if you please. There is real risk you will regret it. There are of course people who are actually trans who it can sometimes be worth it, but it's probably not you and you probably have other problems.

>>12931 So what you fear is being dependent on the drugs? Consider how we frame this for minute. People regularly consume coffee and tea which contain substances that alter or influence their body chemistry. Often, people cannot function properly without consuming them regularly. But we don't use big words like ''addiction'' or ''dependency'' or even ''drug'' to describe this phenomenon. Humans are dependent on food, water, reproduction and shelter for survival, but different cultures have additional things that they deem essential and socially necessary based on complex ideas of ''need.'' Americans feel they need recreational sex, although strictly speaking this is not biologically necessary. Buddhist monks think they need to avoid recreational sex. But we don't call sex-havers addicts or monks sadomasochists. Now, is there anything inherently wrong in needing HRT? Why choose to frame your existence through the idea that needing substances is bad and dangerous? Lain, if you need HRT you need HRT. You shouldn't worry about dependency or addiction anymore than a diabetic that needs insulin or the salaryman that needs his coffee break. Unless your issue is financial, which is a whole other can of red chili peppers. >>13033 People who were beaten as children tend to flinch whenever someone raises their hand. It's an understandable overreaction, even if all they want to do is make a gun hand gesture and yell HEY MAN PYW PYW. Likewise, lainon was just jumping the barrel. I get what their coming from, they want an answer to their question about addiction not soykafposts or debates about what causes trannyness, although that topic is not entirely unrelated. I really want some chili peppers for some reason. I will eat them.

>>13034 Puzzling post. >But we don't use big words like ''addiction'' or ''dependency'' or even ''drug'' to describe this phenomenon. Yes we do. Caffeine addiction is an incredibly well-researched topic. We also call it that: caffeine *dependence*, a public health issue. This isn't exactly a US-centric view either; caffeine dependence and withdrawal is often referred to as a global epidemic. >But we don't call sex-havers addicts Yes we do? Sex addiction is a mental illness. So is codependence, which it's often linked to. Now, of course it all depends on personal values and nothing's purportedly an illness in the realm of subjectivity, but it's healthy to understand reliance on any possibly harmful or damning or otherwise altering substance or routine is, indeed, an addiction. Literature's been written on the topic: millennials and genZs are addicted to the idea of exploring addiction, from research and journals on both physical and psychological drugs to literary fiction (Infinite Jest? Trainspotting?). >Now, is there anything inherently wrong in needing HRT? If you want to make an argument you could point out dependence is slavery and servitude (in an individualistic worldview that refuses to acknowledge the very identity it's selling you) and any addiction is ultimately a psychological cope for not adapting healthily to your baseline, a sign of forgoing proper psychological and physical development in answer to the needs of your sad existence. But upon retrospect just you do what feels is right. I'm only laying out my depression here in the open.

>>13035 In that vein abstaining from something could be considered a virtue which is a trap many fall into. For example, Global eating disorder prevalence increased from 3.4% to 7.8% between 2000 and 2018. (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2019) 70 million people internationally live with eating disorders. (National Eating Disorders Association) Japan has the highest prevalence of eating disorders in Asia, followed by Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. (International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2015) Austria had the highest rate of prevalence in Europe at 1.55% as of 2012. (Psychology Today, 2013) Almost half of all Americans know someone with an eating disorder. (South Carolina Department of Mental Health) https://www.singlecare.com/blog/news/eating-disorder-statistics/ Now I'm not an anti-westerner, but there is something to be said about those things people in US call international values and Chinese people call western values. Obviously Communism with Chinese characteristics is also bad with abysmal rates of obesity and diabetes that rival the US, but that could be attributed to big sugar gaslighting the whole world for 75 years. Just saying that not taking something can become a problem too before you decide to be an ascetic be conscious of mental traps

>>13035 you can create your own hrt by buying cheap raws from china anyway, no need to be slaves to big pharma, it can all be very cyberpunk

>>13034 >Why choose to frame your existence through the idea that needing substances is bad and dangerous? What makes an addiction an addiction is when there is a high cost to stopping and a high cost to continuing and you would have been better off not starting at all.

>>12948 many trans are autistic, many engineers are autistic. do the math

>>13041 >you can also have anorexia, which is bad thank you for your insights

Honestly you're better off waiting to transition. It is almost guaranteed that techno-capitalism will invent more effective and safer methods of transitioning as more and more people realize that they either don't subscribe to the gender binary or were assigned the wrong gender at birth. It's a new and developing market, and it will be exploited to the fullest. Wait a decade and I promise you the surgeries and drugs will be better. Just suffer for now, like everyone else.

My admittedly low-functioning brain thinks the idea of abolishing the concept of gender instead of jumping from either side to the other to be the more logical option if gender norms trouble you. What is the counter-argument to gender accelerationism that isn't rooted in reactionary worldview? If you were born male but don't want to follow the gender expectations of a male, why not work to break those gender expectations instead of completely submitting yourself to either gender role that is slightly closer to your inner self? The admission that 'I don't want to be my gender' seems to implicitly recognize that the concept of gender norms is the problem. Males are expected to have certain habits and traits ("masculine") that differ from those by women ("feminine"). So why would you insist on instead being perceived as a woman when you could insist on breaking the concept that a gender is expected to fill a certain role altogether. Social structures have existed for a reason but as we approach the technological singularity those structures are not essential for human preservation any longer. Some consider the non-binary identity to be the agnosticism of gender views, but I can only see it as the most rational conclusion, to campaign for the abolishment of the system itself. Let's start calling it 'people with dicks' or 'people with vaginas', have them do whatever.

>>13051 That ignores the fact that population goes something like Heterosexual>homosexual>trans>asexual with everybody else in-between Natural selection has a 100 million years of head start on this issue and it's judgement is that there should be a balance with heterosexual people being the majority. Notice how I'm not saying that everybody else should not be present. That's not what nature pushes towards. It very much Allows for incredible variety for about 10% of population give or take. When you put this balance under stress it will create tension. Maybe you can keep it that way and owerpower natural tendencies, but there will always remain a philosophical argument that we should return to the natural state supported by both crazy traditionalist people at the helm and the silent majority to back them up. Unless you eliminate all dissent and establish a dictatorship of course. That will buy you like 10 years of this. I don't want every discussion to go there, but Hitler actually tried his eugenic practices by interbreeding people he deemed Aryans and killing all the deviants. Needless to say this didn't result in performance improvement nor was it willingly continued and the normal proportional arrangement was restored. I believe there will always be this 90/10% divide as long as we continue to be a biological species I support your right to do whatever you want and live your truth, just be aware that there is a cap on how many people like you there would be and so be mindful that you would need coalitions to get your rights as you are a perpetual minority as opposed to African Americans and Hispanics for example, who are just naturally getting their voice heard buy having noticeable vote power. Also I don't recommend circumventing democratic systems because then your small numbers make you vulnerable to being viped out outright. People with similar worldviews will be back after another 30 years or so, but the lineage can be broken. But hey, that's just my crazy ramblings. Take of that what you will.

a few years ago, that balance was definitely much more one-sided than that. there are certainly more non-cisgender people today than there was last century. so everything seems to imply we're either in an exponential curve, or the only 'natural' balance is the one we had 1000 years or so (which also means the current-day balance is not natural either). agricultural society is the cause. abundance of food causes a population explosion which means need for reproduction is diminished. we saw this happen worldwide after the industrial revolution. as the need for reproduction loosens, so does the need for heterosexual people. the ratio is naturally slipping away as the need to fuarrrk thy neighbor to keep society from falling is reduced.

>>13058 t. replying to >>13052

>>13058 As a refutation of your point about agricultural society I offer you the bonobos https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24214293/ As for there not being as many non cisgender people I think the history doesn't support that notion. Homosexuality and transvestism were very much a known thing in the ancient world and there are plenty of weird practices that mess with gender identity all around the world. Is it the same as current stuff and there were always trans people? Not nessesarily, but there certainly were the eunuchs, the voluntarily celibate people, homosexuals and bisexuals, transvestites, people into bestiallity and so on and so forth. Plus many people didn't consider Marriage and having children as something more than a duty and a tool to gain power and wealth through family bonds. Nowadays it is just much more acceptable to not be married and to never have children and the internet allows a minority of people to amplify their voice. Flat earth or reptilians were almost gone until the internet allowed them to flourish. So no, I don't think so. It's true that the contents of these 10 present are different nowadays with modern medicine and outlawing of castration and other older practices, but unless there is some rigorous research published that disproves that, it appears there were always about a tenth of people who were not into or not only into the opposite sex for one reason or another. Don't you think so, lainon?

I dont think looking at it as an addiction is the right way to look at it when it's actually a dependency not an addiction. I do sort of get what OP is getting at but it's pretty natural to have an interest in how you look and that's fine so long as it doesn't consume you. You should always place more importance on who you are as a person over your aesthetics since you really cant control your appearance as much as you can who you are as a person. Do keep in mind really old people all look alike regardless of their sex wrinkly as fuarrrk. Though I should mention OP has a few options. For example an orchiectomy would remove need for being on an anti androgen drug though of course this has reproductive consequences so you either have to not ever want kids and be totally sure or have them now or freeze sperm in a bank otherwise you have to either have to have some unrelated to you or wait till there is more public availability of alternative artifical reproductive processes like creating artificial eggs or sperm from your cells. Technically that could also be paired with a scrotectomy for aesthetics but only as an alternative to a vaginoplasty since ive been told you cant do the scrotectomy then a vaginoplasty later. If the hormones dont do a whole lot to your appearances as the biggest importance and it's more about feelings there is other drugs you could consider being on ones meant for depression and depersonalization disorder may help. Reason for this is sex hormones like testosterone and estradiol both act as SERT modulators and many trans people also have symptoms of depersonalization disorder.

>>12931 I can offer you some advice as someone with a chronic disease who is dependent upon medications in order to simply stay alive. You don't want this dependence. Corporations and the State can and will financially bleed you, enslave you, torture you, and kill you once you are married to the System. You suspect the promises may be Faustian bargains because they are.

What is a woman? I never understood when people said "I am a woman now" because I guess I don't know what makes someone a woman. Does wearing a dress make you a woman? Does having longer hair make you a woman? Does wearing makeup make you a woman?

>>13142 It's a word. Specifically a compound of wīf (“woman, female”, whence English wife) +‎ mann (“person, human being”, whence English man); thus equivalent to wife +‎ man. So fundamentally it's a man that is wife. Man is actually in general, because men were called "wereman" which means husband + man. Apart from that the definition is up to the public. Words are just symbolic representations of concepts, hard definitions came from epistemology and we don't operate in that level. Thus woman is whatever the social group you're in thinks a woman is. Also, what is your view of the concept of gay marriage?

>>13143 Etymology is not a definition. I don't need a history of how word became what it is today in order to understand what words mean. You said it yourself, words have meaning as far as we socially construct meaning for them, and as such I wanna know what a "woman" is. You said the public decides and it's symbolic.... symbolic OF WHAT? If we were to go with your etymology then any person who is a "wife" is a woman. What is a "wife" then? I eon't answer the gay marriage question because I don't want to derail the thread and lets just stick to the topic at hand.

>>13060 >I offer you the bonobos bonobos are pretty different than other very close relatives of ours like chimpanzees in certain regards. While looking at them may give some food for thought about early human society and general human behavior, its food for thought not actual concolusions. >flat earthers were almos gon before da internet come aroun' did they ? There were regular meetings of flatearth groups for decades before the rise of the internet, I'm not sure the internet has done anything but make them more casually discoverable, which though it could help with recruiting, idk if it does. anyway, fact remains that things we'd call sexual perversions are nothing new and have probably been around as long as humankind has to some degree. maybe the more salient thing to think about is the stances that more successful societies have taken on these, do they supress them or do they normalize them ? >>13142 proposed definition: you are a woman

>>13145 >proposed definition: you are a woman and you will never be a woman

>>13147 Jeez, stop gloating about how you're in the secret club.

>>13035 >Yes we do. Caffeine addiction is an incredibly well-researched topic. >Yes we do? Sex addiction is a mental illness. NTA, but that anon specified coffee drinkers not coffee addicts, and people who regularly have sex not sex addicts. Both regular coffee drinkers and regular sex havers say they feel like they need to have these things and not having them makes life difficult or stressful, yet we don't call these people addicts unless their shoving spoons of coffee into their eyelids or are fapping 30 times a day. We have this myth of individuality, that we can be independent of the world around us and the more independent we are the better. But in reality, we're hooked up to stuff and dependent on things even if they aren't biologically necessary. A diabetic doesn't worry about being dependent on insulin, he just accepts it as a fact of life. Sure, big phrama is going to financially rape him over insulin, but that's an economic issue not something inherent to being diabetic. Instead of worrying about losing individual independence, OP should just accept that they need the drugs. We're all dependent on something after all, so why worry about it? >>13060 >Homosexuality and transvestism were very much a known thing in the ancient world It's foolish to think our post-modern concepts of sex and gender are appropriate when discussing the ancient world. The Ancient Greeks for example endorsed a one sex model, where women are simply inverted men and in between these two poles you have a spectrum of mixed people with hermaphrodites in the middle. The Greeks were perfectly fine with older men sodomizing boys and having sex with girls/women, but an adult male sodomizing an adult male was seen as a terrible crime worthy of death. Are these people homosexuals, pederasts or pedophiles? The labels don't really fit. In the Ottoman empire, it was considered ordinary for men to pursue both male and female romantic partners, to the point it was considered abnormal if you didn't chase both, but sexual penetration between two males was strictly punished. Are these people bisexuals? Probably not. Point is, gender and sexuality are cultural, we are the way we are because of societal brainwashing. The real reason we've seen an explosion of non-cisgender people is the mix of Western individualism and mind-body dualism, which goes back to Descartes, aggressive neoliberal consumer hedonism and the internet. The wired allowed people to socialize and represent themselves online outside of their actual physical body. This basically created the explosion in trans culture. Even brainwashing is easier, people can be sucked into some queer sexual or gender subculture on social media and be reared into it whereas before you were pretty much raised in your home environment and that never really changed. This what the anti-trans tranny bashers don't really get. Transgenderism isn't some random form of social deviance, it's a result of modern technology reshaping reality and breaking down what was once a simple distinction (if dick = man. if vagina = woman). Pregnancy was once a fundamental aspect of womanhood, an impotent woman suffered massive psychological damage as a result of her disability, but thanks to birth control pills, there are women that can have sex multiple times and never get pregnant in their entire lives and are perfectly happy with that. Bottom line, the genie is out of the bottle and things are never going back to the way they were.

>>13143 >>13142 Wtf last time I had biology class, a woman was someone with XX chromosomes and men XY. Did you guys skip school?

>>13150 >I learned it in school so it must be true

>Elementary school biology is false. And I thought this was a STEM board. Through happenstance our species ended up with sexual dimorphism. Meaning, at conception a biological mechanism decides what sex we're born with and triggers all the corresponding attributes of that sex that emerged under selective pressure for the survival strategy that we happened to end up with. So there really are just two options, to be either a male or female specimen of our kind. Granted, this process can fail or encounter complications and lead to rare conditions, such as hermaphroditism or some other misdevelopment of sexual organs or hormonal levels, body structure and so on but these instances are rare under normal circumstances, like harlequin babies or other birth defects, since usually the individuals affected can not reproduce. Rendering these two states that can very stable. However they've still led to some old cultures, who didn't have microscopes, come up with additional "genders". But to say that ancient Greeks, or orthodox Hebrews, some random isolate tribe somewhere or some other alternative medicine believes there to be additional special genders has no relevance to modern scientific understanding of there being these two general states typical for our species which are necessary to produce offspring and perform the division of labor that each sex, on average, ended up specializing on. Anything else, be it some variation or something in between, is nothing separate of it but instead based on either or both of those two basic sexes. And any gender expression appears to be at most some personal musing or sociological phenomenon to either defy their biology or a cope to deal with an unfortunate misconfiguration thereof. Thus the question of what is a man or a woman can indeed be generalized to this one mechanism that is incredibly fundamental to us and our human condition. And what we consider a "sex change" barely even scratches the surface of that.

>>13152 I was more critiquing the argument from authority rather than the actual claim

>>13150 Guess what? Any content of any subject you learn in school you learn is tossed out the window the first time you go to college to learn it on a professional level. >>13144 Your line of thinking is just as derailing as any other here. Trying to find concrete definitions for biological things on a level higher than molecular is a fruitless endeavour. Nature doesn't care for you trying to sort things out into neat boxes. In fact it put the desire to sort things out into you to increase your chances of surviving and reproducing. The implication of your line of thinking can be interpreted 2 ways. The first one Is that we don't know what a woman is but it is something, we just need to think harder and if we find the answer then all problems will go away. Or we already know the answer and it's a person with XX chromosomes. Not very helpful at all, I think.

>>13152 Biology means nothing in a social context. A trans person does not give a soykaf if they were born with male chromosomes or female chromosomes, they only care about what social pretext those classes are fitted in, and will approximate themselves to that which most closely resembles their ideal image, and human technology now allows them to do so. The 'elementary school biology' argument is repeated ad nauseam by conservatives because they haven't realized we as humans now have the capacity to break those 'laws of nature' they cling their worldviews so desperately to. Do you think cars are 'natural'? Don't they break the natural order that we animals need to use our legs to get around? So why would we care if trans people aren't 'natural' either? What you need to realize is that your sacred laws of nature are being broken one-by-one, and as time progresses those laws such as 'elementary school biology' will only become anecdotes in technological human society. Sex is a social construct based on evolutionary biology, but as soon as that 'evolutionary biology' can be manipulated, it becomes nothing more than the vestige of a social construct that can morphed and played around at will, in name of the social context it is being used in. Trans people can't reproduce at the present day, but once they can (and believe me, they will), the genie will be out of the bottle for good.

>>13156 Cars are natural. They are built by humans for humans. Otherwise the chipped rock can be natural or unnatural depending on whether it was chipped by the chimpanzee or a human and that's just silly. Toolmaking is our instinct, we do it without noticing how unique this ability actually is. Here's a good example. Exhibit a is a fungus farm made by humans. Exhibit b is a fungus farm made by humans. One is stored memetically, the othee genetically. That is the only fundamental difference between the two things. They are built by living things to increase the adaptability of those things to the environment by providing a benefit.

>>13156 Why change your gender identity if there is no difference between men and women?

>>13156 >Biology means nothing in a social context. Biology means a whole lot in a social context. Most if not all of our interpersonal interactions are shaped by our evolutionary psychology. Examples like "flight or fight", any of our emotional states or any other primal pattern that defines our actions and responses emerged as part of some survival strategy at some point because before any industrialization, nature rarely allowed for any dead weight to stick around. This includes sexual dimorphism and gender roles. Calling it a mere social construct with the implication that it's all arbitrary and can be changed with very little effort means to not understand how deeply ingrained these evolutionary systems and biological mechanisms are within that human condition of ours. Now you can believe that changing your sex to that of the opposite is what you want, and even if it's not just some delusion, you can go and try to "break those laws of nature with the capacity that we now have" with all your hubris and apply some lipstick, put on a nice summer dress, train your voice to sound more feminine, get a pair of fake breasts, do surgically remove and replace your genitals with something that kinda looks like the real thing in the correct light, put yourself on a life long schedule of medications to disrupt your hormonal levels into roughly the "correct" direction and to keep your body from rejecting your body mods, get plastic surgery and alter your facial bone structure in a few key spots and so on but the most you can hope for is to "pass". Meaning to immitate the appearance of a woman. But many don't even manage that, let alone actually become one, if they've been born male. If you compare this to cars then I'm worried you've watched too many Pixar movies. A moth can not become an owl, the differences are too substantial. It can however immitate one through mimicry. A crude mockery, so to speak, which is what our current state of medical technology amounts to. >Do you think cars are 'natural'? My argument wasn't about whether something is "natural" or not. Good luck defining that anyway. Talking about cars is missing the point. As already mentioned, they're just a tool, but of such complexity that you need expertise even just to maintain them. Every mechanic will tell you it's a lot of moving parts, that need to be designed well to function as a whole. This is non trivial, and yet it's still like playing with legos in comparison to perform any meaningful changes on the human body, even if that task didn't also involve sustaining a running system while modifying it. Of course you can regard the human body as a machine and aproach it as such. I haven't stated the opposite. But keep in mind, it's a mechanism that's shaped by a billion years of absolutely blind and mindless trial and error design, yielding an absurd level of complexity with all sorts of nuanced side efects with its "components" on a subcellular level in the trillions. So theoretically what you're saying is possible but it's akin to mechanically separating two liquids that are mixed together. If you disagree, I recommend you to brush up on that supposedly discredited basic school biology because that's first principles thinking which has gotten us thus far and still appears to be yielding sufficiently predictable results that it's still worthwhile to not discard any of it just yet. >The 'elementary school biology' argument is repeated ad nauseam by conservatives So? I don't even consider my self as a "conservative". At least not what you mean. I'm not an US american republican, nor am I your parents against whom you still hold some grudge. Instead I am convinced of the validity of our scientific progress thus far. I see what the STEM disciplines provide us with and am actively involved in some. And I see with great regret how even the basic concepts are being trampled by subjectivist ideas and blatant misconceptions like these. So maybe that's what I wish to conserve in order so we aren't throwing out the baby with the bathing water. So again, I don't think what you're proposing is impossible in principle. It likely will be attained, even if not within our lifetimes. But eventually, I'm sure, if we manage to not destroy ourselves til then. And we will be able to create humans in a vat. But this will most likely not be accessible to any private individuals, except maybe for the super rich. And even then, the trend seems like human reproduction is going to be increadingly regulated and other nations are going to catch up with China's n-child-policies. And once we unlock human cloning, chances are it's going to be some "brave new world" scenario with anointed "architects" who're going to be in charge of the criterias selected. While it's unlikely that it's gonna be you who'll be granted an artificial womb to get to propagate your quirky trans genes.

>>13159 Biologically, humans developed an aversion to mimicry for self-preservation, as mimics in nature are often dangerous. The irony is that the closer one gets to perfect mimicry, the deeper the dive into uncanny valley and repulsion.

>>13160 Hmmmm weird you say that, only one certain people call themselves "white" when they tell others what to do and other ethnicity when blame gets on them

Her name was Norah Vincent The body that was sooo empty and sooo short is now not. Write a longer post. Here I'm writting a lontger post

>>13170 Lord Poseidon, we're the same species. Our DNA is 99.9 same in every single human. Phenotypic differences are mostly visual. There can be no mimicry inside the same species, that's just absurd. Don't appropriate biological terms in your racial pseudoscience.

>>13174 >99.9 same in every single human This is a little dishonest, isn't it? First of all, we're european DNA is 99.7% when compared to an african. "Yeah? So? That's only 0.3%!" except there are some apes that have a closer DNA match to Africans. That's not the only thing. Bonobos and Africans have less X/A ratio difference than Africans and Europeans. We're not talking a small margin either, we're talking magnitudes of 6 - 7 times.

>>13174 >>13175 I'll go further than that. Have these three nice little images. Go ahead, goal post move because you can't deny the difference in race. "The same species" indeed.

What you are struggling from is not just a fear of addiction, but a hatred of the self. I cannot tell you how to not hate yourself because I have yet to overcome that myself. But I can tell you that this is not unique. People with type 1 are reliant on medication to live. People with clinical depression can also be reliant on medication. That is not inherently a bad thing. Food is a medication for not starving to death. Stretching your limbs is a medication for not having muscle and joint pain at all hours of the day in old age. It is not addiction, it is treatment. The rate of regret for estradiol is very low. Borderline non-existent. If you don't believe me, go ask a DIYer personally. You won't get any better by just standing around and fearing the consequences. HRT isn't like recreational drugs. You have some temporary effects, yes, but you also have many permanent ones. They won't leave when you stop. And if you take the proper precautions, it won't matter if you do anyways. You may fear that this change will restrict your freedom. But I can assure you that the hellish prison of your own body is far worse than the easily shaken shackles of a pill. I have personally never felt more free.

>>13176 i haven't read everything but what is the point of this? trying to proof that there is a difference between the races, and if there is a difference do you suggest that there is a superior race? and if there is one what makes it the better race? and how do you decide that?

>>13171 Is that supposed to be a meme for ants? But I agree, it's unfortunate what happened to Norah. I have to check out "Self Made Man" when I get the chance. >>13176 I think there's a better version of the last image that doesn't look like a facebook meme. Looks mostly accurate though. >>13179 There isn't that much to read. And not speaking for the other Anon here. I don't care about any sentiments of superiority. But about what's factual and how we can all get along despite our differences. And understanding has to come first.

>>13179 >but what is the point of this? It's simply the counterpoint of "We are all the same." There is a "difference between the races" and this is what that diversity was talking about. If we are all the same, then why do we bother with all these forced diversity initiatives? If we are all the same, then why, when comparing plants and other animals in nature, are we particular down to the last hair about differences. And so on. It's just dishonest rhetoric. Personally, any ideology with a foundation built upon dishonesty does not sound like a particularly good one. >do you suggest that there is a superior race? No, I do not suggest "a" superior race. Superiority is a vague, and even subjective, term because what people consider to be "superior" is arbitrary in an everchanging world. For example, in our current, hypermaterialistic world, most people would base superiority on the gathering of such "material" goods, even just capital. What about a world in which we only care about winners of olympic games? Then we would define a superior race on who wins those games. >>13181 >I think there's a better version of the last image that doesn't look like a facebook meme. To be honest with you, this conveys the idea it is intended to share in a simple and concise way and, unfortunate as it may be, Memes do a lot of heavy lifting today in the sharing of ideas. >Looks mostly accurate though. It is 100% accurate. Although, I do agree that it would be much better to provide information about the history per nation, but I believe these are intended more for rhetoric. Any individual attempting to "prove the image wrong" will end up researching and finding much more information on the matter and likely drop the discussion, whether through ideologically based rejection of the idea where they conclude with "UR A RACIST/BIGOT/FASCIST/ETC" or the extremely rare "I was wrong" reaction.

>>13183 I'm not the diversity proponent but I think the reason for it is that the race theory was developed to justify enslavement and cruel treatment of huge ammounts of people which was nessesary for growing the economy and creating the European prosperity. Combined with the other tool justifing continued suffering of slaves, Christianity, it was used to subjugate and erase many cultures. It is understandable thst those people are a bit miffed when they are told to get over it without any reparations for what was done. It's not always racial, in fact it's not racial in most countries because they didn't deal with racism the same way as the US did. The comment about ruling structures needing to be built upon truth is just childish. Plato's Republic and Machiavelli's the Prince are explicitly about what institutions need to be to function, and information control is the crucial part of ruling. We are now able to read news 24/7 everywhere and many people are paralysed by this. If people truly were constantly told every truth that every expert in the world possessed people would become uncontrollable and self destructive. That's just the way it is. Also, pictures are not proof, proof is verified research published in a reputable journal of science. If you don't trust the institution, then publish the raw data and methods so that everyone can peer review it themselves. I've danced this dance before and don't seem to find any reputable geneticist without schizophrenia arguing such things at least and obviously nothing on the topic is published. Otherwise It's value to the question is as much as the Croissant.jpg And let's say for the wild sake of argument thst some populations of people are a bit farther from the rest generically? So what? We can interbreed with them easily and erase this disparity in a few generations.

>>13184 >Combined with the other tool justifing continued suffering of slaves, Christianity, it was used to subjugate and erase many cultures. Christianity was the reason the british empire freed all their slaves.

>>13185 >Christianity was the reason the british empire freed all their slaves it also justify it

>>13184 >race theory was developed to justify enslavement and cruel treatment of huge ammounts of people which was nessesary for..... Reading old books and histories it seems historically people were rather more ok with the idea of intelligent non human creatures. Imagine being an old european explorer heading out on your ship to explore the coast of africa. You leave your home, your city, your civilization, and pass along weeks or months at sea. In europe, north africa you see a lot of things that resemble your home, but the further you get things become stranger. Maybe you see some monkeys, pygmies, various creatures. eventually you meet bantus or something like them, clearly higher than i.e. chimps and gorillas but...they're clearly not like the folks back home. They're shaped different, behave different, think different. They're more aliens than most 'aliens' in star trek, what would make you think they were human? 'Race theory' is a natural outcome of trying to explain plainly obvious differences between different creatures.

>>13174 >le 99.9% is same Do you honestly not understand how great 0.1% of genetic difference means? >outside appearance means nothing lmao And imagine, if this outside appearance is HARDER to evolutionary develop due to environmental forces HOW EASIER it actually is for INTERNAL differences to be. Lets say like most recent genetic difference of lactose intolerance vs lactose breakdown enzymes in stomach and gut. Or God forbid mental capabilities and other enzyme pathways.

>>13187 The aliens in star trek were actors in makeup, obviously they're not going to be alien. Furthermore, sub-saharan Africa wasn't unheard of to Europeans. Through the Muslims they were probably aware of at least the Malian kingdoms and Zanzibar as well. There were also many black traders in Asia, although again how many of them went to Europe is a different matter. Anyway, There had been plenty of time for europeans to form opinions about sub-saharan Africans and probably trade with them by the time explorers were bushwhacking their way into the interior. If you wanted to think about a true first contact situation then look at Europeans in the Americas, where they pretty much instantly started enslaving and killing the locals and didn't stop for hundreds if years. This is despite clear evidence that the Aztec empire rivaled many contemporary European states in sophistication.

>>13174 >Phenotypic differences are mostly visual. Except black people have muvh higher bone density, much higher testosterone in blood, different gut germs and smaller frontal and prefrontal cortex. If you choose to use weasel words like "mostly" at least learn that you are using them wrong. Most of phenotype differences are inside and not visual, as outside appearences are hardest to acquire evolutionarily speaking and take more time to develop.

>>13174 >>13191 >I don't know evolutionary biology >well I know even *less* evolutionary biology please stop it's embarrassing and off-topic

>>13186 >it also justify it You realize slavery existed a long time before christianity and still exists today in the islamic world. Justifying slavery is not hard. Justifying the abolition of slavery in the biggest empire in the world with no violence or resistance, only christianity has achieved that.

>>13190 >The aliens in star trek were actors in makeup, obviously they're not going to be [more] alien [than niggers]. without any comments about enslaving or killing they were still traveling in novel places, discovering novel creatures and classifying them, info was available but a lot of it was distorted rumour and the result of long games of telephone. When you're on the ground you're trying to classify a lot of new and novel discoveries and don't entierly know what to expect nor how to class it. Same thing goes with america. And some of these groups had such evidently different moral systems that if you class them as human it becomes more neccisary to defeat/civilize them into a proper christian civilization.

>>13194 >if you class them as human it becomes more neccisary to defeat/civilize them into a proper christian civilization. ah yes, because if someone is weaker than you, it is necessary to subjugate them. Thanks for explaining the actual logic here.

>>13193 British economy wasn't reliant on slavery to operate. Abolition of slavery in the americas was more noteworthy.

>>13184 >race theory was developed to justify... No, it wasn't. You should read the primary sources and discussions of what you are criticising. The goal was exclusively to learn about humanity and seek better understanding of ourselves. How it was employed was a separate talking point, and that was exclusively done from a British perspective which spilled out into the German perspective many centuries later. >Christanity I think it made europe weak, too. For a similar, yet separate reason. >The comment about ruling structures needing to be built upon truth is just childish I never said that about "ruling structures", but what an interesting response, effectively "Yeah, it's a lie but it works." -- A "noble lie" is separate conversation here. I don't care to discuss it, but delusional dishonesty in nature is what gets people mawed by bears and pitbulls. It is nothing more than hubris, and I've never seen hubris work out for many people for very long. >pictures are not proof, proof is verified research published in a reputable journal of science They included sources for those statements, except for the last one, which is fairly easy to find. >wild sake of argument thst some populations of people are a bit farther from the rest generically? Downplaying? For what purpose? >So what? I actually mentioned this specific goal post moving, funnily enough. >We can interbreed with them easily and erase this disparity in a few generations. Race mixed individuals aren't particularly doing great lol. Their genetic structure means they have lost the blood connection to their own family, even so much so that they have to find non-relatives that have a similar blood to them. Either way, your hypothesis isn't a convincing one though, because we can't undo this if we did... But it also contradicts your initial "diversity proponent" by even suggesting it. (inb4 you suddenly actually meant that specific other user) You're not arguing in good faith. This is expected of an unwitting marxist that is accidentally employing the rules for radicals, but I'm also fine with violence, myself. Have you anything genuine to say or are you only going for subversion for the sake of subversion?

This tread has gone places. You just slightly take the bait and mention that mimicry Is not an appropriate term to describe humans and all hell breaks loose. This is now a race thread apparently. People trying to cope with the craziness of this world by deluding themselves with these old theories. Well, looking at birth statics this issue will go away soon so this is just dying spasms. I'm washing my hands off of this. Literally anything I could do instead of talking sence to a bunch of people's who's beliefs are slowly fading away into irrelevance naturally is more worthwhile.

>>13198 He says as his modern rendizion of roman empire dies away and all preconcieved notions his dumb beliefs were founded on just simply die out. What do you think will happen when your daddy government dies and you lose all sense of safety? Those "old theories" you talk about will come right back up. Religion, ethnocentric behavior, normative gender roles and nuclear family.

>>13195 >if someone is weaker than you, it is necessary to subjugate them no, the human sacrifices must stop and the heathen souls must be saved. Its objectively better for the aztecs to be civilized chrisitans than to be whateverthefug they were before.

>>13183 You don't need to explain the power of memetic magic to me. Presentation matters. Like for instance, people will not use a webside if the design doesn't look official or modern enough. Here's the version with less try hard fonts. >>13184 >race theory was developed to justify enslavement I agree that some of the ways this was used, has preemtively discredited a lot of genuine facts. But part of it is also the lack of honesty to make sense of the social struggles we're facing today. >which was nessesary for growing the economy and creating the European prosperity Maybe that was the case in the Americas but Europe did not need slavery to prosper. There was no wide scale slavery of africans on that continent. You may have an argument about the colonies but europeans had prospering nations with ships and sea travel, technological and scientific progress before they even set sail into the new world. The reason why they were able to expand their empire was due to the already pre-existing prosperity. >Combined with the other tool justifing continued suffering of slaves, Christianity, it was used to subjugate and erase many cultures Christianity is what says that "men are created equal under god", which sounds very egalitarian to my ears. Now the question is whether someone is regarded as a human, they then either are left to themselves or moved out of the way when considered necessary or are expected to abide by the same standards of civilization, which under that doctrine were those of a god fearing european. Of course that brings its own set of problems but it's not the blank mischaracterization which you stated. Now you do appear to regret the cultures that have vanished due to history. I do, too, but also am worried of current cultures being destroyed and erased as well. >those people are a bit miffed when they are told to get over it without any reparations Due to lineage I'd have a claim to reparations from the Trans-Saharan slave trade but I doubt I will see a single cent of it. Thus I appear that I have no other choice but to just get over it. >they didn't deal with racism the same way as the US did Not every place is the US though and had slavery of africans. But many nations had enslaved people en masse of different ethnicity. Some even do this day. >The comment about ruling structures needing to be built upon truth is just childish. How so? Why should we just go blind to reality? Granted, people need a "creation myth" and maybe also a Santa Claus but that only serves as providing inspiration and some amusement. But not to make sense of the world around us or to even just prevail in it. >Plato's Republic and Machiavelli's the Prince are explicitly about what institutions need to be to function Yes and? Doesn't mean they're in reality good principles. Granted, "The Prince" is more of a pragmatic guide per example of how to play the game of thrones but "Plato's Republic" is just idealistic musings which are enjoyed by narcissistic megalomaniacs. In reality your "philosopher kings" end up screeching on live TV about them being the corporal manifestation of science because sudden fame and newly found financial opportunities have gotten to their heads. >We are now able to read news 24/7 everywhere and many people are paralysed by this. Because a lot of it is noise and people are bombarded by constant and constructed narratives. Chomsky coined it as manufactured consent. >If people truly were constantly told every truth that every expert in the world possessed people would become uncontrollable and self destructive. Citation needed. >pictures are not proof Sorry but that's a silly statement. Pictures can contain information. Said information can be indicative of something. >proof is verified research published in a reputable journal of science So I can't claim the sky is blue if it isn't written about in some journal that also has its financial interests in mind when its board decide what papers and studies to pick. >then publish the raw data and methods so that everyone can peer review it themselves But isn't that what they did? They posted data that appears to support their claims. And you can go, follow the cited sources and verify those if you see issues with it. But you don't. >don't seem to find any reputable geneticist without schizophrenia I doublt Richard Herrnstein or Charles Murray are suffering schizophrenia. While I've also not seen the actual data having been debunked thus far. >and obviously nothing on the topic is published You appear to not have looked too much into that topic. >some populations of people are a bit farther from the rest generically? So what? We can interbreed with them easily Hello there, mister Kalergi! So differences in historically separated populations of humans don't exist but if they did then we could just blend them all into one single mulatto race? Is that what you're saying? >>13187 I wouldn't call it race theory. I believe that's just as unscientific as claiming that "evolution and branching of a species into different taxonomix ranks exists, except for the homoaspiens. That one is special somehow!" Instead it's just a matter of anthropology and sociology. >>13190 >The aliens in star trek were actors in makeup You don't say! I believe what the other Anon referred to is that even in sci-fi shows it was difficult to portray differences that were as significant as when late medieval europeans encountered pigmys for the first time. And long before modern global homogenization I can imagine how people would doubt they're of the same kind. >europeans to form opinions about sub-saharan Africans and probably trade with them But isn't that what they ended up doing and what we still have fiery riots in the streets over to this day? >look at Europeans in the Americas, where they pretty much instantly started enslaving and killing the locals I don't think that recollection of events is all that accurate. The pilgrims weren't running around with nets, catching the natives as soon as they got out of their ships for the first time. They didn't even have natives as slaves at any point. But granted, they did not get along at many, many occasions. The cultural differences and concepts about what constitutes trade were just too grand. Natives and europeans were often at war. But they also did trade and even sold european fire arms. I don't think that's something one does to their slaves. And there were instances of natives getting help from the europeans in order to destroy neighbouring tribes. To summarize this chaotic time in your simplistic manner appears to be too reductionist. Also I don't believe in the Olga of Kiev level plot about infected blankets. In a time where germ theory wasn't even a thing, it seems more plausible that it was rather a tragic accident. Like leaving the house after getting desensitized to one's smell but the result being genocide. >>13191 I'm not sure differentiating between "outside and inside appearance" is good or useful terminology. There's many, many small general differences due to adaption to different local climates, food sources, terrain and hazzards and the details in beliefs of that population. But having to deal with the land becoming frozen and barren for multiple months a year ought to provide selective pressure for the ability to plan ahead and to become socially less disruptive in order to not get kicked out into the cold with nothing to eat. >>13194 A long game of mail puts it better. Can you imagine how scientific history would've looked like if Charles Darwin somehow ended up getting lost or ship wrecked and even his journals had never been found? Things would've been even more crazy with people trying to make sense of the natural world without a decent system underpinning those efforts. >>13195 But sadly this is how the world operates. Even to this day. And always did so to even back in the babylonian times and further. The egalitarianism that we enjoy today is a very modern concept that emerged from european enlightenment values which in turn could be argued was inevitable under certain principles of Christianity. Problem is, that sentiment isn't always reciprocal, let alone universal even today. >>13198 Not sure if you're the user from the other posts as well but so far the "counter argument" amounts to: "Differences between ethnic groups aren't real because I say so but that doesn't matter anyway since yours is about to go extinct anyway lol". Frankly I've only seen dishonesty from that "side", one way biased characterizations of history to the point it's intellectually lazy and sloppy, a general lack of willingness to think and writing a lot without actually saying anything concrete. Those dismissals carry no weight to anyone honest enough. And those wide scale social experiments of "inclusivity and diversity" we're conducting today are bound to fail as they're already appearing to be unraveling at their seams. In conclusion, dismissal of truth and ignoring reality may lead to temporary mental comfort but it's like sailing a ship through a difficult shore with an incorrect map. Sure, you may manage to traverse a good distance but chances are you will eventually hit on rocks and will be left with nothing but your sheer surprise in your fate which was of your own making.

>>13199 I say good riddance for I truly do live in Rome... Third Rome to be exact. My daddy Government is the biggest threat to my life at the moment. The old theories never died around here and the government is in legislative frenzy trying to reshape the population into the imperial vanguard. I live where the religion is orthodox Christianity on the leash of the government as their unofficial synode. The imperial tendencies and Russian sense of superiority to any other nationality is and always was palpable from people in the cabinets of power to drunk paupers on the street. They ask for money to buy some "medicine" and in the same breath talk about how the international jews have wronged them and how we should put back the golden standard. Our gender roles are so normative that women mostly suffer from their mothers gaslighting them into being outwardly submissive, always cheerful and energetic while at the same time putting as much work as the men plus doing housework and raising children and also Essentially running the whole family but at the same time making it look like they are under the man's protection. I thought my mom was too much until my female friends started talking and showing how they are taught to live. Our families are very nuclear indeed, specifically the uranium kind that slowly decays and radiates bad vibes all around them. Let me also remind you that this is all coming from the same "race" that was considered to be host to Untermensch. The word slave derives itself from the Scandinavians trading them on Byzantine markets. Now we take the mantle of Byzantium and proclaim to be the great empire. And you are no better with your hypocrisy and internal struggles deciding the fate of people all around the world. And so are the Chinese with their cyberpunk dystopia. Empire is a disease.

>The reason why they were able to expand their empire was due to the already pre-existing prosperity. Yes, and? Is your argument for the fact that racist cast system was invented by the Spanish is that they were pretty prosperous already? First of all it's ridiculous to ignore the fact that trade prosperity only happened in Venice and similar places that could trade with the East through the Mediterranean. Back then countries operated on the economic system that emphased restricting import of goods and export of silver and gold as they saw that would lead to their domination. They saw trade as part of politics of the zero sum game. The countries that didn't have access to the east desperately searched for the routes to get there. Doesn't sound like a very prosperous environment to me. While Christianity was revolutionary by transforming the morality of the ruling class it eventually became the endorser of social structures and froze social mobility for most people. It doesn't matter if you are a lord or a serf, those are just roles given to you by God and if you follow his teachings you all are going into heaven. It's delayed gratification but gratification comes after death so no one could request a refund. People seriously justified all manner of atrocities done to the native people of the Americas by the fact that they were baptised and would go to heaven. It was a fair trade in their eyes. >>If people truly were constantly told every truth that every expert in the world possessed people would become uncontrollable and self destructive. The main issue is that there is no consensus. People would lose confidence in science even more if they realised how uncertain we are of things we implement to just see how it goes, collect data and apologize for consequences. >So I can't claim the sky is blue if it isn't written about in some journal that also has its financial interests in mind when its board decide what papers and studies to pick. Yes. People's eyes are not a precise measurement tool, we have special tools for that. >And you can go, follow the cited sources and verify those if you see issues with it. But you don't. I've done that a bit too much lately and only once have I seriously reconsidered my own research and education like that so I'm disinclined to go through this topic as I've read in it many times. Unless there is some super fresh 2022-23 stuff that came out I won't bother as I'm much more interested in other topics like radiation absorbing fungus, the history of shoes or some obscure 80s OVA about cyborgs with big breasts. Is it hypocritical and an insult to the pursuit of truth? Yes, but I don't care. I put down my armour of the knight of science and sold it for the tickets to the circus. I still have my sword of education that Insharpe and shield of knowledge that I have and constantly update but I only use it for fun nowadays. If the discussion is unpleasant enough or boring, I'll check out and do something that I actually want to do. >we could just blend them all into one single mulatto race? Is that what you're saying? Doubtful, but there is certainly a shift in ethnic compositions of the world. The Yigurs are probably going to stop existing in our lifetime as will some other ethnic groups. There are more and more multinational countries and the situation with birth rates in countries makes it inevitable that a lot of migration and mixing is going to happen very soon.

>>13201 >And there were instances of natives getting help from the europeans in order to destroy neighbouring tribes. not to mention to fight other europeans, ahaha. Also sold them black slaves. >imagine the world if Charles Darwin somehow ended up getting lost or ship wrecked old chucky D's contribution is wildly overplayed, read any old book and its pretty plain that everyone was perfectly well aware of heredity and breeding since time immemorial, for plants and animals and humans as well. The modern novelty is the suggestion that breeding can account for the differences between monkeys and trees, between slugs and eagles, and between humans and daffodils, but the essential and proveable aspects of evolution were known in Biblical times and before, and were not forgotten.

>>13201 Alfred Russell Wallace would be credited for introducing it solely instead of In conjunction with Darwin. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

>>13203 >Is your argument for the fact that racist cast system was invented by the Spanish is that they were pretty prosperous already? Lol, no. I was criticising your statement that all of europe's prosperity was (exclusively?) due to colonialism. I know I've written quite a bit there due to finding so many issues with your statements but you might have glossed over my text a bit too hastly since your interpretation doesn't even make logical sense. >Doesn't sound like a very prosperous environment to me. But apparently prosperous enough to run a civilization advanced enough to produce sizable sea capable vessels, black powder muskets, armor and other weapons that were advanced for its time and fund ventures to explore and conquer places where often the wheel has barely been invented. Sure, some or even all of that prosperity may or may not be due to geographic chance but to deny that it was already present at the time where Columbus was boarding the Santa Maria makes little sense. Arguing the ins and outs of how bad some of the economic policies may have been is irrelevant to this fact. >While Christianity was revolutionary by transforming the morality of the ruling class it eventually became the endorser of social structures and froze social mobility for most And today there's little social mobility under state atheism. I believe you're overstating the effects of Christianity in that regard while is also provided the grounds for the enlightenment movement which then undid many of the shackles that you've mentioned. As for the dogma approved violence, yes. You may be right on that. But also how would someone fare without the fear of eternal damnation if they shall not murder? I think it might've been even worse. Or what about the Aztecs, that were conducting mass sacrifices? Atrocities just seem to have been the norm at that time and it sucked to be there. >People would lose confidence in science even more if they realised how uncertain we are I don't think belitteling, dismissing and then not even following up in good faith is helping with fostering any trust. Less even to censor and punish people for saying something that may be false. Or worse, is actually true. And then not to mention the massive financial incentives that are plaguing civil discourse. And say, the building is on fire. Are you going to just ignore it and put on some music or are you going to see that you get yourself to safety? From what I can tell, promoting truth and transparency the more it affects people at large is for the public wellbeing. While just sticking your head into the sand most likely is not. The scientific community certainly need to put some work in now and raise their standards if they want to regain some of that trust back. >People's eyes are not a precise measurement tool, we have special tools for that. Lmao, I can't claim the sky is blue? Measuring instruments sometimes are just to verify our senses or just to ensure consistency to the nth decimap point, you know? >I'm disinclined to go through this topic So because you're more interested in radioactive fungi and some other random stuff, you "won't bother" with the data cited but decide to still argue at length about how you disagree on it? I guess that's one way to kill some time. But it's not like DNA sequencing is bogous. Or that if blacks are running a place, it coincidentally often is one that's also chaotic and riddled with crime and corruption with crumbling or nonexistend infrastructure? Isn't that observible? >Is it hypocritical and an insult to the pursuit of truth? Yes, but I don't care. Then why do you participate in any discourse at all then? If it's not truth, then what ulterior motives are you then persuing? >I put down my armour of the knight of science and sold it for the tickets to the circus. Then I worry that you're not just a spectator but in fact the clown show. Granted, I've not enjoyed the privilege of a good education. Much I've learned was way past high school but it apears you are failing to put yours to good use. >If the discussion is unpleasant enough or boring, I'll check out Then I'm at least glad that I was able to entertain you. >Doubtful, but there is certainly a shift in ethnic compositions of the world. Why is it doubtful? You find issue with the notion that there are differences in ethnic groups yet you shrug it away by saying that said supposedly nonexistend differences will blend together anyway as more distinct populations are forced together and to intermix until a uniform monoculture (of possibly bland consumerism) remains. But at least you didn't lie about being a hypocrite. And it fits because you appear to single out the europeans as the ones solely capable of cruelty when cruelty was the norm while ignoring their good. Imagine the Ottomans, whose slavery conditions were much more harsh, managed to get conquering first. Just like the slaves from the trans saharan trade, there would be nobody left to complain about it today. An arguably less moral outcome. Or the Africans, who sold their conquered neighbour tribesmen in the first place. Or whatever the hell the Aztecs would do to you just because of their beliefs. And so forth. To me it appears that you aren't having a discussion from an objective viewpoint but from that of a grudge towards native Europeans in particular for whatever weird reason. I suppose their great sin was to be first to sail the world at the scale they did. But anyway, I wish you fun with your anime breasts. >>13204 Sure, Darwin didn't live in a vacuum, but while selective breedign was known about for centuries before, him providing enough research and observations to win against the transmutation argument helped us to tie together the relationship between earth's life forms earlier than later and possibly spared us some crazy mormon style episode in biological sciences. So I give credit where it's due, even if he wasn't single handedly responsible for that shift in understanding. >>13205 Like I've stated, Darwin's contributions were essential. But it's good to also not forget about Alfred Russel.

>>13206 >And today there's little social mobility under state atheism. Social mobility is more about the age and stsbility of a state rather than its professed ideals. This is repeated over and over again in history, empires in crisis have the greatest level of social mobility because nobody really knows who's on top.

>>13201 the countries that you are using in your images didn't fail because they where black but because the people who where put in power where uneducated on how to rule a country and some of them where just corrupt bastard.

>>13206 >But also how would someone fare without the fear of eternal damnation if they shall not murder? I think it might've been even worse. Every single country in the old world that I can think of that accepted Christianity or Islam was already under the rule of law or local customs that provided social control. There are also a lot of countries that never became Christian and they were about on par with their religions and laws. The only real thing having to do with violence that I remember is essentially Christian is the Byzantine ruling classes mutilating people's faces or removing eyes instead of killing to avoid sinning. I'm not sure a mother ordering her son to be blinded and sent to a monastery or a dungeon is much better that her ordering him to be killed though. Also the ritual executions where the person would be burned at the stake to cleanse them of their sins. >Are you going to just ignore it and put on some music or are you going to see that you get yourself to safety? There Is no safety. It's not a burning building it's a Titanic slowly sinking as the SS Californian slowly fades away with your hopes of quick salvation. There is no new America to emigrate to if soykaf goes sideways in your country and the current one is much more picky about immigrants and is not doing so good from what I can gather. >Measuring instruments sometimes are just to verify our senses or just to ensure consistency to the nth decimap point, you know? The measuring tools are just tools, they don't have intrinsic purpose unless they were built specifically to do something and even then it's first use in not the main one sometimes. The microscope was mostly used by people to have fun looking at animalcules for a long time before becoming a serious tool for biology and mineralogy. They allow us to see things we can't see with our own eyes or make them much easier to distinguish and measure accurately >Then why do you participate in any discourse at all then? If it's not truth, then what ulterior motives are you then persuing? It's not that I'm not pursuing truth. It's just that I'm not so absolute about it as I was before. As Aristotle and many others have noted, the right path is in the middle and any kind of absolutism should be avoided. I'm from a different place than where this is really important, all black people I meet are from Africa and here to study at the university or the military academy. I'm just a fan of history so learning about the man's inhumanity to man and his ability to rationalize it and even proclaim to be virtuous is very interesting to me. If you ask me the fact that black people are parts of the underclass or the failed state a lot of the time doesn't have to do with their race but has to do with them having collonial heritage and hostile racist governments that are keen on invading and restricting or imposing unfair trade to bankrupt the country. Native Americans are also suffering from that heritage. Latinos too. Is the crime in Northern Mexico also a result of genetics? Or maybe it's just a result of the ruling class short sighted way of creating these environments for their own needs and then desperately trying to contain it when it gets out of control. The black people are traumatized by their history and so are not rational in many ways. I know a thing or two about traumatized people recreating atrocities on others to stave of the threat of them happening to them. >Much I've learned was way past high school but it apears you are failing to put yours to good use. I'm getting plenty of use out of it. I don't feel obliged to use it to better mankind and if you discount this notion I'm using it to a great advantage to myself and the people I care about. >To me it appears that you aren't having a discussion from an objective viewpoint but from that of a grudge towards native Europeans in particular for whatever weird reason. Not at all. The topic of discussion was racism. Racism in the form that we are discussing is a white European made issue. So how is it surprising that they are the star of the show? We can talk about the Japanese racism and collonialism towards the other nations during the first part of the 20th century and the cover up made by them and America to just forget about what they did to the Chinese people or Koreans. We can talk about Han Chinese just eradicating any other national identitues within their borders for centuries (though they certainly weren't as effective getting ruled by different minorities several times throughout history) We can talk about the fact that there is actually enough people in three neiboring countries with desire to create the nation of Kurdistan but they are being subjugated and silenced. We can talk about how the Irish people were treated by the British as an underclass What is happening in Yemen due to the Saudis with American backing The horrific things done to the Palestinians because Jewish people can't possibly do ethnic erasure and it's inappropriate to even question if that's what is happening. Funnily enough America is involved in this one too. And the list goes on. Ethnic conflict is as old as time. But no other people other than some white blokes in the West seriously attempt to revitalise the scientific racism theory as far as I know. Most people around the world just want to move on from this. 60% of the 9 billion world population live in Asia, 2.8 billion in India and China, both countries were ravaged by collonialism but have since more or less moved on as did many other countries in the region.

>>13209 >Every single country ... that accepted Christianity or Islam was already under the rule of law Citation needed. People pretty much always have been religious and lived under a mix of the same emerging rules, some life relevant philosophies and somewhat arbitrary faiths. Christianity just codified a lot of it. To see it as some sort of sudden switch, short of some key events just sounds like fedora tipping. >There are also a lot of countries that never became Christian and they were about on par with their religions and laws. What? >There Is no safety. It's not a burning building it's a Titanic slowly sinking as the SS Californian slowly fades away with your hopes of quick salvation. What are you even trying to say here? We're clearly talking past each other. >The measuring tools are just tools, they don't have intrinsic purpose unless they were built specifically to do something.. Sorry, but was this entire paragraph generated by Chat GPT? I'm not sure what your point is. But fact is, I can go outside and determine the color of the sky with my able bodied eyes alone or at the very least tell whether it's bright or dark if some of my vision is impaired. Without the need of additional instruments or needing that observation be published in some gate kept journal to acknowledge it. Some phenomena are just simple to observe, that's what I'm trying to say. Granted, things get wonky when it comes to statistics since people are generally bad at it, but dismissing all of it is just elitism. >It's not that I'm not pursuing truth. It's just that I'm not so absolute about it as I was before. So you're pursuing truth but also not really? >As Aristotle and many others have noted, the right path is in the middle and any kind of absolutism should be avoided. True, but I suppose this counts for being absolute on everything needing to be always perfectly in the middle. Like when you have the difference between drowning and not drowning. The best option isn't "drowning but just a little bit". >all black people I meet are from Africa and here to study Are they planing to return back to africa to benefit their people or are they staying and contributing to the "brain drain"? >I'm just a fan of history so learning about the man's inhumanity to man and his ability to rationalize it and even proclaim to be virtuous is very interesting to me. Same, hence I'm following the events that have been going on in South Africa. >hostile racist governments Are you talking about China? >Is the crime in Northern Mexico also a result of genetics? I don't know, you tell me. >The black people are traumatized by their history and so are not rational in many ways. >India and China, both countries were ravaged by collonialism but have since more or less moved on as did many other countries in the region Interesting way to put it. There's many countries where I'd say life has been much harsher on a large scale, with genocide and mass deaths, total destruction and collapse, subjugation and oppression, yet don't display that same level of trauma like post WW2 Europe, post Soviet Russia and East Bloc, many places in Asia, particularly post Maoist China and so on. So are black africans somehow special in that way? Or is at least some of it part due to not being on par in competency when it comes to build and sustain a large and complex civilization? >Not at all. The topic of discussion was racism. Racism in the form that we are discussing is a white European made issue. Was it? Not for me. But rather that it was about the existance of differences between ethnic groups that are significant enough to notably influence general outcomes. This has little to no relevance to european influenced history. Even less so to single out the bad of it as being somehow unique to europeans. It even appears that europeans were relatively mild in that position. It's just that nobody else managed to beat them to it on that scale. And granted, the skull measurers of the 17th-19th century did a disservice to scientific research but whenever there's statistics collected there's at least one standard deviaton of difference in IQ, SAT scores, involvement in violent crimes even when adjusted for economic standing and the list goes on. Systematic racism may have played some role at some point and I'm not in favor of the forced segregation policies but that doesn't seem to be all to it. Especially now where it's the inverse with forced desegregation and affirmative action everywhere, and actual trillions in aid going to Africa. Looking at that it just appears to me that there's some uncomfortable truth in this that we refuse to acknowledge and thus fail to better tackle those problems. And from what I've gathered it's also not really that you disagree with me that there's differences on average between distant populations but rather that "it doesn't matter" because there's gonna be intermixing anyway. Again, not trying to bring back skull measuring as you keep implying for either not understanding what I'm saying or for a disregard of truth, as you've acknowledged to consider permittable. But just pointing out that it doesn't look like the general failing of an entire ethnic group is all due to the white devil. And there's other factors at play why there's almost consisten outcomes in levels of violence and disarray the more a population is of native african descent. But what would you say is the point where differences in population begin to matter? Or if that point doesn't exist for you because there's more important things that to acknowledge reality, then what are those things? Just having a cushy feeling of self-righteousness while everything around you is burning and falling apart? Some other thing you'd consider to be moral superiority? What's your goal in this?

>>13208 why were they that way ? why did they choose such leaders ? at times the leaders of these countries have been educated in i.e. western universities, why didn't these people make things better ? Why do white countries with corrupt leaders often manage to remain relatively alright?

>>13215 I wonder why people who are children of authoritarian ruling class that studied abroad among future high members of society of that country feel much closer to them than to their fellow citizens

>>13216 Do you think you get to elect some average Joe instead of yet another ruling class prick in traditionally caucasian or asian nations? Yet the trains still arrive on time and there isn't power black-outs for days at a time. If they've got electricity in the first place that is.

>>13216 still, point is you've got countries like this with a fairly wide gamut of leaders. Look at Haiti, even since 1950, army officers, judges and lawyers, a doctor, preist and a cross dressing musician; people of quite varied backgrounds (wiki has like 20 heads of state in 70 years, median reign about a year). This isn't a hereditary system ala best korea where the leader sends his kid abroad to be trained, a couple of them like duvalier attended university abroad at least partially, successful successions like that have only happened a handful of times in the full 300 year history of the country since they defeated the french.

>>13214 I'll agree that I'm speaking out of my depth on the first part of your reply so I'll just move on after trying once again to state my general viewpoint. Religion stems from shamanic spiritual practices and and ancestor worship. The original Jewish religion has little to do with modern Christianity that claims to be it's successor. Religion can be anything really at the early stages when it is just a cult, but when it becomes a dominant and accepted by the government, it's nature changes. It can be competing with the civil government, dominate it or be subservient but it still just a player in the game of power. A look at the history of Vatican is the best example with people who should've been excommunicated on moral grounds becoming the pope because they played their cards right. That is not to say religion can't becoke the base of empowerment for the subjugated people, there is plenty of examples of that. It's just that it's an institution and it has been used to justify both great and awful practices, sometimes simultaneously. It is certainly a part of the Unique European Quirks that is required to understand their domination over the globe. Agree to disagree on the measurement tools question. I guess my profession skewes my understanding. Obviously radical centrism is not What I meant nor did Aristotle. My understanding is anecdotal but most of people I actually spoke with planned to return at least for some time. With Asian countries it seems they are just socially adapted to sustain huge losses of people seeing how they had wars with casualties on the level of ww1 constantly during the middle ages when in Europe 140 knights dying was a huge event. It's just a difference in social structure. Individuality is much less valued and the collective is paramount. Not good or bad, just is and is understandable since rice instead of wheat and other factors promoted high density cities for much longer time than elsewhere. In time if cyberpunk dystopia becomes real and expands and we all live in megacities everywhere will be like that, IMO. Not good not bad, just the next step in societal evolution of constant urbanisation. As you say, different groups are exelling at different things. The residents of about one village in Africa are the best runners in the world if I'm not mistaken. The difference between Jewish people of Europe and middle East and Africa in their academic achievements and the prevalence of genetic disorders shows that these differences can be developed in a rather short ammount of time. I'm not advocating for a policy of mixing races, this process always happend naturally in history. The idea of pure races is kinda shallow, we have Neanderthal DNA in some people. Plus zinhave a feeling that you are implying that mixing races will somehow lower IQ in the general population and make them more barbaric and aggressive while neglecting the fact that that is not exactly guaranteed as we don't know which genes are more dominant. Plus they will also be more athletic, resistant to disease and in general mixing can produce fertile ground for genetic engineering which will happen sooner rather than later with CRISPR/Cas adoption in fertility clinics. There certainly is and will be a transhumanism movement that wants us to advance to the next stage of evolution by giving us a big leap forward through that and cybernetic implants. First it would be lone wolfs biohacking themselves and rich people ready to do anything to live longer. Then it will cure diseases and become socially acceptable as many things that would disgust people in the beginning of the 20th century already did. I'm a biologist and my own heritage is extremely mixed so I just don't really see this while thing as relevant. There are of course cultures that will be lost because they are based in this idea of purity of race but there are plenty of others that don't have that requirement. The steppe nomads is a good example of that that I have some experience with. Culture can be just language, dress and food much more than the biological aspects. Romans slowly expanded their definition of Roman to include potentially everyone if they were eligible for citizenship. So that's where my position is. Of course maybe that whacky Peter Zeihan is right and globalization is about to collapse and we are becoming much more local again. That just means we are postponing the inevitable. Maybe Earth will forever be the planet of many competitive people's that segregate themselves by nation or ideology but who knows what will happen on collonies? Maybe to be able to establish them we will genetically enjiniere ourselves to comfortably exist in zero gravity and with solar radiation or to the gravity of Mars? Seems reasonable to me that the best equipped people to colonize would be those with genetics that combine all the best that every ethnic group has to offer.

>>13221 >my own heritage is extremely mixed so I just don't really see this while thing as relevant. There's a difference between saying 'racial purists are often too obsessive' and 'miscegenation isn't always bad' vs 'bantus chinamen and scotts are the same'.

>>13225 Obvious statement is obvious, lain.

>>13159 >>Most if not all of our interpersonal interactions are shaped by our evolutionary psychology. I can agree that our primordial instincts are certainly so, but a lot of our higher cognitive behavior and social patterns are shaped by the environment. This should be obviously exemplified by the fact different cultures have different customs, ethics, etiquette, and generally differ in what is considered ‘socially acceptable’ and ‘socially unacceptable’, including things like gender roles and homosexual relationships. This is largely in response to the environment they developed around, but it also means if you take a Chinese child into a British household, that child will grow up with completely different social customs to that of most Chinese nationals in China. We also see those customs change on a societal scale quite rapidly across the years. I don't agree that those customs are defined solely by evolutionary psychology. >>because nature rarely allowed for any dead weight to stick around. This includes sexual dimorphism and gender roles. This will not be a direct counter-argument to that statement, but taking the opportunity regardless: we humans don’t live in the ‘nature’ you speak of here for several generations. Human civilization has been made quite adequate for fulfilling and ‘hedonizing’ human needs and wishes and thus allowing quite a lot of ‘dead weight’ in an evolutionary sense. I can almost say with certainty that civilization will be responsible for breaking those two rules, of which the latter has undeniably already been through a sharp deconstruction for the last few decades. These points are why it is easy to contrast ‘nature’ with ‘industrial society’. They really are two different paradigms. >>Calling it a mere social construct with the implication that it's all arbitrary and can be changed with very little effort means to not understand how deeply ingrained these evolutionary systems and biological mechanisms are within that human condition of ours. I have my doubts that things are as ‘deeply ingrained’ as you say they are. Specifically when I talk about the social context of gender roles, as stated prior. In any manner, biology’s point of view on this matter is still irrelevant, read below. >>Now you can believe that changing your sex to that of the opposite is what you want, and even if it's not just some delusion, you can go and try to "break those laws of nature with the capacity that we now have" with all your hubris and apply some lipstick, put on a nice summer dress, train your voice to sound more feminine, get a pair of fake breasts, [...] but the most you can hope for is to "pass". Meaning to immitate the appearance of a woman. But many don't even manage that, let alone actually become one, if they've been born male. Stating that a human male can biologically turn into a female is not what I implied, despite what you are trying to 'debunk' with your extensive monologue here. I feel like I needn’t state this, but no, a trans woman cannot change her chromosomes and become a biological female currently. But, in the social context, she has accomplished her goal the moment she 'passes' to her peers. The moment a trans woman declares herself a woman and her social circle considers her as a woman and treats her like a woman is the moment she becomes a woman in the social context. The fact that trans women can’t sire children has not stopped trans women from having sex and forming romantic relationships with men, and otherwise fulfilling any other social role that is considered to be ‘womanly’. Men dating trans women is a disaster in the evolutionary biological sense since neither will ever have children with each other but it happens regardless because having children is not a top priority for a growing number of people in the industrialized world we live in. This is what I mean when I say ‘Biology means nothing in a social context’. I agree that biology shaped the gender roles and expectations we have today, but it does NOT control the social aspect of modern human relationships, and any non-cisgender person in a relationship should make that fact quite obvious. An elementary school biology book still means nothing to a trans person, it is not a rule book as to how biological men and women should look like and how they should be treated, and it should not mean anything to you in that regard either. >>A moth can not become an owl, the differences are too substantial. It can however immitate one through mimicry. A crude mockery, so to speak, which is what our current state of medical technology amounts to. This is also certainly obvious, but I feel it needs to be stated regardless: A human male and a human female are not different species of animals. The effectiveness of such crude hormone replacing medicines we have today should be enough to demonstrate that male and female phenotypes are heavily influenced indirectly by hormones and little by the (currently) unchangeable genetic code expression. In fact, if we consider basic genetics (which I believe your STEM background should have taught you), a human's gender is defined by only a single chromosome being X or Y in the genotype; the overwhelming part of the phenotype's expression would be the same regardless if an individual had XX or XY chromosomes. The sexual phenotype is expressed by several means; perhaps the most noticeable, after the development of either a penis or a vagina during the fetal period, is that females will secrete higher amounts of estrogen while males will secrete higher amounts of testosterone. These hormones are the main influences of the individual's appearance: hair, breasts, fat distribution, etc. A trans person would already have several years of their phenotype shaped by their hormones from birth, but properly executed hormone replacement therapy does an exceptional job at pushing those characteristics the opposite direction. Nothing perfect, because some of those unchangeable genetic expressions remain, but enough to ‘pass’ for some, as you eloquently put it. >>>Do you think cars are 'natural'? >>Talking about cars is missing the point. I agree in hindsight. I really couldn’t come up with anything better to exemplify at the moment. But it was meant to reinforce the ‘nature vs. industrial society paradigm’ exemplified at the second paragraph of this post. You have made interesting reflections with the comparison regardless. >>i am actively involved in some [STEM disciplines] [...] And I see with great regret how even the basic concepts are being trampled by subjectivist ideas and [... ] I'm sorry our discussion on this anonymous internet imageboard can't meet your STEM education standards, buddy, but I suppose you’d only be offended by me calling you a conservative, I also apologize for that. >>it's unlikely that it's gonna be you who'll be granted an artificial womb to get to propagate your quirky trans genes. B-But, my sole meaning in this world was to have babies…. I guess there is no option but to kill myself, wise STEManon… tl;dr biology still means nothing in a social context.

>>13234 >This should be obviously exemplified by the fact different cultures have different customs Depends from what scope you're looking at this. While there's certainly a large difference in details, the basics meanwhile are very universal. Short of maybe some single tiny tribal village which runs a matriarchy, the rest of the world pretty much falls into the realm of a patriarchy of varying degrees. From the ultra macho islamist, women can't drive a car and some beatings being permitted type of society to one where men are still expected to have some chivalry and women have been granted some of the advantages of men, they're still seen as distinct, especially by family courts. Only in microscopic but disproportionally loud enclaves within highly sheltered metropolitan areas is this sexual relativism being practiced that you're describing. Everywhere else what's accepted are traditional gender roles in varied severity. And it makes sense since there's still fundamental differences on average between males and females. And even if we ceased having the need for traditional gender roles (which I don't think is the case however) millions of years of selective pressure won't just be undone by a few decades of social theory. So in conclusion, evolutionary psychology is still having us firmly in its grip. >we humans don’t live in the ‘nature’ you speak of I'm still not sure what or why you're trying to argue here. "Nature" and the homosapiens aren't some separate entities with a clean line separating the green leafy and the gray cement parts of the world. Instead we're part of it, due to us being still very much a product of natural selection and without any grand modifications of own besides maybe some nice clothes and a hair cut. For instance, we still have our urge to hunt and gather, even if that's nowdays being taken advantage of by employers and soykaf mobile games to get the most out of us. Same with our sex from which gender roles derrive. The "hardware" hasn't changed, it's that you want it to run a "software" that it wasn't meant for. >I have my doubts that things are as ‘deeply ingrained’ as you say they are. Just play this out in your head: you have a small little tribe that needs to maximize their numbers despite the odds and harsh conditions. But regrettably the half of your group who can birth offspring gets severely restricted by each of those cycles for at least half of the 9 months they're pregnant. Meanwhile you need only a few, and under necessity only one male to fertilize the females. While there's also wild animals and competing tribes to take care of. So what strategy would you find the most sensible to employ for the duration between the homo errectus and us maybe 500 years ago before population growth really kicked off? I'd wager you'd need some division of labor, since that's a good basis. And then have to keep as many of the women alive as possible which would be done by keeping them safe in the cave while they also can make sure that their infants don't die. And the males will have to accept being the disposable sex that takes care of the dangerous tasks like hunt and war. This would be a good one but it would also cause a long ongoing adaption to those roles. But this is also where we are now and if you look at men and women, even if they wear the same neutral clothes, you can usually tell them apart in an instant. This has little to nothing to do with societal customs or expectations. >Stating that a human male can biologically turn into a female is not what I implied, despite what you are trying to 'debunk' Then my apologies if this isn't what you meant. However what I've stated on that topic, whether you are agreeing with it or not, remains unchallenged. >your extensive monologue here Sorry again but that's the nature of this medium of long winded image board posts. I'm happy to read yours in turn though. >I feel like I needn’t state this, but no, a trans woman cannot change her chromosomes and become a biological female currently Correct. With maybe the exception of it being obvious to all so I thought it couldn't hurt to state that, too. >he has accomplished her goal the moment she 'passes' to her peers. Their peers, who usually consists of a small masturbatory circle. But I don't think that means much. Since based on what I've stated prior, we either adhere to our biological gender roles, or, if its usefulness truly has passed, move on to an increasingly more gender neutral standard. While "identifying as a woman" is nothing but forcing your nonsensical and capricious demands onto others, or the ability to punish them for not being able to keep up with your pronoun calendar. It's a self defeating premise but I see how it finds support among narcissists. Especially at the moment where transgenderism is the hot trend and you can still reap a lot of attention for it. Seriously, what's the purpose to try to become the opposite sex, even if fully aware that you can never truly achieve it if it's not for that? Or is it what I think it is? For a man to advocate social acceptance for them to assume those parts of the classical female experience which are attracting attention? Like wearing a revealing dress and putting on alluring makeup and wigs, etc.? While the women who want to become men appear to desire the perceived priveleges and advantages that "the patriarchy" supposedly offers to them. If so then it has little to do with gender expression but an urge for hedonistic desire and power. You're right however in your sentiment that we're currently treading on the path to untie ourselves of our own biology. The progressive West more so than places like the United Arabic Emerates. But generally that's the trajectory. And in that sense we're transitioning from the traditional model to something where it's of more utility for everyone to have the same pronouns than to bend over for each individual and memorize their twitter bios in order to know as what to address them. And that's the latest this gravy train for the trendgender attention seekers will cease. On a side note, with increased complexity and centralization of technology, and with that more concentrated failure points, it's not unthinkable for us to relapse back into another dark age so let's hope we won't sterilize ourselves completely until then. >The effectiveness of such crude hormone replacing medicines we have today should be enough to demonstrate that male and female phenotypes are heavily influenced indirectly by hormones and little by the (currently) unchangeable genetic code expression. That's wrong. Just because in this massively convoluted and deeply interwoven mess that is the human body you found a wire where if you send a signal through it you achieve an effect that roughly goes into the direction that you desire, that this means that the default operation of our hormonal levels aren't inherently influenced by our gene expression. You're just intercepting and faking mail at this point with minor success. >a human's gender is defined by only a single chromosome being X or Y in the genotype; the overwhelming part of the phenotype's expression would be the same And it's only by about 1% that our genome differs from that of a chimp. And in the case of that X and Y chromosome it's a coin flip what blueprint we go with from our embryonal stage and beyond, to determine what our sexual and reproductive organs should be but also things like the bone structure, muscle density, average body height and so on, despite the basic components like cell anatomy and types being the same. Reducing this all to post natal levels of either testosterone or estrogen doesn't sound scientifically literate. >I suppose you’d only be offended by me calling you a conservative I don't mind that. What bothers me are flaws in accuracy and characterizations. >my sole meaning in this world was to have babies Actually yes. That's possibly the most crucual aspect of our condition. Since if nobody does, then that's it for us. No human will explore the stars and all our efforts were for nothing, amounting to nothing. Just a temporary patina on a blue dot somewhere in the vast nowhere. For what end is of course for you and I to speculate but there's a reason why propagating our genes and with that our existance is so deeply programmed into us. That we live long enough to bring children into this world and then live another while longer to raise them properly so we don't just fizzle out into extinction with a bunch of lone geezers and old transvestites long past their prime. Hence it does mean quite a bit to me whether we collectively decide to conduct the mouse utopia experiment on ourselves or decide to care about what we set as a norm. tl;dr: Our evolutionary psychology and sex are not just a worn jacket we can just take off, instead that is what we are, deeply interwoven in our phsyical structure and the way we behave while all the currently proposed and available substitudes are nothing but the emperor's new robes.

>>13252 I feel like this discussion has gone far enough for me to propose that it is kinda fighting over scraps of food about 6 hours before the truck full of pork & beans cans arrives. You can bet the sex Change on a structural level will be a thing when postnatal gene therapy becomes commonplace. Compared to most species, our sexual dimorphism is not too pronounced. The issue of male people being stronger, having faster reaction time and such? Just create therapies that allow this to be equalised. Thaf will also really help with the sexual crimes since the reason many of them go beyond an attempt is that women are just plain physically weaker than men in most cases. One day people will just accept trans people as another thing that happens, especially after it will start to be hard to distinguish. Something new will arise and become the next civil rights movement, I wager splicers that insert animal DNA to make themselves furries is in order. People will bury the hatchet with trans people and wage a war against those. Later on people will start uploading themselves to computers or slowly removing the biological parts of their body to become fully synthetic. At that point the whole notion of sex or appearance becomes moot, like the importance of avatars in vr chat or something. It won't be here for a while, but I don't see how this is not coming unless we nuke ourselves or the energy Crisis destroys society and we turn Mad Max.

>>13259 >The issue of male people being stronger, having faster reaction time and such? Just create therapies that allow this to be equalised. Frustrated that your car can't fly or go supersonic? just take it into the mechanic and ask him to fix it! u hab a lot uv faif in d majick uf teknowlogee

>>13260 The disparity in phisical ability is mostly dependent on the testosterone. Of course, testosterone affects other phisiological processes so just taking it can lead to bad side effects. Testosterone is actually the most prevalent sexual hormone in female individuals as well, just way below the level of male individuals and acting in conjunction with the estrogen and other hormones. So, if you want to create a therapy that would give you the muscle and motor advantage without damaging other things you can go about it 2 ways the way I see it. 1) restrict the therapy to tissues and structures you want to affect. That can be kinda troublesome. 2) create an analogue to testosterone that will have affinity to the tissues and structures we want to affect, but not have affinity to other structures to which testosterone binds. That can also have problems but seems much more doable. Alternatively you can create something that will bind to all the places where we don't want the testosterone to bind and then we will inject the testosterone while they are temporarily "silenced" It's probably not exactly how it would be done, but it is very much doable. Current medical science already does things thought impossible 30 years ago so it will probably come if there is interest and the funding is good.

>>13261 The disparity in physical ability is mostly a problem of the thrusting system and powerplant. Of course, replacing the engine and wheels of a car is a major operation so just doing it can lead to unexpected results. Petroleum based fuels are actually very common fuels for high performance jets as well as cars. So if you want to rebuild your car to fly supersonic without changing its basic nature there are two ways to go about it as I see it 1)restrict your modifications to the existing engine/fuel compartments of the car. That can be kinda troublesome. 2) create an analog to jet engines that will have the same formfactor as a conventional car engine and take regular unleaded gasolene. This can also have problems but seems much more doable. Alternatively you can create something that will run on jetfuel but also take regular unleaded when you don't need to go as fast. That's probably not exactly how it would be done, but it is very much doable. Current automotive science is already doing things thought impossible 30 years ago (i.e. self driving) so it will probably come if there is interest and the funding is good.

>>13262 The disparity in understanding the difference between bioligical and mechanical systems is mostly a problem of the specialised education and one size fits all mentality. Of course, reeducating the a person is a major operation so just doing it can lead to unexpected results. Mechanics based understanding of biology was actually very common in the Renaissance since there was a big leap in the field with siege equipment and building machines. So if you want to reeducate your lainon to let go of his bad analogy without damaging their ego there are two ways to go about it as I see it 1)restrict your efferits to the specific subject. That can be kinda troublesome. 2) create an analog to the lainon that will have the same worth as far as presence online is concerned and take the old one offline . This can also have problems but seems much more doable. Alternatively you can write an extension that will recognise his posts and hide them achieving a similar result. That's probably not exactly how it would be done, but it is very much doable. Current 8nternet communication science is already doing things thought impossible 30 years ago so it will probably come if there is interest and the funding is good.