(untitled)

>>36329 reached its posting limit. Resuming in this thread! The Right/Wrong Side of History >>36957 >Don't you have to explain why this analogy is "true" if you're the one stating it instead of just putting it on the table and saying "here's a correct analogy"? A few people have done so already, but ok, you can conveniently ignore it. Look at the diagnosis and compare it with the trans agenda. Amputation, check. Irreversibly altering the body, check. Doing irreversible harm to a perfectly functional part of the body, check. Mutilation, check. Making the body less functional than it is naturally, check. The list goes on if you care to refer back instead of sticking your head in the sand... >Hot takes, not arguments. Let's return to our discussion: what's the root of your problem? Ah, hit a nerve there did I? Don't like the idea you're culpable for advocating people hurt themselves? You find that... uncomfortable? Hot take for you: you're part of the problem by promoting it. >Is it a fear of being forced to accept beliefs you currently disagree with, a fear that your beliefs won't find continuation in your children? Argued already, and cited the facts of children being actively harmed. Your move. >Don't be afraid, you'll still be you even if you would stop being a transphobe. Your children would also be just fine, some may even live their happy lives as trans people, if the right side of history would deal with all the oppression, It's funny that many people in this thread has shown that "the right side of history" is a false narrative driven by people who want to promote their own ideology. "Oppression" of trans people is fake, nobody wants to see them harmed, and we're quite vocal about that fact! Sadly, you people only hear what you want to, and misconstrue whatever you cannot ignore to suit your backwards mentality. >If they don't - horrible things may happen, your children won't even be safe from you. Who knows what a transphobe would do to their "only son" coming out of the closet about something like that. Imagine trying to use somebody's children against them. Sounds like the Stasi all over again. I would love my children if they "came out", but I would also get them the compassionate help they need and deserve instead of letting them harm themselves, and eventually become part of the sad statistics of transitioned trans people who kill themselves anyway. >A whole squad of flying monkeys with exactly the same sort of logic failure. Are y'all from the same gamer discord server? Can I join? Ah yes, more than one person in the world disagrees with me, and they all make arguments I cannot defend against (therefor, flawed!) so they MUST be colluding!

>>36959 >self-mutilation is self-mutilation >false analogy How then? They're literally hacking parts of their bodies off, rendering themselves sterile. That is de facto self-mutilation.

>>36958 Don't expect them to address it. They're just going to claim it's a false analogy over and over instead of dealing with it. The problem is they cannot, which is why they ignored it the previous time it was posted.

Oh... You made a part 2....C'est la vie. しょうがない I >>36829 >You are being duped so hard. Leave your echo chamber But I have nothing short of disdain for Trump, newbie. I realize that's probably hard to notice with your head so far up your ass.... But he is nothing more than a liberal zogbot just like the guy about to replace him. Hell, if he were a fascist I would at least respect him for having some direction. But the only thing he stands for is Israel and his family's bank accounts. >muh wall I didn't care about the wall, never expected it to happen nor did I expect it to solve much other than give people money to build a "big fuarrrken thing" and then get paid to "maintain the big fuarrrken thing" and have people buy tickets to drive out to see the "big fuarrrken thing". I hope you pick up on the reference. >nice straw man I was responding directly to what was being said. I wouldn't want to ask you to tire yourself out, but I would like you to elaborate on the propaganda accusation... if you think you're up for it, champ.

>>36958 >then you should just correct it You expect him to act in good faith? Clearly he's got an agenda to push, and facts or arguments don't matter. Look at what he's saying in his posts ffs.

>>36957 >A whole squad of flying monkeys with exactly the same sort of logic failure. Ok, show us the logic failure then. Please, I'll wait here patiently with my "monkey squad" lol. hey guys, he thinks we're a legit squad. does that mean we all get blowjobs? >>36967 I don't, but I really wish he would. Then again, he's basically proving what people have been saying: trans activists are irrational, deniers of basic science and reality, and will say whatever they can to get their way, including hurting children. If anything, this whole line of conversation should be a lesson in what deceit and plain and simple evil looks like in today's world.

>>36957 >A whole squad of flying monkeys with exactly the same sort of logic failure. Are y'all from the same gamer discord server? Can I join? Still not addressing your false claim, but instead casting dispersions over the people who rightfully called you out. You're so sure that you've got the poster by the balls with making a "bad analogy" which actually mirrors the basic reality of transgenderism.

>>36959 How is the analogy false? How is transsexual any different from self mutilation? Definitions have been given. Well....?

>>36959 >Self mutilation is exactly the same as self mutilation, even the words are the same. I wholeheartedly agree. Sounds like we've convinced you. >What's being discussed is a false analogy though. The analogy is perfectly sound given trans people self mutilate as a means of "treatment".

>>36973 So, from what I am reading... I'm under the impression they do not believe that removing body parts is self mutilation. I suppose most people with this illness do not often do it themselves. However, the doctors are acting of the individual's own volition... So, if I am incorrect here, I would like to see what is exactly meant.

>>36961 >The list goes on The long list of bullshit may convince some people, but it won't change the fact that sex is not a body part. >Don't like the idea you're culpable for advocating people hurt themselves? In a way you're right, you can't do a surgery that would help without doing at least some harm in the process. >cited the facts of children being actively harmed Oh no, children were harmed, raise your pitchforks. Yet catholic church still stands. >It's funny You wanted to write "it's pretty funny", but I took it away from you. >"Oppression" of trans people is fake In the previous thread there were articles about people being fired (!) for oppressing trans people, what are you talking about? >I would love my children if they "came out", but I would also get them the compassionate help they need and deserve Happy to hear that. What if the surgery becomes really good though, would you still be against it? >they all make arguments I cannot defend against That's not an argument, that's a false analogy, there's nothing to argue against. >>36964 Yep, it would go and go in circles forever, because you're wrong and it's a false analogy that you love so much you can't give it away. >>36967 Pretty interesting, lying monkeys talking to each other. Hop in on the conference call with the children guy and all of his extended family reading this thread every evening. >>36972 It's really simple: changing sex is not a form of mutilation, it's changing sex and just that. People don't do that to get mutilated, they do it to change sex. Why can't you see it, why are those things the same to you?

>>36967 No I don't expect him to be honest, people like him have been gaslit so hard for so many years that their entire personality and identity is "pathological liar that enjoys dragging everyone else down with them" Trannies can't reproduce the normal way, so they go after your kids.

>>36977 >lying monkeys Sorry, didn't meant to insult you, y'all "flying monkeys" of course - emotional support for the big guy on high horse who's afraid of being fired for accidentially bullying a sir who's a mam.

>>36977 You want to cut off little boy's testicles and slice their penis inside out, and you want to cut out little girl's ovaries and stitch up their vaginas. You're far beyond simple mutilation, you're advocating for something demonic.

>>36977 >The long list of bullshit may convince some people, but it won't change the fact that sex is not a body part. Nobody said that, but thanks for moving the goal posts again, twice in one segment no less! We're talking about transgenderism which involves mutilation in it's "treatment". Also, no, it isn't "a body part", but the thing that gets mutilated is a body part. It's funny how you screech "bullshit" and then just... well, bullshit! >In a way you're right, you can't do a surgery that would help without doing at least some harm in the process. Well, at least you admit to wanting to harm people. I can respect somebody who has that level of integrity to a degree. >Oh no, children were harmed, raise your pitchforks. Yet catholic church still stands. Nobody said they liked the Catholic church either. You're really grasping at straws at this point... >In the previous thread there were articles about people being fired (!) for oppressing trans people, what are you talking about? "Fired for oppressing trans people" is a funny way to spell "Fired for opposing trans people". >Happy to hear that. What if the surgery becomes really good though, would you still be against it? I will never not be against my friends and family hurting themselves. I know doctors who aren't insane fortunately. >That's not an argument, that's a false analogy, there's nothing to argue against. And yet you still cannot tell us why... >Pretty interesting, lying monkeys talking to each other. Hop in on the conference call with the children guy and all of his extended family reading this thread every evening. Just retreat into your cave of bad faith. It'll protect you, maybe, this time, hopefully... >It's really simple: changing sex is not a form of mutilation, it's changing sex and just that. People don't do that to get mutilated, they do it to change sex. Why can't you see it, why are those things the same to you? It's pretty funny that you cannot see the obvious damage to the body inflicted by "changing sex" (also, remember that we discussed and you agreed you cannot change sex? Funny how you reverted on that so quickly...) >>36978 He's trying so hard to gas light us too... Like damn... >>36979 I'm not concerned given I am in a place that doesn't stand for backwards ideological "medical" soykaf. >>36980 Isn't it the truth? This isn't a medical intervention like curing cancer, a "necessary evil", it's basically cosmetic. Heinous to suggest it isn't mutilation either given it removes functionality that has no reason to be removed.

>>36978 >the normal way Ah, the guru of The Normal Way. >>36980 >something demonic >literally pulls out demonic imagery of horrible mutilations out of the void in himself Lol. Root cause of you being stuck on the wrong side of history: religious delusions and overly rich imagination.

>>36977 >Hop in on the conference call with the children guy and all of his extended family reading this thread every evening. You guys can meet me on irc if you look hard enough! I'd love to hear any tips you have on educating kids on the dangers of wackjobs like this guy.

>>36982 None of your post is an argument, just more nit picking and personal attacks. I wouldn't even be surprised if you posted that so you'd have something to distract us with lol, pretty pathetic. Also very telling it shows up after your last failed "religious" argument fell flat. Stick with the facts and arguments, and maybe you can change some minds. But, given you've dug your hole so deep, it's going to take some real effort on your part.

>>36982 >literally pulls out demonic imagery of horrible mutilations out of the void in himself You advocate for sex reassignment surgery, that mean cutting up testicles, penises, ovaries, and vaginas. You can try to hide from this reality all you want but the fact is you want to butcher these kids and convince everyone it's normal.

>>36984 >None of your post is an argument, just more nit picking and personal attacks. Hey, it's me, "high horse guy" or whatever. Didn't he accuse me of doing something along those lines earlier? Except, I actually addressed his false arguments point-by-point? >>36985 Um... do an image search for "neovagina" (warning: graphic af)

>>36982 >Ah, the guru of The Normal Way. It's impossible for a tranny to impregnate a woman or to be impregnated, because you literally cut out your preorductive organs and chemically castrate yourself.

>>36986 ssorry, cited wrong post. >>36982 go search "neovagina"

>>36982 >Root cause of you being stuck on the wrong side of history The whole right/wrong side of history was refuted in the last thread. Go review your readings lain.

>>36983 Did you catch the "clamp" guy and show them his post too? Also, what other sites if any do you mine for these sorts of lessons? It sounds like a fun activity to get to laugh together and actually teach them some critical thinking.

>>36981 >We're talking about transgenderism which involves mutilation in it's "treatment". no, it isn't "a body part", but the thing that gets mutilated is a body part And it somehow makes it analogous to the body part? You're trying to prove to me that sex change involves changing sexual organs? I know that. >Well, at least you admit to wanting to harm people Glorious victory. Monkeys, fly in with the champagne, the writer of the longest posts has proven to me that surgeries involve cutting flesh. >Fired for opposing trans people Same thing. If you oppose something - you join the fight - expect to be beaten by people who don't like bullies. >I will never not be against my friends and family hurting themselves So you're ok with them changing sex as long as it doesn't cause harm? (note for bots: harm in this context excludes harm expected from performing a surgical procedure, as it is expected and not avoidable) If so - doctors need to do more surgery to improve the process, let's applaud our brave beta testers willing to be mutilated to improve lives of the future generations. >>36984 Terribly sorry from distracting you from such important matters as investigating every pixel of CCTV footage of the waitress fired for transphobia. >>36985 That's how you see it, but it's not like that at all. Source: I see it differently.

>>36993 >That's how you see it, but it's not like that at all. Source: I see it differently. There's no other way to see it, you want to cut up testicles, cut up penises, cut up ovaries, cut up vaginas. This is monstrous and why normal people despise you.

>>36994 There is. You're thinking very primitively and see "sex change" as a list of things which you can process separately: - cut up testicle - cup up penis - cup up ovary - cup up vagina You hate all these things! My god! Cut up penis! Bad empathy response! Pee pee hurt! Trans people cut pee pee! Trans people bad! Must tell tribe trans bad! I see just "sex change" and that's it, that's where I stop looking and imagining the process. Yeah, they chop off their dicks, whatever, hope it makes them feel better.

>>36993 Very slippery Agent Starling >And it somehow makes it analogous to the body part? You're trying to prove to me that sex change involves changing sexual organs? I know that. You're intentionally misreading what was said, which is (again! beat that dead horse because you're too retarded to tell) bad faith on your part. Also, noted that you persist on calling it "sex change" even though you admitted you cannot change sex earlier. Also, the fact you mistake a body part being mutilated for the underlying cause is possibly an honest mistake, but it seems more like you're just using the Motte and Bailey "defense" (you might want to look into that, it isn't a defense at all) >Glorious victory. Monkeys, fly in with the champagne, the writer of the longest posts has proven to me that surgeries involve cutting flesh. Before you run your victory lap, I did qualify much earlier (likely several times) that no, merely cutting flesh is not the same thing as mutilation. If you remove somebody's leg because they think it is alien (or say, a penis), then you are mutilating them. If and only if they have untreatable gangerine or flesh eating disease or something related does it become therapeutic. >Same thing. If you oppose something - you join the fight - expect to be beaten by people who don't like bullies. False equivalency. Defending oneself from wrongful attack might be violence, but unlike offensive (what you're advocating effectively) it is justified to protect oneself from harm. I don't want to see them suffer, nor "bully" them (lol, who hurt you little boy? you keep bringing that word up, I'm not sure you know what it means...). However, I don't want to see them cause themselves further harm, facilitated by a society that is ultimately indifferent, so long as it gets to pretend it is fulfilling their desires to be a magical fairy. >So you're ok with them changing sex as long as it doesn't cause harm? No, because - again and again - you cannot change sex. Furthermore, it will always cause harm since it simply reinforces a delusion. >(note for bots: harm in this context excludes harm expected from performing a surgical procedure, as it is expected and not avoidable) A tactful attempt to pretend that mutilation that is intended is not actually harmful - it's intended! >If so - doctors need to do more surgery to improve the process, let's applaud our brave beta testers willing to be mutilated to improve lives of the future generations. You clearly know nothing of medical school or the evolution of medical procedures. They don't go in blind and hack away until they have some eureka moment where they find out how to stop hurting people. >Terribly sorry from distracting you from such important matters as investigating every pixel of CCTV footage of the waitress fired for transphobia. Terribly sorry for distracting you from actively trying to harm children (and adults alike, let's be honest). >That's how you see it, but it's not like that at all. Source: I see it differently. "I see it differently" isn't even a cop out, it's literally "I have no argument, I cannot defend my mindless backwards ideology that is retrograde, harmful, and dangerous to all life" >>36994 So true. Imagine thinking amputation because a mentally ill person said it was ok is somehow justified. >>36995 The fact you've devolved into "pee pee" and "trans people bad" tells me you're not only degenerating in desperation, grasping for literally anything, but you're likely an incurable ideologue. Very very sad to see, I hope you get the help you need (actual help, don't go cutting your "pee pee" off thinking it'll solve anything).

>>36995 And this right here is why you can never live with trannies, never even begin to tolerate trannies. These freaks think that vivisecting a person is just something you do to feel good. At least the aztecs thought they were saving the world from eternal darkness when they cut out people's heart, but the tranny does it because, whatever, it just feels good man.

>>36990 Yes! I caught him every single time he appeared, and we learned a few great lessons: - never trust somebody who spams articles without giving any context or any information about what they're actually arguing - repeating yourself over and over isn't going to make your argument any more true (even though, as we see in this thread, people like to believe they can lie enough to change reality. hopefully the kids see that too and point it out without my help) I lurk on lainchan, a few reddits, twitter, facebook, and numerous news sites from across the spectrum. News can be tricky, because there's often a nugget of truth in each story. From my experience, the kids have an easier time identifying lies from right wing news outlets because they're generally blatant. Left wing news is more touch and go, and I have to get them to compare since leftists like to play word games (see: this thread). Full disclosure: we're not partisan. We don't vote (my wife and I at the moment), and we don't voice political opinions with regards to any party or faction. Kids don't need that kind of tribalism nonsense, it isn't healthy.

>>36998 I think that's a touch unfair. It's doctors who are enabling people who are mentally ill to have these things done. If anything, we should be wondering what's going on in the medical establishment to enable such acts. I wouldn't want to harm a schizophrenic person any more than I would want to harm a tranny. They just need genuine help.

>>37000 Absolutely, the people who are meant to be trustworthy and be expert authorities have let these people down, they've completely voided their Hippocratic oath. young kids and teens who get dragged into this ideology might be able to be saved, i've read a lot of personal accounts of detransitioning, but there are adults like >>36995 who simply can't be reasoned with. Those broken people who've made a complete break with reality need to be isolated from every influencing anyone else, we used to put them in asylums but now they've made our society an asylum.

>>37001 I long for the days we had forced institutionalization.

I wanted to pass along some solid long-form information for anybody who still has doubts. A lot of this conversation has been really sexist unfortunately, as one would expect from our society, focusing on TIM/TIBs instead of TIW/TIG. Don't let the rhetoric and argumentation fool you though, this is a cross-sex problem, and it isn't going away anytime soon. Sorry for the evil bookseller links, but you can find most of these at your favorite piracy hangout. Transgenderism: https://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seducing-Daughters/dp/1684510317/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=&qid=&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/War-Psychotherapy-Politics-Ideology-Collide-ebook/dp/B07SB2KG29/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=&qid=1608268696&sr=8-2 >this is an ideology book. carefully note the title's use of "sex" and then the actual content... https://www.amazon.com/End-Gender-Debunking-Identity-Society/dp/1982132515/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=&qid=&sr=8-3 Ideologues: >comes from a liberal perspective, but is applicable to the whole spectrum https://www.amazon.com/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=&qid=&sr=8-2

>>36997 >the fact you mistake a body part being mutilated for the underlying cause is possibly an honest mistake, but it seems more like you're just using the Motte and Bailey You've literally used a logical fallacy on me to immediately project it on me. Sure, I'll rephrase into this context: wanting to change sex is not the same as wanting to cut off your legs. I recommend going in the direction of proving to me that all desires have the same nature, therefore they're equivalent or something interesting like that instead of this loop. You pointlessly continue to insist that this analogy is correct without proving that it is correct. >If and only if they have untreatable gangerine or flesh eating disease or something related does it become therapeutic Is there a list of all the conditions when mutilation is acceptable? Add "being trans" to it and you'll sleep well at last. >I don't want to see them cause themselves further harm Don't look then. It's you who's googling up these things to look at them. >You clearly know nothing I don't need to, we have you who knows everything. Today we all learned that doctors don't go in blind and hack away until they have some eureka moment where they find out how to stop hurting people. >Terribly sorry for distracting you from actively trying to harm children (and adults alike, let's be honest). Still no arguments what's so harmful about these horrible mutilations that involve cutting up pee pee. It should be obvious that the sooner they realize it and sooner they transition the less complications they would have and less their chances of killing themselves would be. Hope this truth doesn't sound too delusional in your worldview, I didn't try to sugarcoat it. I offer surgery to help them, which would be a perfect solution to their problems as soon as we learn to do it really well, you offer "support" which is essentially nothing and leads to people killing themselves, just because you strongly and religiously believe that it's not possible to change sex. The foundation of your beliefs is vapid, not the logically consistent tower of lies you build on top of it to convince yourself that you're right. >>36998 Exactly. People who don't see the forest for the trees find it really hard to coexist with people who do. We see two completely different worlds. My worldview has much less fantasies about mutilated children though. >>37001>>37002 Pretty funny that the right side of history started discussions about saving broken people through forced institutionalization to save all the children from the terrors of rock music and other corrupting influences.

>>37004 >You've literally used a logical fallacy on me to immediately project it on me. Smells like bullshit >wanting to change sex is not the same as wanting to cut off your legs. I recommend going in the direction of proving to me that all desires have the same nature, therefore they're equivalent or something interesting like that instead of this loop. You pointlessly continue to insist that this analogy is correct without proving that it is correct. Except I, and several others have proven it correct. Mental illness causes you to want to mutilate your body. In one case, it is correctly recognized as a problem with your brain, in the other it is encouraged and celebrated. How dense are you? How can you not understand such a basic concept? >Is there a list of all the conditions when mutilation is acceptable? Add "being trans" to it and you'll sleep well at last. It isn't mutilation if it is therapeutic. Why do you insist on misreading? Are you illiterate? And yes, trans surgeries are mutilation because there is no therapeutic value (look at the suicide rates post-op, shocking!) and it is done under the direction of a mentally unfit mind. >I don't need to, we have you who knows everything. Today we all learned that doctors don't go in blind and hack away until they have some eureka moment where they find out how to stop hurting people. I don't need to know everything to know when I'm dealing with an idiot who uses poor non-arguments as if it'll do anything. Aren't you trying to change minds here? So far, all you've done is make yourself look incredibly foolish. >Still no arguments what's so harmful about these horrible mutilations that involve cutting up pee pee. There you go again talking like a little child... >It should be obvious that the sooner they realize it and sooner they transition the less complications they would have and less their chances of killing themselves would be. Hope this truth doesn't sound too delusional in your worldview, Except transition has been proven to have no significant reduction in suicide rates... wonder why? It's almost like we're ignoring some underlying condition... like a mental illness or something? >I didn't try to sugarcoat it. I offer surgery to help them, which would be a perfect solution to their problems as soon as we learn to do it really well, you offer "support" which is essentially nothing I never said "nothing" at all. You do know that we have medical doctors and researchers who are capable of identifying the underlying cause, right? And treating it, right? You know we have drugs which work to combat delusional thinking, right? Seems like a whole lot of "nothing" to me I guess... >and leads to people killing themselves, Ah yes, those stats of all those post-ops killing themselves don't lie! >just because you strongly and religiously believe that it's not possible to There you go again with religion. Look, if there was compelling evidence, I would believe it. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case. >change sex. And there you go again, erasing sex in order to make your gender arguments supreme. It's funny how you simply cannot resist making that "mistake". It's like your ideology keeps taking hold and forcing you to say these things instead of you consciously deciding to... >The foundation of your beliefs is vapid, not the logically consistent tower of lies you build on top of it to convince yourself that you're right. I've actually argued my position, provided evidence, etc. What have you done again? Oh right, attacked me and anyone else who dares question your ideology. Gotcha, very much my mistake! >Exactly. People who don't see the forest for the trees find it really hard to coexist with people who do. We see two completely different worlds. My worldview has much less fantasies about mutilated children though. Ah yes, because in your world, mutilated children are the reality. Very scary world you want us to all inhabit.

>>37004 Thanks for all of these great ideological talking points. Now I know how to deal with those pesky realists

this is what the GW bot from metal gear solid 2 has to say to itself... ffs

>>37004 >You've literally used a logical fallacy on me to immediately project it on me. Sure, I'll rephrase into this context: wanting to change sex is not the same as wanting to cut off your legs wtf? Do you even know what a logical fallacy is? I'm having serious doubts... "Changing sex" is accomplished through mutilation, via surgery to damage a functional part of the body irreversibly into a useless, functionless hunk of flesh. How do you differentiate removing a leg from a penis given this is the simple truth of what is done? Is it desire? The amputee-wannabe "wants" it too. >I don't need to, we have you who knows everything. Today we all learned that doctors don't go in blind and hack away until they have some eureka moment where they find out how to stop hurting people. Anyone with any history knowledge can attest to this. This isn't the dark ages when we worked with the humors. But given you cannot see the relationship between two mental illnesses that have the exact same characteristics, I won't ascribe to you that kind of ability. > It should be obvious that the sooner they realize it and sooner they transition the less complications they would have and less their chances of killing themselves would be. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/ and this is a serious problem, since trans identified kids are a serious risk category https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/09/18/new-study-on-transgender-teen-suicide-doesnt-prove-kids-need-gender-transition-therapy/ Actually look at the science being done instead of repeating what Bruce Jenner and his friends say. I cannot stress enough that what you are promoting is harming real people.

>>37008 >https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/ Why am I not surprised to learn that doctors presupposed their treatment worked before they had any reason to believe it did, and then covered up the fact it doesn't work?

jesus christ why do we need more

>>37008 >via surgery to damage a functional part of the body irreversibly into a useless, functionless hunk of flesh. Look up stories about failed surgeries. It's very common, and the results are nothing short of horrifying. >>37005 >There you go again with religion. Look, if there was compelling evidence, I would believe it. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case. There was allegedly evidence a few years ago, but it's been systematically turned over by follow up studies. >And there you go again, erasing sex in order to make your gender arguments supreme. It's funny how you simply cannot resist making that "mistake". It's like your ideology keeps taking hold and forcing you to say these things instead of you consciously deciding to... You're very generous to assume it is some kind of good faith mistake or something. It's happened over and over despite him being told, surely he isn't doing it on purpose?

The deafening silence from the pro transexual is very telling.

>>37005 >Aren't you trying to change minds here? Not in this sort of argument. The best thing you can do is show that a different point of view exists and won't agree with false analogies axiomatically assumed to be correct due to incapability to see sex change as more than a desire to cut off pp. The only one who can change your mind is you and the only thing that could change it is talking to trans people IRL for long enough, anything else is a sort of masturbation. They're alright, just ordinary people in mismatching bodies, they don't want you to live in a world with mutilated screaming children. People who hate them are straight trash, people who oppose them seem to have some deep seated religious reason to do so. You sound like you believe that you're a worker on a human-producing factory that should produce what you believe to be healthy humans - gender matches body, all teeth white and straight, no diseases, 2 meters high, velvet white skin with no spots, blue eyes, blonde hair, chiseled jaw, muscles, just a bit of body fat... and everyone who doesn't share this view is a delusional terrorist seeking to destroy and subvert this factory to produce circumcised early clamped mulatto biowaste that wants to chop off their legs at age 8. >>37008 >How do you differentiate removing a leg from a penis given this is the simple truth of what is done? Is it desire? The amputee-wannabe "wants" it too. I differentiate between different things that have some similar aspects by abstracting from similarities and looking at differences to see if they're more significant. Surgery on genitals is not the most important part of changing sex. I'd say the most important part is feeling as that sex after the procedure, how exactly that's achieved - not that important. Certainly not just through "support" from family. >https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/ Wow, those are some bad results, I thought it's better. We really need to improve these procedures. Changing hormonal balance is much more important for looks than changing genitals, imo, hope more trans stick to just that until we find a better way of swapping genitals. But changing hormonal balance is stressful and may increase risk of suicide, too... So many double-edged swords. Growing genitals out of stem cells should be invented, but until then they can rely on pills and all of us giving them all the support and love we can. Men with vaginas can achieve much more with toys, dicks are overrated! Normalize chicks with dicks, vaginas are overrated! Stop beta testing surgeries on desperate people! >>37012 I went to have dinner to give you more time to dissect my posts to your hive of 350 child clones so you can pinpoint exactly what they should hate in all those delusional freaks on the wrong side of history. A completely normal family activity that all normal people with normal children should do each evening.

>>37014 >he best thing you can do is show that a different point of view exists and won't agree with false analogies axiomatically assumed to be correct due to incapability to see sex change as more than a desire to cut off pp. You continue to dodge the question as to why it isn't a valid analogy given it's been defined for you many different ways now. The rest of this section is based on that false premise you've introduced, so I won't tear it to shreds (again). >I differentiate between different things that have some similar aspects by abstracting from similarities and looking at differences to see if they're more significant. Surgery on genitals is not the most important part of changing sex. I'd say the most important part is feeling as that sex after the procedure, how exactly that's achieved - not that important. Certainly not just through "support" from family. So, "bla bla bla, I make stuff up arbitrarily and poof, it's now different". You did not actually provide any differentiation criteria whatsoever. Try again. >Wow, those are some bad results, I thought it's better. We really need to improve these procedures. Incorrect, we need to stop mutilating people. >So many double-edged swords. That's a funny way of saying "it's dangerous and counterproductive". >Growing genitals out of stem cells should be invented, but until then they can rely on pills and all of us giving them all the support and love we can. You're clearly delusional if you think that's ever going to be a thing. >Men with vaginas can achieve much more with toys, dicks are overrated! Normalize chicks with dicks, vaginas are overrated! Stop beta testing surgeries on desperate people! You're delusional as hell. >I went to have dinner to give you more time to dissect my posts to your hive of 350 child clones so you can pinpoint exactly what they should hate in all those delusional freaks on the wrong side of history. A completely normal family activity that all normal people with normal children should do each evening. Ah yes, we all exist in one time zone, one place. In your house. Your "refutations" are laughably bad. Let's assess: 1. You failed to provide a criterion for distinguishing a mentally ill person from a trans person (and thus distinguishing mutilation from therapy). As you put it, you simply asserted it axiomatically. 2. You regressed into stupid petty insults after your utter failure (yes, I still read it. I regret doing so since it didn't contribute anything). 3. You once again utilize the Motte and Bailey (defending hormones instead of mutilation. Still, it's mutilation since it'll render the person sterile, rendering their functional body parts inoperable) instead of sticking to the points at hand. 4. Try to downplay the complete and utter failure of mutilation to help these people. (and so many victims and doctors say the results are so realistic... It's almost like you're softening your stance to account for this huge gaping hole in your entire theory and argument) 5. You continue to post in bad faith about "350 clones" or whatever, because you cannot fathom anybody could act in good faith when you're so incapable. Truly hilarious. Go check yourself into a hospital, I think you've had a schizophrenic break and are no longer comprehending basic reality at all.

>>37014 >I'd say the most important part is feeling as that sex after the procedure, how exactly that's achieved - not that important. How is that different from an amputee wannabe feeling like their so-called "alien" limb being no longer a problem exactly? It sounds like this "test" doesn't actually tell us anything.

>>37015 >Incorrect, we need to stop mutilating people. We need to stop seeing it as a sure way to help them. Doesn't mean we should stop them completely, doctors have to beta test on someone. >counterproductive Let them shape their own fate, optimizer. There's plenty of resources. >clearly delusional >delusional as hell Source: your religious beliefs. We don't even have a way to distinguish a mentally ill person from a mentally healthy person, unless they have drifted away enough to lose adaptation. The concept of sanity is as imaginary as gender. And I'm not trying to argue with you about petty irrelevant points on your terms as if we're in a debate club, it doesn't matter to me at all if those transphobic waitresses are guilty or not, I'm trying to help you see the failure in the foundation of your reasoning, not getting lost in the pile of lies built on top of it. There's nothing wrong with trans people, them advertising their existence to the world, them uniting to fight whoever wants to oppose them or them pushing doctors to research ways to help them live with their condition. Any arguments against that or do you agree? Bonus level: there's nothing wrong with trans children transitioning early. Bonus points if you build an argument that doesn't sound like children are slaves of a mad god only raised to reproduce and work on factories. >Truly hilarious. What's the value of "truly" on mockery scale, compared to "pretty"? I'd say it's somewhat less mocking, despite being much more assertive. >>37016 It's not different at all now, you've moved the goal posts so far that the two discussed things are now pretty much the same and the analogy is now valid. Chopping off legs has therapeutic value for people who don't want to have legs THAT MUCH. What does it prove? Armed with this overstretched analogy you'll now prove to your employer that you have a right to hate on trans people from your personal twitter account with no repercussions?

>>37017 wow, you're a piece of work. You've literally redefined the entire argument here: >>37014 >The best thing you can do is show that a different point of view exists and won't agree with false analogies axiomatically assumed to be correct "Points of view" assumes there isn't something incorrect, which is harming people in this case. You keep whining like a little bitch about nobody justifying the analogy, even though it's been done dozens of times now in many different ways. The fact you retreat into your retarded little insult games and accusing people of bad faith (yes, accuse everyone of what you're doing) pretty much shows you're just out to waste time. Ironically you say this: >We don't even have a way to distinguish a mentally ill person from a mentally healthy person, unless they have drifted away enough to lose adaptation. Which you're exhibiting by being so disconnected from the conversation you're having. And then this: >It's not different at all now, you've moved the goal posts so far that the two discussed things are now pretty much the same and the analogy is now valid. Nobody has moved anything except for you, by consistently saying the provided justifications "weren't good enough" for your purity test. That's a hallmark of ideologically-driven contrarian thinking. Or, as you love to call it, "religious beliefs", which you cling to like a baby does a tit. It's so hard for you to comprehend the possibility that you're harming people, or perhaps the thought you've been promoting harming people unintentionally (it's ok, I forgive you) is so terrifying to you that you need to resort to such ridiculous tactics to maintain your illusion. >We need to stop seeing it as a sure way to help them. Doesn't mean we should stop them completely, doctors have to beta test on someone. They need actual psychiatric help. You're actively aiding in denying them this. This is on the level of refusing to help a cancer victim. You know it's likely to kill them if you refuse to help, yet you persist. >Chopping off legs has therapeutic value for people who don't want to have legs THAT MUCH. That's the most asinine, ludicrous thing I've ever heard! We have actual treatments that help people accept their leg. They don't need to sacrifice anything! How is that such a foreign idea to you? Do you like the idea of somebody being horribly maimed so you can feel good about your, now obviously deranged, ideology? >Armed with this overstretched analogy you'll now prove to your employer that you have a right to hate on trans people from your personal twitter account with no repercussions? holy soykaf. Literally nobody has said that. Not once. I don't care, and I'm sure nobody else here cares or wants to "hate" on anyone. I just don't want to see people get legitimately hurt by "well intentioned" buffoons like you. Man, like holy soykaf. You're literally everything you project onto everyone else! You're clinging to this bizarre "religious beliefs" to the point of being delusional when people point out that it isn't so clean cut, and might actually go against your deeply held faith. That is straight up delusional. You're literally denying reality. Any attempt to show you this is the case is met with incredibly tedious bullshit.

>>37018 Great to see a fresh viewpoint. You seem to believe that preserving integrity of the body is highly important and changing it is harmful. While I personally agree with it, I disagree in case of trans people for these reasons: - you can't just go into a clinic and ask them to chop off your dick on a whim, you need a prescription for that, so it's not possible to accidentally harm yourself in that way - psychiatric help is always needed in such cases, at least where I live it is always provided before "harmful ways" and it doesn't work that well - apparently there are no ways to "help people accept their leg^W sex" and trans people got tired of it so much they now oppose purely psychiatric methods, HRT is usually how far it goes, sex change surgery is a last resort for those who really want it - perfectly executed surgery would be a perfect solution, a holy grail everyone dreams of, most of them would be saved, except for those too hurt to survive those hardships - they're already hurt to begin with, so I can draw a false analogy to the very early days of chemo - chances of dying are very high, irregardless of provided help, but there's also a chance of living if this help works AND each case helps to improve the procedure, improving outcomes for all the future patients >I just don't want to see people get legitimately hurt by "well intentioned" buffoons like you Maximizing the amount of non-hurt people in pristine healthy bodies is not a goal that I share. I want them to be able to choose what to do, it's their lives and their bodies. If there is a demand for hi-tech sex reassignment surgeries - let there be a supply. If it is fashionable to chop off your leg and teenagers fall for this latest fad, mutilating themselves forever - well, this, too, shall pass, hope to raise mine to be less dumb than that. It really is a complicated situation with children - time is of the essence and it's hard to be sure that they have gender issues and not attention issues. >You're literally denying reality Not the reality, just your interpretation of it - we're sitting on the different sides of history. My side of history is okay with trans people going through sex change operations, your insists that it's mostly harmful and there is a psychiatric way of resolving this issue, but research is repressed by a lobby. Won't be surprised actually, those surgeries cost a lot and our reptilian overlords won't pass an opportunity to drain money out of desperate people.

>>37019 >you can't just go into a clinic and ask them to chop off your dick on a whim, you need a prescription for that, so it's not possible to accidentally harm yourself in that way This is pure misinformation. It is all based on consent now. https://wpath.org/publications/soc

>>37020 Great to hear, it's much harder here. If they ever perfect sex change surgery - I'd like to try that, just out of curiosity, then switch back. Even just swapping the hormones quickly without many side effects would be cool to try out. I'd also like not having to go prove some bureaucrat that I "really need it". Thank you trans people for paving the way. inb4 I would never want to do that, therefore it's bad and you're delusional

>>37021 wew. imagine being this fuarrrked up in the head.

>>37018 At first I was thinking that they were a false flagging poltard. However it would seem a certain type of analysis of their text may give you enough answers to realize why they aren't worth responding to. There exists software (this person is hitting 85%+ female for all posts that they don't quote in.) But lets look at it ourselves, you know you have the reasoning. Notice how the goal post moving continued? Now they are in a corner and lashing out in a strange way. They are attempting to be friendly while maintaining some defensive structure to effective "beat you to the punch". Suddenly they are in some form of minor agreement with everyone here. This is the actions of a female who knows she is the "odd man out" as it were. That mixed with the way they write it is clear to me that this is either an effeminate reddit user (if they are male) or just a female. Either way, not worth anyone's time.

This is why you never give an inch to trannies.

>>37026 >give an inch Too easy... waaay too easy.

Where did part 1 go? I was about to read it, but the >>quotes are broken and I can't see it /mega/. Did some clueless mod mess up with the buggy imageboard software again? :-(

>>37024 That's a long winded way to way to say "damn, I lost and now I need to make myself look good". I read through this whole... soykafstorm. And yes, you're definitely the odd one out given you cannot come to grips with what you were told. You constantly moved the goalposts (and continuously accused others of doing the same. Protip: using different arguments to combat your bullshit isn't "moving goalposts") and soykafpost. >>37037 https://archive.vn/XbcGY

>>37037 Once it reaches the final +1 page, it does what all chan software does.

>>37041 >That's a long winded way to way to say "damn, I lost and now I need to make myself look good". Go back and re-read it. The pro camp was very clearly as >>37024 stated. This person was likely a tranny themselves, pushing the narrative. Fortunately, if you were reading closely, every one of their deranged claims was refuted, and done so well. Evidence was provided for all major claims. They lost before they began, since they never intended on doing anything.

>>37045 >all major claims All of these claims are majorly irrelevant and exist only as insider trade talking points in the style of: >hurr durr >hurr durr (200 lines omitted)

>>37047 You sound like a butthurt tranny who knows they cannot actually argue the points, so they just soykafpost. You're transparent. We should look at the next coming wave of degeneracy. The transsexual agenda is a prelude to the next major "advancement" in rights: pedophilia. It isn't uncommon for gays and trans people to groom and go after children. Most gay people I've known have expressed either approval, or were actively were engaged in pedophile relationships. A major "justification" is that they "acceptance" and "guidance" for their contorted lifestyles. The bigs always show the smalls how it's done. How to suck a cock, how to accept it up the ass. How to beg. The gay and tranny lobbies love to deny this, but if you go to your local gay club (seriously, do it, don't just take my word for it!) you'll be startled at the sheer quantity of underage kids.

>>37047 >hurr durr Hey, it's a drooling idiot! Cannot even explain why there's a problem. Sad!

>>37050 >Most gay people I've known have expressed either approval, or were actively were engaged in pedophile relationships. so you hang out with pedos and some of them are gay. Got it.

>>37050 i can confirm, homos are pedos. the ones who aren't are faking. >>37052 you're apparently bad at getting gays to trust you. unfortunate that this has tainted your perspective.

>>37053 I have a few bi friends but aside from jokes we don't talk about it, because there's nothing really to talk about. I don't really know any "gay is my personality" (haha GIMP) people if that's what you mean.

>>37054 Bi people are sus, but I can't claim to have enough experience with them. I suspect they're mostly just confused straight people.

>>37055 >I suspect they're mostly just confused straight people. a lot of straight people don't know how to properly interpret the thought "huh that <person of the same gender as me> is pretty attractive," so this tracks.

Requesting that this thread be repurposed as a sexuality politics containment thread. The monotonous derails are getting ridiculous.

>>37056 It isn't necessarily their fault when they're inundated with "you like somebody, that makes you gay".

>>37057 maybe we should just make a thread for that purpose and request the mods move the relevant portions over to it so this thread can return to the core of it's original meaning.

>>37057 i don't think a single post ITT has been on topic lmao

>>37058 haha thanks both heterosexual and homosexual people for furthering a weird and incredibly unwholesome view of sexuality!

>>37061 heterosexual people are the victims here. they're being tricked into homosexual deviance.

>>37063 naw it's both. Don't tell me you've never heard of someone being called "gay" because they don't act like an utter douchebag. Hell a lot of people think I'm gay because I don't make much of an effort at performing masculinity.

>>37064 >being called "gay" It's an insult. >performing masculinity. Because you're apparently a glitterboy, since you cannot "perform" masculinity.

>>37065 and there it is.

>>37066 maybe they're jumping to conclusions. maybe you've just been tricked into disregarding your masculinity by gay influences.

>>37064 >Hell a lot of people think I'm gay because I don't make much of an effort at performing masculinity. This is a common misconception, that masculinity is "performed" or that there is a "wrong way". If you hop into your time machine and go back to old world France, you'll see a lot of effeminate men. The idea that there is a masculinity to perform is part and parcel with homo ideology, since it gives you an out from realizing that you are masculine. This out has been extended to include trans ideology. Don't worry, you're not necessarily a queer, but you should reflect on why people would want to sort themselves into gay and non-gay so strictly (hint: it isn't because of fear).

>>37068 >If you hop into your time machine and go back to old world France USA is not France >The idea that there is a masculinity to perform is part and parcel with homo ideology it is also actual fact >since it gives you an out from realizing that you are masculine Being masculine and acting masculine are different things. You are correct, many masculine people do not act masculine and many unmasculine men act masculine. >Don't worry, you're not necessarily a queer never worried about it in the first place fam

most of the idea of "performing" your sex came from trans ideology. they see it as an act, because that is their natural state of affairs. they move into a role they're not designed for, not meant to inhabit, and thus end up performing like on a stage. this is why you see so much deeply offensive faking on the part of trannies. look at Bruce Jenner, who said that one of the hardest things he has to do now is "pick an outfit". women's lives are so much more complex than that, and men performing their role will always fail to understand the depth and complexities involved, and end up being a cringe inducing caricature.

>>37073 usa or france, doesn't matter fam. the point is masculinity isn't universal. also, it is not anything of a fact that masculinity is performed, it is intrinsic to the male experience.

>>37075 >also, it is not anything of a fact that masculinity is performed, it is intrinsic to the male experience. no, being male is not equivalent to thinking with your dick and liking sportball, which is the performance of masculinity in the USA.

>>37076 that isn't masculinity. you've mixed up the projection of culture with the intrinsic identity of man.

>>37077 >you've mixed up the projection of culture with the intrinsic identity of man. I think *you* have. The thing you call "projection of culture" (wrt masculinigy) is the performance of masculinity that I'm talking about.

>>37079 as you yourself have said, that "isn't masculinity". it cannot be performed as masculinity, it isn't masculinity at all. that is like saying american obsession with cheese burgers is masculinity. masculinity is an intrinsic property of the male, not cultural. hence my example about france, which has a different cultural experience. are they un-masculine? no. these are different things, and you keep mixing them up.

>>37080 ok, so, you do realize that "performing X" and "being X" are different things, right?

>>37082 That isn't what is being discussed. Avoid moving the goalposts.

>>37082 refer back to my previous post >>37074 . The idea of performing comes from the idea that you can be the thing if you act like it. being the thing is intrinsic and impossible to divest or indulge. as i said previously, burger eating isn't masculinity, even if it is referred to as the performance of it. it isn't related. i hope this isn't too complex for you.

>>37083 "performing masculinity" is *exactly* what is being discussed

>>37085 Incorrect. Refer to the original post referring to the idea here: >>37068 . Don't derail the conversation with your trans ideology.

>>37084 >The idea of performing comes from the idea that you can be the thing if you act like it. being the thing is intrinsic and impossible to divest or indulge so you think it is impossible to do a really good performance of Abraham Lincoln because you can't be Abraham Lincoln?

>>37087 oh no. certainly it is the case you could be a convincing abe, but you'll never be abe. you could even free some slaves, but you still won't be abe. this goes for sex. part of the problem isn't so much people are trying, since acting is fun, but the fact that they don't even try.

>>37088 > certainly it is the case you could be a convincing abe "being a convincing X" is *literally* what "performing X" means.

>>37089 wtf are you getting so upset over? you're mixing together ideas like "sport ball" and "masculinity" which are wholly differing things. furthermore, you act like "masculinity" is something like "sports ball" that can be emulated at all. as previously discussed, there is no outward thing that exists to be emulated. you cannot emulate it, you cannot "perform" it.

>>37090 I'm not upset, just flabbergasted that you can't seem to understand that it is possible to perform a thing while not being the thing, and that this whole discussion is over something so fuarrrking stupid.

>>37091 it's only stupid since you're intentionally trying to derail it. or you're genuinely retarded. either way, not my problem.

>>37092 ok, good to know you also think this is stupid.

>>37095 no, just you. new topic: gay as decadence. it was very common before the fall of the roman empire. it seems likely they would have other modern forms of decadence if their technology would allow for it, such as trans mania. they did have pedophilia too, which is emerging in our culture in sneaky ways.

>>37096 Pedophilia's emergence into the mainstream isn't surprising. Netflix just released a very pro-pedo show called "Cuties" this year. It got panned widely, but we must remember how positive gay and trans messages were received just a short couple of decades ago.

>>37096 >>37098 The much larger and more persuasive trend is in the opposite direction, people being canceled etc. I can't say what I intended because Lain censor thinks it's spam (I didn't post any links whatsoever).

Many people in this thread (and the previous one) insist that they are only concerned with the well-being of people suffering of gender dysphoria, and that sex reassignment surgery (or 'mutilation' as it is sometimes called, in a totally-not-emotional rhetorical trick) are always more miserable after. I would like to offer some alternative perspective of the issue, in the form of the following studies (and meta-studies) : https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/ >meta-analysis of a corpus of 56 studies, 52 of which report positive effects on the mental-health of post-op transgender people https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/134/4/696 >reports beneficial outcomes of puberty blockers and SRS when applied to the youth https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2009.03625.x >meta-analysis that offers (somewhat low quality) evidence that SRS including hormonal intervention, improves gender dysphoria, psychological functioning and comorbidities, sexual function and overall quality of life. https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567%2816%2931941-4/fulltext >Transgender children reported depression and self-worth that did not differ from their matched-control or sibling peers [...] Compared with national averages, transgender children showed typical rates of depression [...] and marginally higher rates of anxiety https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223813/ >Studies regarding general QoL have found that transgender people’s QoL is poorer than that of cisgender people, but that it improves post-GAT. [...] Findings of the subgroup meta-analysis at post-treatment showed that there is no difference in general QoL between transgender people and the general population [...] Overall, findings support the idea that QoL improves following hormonal treatment as well as post-genital surgeries. Of course you are welcome to read these for yourself, and provide other meta-analysis that contradict these findings, but I find it at least dishonest to say that science definitely says that SRS and hormonal treatment only has negative outcomes and effects. Lastly, a commentary on a study that was (directly or indirectly) referred to in this thread and the last one: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/ (aka 'the Sweden study') The issue I find with this is that the control group was cisgender people, so the conclusion is that post-op trans people present a higher suicide rate tha the general population (that is, non trans people) and so do not support the claim that sex reassignment surgery decrease the mental health of trans people. This only show that trans people have a higher suicide risk than the general population (that we already know).

>>37107 >Many people in this thread (and the previous one) insist that they are only concerned with the well-being of people suffering of gender dysphoria, and that sex reassignment surgery You know perfectly well that isn't their agenda though.

>>37107 but every single global tranny jew nigger UN new world order agenda :(

>>37057 This. The thread no longer fits the topic, might as well make use of it to keep other threads being caught up in the obsessive derailing. God forbid new users come in thinking this is the kind of posting we want to promote here.

>>37043 This is lainchan though, you don't just reach the end of a board in a single day.

>>37057 Containment threads/boards do not, have never and will never work. They just end up leaking all over.

>>37108 Yes. Everyone who expresses concerns about people who self righteously want to harm children have an "agenda". Doesn't that sound familiar? What was going on with the Jews in the 1930-1940 time frame? >>37107 You cited studies that were debunked. Look back at previous posts for the specific citation. Stop citing overturned, debunked science. You also intentionally misrepresented the previously cited study. Stop pushing your agenda to harm children.

>>37107 >I have more, therefor me right We have more recent, and more substantial. Strange how you need to go back into the past to dig up "evidence". Every time somebody talks about gynephilia, you same people scream about it being disproven by more recent scholarship. As such, I'm holding you to your same standards. All of those studies you cite are outdated and have been disproven.

>>37134 >>37135 I have not seen the posts that debunked these specific studies. And no, one study that goes against the consensus established by meta-studies that analyse and weight the conclusions of tens of other studies, does not count. You need to point out was is wrong with the methodology, or the way the data was collected, for instance. It is not enough to say "all this science was debunked" (mind you, we're talking about a volume in the tens of separate studies here) without even beginning to argue why the science is irreceivable.

>>37137 Sounds like you're in denial. Unfortunate.

>>37122 That may be your experience, but that's demonstrably not true. It work perfectly on my homechan. It's about the same pace as this site, at least the pace of /hum/+/r/. Any time a thread begins to derail into politics, the conversation is redirected by a mod and continues in the containment thread. New topics (usually politics spammers and new users) are mod-texted to explain then reparented to the thread within 24hr. As long as the mods are able to reparent individual posts and stay vigilant and transparent, there is no problem. We don't have the massive size and pace of 4chan that complicates things, nor the situation where the containment boards were topics that actively attracted new users to the site. Can you explain why you doubt it? Examples would be perfect. Keep in mind that this isn't a 4chan-like or /p­ol/-like scenario.

>>37139 I for one don't doubt it can work. However, given the mod culture on this board, I doubt it would work.

>>37138 >I can't and don't want to argue my position, so we will stop the discussion now.

>>37141 >I can't provide recent evidence and just want to derail the thread with pointless bickering

>>37141 >I'll require people argue the same thing over and over despite the fact they already have and provided significant amounts of justifications, evidence, and argumentation. I will do so by introducing irrelevant or previously refuted talking points.

>>37137 Meta studies are useless wank. If I have 100 studies full of the same errors then conducting a meta study on them won't make the errors go away, garbage in garbage out. All studies reporting positive benefits to cutting off your cock are automatically full of soykaf because there is no benefit to cutting off your cock. Statistical arguments In general are useless for determining the nature of things, since frequentist arguments rely on deducing the limiting behaviour of an infinite set based on a finite set of examples (which is mathematically spurious) while BayesIan arguments depend entirely on non statistical priors so you can just use the priors and ditch the statistical wank.

>>37146 But lain, this how the scientific method works. You have a right to believe "I don't like this, therefore all science that prove me wrong is automatically incorrect", but don't expect other people to believe you as well.

>>37145 Except this not what happened. Nobody has provided evidence as to why these meta-studies, and their underlying studies, were incorrect either in their methodology, data, or conclusions.

>>37147 Just a general point of order, meta studies are by in large useless wank and should be avoided whenever possible. They're fine as a discovery tool, but don't mistake them for being a serious contribution to scholarship. Thanks to the fact that no replication is done by meta-analysis they are at best a good way to find a bunch of articles which agree with you. >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18199864/ In the above study for example it was found that drug trials showing a favorable result were published 97% of the time while a trial showing negative or insignificant results was only published about 14% of the time. There wasn't any significant difference in quality between published and unpublished papers. Positive result bias is talked about in most fields and it is known to impact the results of meta-analysis. Frankly the only reasonable solutions I've seen presented are to bring all of grey literature into the academic sphere (which isn't actually reasonable) or to treat meta-analysis papers as the worthless fluff pieces they really are.

>>37149 Thank you for the productive contribution. What then would be a good way to settle a scientific question, when there exist studies that seem to confirm either hypothesis. Even if we limit the usefulness of meta analysis as just a discovery tool, wouldn't the the comparative volume of the literature supporting each camp be an indicator? I was under the impression that it was how we establish scientific consensus, especially when the meta analysis in question also evaluates the quality of the conclusions that were produced. It's like we say that climate change is real because 97% of climate scientists have concluded that it is. That is, we compare the volume of quality evidence for each hypothesis, and decide for one when a satisfactory threshold is met.

>>37150 >Thank you for the productive contribution. What then would be a good way to settle a scientific question, when there exist studies that seem to confirm either hypothesis. If you believe this, then you must admit gynephilia is real. It is well documented in the literature. If you refuse, then you must realize that the literature now points to transgenderism not being helped by surgical or medical intervention that isn't targeted at an underlying psychosis. >Even if we limit the usefulness of meta analysis as just a discovery tool, wouldn't the the comparative volume of the literature supporting each camp be an indicator? Comparative volume is meaningless. Look at all of the inaccurate medical volumes before modern medicine. They outnumbered the Gray's Anatomy books by reams. >It's like we say that climate change is real because 97% of climate scientists have concluded that it is. That is, we compare the volume of quality evidence for each hypothesis, and decide for one when a satisfactory threshold is met. The actual statistic is 97% of scientists. Note the distinction. I wonder what weight I should give to the atomic physicist?

There's a lot of muddying of the waters here. I'm going to provide some more concrete information that basically shows why the trans situation is not good. >Detransition is increasing https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32591293/ >Detransitioners testimony requires us to rethink geder dysphoria https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32406585/ >A case study of one detransitioner https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29264844/ >84%+ of "transgender" children revert https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31462454/ >Transgenderism as a means of evading underlying psychological distress https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33202051/ >Co-occurance of transgenderism and autism spectrum disorder (major meta-analysis) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26753812/ >Significant cardiovascular risks associated with hormone treatment https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28945852/ >Autogynephilia: an underappreciated paraphilia https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22005209/ >Analysis of Autogynephilia (psychometric) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25277693/ >Analysis of homosexual and non-homosexual transsexualism https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2794988/ >Sexual targeting inversions (multiple, but gynephilia is analyzed) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31813772/ >Homosexuals by any other name. Men who are interested in transsexuals (and support them by extension) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27858199/ >Association between gynephilia and gender dysphoria https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8494491/ This is just part of my library. The amount of evidence against transgenderism being anything other than a severe mental illness is staggering. Check some of them out. I've tried to label them based on their content or conclusions so there would be less work for you to do finding what you want to learn about.

>>37158 Thank you for the concrete resources. it will take some time to go through all of that. I wish the discussion had went like this from the beginning. It seems, from a cursory glance of the abstract of all these, that there is a tendency to prescribe medical interventions without careful enough consideration, resulting in adverse effects for some transgender patients. Another part of the literature on the subject seem to indicate that medical transition is beneficial for at least some people, so rejecting wholly may also cause distress to the people for which it really is the best option. >>37157 Why would it be controversial to admit that gynephilia is real? Is it not defined as the attraction to women (or rather feminity)? Unless you refer to autoginephilia, which also apply to cis women.

>>37165 You're welcome. The overwhelming evidence points at transition medicine being not the right way. Something with such a significant failure rate (and considering it offers no notable benefit given the study cited much earlier in this uh... "discussion") seems to indicate that it isn't the correct means of fixing whatever the problem is. This suggests that there is some underlying condition that needs to be addressed, but we're too busy obsessing over the surface manifestations. >Why would it be controversial to admit that gynephilia is real? Is it not defined as the attraction to women (or rather feminity)? Unless you refer to autoginephilia, which also apply to cis women. I believe it is safe to say they intended autoginephilia due to the context of this conversation, although I too wish they were more explicit. With regards to women, it makes sense, and I believe it is safe to say most men who are secure in their body experience an equivalent feeling about their own appearance. However, returning to the "controversial" point, it is widely condemned in transgender activism and literature as "invalidating" their experience, their "actual" condition, and other allegedly "transphobic" reasons. The reason it is controversial is mainly that it offers an alternative to their narrative-driven self-diagnosis, which they need to be taken seriously as an "oppressed" group, instead of people who simply have a sexual fetish. I don't see a problem with people with a sexual fetish, but I certainly do not want to confer to them medical interventions (as somebody who lives in a country with socialized medicine) nor any special protected status to enact their fetish in public. This, to me, is like promoting BDSM in public, and making illegal to say things like "go away, I'm not interested in your kink" or, more to the fears expressed throughout this "discussion", to become illegal to decline to be involved in their kink directly. I have more information, but I think these ones are best for now given the main thrust of the conversation seems to be focusing on the credibility of the cultural narrative we're experiencing, as well as the efficacy of treatments when we take them at their word. A brief summary of the texts is quite simply: they are suffering from some sort of comorbidity between delusional idealization of themselves in the context of a deeply embedded fetish; attempts to warp reality to conform to their delusion and/or fetish do not actually resolve the underlying condition, thus do not resolve any other comorbidity that often leads to severely negative outcomes; finally, there is credible evidence that the active promotion of this in an ideological sense rather than a medical/fetish sense has led many people to begin self-diagnosing themselves with this condition (transgenderism) in the hopes it will solve other problems they're experiencing but are unable to correctly recognize.

>>>/q/9443 I've posted some basic points about what I've observed in this discussion in /q/. The link above will take you to my post. It has enough context you should be able to follow along, but I encourage you to read the previous posts to get a full picture.

>>37150 >I was under the impression that it was how we establish scientific consensus, Consensus is not the goal of science. In fact the opposite is true, the studies which create the most waves and get the most citations are those which challenge consensus. People don't aspire to be a glorified parrot in a lab-coat, they aspire to push boundaries, you don't get to do that by nodding along. >wouldn't the the comparative volume of the literature supporting each camp be an indicator? Volume is a very poor indicator. For example, http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/meaningless.pdf is an example of one paper invalidating dozens of published papers and almost certainly a massive amount of grey literature. There is probably academic work being done today which would be invalidated by that paper, but thanks to it being a computer science paper with a focus on data collection an epidemiologist (just a random example) has no exposure to it. The papers invalidated weren't even necessarily of low quality, they just didn't consider that the tool they were using might be fundamentally broken because the consensus was that it not only worked but had intuitively satisfying properties and could be easily reasoned with. >meta analysis in question also evaluates the quality of the conclusions that were produced. So, unlike the one you cited? Snide comments aside, such a meta analysis would be great but the combined expertise in the relevant field, statistics, and data collection required to accomplish that sort of paper is rare. It's also a lot of effort for a highly qualified professional to go through when you consider all they're going to accomplish is the patting of a bunch of backs. On the other hand it's a really easy way for an armchair scientist to get published as it requires no experimental design or knowledge in the field. It's also a way for those with a political agenda to create the appearance of a scientific consensus on their side. That brings us to actually looking at the particular meta-analysis you shared. First, why this one? It's pretty clear that the purpose of the portal you linked is explicitly aimed towards lobbying policy makers and has practically no depth in terms of psychology or medical disciplines. Did you happen to read the methodology? When you hit a methodology page and you can't find the words "bias" or "limitations" anywhere on the page that's an incredibly bad sign. They limited themselves to English literature which is known to amplify positive results bias and they narrowed from the 4347 articles produced by their search by selecting only those articles published in journals "known to address transgender issues" (along with a number of other frankly sensible criteria, though no use of a random filter which is another black mark). Given that I'm going off on positive results bias you can probably predict where I'm going with this. You're a researcher whose study shows a long-term negative impact to transition, do you try to get it published in a journal known for its articles about the benefits of transition? Studies say: no. On the other side, you're a journal who has a reputation; do you accept an article for publishing which runs counter to the articles which earned you that reputation in the first place? Studies would again indicate you don't.

>>37168 >Consensus is not the goal of science. In fact the opposite is true, the studies which create the most waves and get the most citations are those which challenge consensus. People don't aspire to be a glorified parrot in a lab-coat, they aspire to push boundaries, you don't get to do that by nodding along. This is bluntly incorrect. Science is not about making waves, it is about understanding reality. Yes, it is nice when somebody does something that makes waves, but that isn't the point. The point is to produce a hypothesis that reflects reality, and perform experiments that replicate the expected result consistently. The result is hopefully a model that reflects reality. When something is overturned, it is a moment of celebration only because we have come closer to some fundamental truth in a way we can appreciate more than merely "haha machine go burrrrrrr". >Volume is a very poor indicator 100% true. Volume is moderated by quality. High volume might indicate consistent results, but you need to engage the material to know if it actually does confirm expectations. There was some bickering about meta-analysis earlier, and while it is true faulty experiments will necessarily taint your meta-analysis, it is not the case they're worthless. When you have lots and lots of data that might possibly indicate you're either right or wrong, a carefully constructed meta-analysis can help shed some light on it. >Snide comments aside, such a meta analysis would be great but the combined expertise in the relevant field, statistics, and data collection required to accomplish that sort of paper is rare. It's also a lot of effort for a highly qualified professional to go through when you consider all they're going to accomplish is the patting of a bunch of backs. On the other hand it's a really easy way for an armchair scientist to get published as it requires no experimental design or knowledge in the field. It's also a way for those with a political agenda to create the appearance of a scientific consensus on their side. Unless, and this is a very very doubtful maybe, you maybe can control the specific types of errors in your source material with a high degree of confidence, there is zero chance of constructing any trustworthy conclusion from a meta-analysis based on faulty experiments or papers in general. If anything, using such data will distort any output you hope to get, even marginally. >When you hit a methodology page and you can't find the words "bias" or "limitations" anywhere on the page that's an incredibly bad sign. They limited themselves to English literature which is known to amplify positive results bias and they narrowed from the 4347 articles produced by their search by selecting only those articles published in journals "known to address transgender issues" (along with a number of other frankly sensible criteria, though no use of a random filter which is another black mark). Given that I'm going off on positive results bias you can probably predict where I'm going with this. You're a researcher whose study shows a long-term negative impact to transition, do you try to get it published in a journal known for its articles about the benefits of transition? Studies say: no. On the other side, you're a journal who has a reputation; do you accept an article for publishing which runs counter to the articles which earned you that reputation in the first place? Studies would again indicate you don't. These negative signs are significant. I hadn't checked the paper yet, but I'm glad you did so with such care. There's some additional mentions with regards to publishing that people need to be aware of. The biggest is publishing bias, which consists of favoring positive outcomes with significance. This means that people are unlikely to publish findings that do not confirm something of interest. The specifics of outcomes without significance are also important, since we end up with a lack of papers showing that the null hypothesis might be true. Instead, there's a strong bias toward papers that show something as significant and noteworthy. This is especially problematic when you consider the notion of "significant". If your criterion of significance is p<0.05, and the actual results consistently come out above that, except in the cases where, due to pure chance (the 0.05, or 5% of the time due to chance) the results appear significant, you will make something completely false appear very significant. One paper, not a big deal. However, when you have a cultural phenomenon like the transgender issue, then you end up with a lot of research dollars being spent on studying it. More research dollars, more studies, more results. 0.05 of 100 is 1. 0.05 of 1,000,000 is 50,000. Suddenly that 5% chance of showing significant results when there are none (a type 2 error) become very compelling "evidence". When these are the only things being published as a matter of common behavior, suddenly there doesn't appear to be any compelling reason to disregard it. Meta-analysis become hopelessly tainted by a lack of contrary data, which isn't published and thus isn't available for study and analysis. The last thing worth considering is something that has become something of a dirty open secret in the social sciences over the last decade: p-hacking. Data doesn't meet your significance criteria? No problem, just manipulate the data until it does. This is an ongoing issue, and while deeply unethical, doesn't appear to being addressed in any significant way (yet). What does all of this mean? It means that when people are influenced by trendy topics in research, they have a high chance of confirming the trend collectively, even if individually they tend to disprove it.