Trans

Are transsexuals the historical precursor to transhumanist? How many here are transsexuals? How many of you consider yourself transhumanist or plan to embrace transhumanist technology?

>>2345 >Are transsexuals the historical precursor to transhumanist? No. Also lern 2 write. >How many here are transsexuals? about tree fiddy (what kind of answer are you even looking for?) >How many of you consider yourself transhumanist or plan to embrace transhumanist technology? I consider myself a transhumanist. I think that computers in a way are already making changes to human physiology. They can be thought of as being the neo-neocortex. This will only become more obvious when computer - brain interfaces become better, but the impact is already pretty strong. PD maybe your thread would be better if you started it with only the last question, but w/e, it's your thread not mine.

>>2348 >No. Also lern 2 write.\ Whats the issue with this sentence? Please explain. >(what kind of answer are you even looking for?) Maybe you would say "I am a transsexual", its pretty simple. You are trying to act above me but its failing pretty hard. >PD maybe your thread would be better if you started it with only the last question, but w/e, it's your thread not mine. The thread is about the relation between the two

Trannies are just a type of otherkin. I genuinely wish I was a dog, but I don't lie by saying ``I am a dog.'' Wishing to be a dog does not make me a dog. Neither should trannies lie about their gender.

transexualism/transgenderism is a mental illness that should be treated in a medical facility by clinical professionals.

>>2349 >the historical precursor to (the) transhumanist (philosophy/movement/...??) speak like caveman don't understand why wrong >Maybe you would say "I am a transsexual" But i'm not, I'm pretty happy with who I am. Here, I will help you find what you seek http://boards.420chan.org/cd/ Go there, that's where you wanted to go. >The thread is about the relation between the two Then maybe talk about that? I'm thinking that the relation between the two is pretty limited. Transexuals can get their dream by getting cyborg bodies.. that's about it, innit? also i'm not trying to act above you, that's just your inferiority complex.

>>2355 Oh they are speaking of a singular transhumanist? Known as "the transhumanist"

>>2354 >In a medical facility Most mentally ill people don't require inpatient treatment. Even most schizophrenics don't need to be permanently kept in a mental health facility. Other than that, yes, the vast majority of people with gender dysphoria see a psychologist and most of them also see a psychiatrist for it.

>Are transsexuals the historical precursor to transhumanist? One thing is augmenting man with machine and the other thing is allowing a sexual fetish to take over one's whole life. So no, your answer is no.

>>2364 Ultimately I think OP is talking about transexualism from the perspective that it is more of a continuation of the trend that started with elective cosmetic surgery. In that case, yes, cutting your dick off and turning it into a bajina is pretty transhumanist. A little more transhumanist than a boobjob, a little less than a facelift.

>>2393 I'd be hard pressed to guage whatever OP is talking about but transexualism predates modern surgery by millennia, it's just that modern surgery allows people who feel that way about themselves to actualize it on a physical level to some extent. I'd also like to have eyes that can zoom and see infrared. Maybe one day this will be a thing.

>>2348 >>2355 >Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. >You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. >>2354 >You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.

>>2518 Why has everything always have to be so lefty and pc? Can't you just man up and let people discuss the way they want?

>>2540 Lainmod didn't stop anybody from discussing anything. He could have deleted the posts, but didn't. He called out >lern 2 write as pointless insults and warned >>2354 that they should have more actual info in a post so we have something to actually discuss.

Tranny here. Transsexual is definitely a more accurate term than transgender as far as I'm concerned (just before somebody tells you to stop using the former term as they always do); I feel the latter has been hijacked by an ideologically driven community engaging in open delusion, so I try to distance myself from it. I know what I am - but neither do I sympathise with clear irrationalism founded on shallow kneejerk feelings and popular, simplistic criticisms of 'SJWs' (because ultimately that becomes an exercise in social identity rather than critical thought). There seem to be people in this thread who're itching to take a whack at what they think is low hanging fruit (us trannies and the moronic worldview many self-identified trans people adorn), so feel free to give it a go. Anyway, I digress. I think transsexuality, after perhaps certain medical technologies, has to be the first baby step towards transhumanism in some way. In a similar way as previous medical advances have demonstrated, transition methods are at their core a way of taking control from what has previously been inexorably directed by our physiological nature. Disease and certain tendencies towards fault in our bodies have been diminished as we've taken control over defending against/preventing these problems which otherwise determined our health and lifespan. Despite the similarity, the fundamental difference between these is that previous medical technologies have just been a form of protecting the extent of our pre-existing natural lifespan whereas transsexualism is a form of augmenting the extent that our self-perception can amend the body beyond any pre-existing natural basis. I think in that way it must be at least a precursor to transhumanism if not the beginning of it. Ultimately, it isn't transcending any facet of being human - changing from a male to female or vice versa (and yes, I know that such a transition in the most pedantic interpretation of 'male to female' is still impossible), is still just a manipulation of human physique, mind and social role as it exists already. It won't be very long though until we begin to see methods of augmentation which are more than just these simple manipulations of our nature, and rather which add entirely new functions or remove built-in limitations we are anchored by. Smartphones and information technology is already progressing through a series of form factors, with the logical end point being direct sensory input implemented as part of your physical structure. Good question though. Hopefully there are some responses other than 'bloody left wingers, this is PC gone mad'. I think we can do better than that. Plenty room for fairly invalidating trans folk with pure reason (I'm not being sarcastic either), without sounding like a senile member of Generation X.

>>2345 i'm honestly not sure how i feel about transhumanism as a whole. on one hand, i'd totally go for body mods, genetic mods, even some kind of mind upload... on the other hand i don't really know if humanity will be ready to guide its own evolution by the time these technologies are available. it's true that self-guided evolution is still evolution in some abstract sense, but there are qualitative differences that have to be taken into account. for one thing, if we get the whole gamut of biohacking tech before we reach post-scarcity, we'll all be fuarrrked. imagine if commercial biohacking came onto the market tomorrow... 3 words: immortal mark zuckerberg. anyway.. i have my reservations about rushing it forward, but i do view transhumanism as a bit of an inevitability.

Madposters really came out of the woodwork for this thread huh ... are they the same lains who contribute high-quality, thoughtful posts through the rest of the site, or lurkers for whom this is a hot-button issue? I think OP's question is a valid one. I interpreted is as: one of the premises of transhumanism is the biological/genetic/historical contingency of our conception of what it means to be human. Once this contingency is recognised, it leaves us free to then re-shape that meaning. (Yes often the focus is on technology, but that's the how, not the why.) The discussion about what gender means and how it's contingent rather than absolute (and therefore malleable) seems to mirror this in some way. Transhumanist and trans{sexual, gender} discussions are both still super new, and the dust is far from settled. But the gender stuff has received a lot more attention and popular debate, so it could be worth looking at it as a case study or a facet of the wider social debates that we're going to be having over the next centuries. Kim Stanley Robinson's really excellent book 2312 spent a decent amount of its world-building looking at the way sex and gender might change with and in response to rapidly changing technological abilities. Can highly recommend.

>>5779 top mix of prejudice and irony 10/10 post

>>5795 what are you on about? i don't think anything >>5779 was especially unreasonable. they even qualified their opinions for different conceptions of what 'being transexual' means. >>5794 >your 2nd paragraph i think of transhumanism a bit differently. it's more than just accepting the contingency of what it means to be human... that's just a consequence of the theory of evolution. transhumanism, at least in the popular conception, seems to have more to do with humanity taking an active role in their evolution. i would argue eugenics is a more direct philosophical precursor to transhumanism than the 'gender spectrum' or whatever. the difference between transhumanists and proponents of eugenics is the emphasis on evolution directed by the individual for their own best interest in the former case, and directed by society for the collective best interest in the latter case.

Technically transgenderism is not new,as it's existed in non european cultures for centuries >the vedic scripts >the native americans >ancient egypt All had recognized other genders or did surgeries. It's just suddenly an issue cause gay marriage is less hated now. Next we'll move onto something else to hate.

I thought the dream of transhumanism was to create designer bodies and not only extend life but live lives through technological advancement which evolution hasn't provided for. If that includes switching gender then it's well within the scope of that dream. It's not half as extreme as wanting to upload your mind into machines and becoming a cybernetic starship. > i will never be a cybernetic starship ;_;

No disphoria here. Nor trans. Though if you offered me a massively upgraded shell and the required psychosurgery for compatibility... I probably would accept if my paranoia didn't act up, the gender and whatnot would be fairly low on my list of priorities. The conditions of my existence post-facto would be far more interesting, such as the benefits and my degree of freedom and independence. But even if I did end-up indentured/enslaved... if the conditions were better than those I'd have as a free but only human entity? I'd have to say it would be worth it. >>5830 Don't forget Matrioshka brains and their interesting opportunities for uploads.

>>5852 > the gender and whatnot would be fairly low on my list of priorities If we're talking post-human, why bother with gender anyway? Reproduction would consist of designing and programming new beings from scratch; sex will be osolete when you can push a button and enjoy an hour long orgasm at will.

>>5853 >sex will be osolete when you can push a button and enjoy an hour long orgasm at will. Nah mate, there's already this thing called masturbation that is far easier, cheaper, and arguably feels better than sex. And yet sex still occurs for recreational purpose, not just reproductive. But gender as a mostly binary thing (as it still is today, despite a few outlier) might indeed disappear as steel and technology replace flesh and biology in our bodies.

Pretty much agree with >>5779 Am also a transsexual, and think there definitely is a similarity between transexualism and transhumanism. I suppose I'd be willing to accept such technology (in vague terms) were it presented in a well thought out way. But at this point in history, I don't have much confidence in our capability to construct helpful and liberal technologies that don't bind us more than free us. Technology is extremely corporate at the moment, and I currently feel wary of transhumanist technology in this circumstance. I feel though that transsexualism as a topic of conversation has yet to really expand past traditional considerations of identity and physiology. For instance, much of the trans-movement seems intent on preserving traditional conceptions of gender as distinct forms of human nature: despite how history has proven gender (as it historically defined) to be quite dynamic. It at least represents an active modification and defiance of our natural physiology utilising modern technologies. The acceptance with which transsexuals are beginning to be received with does speak to some form of societal acceptance that we as humans can transcend our physical circumstances. That has significant implications, but transsexualism still remains binded by those trying to justify it with concepts such as "being assigned the wrong gender", or separating gender expression, gender identity, sex etc.

transexuality destroys the genders, and transhumanism will destroy the human race

Transsexualism is a mental illness and should be treated with therapy. It is not a precursor to transhumanism, it is simply a disorder that should be treated like any other mental disorder.

why are there so many of you on IRC?

>>5803 because they think delusions are due to ideology. more like a transphobic trans person. you see them in every minority group. (blacks that like shapiro, gays that hate fem personalities). i also identify as transsexual. most hate of this word is due to the stigmatization of it thanks to discriminate past and the DSM. while transgender can be interpreted as a concession trans people can't change their chromosomes, it's meant to mean trans people don't just change sexual appearances, trans people change genders as well. whether the identity transsexual or transgender is more appropriate is an individual exploration. for example, an agender, gender fluid, or nonbinary person can still be transsexual if they want the alternative body. since gender and sex to begin with are a spectrum, transgender and transsexual identities are subject to variations. >>5855 >I feel though that transsexualism as a topic of conversation has yet to really expand past traditional considerations of identity and physiology sounds like you have no experience in the trans community > For instance, much of the trans-movement seems intent on preserving traditional conceptions of gender as distinct forms of human nature How much is much? Like less than a tenth of them? >despite how history has proven gender (as it historically defined) to be quite dynamic yeah most people are aware of this > It at least represents an active modification and defiance of our natural physiology utilising modern technologies (( vague unsubstantiated claim without relevance )) >That has significant implications, but transsexualism still remains binded by those trying to justify it with concepts such as "being assigned the wrong gender", or separating gender expression, gender identity, sex etc. can you provide an explanation why the wrong gender assignment argument is invalid or unimportant? or how the modern theories that point out how expression, identity, and sex are different are also wrong? your entire premise is based on soykaf preconceptions of the trans community.

>>5857 You may have stumbled onto the wrong website here. Lainchan has an eye to the future and the possibilities it holds, and revel in discarding outdated paradigms. We care not for such antiquated views.

Actually >>5861 I entirely agree with >>5857 It's just another mental disorder slowly being normalized, not that mental illness makes someone 'sub-human' but they definitely need to be helped, not pandered to. It would be like if someone has schizophrenia and you just pushed them further thinking that god talks to them via a hole in the concrete and one day god told him to kill all people who he deems ready for heaven. A compassionate human being wouldn't say "Yeah man, you should do that.", you would try to seek help for this person, without putting them through too much stress. This example for trans would be "Yeah man, nature was wrong, you should have a vagina, slice that dong right off and eat these pills." -- This is body dysmorphic disorder and is listed inside of the DSM-5. Look up people who are trans that are post-op, they usually have severe depression and regret their actions. An alarming amount of them also commit suicide. Cutting off your genitals isn't going to make the dysmorphia go away, it's just going to get worse.

>>5862 > Look up people who are trans that are post-op, they usually have severe depression and regret their actions This isn't the overall trend. I know where you got this idea from, they were lying, and you believed it.

>X makes my wee-wee hard >X usually involves people cutting their body parts >is X transhumanist? No, traps are gay, they ahve as much relativity to transhumanism as tattoos and body piercing. Stop jerking off to cross-dressing men and get a life.

>>5869 You seem really concerned about what other people jerk off to.

I think we must abandon computers and use fungus as our means of hyper-intelligent problem solving

Comparing the proccess transexuals submit themselves to with transhumanism is a total contradiction. The entire point of transhumanism is to enhance the biological entity. What transsexuals do is eiher neutral from that standpoint, lkie wearing wigs, makeup, etc., or outright bad/decaying. Overcharge of hormones makes your mind worse, as in less balanced, less focused, etc. and increases your chances of getting cancer. Sex change operations make fully functional organs into defective/less capable ones. I'm not sayong this to hate on trannies, or passing any moral judgement, because that's not the point of the thread, I'm saying that if you want to think of it from a technological, functional point of view, it is total soykaf to be honest. Going furher than biology, thinking transhumanism as a means of transcending humanity in all senses, there transsexualism again fails. Being trans makes you much more likely to kill yourself, it's one of the most suicidal conditions, statistically, that a human being can choose to put themselves into. Now the theory our culture has chosen to adopt is that this is the fault of society for bullying them or whatever. But that's empirically impossible to prove, it's one of those theories that can either stay around forever because people lile to believe it, or it'll be tossed eventually. In any tech environment, where there aren't so many emotions involved, such a theory would never even come up. No one would keep working on a machine, or a software, that is failing at that rate, and argue that it could perhaps be fixed if we recpected it more lol So that theory is out for this conversation, and we must face that there's nothing being transcended or improved by being trans. Only perhaps your own sensation of your own image, but that has no bearing whatsoever on human condition, as transhumanism aims to. It's just a personal feeling and as relevant from this point of view as prefering watercress to lettuce on your sandwhich.

>>2345 I'm "trans", as in, I have gender dysphoria and believe that hormonal transition is the best course of action However, I do not subscribe to the political/philosophical belief that a perfectly normal biological male can "be" anything else by willpower, solipsism, endocrine mods, or genital mutilation (Nor that embracing said solipsism complements a treatment regimen. Entertaining delusions (other than, perhaps, theology/morality) is fundamentally not conducive to a healthy, functional psychological state) (Also, checc those suicide rates for SRS. No way am I signing up for dat sheit) "Transhumanism", as near as I can tell (I had never really known about it before), is just >not being a luddite although I will admit that's a bit of a strawman and am quite interested in the actual arguments non-transhumanists have to say That said, I am very very afraid of the inevitable outcomes of corporations like Facebook and Google with their psychologists designing things that tap into us on an even deeper physiological level than screens+speakers do today. (FOSS transhumanist cyberpunk augmentation, though? Sign me up!)

>>5873 > not being a luddite Here we go. The true, literal Luddites weren't anti-tech, they were against the way it was being applied and being used against working people. Later movements inspired by them sought to either democratize progress or regulate industry. Transhumanism also does not simply mean anyone who favours progress, as transhumanists look to a future when we transcend being human into something else. Not everyone who believes in "progress" believes in that.

>>5880 >The true, literal Luddites weren't anti-tech, they were against the way it was being applied and being used against working people. Great point. Also I cringe hard about how people now get into tech subjects, or /cyb/ and they think it's about loving the stuff. While historically, ever since the 19th century technophilia and technophobia have always worked hand in hand, usually the most severe criticism of dangerous or misguided progress on technology, or preoccupations on how it would be received from a psychological and existential point of view has been by people deeply involved and fervently believing on the powers of technology. While the pointless progressiveness, embracing every new thing as positive, has always come only from the profit-driven machine that doesn't care for any analytical discussion because those pay less. And the confusion between these points that is happening nowadays is pretty, pretty dangerous.

>>5880 a) I meant the modern definition (to be explicit, someone who is just generally anti-technology for fears, mostly vague anti-progress apprehension) b) I don't like the "original" luddites anyway. Fck off with your unions and minimum wage. If you want money, earn it. (That said, b) is OT)

>>5886 a) people who are "anti-progress" are practically non-existent, it's just a convenient insult that gets thrown at anyone with a critical mind towards any particular technology. b) if you want us to work, you can pay us or we can break stuff. It's always been an effective tactic :)

>>5886 >a) I meant the modern definition >(to be explicit, someone who is just generally anti-technology for fears, mostly vague anti-progress apprehension) Basically something that has never really existed, historically or nowadays, or at least hadn't had any philosophical value whatsoever. Pretty comfy position you put yourself to make your argument, anon. Anyway can win going from that premise.

>>5863 Would you please provide proof? I have had a lot of friends/acquaintances who are transgender and very... not okay. So, where do you think I got this idea from?

>>5891 If you made the first statement, YOU provide the proof.

>>5894 Don't be lazy, I've gone in depth and someone just said "you're wrong", I'd like the previous poster to SUPPORT their claims that I am wrong. Also, I've provided proof. BDD, you can read into it, the symptoms, the effects on the mind, etc. It's been put through the scientific method, etc. Granted, it is psychology and I know that's not exactly the most stable field (ha.) but it's a lot better than just anecdotal evidence. So, do me a favor and back up this claim that I'm "wrong" or retract the statement that I'm wrong, alternatively, you can stop responding to me, but that won't help this discussion reach a conclusion and that's no good.

>>5891 >pretending the burden of proof is the opposite way

>>5896 > you can stop responding to me, but ...but I'm not likely to.

>>5896 >Also, I've provided proof. BDD, you can read into it, the symptoms, the effects on the mind, etc. It's been put through the scientific method, etc. The only thing you have posted is vague hand waving and an invitation for everyone to do their own research to prove to themselves why you are correct. I hate to say it but if you don't understand it will enough to write a coherent summery then it probably doesn't support your point.

>>5873 >>5862 >(Also, checc those suicide rates for SRS. No way am I signing up for dat sheit) >Look up people who are trans that are post-op, they usually have severe depression and regret their actions. An alarming amount of them also commit suicide. Cutting off your genitals isn't going to make the dysmorphia go away, it's just going to get worse. I'll imtergect here since nobody else seems to want to. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/myths-about-transition-regrets_b_6160626.html This article contains an interview with the person who conducted the study: http://transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm TL;DR the higher suicide rate among post-op trans people is compared to the normal population of their biological sex. Meaning: post-op trans women are more likely to kill themselves than normal men. Not exactly shocking. The point of the study was to say something about how operation isn't some magic button that will fix all your problems. Most people want to spin it as saying: "look, they got surgery and they feel even worse!". In reality, it helps alleviate dysphoria, to some degree. Yes, of course most of the suicide stuff isn't caused by hate and harassment. Sure, that may be a part of it, but I'd wager to guess most trans people really only have one goal. Passing. And quite a few (maybe even the majority) of trans people don't. The whole thing about dysphoria is that you feel super de-synchronised with your body. Just because everyone is suddenly nice to you doesn't mean you're going to feel better if you look in the mirror and see a man.

>>5900 ...this is why I hate a certain online group of propagandists (starts with 'p' rhymes with /lol/) who invent statistics and put them on infographs so that idiots can spread their nonsense, thinking it's the gospel truth because someone took complete bullsh't and made into a chart. This whole thing about sex reassignment surgery increasing suicide rates came from them.

>>5889 >if you want us to work, you can pay us or we can break stuff See, this is the exact kind of attitude that makes me look down on "classical" luddites Have you tried not being a member of the proletariat? Or do you just want to keep raising the minimum wage until I'm priced out of a job just like yourself?

>>5900 >>5901 Intredasting Although That said, "regret management" I would say is the big driving factor, >Regret NOT doing SRS Easy fix: get SRS. The technology will have improved in the time it took you to "regret it" >Regret HRT Medium-easy fix: bulk up, perhaps get steroids from doctor, maaybe get a mastectomy in worst-case scenario >Regret NOT doing HRT Hardmode: you are stuck with permanently fuarrrked up features, hard to fix in the current state of technology >Regret SRS Basically only out is KYS at that point; you've mutilated your genitals for nothing So HRT ASAP, and then SRS when/if ever it seems absolutely necessary sounds like the sanest course of action considering our current technological limitations

>>5903 Does your version of The Fountainhead come with the centerfold of Ayn in the swimsuit or do you just jerk off to the text? Do you actually think anyone here is really a Luddite? Really? I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't set that exchange up, talking to yourself.

>>5873 >"Transhumanism", as near as I can tell (I had never really known about it before), is just >not being a luddite I think transhumanism is more about breaking free from the random meaninglessness of evolution and ultimately escaping death. Opponents tend to believe that nature is somehow sacred and we shouldn't mess with it. Although be aware that the promise of eternal life is the bedrock and all religions and cults so treat carefully.

What are transexuals? Is it something like transracials? Because I am transracial. I have been born in wrong skin color and ever since I was little I felt like I was Asian (slant eyes asian, not tech support indian asian). When I say this to people they are usually bigoted and discriminate to me based on my self identity. Darn, wish people were more understandable sometimes.

>>5870 I say, some people just need to mind their own business. Necrophilia is my own business and what I do in privacy of my own 4 walls is my own thing. Why make it illegal? smh

>>2364 Sex drive is low, even lower not hrt. Nothing to do with sex or fetish for some. Although some do seem to be fetish driven.

>>5911 not* on*

>>5862 >>5891 >Look up people who are trans that are post-op, they usually have severe depression and regret their actions. An alarming amount of them also commit suicide This is also true of pre-op people. Body dysmorphia in general is massively comorbid with depression for reasons that are partially obvious (people who hate their bodies are going to feel bad a decent portion of the time no matter what you do). >>5904 You don't even have to go whole-hog on the HRT. You can get androgen-blockers without getting estrogen. That's actually my plan, personally. It cuts down on a lot of the negative effects of a hormone regimen too.

maybe, maybe not. but i've been thinking a lot about these two things and how they fit together. body mods are more of the alpha testing for transhumanist technology than putting your genitalia under the knife. but who am i to tell people what body parts to keep or not? and i would definitely go for augments.

>>5915 >who am i to tell people what body parts to keep or not? EXACTLY Why do you care if someone injures themselves due to mental illness and delusions, NOW THAT would be caring and sympathetic of you anon

well transitionning doesn't really enhance muscles intellect nor extend life expectancy, that said assuming it works it truly changes human condition. doesn't work that great though

>>5917 HRT can get some pretty impressive effects on body shape if you start in your late teens (and eat right and exercise properly). I'd say customizing your body in a way that wouldn't be possible without modern medicine is sort of transhumanist. It's basically ricing your meatspace battlestation.

>>5957 ^ dis=truth >>5914 >You can get androgen-blockers without getting estrogen. That's actually my plan, personally. It cuts down on a lot of the negative effects of a hormone regimen too. I'd be a little worried about pic related to be honest Plus the fact that at least SOME sex hormone is mandatory for proper mental development (If I ever decide I don't want tittays imma just swap the estradiol for raloxifene, but you do need hormone)

Gender transitioning is not so much a precursor to transhumanism, it's more that transhumanism gives gender transitioning a huge boost. >>5916 Repeating your position over and over (namely this diatribe about "mental illness") doesn't make you win arguments.

>>5969 And you trying to meta-discussion doesn't win arguments either, it just makes you look arrogant to be honest. Like you're above any serious discussion that might be going on.

>>5971 You aren't attempting serious discussion, that's why I'm writing off your (frankly, rather amateur) trolling attempts. You didn't even try to deny that you're just repeating the same thing in different ways.

>>5969 >Gender transitioning is not so much a precursor to transhumanism, it's more that transhumanism gives gender transitioning a huge boost. I found this statement ambiguous. Are you saying that gender transitioning is unrelated to transhumanism and just coincidentally benefits? Or are the saying something other than gender transitioning was the real precursor to transhumanism?

>>5976 I don't see it as ambiguous. Gender transitioning as a phenomenon doesn't really aid transhumanism nor is it a "precursor" ...but transitioning sure would become easier the more successfully transhumanism is put into practice. Maybe it's ambiguous because I meant transhumanism as a path for humanity including scientific advances, rather than simply an ideology or philosophy.

>>5965 >I'd be a little worried about pic related to be honest I mean, it's not any kind of cure-all or 100% guarantee. There's no perfect solution. But anti-androgens can keep you from becoming more masculine and give you time to decide what you want to do without, for example, the bone-weakening effects estrogen can have. >at least SOME sex hormone is mandatory for proper mental development I haven't seen much supporting this for people who are past puberty, but I guess I haven't looked. Source? Anyway, I'd be a bit hesitant about messing with hormones before 21, and REALLY against doing it before 16 without supervision from a developmental psychiatrist, but you can get that, and I'd bet most people here are in their early 20s anyway. >>5978 I think Lain was wondering more what you do see as a precursor to transhumanism, since your sentence weakly implied that you do see some that gender transitioning stands out as not a precursor in contrast to.

>>5980 The attached picture was supposed to convey >osteoporosis not >obviously masc 'trans girl' (is iDubbbz) (I guess I shoulda been more clear about that; perhaps named the file osteoporosis.jpg or something) But here's the thing >the bone-weakening effects estrogen can have Estrogen isn't what causes the bone weakening Lack of sex hormone is what causes the bone weakening That's why they use estradiol (or analogs like raloxifene) to treat osteoporosis in postmenopausal women And dudes' bones are just as capable of using the estrogen to grow as womens'; in fact, seems to indicate that even in dudes, it's estrogen that makes the bones strorng DOI 10.1007/BF02499921 tl;dr: >Hypogonadism in men is a strong risk factor for vertebral osteoporosis >but androgens have not been shown to act directly on osteoblasts or osteoclasts >We performed two experiments to test the hypothesis that the association between serum testosterone (T) and bone mineral density (BMD) in men is mediated by oestradiol (E2) >(through peripheral conversion by the enzyme aromatase) >[yada yada experiment setup] >There was a significant positive correlation between bone density at both sites and serum E2 (LS-BMD r=0.35, p<0.05; femoral neck BMD r=0.33, p<0.05) >There were weak positive correlations between BMD at each site and serum T levels (LS r=0.12, p<0.05) >In an open prospective therapeutic trial, 21 eugonadal men with osteoporotic vertebral fracture received intramuscular T for six months (Sustanon 250 every two weeks) >[peripheral details] >There was a significant correlation between changes in E2 and LS-BMD (r=0.399, p=0.013) >whereas this was not the case for T and LS-BMD (r=0.119, p=0.45) They wrapped it up by saying >These experiments lend support to our hypothesis and suggest that T supplementation may be more effective in men with osteoporosis than treatment with synthetic androgens, which cannot be converted to oestrogens. (Way to miss the point, Anderson et. al.. lmao. Why not just TREAT THE OSTEOPOROSIS WITH ESTROGEN DIRECTLY) So, for bones, it seems a pretty straightforward case I haven't done as much research into the neurobiological aspect But at least my doctor (I live in Alabama) and my pastor—fuarrrking kill me have said "but if you block your testosterone then your brain will be deprived of the hormones it needs to properly develop" (I'm 19) So I think it's reasonable to at least take it "on faith" for now until I find the research (it sounds 100% believable, after all) that hormones are necessary to mental development And the available literature seems to indicate that going no-hormones is a recipe for depression and problemes Whereas there is seemingly no "guaranteed" problem like that if you're just replacing the hormones

>>5980 >I mean, it's not any kind of cure-all or 100% guarantee >There's no perfect solution >But anti-androgens can keep you from becoming more masculine and give you time to decide what you want to do without, for example, the bone-weakening effects estrogen can have. Except for the nuance in that last sentence I discussed in >>5981, this is actually, however, my precise thought process So, to clarify; I don't disagree with your post per se—I agree with it, entirely—except for the little detail about how precisely osteoporosis and further masculinization are to be avoided until I decide what I "want" to do.

>>5957 yes but it's not a performance improvement, it's just advanced make up. Call me back when they get working wombs or something

>>5972 Yea, I will not continue discussing to arrogant ass like yourself

We must fight the social and economic norms of this pathriarchical imperialistic society we live in my brothers, sisters and third genders people of all colors and shapes. Trannies of the world unite :3 Btw that is me in the photo

>>5983 > it's just advanced make up. Hence the comparison to ricing. It's about looks, not performance, just like ricing a car or a desktop. >>5981 >>5982 >Estrogen isn't what causes the bone weakening Lack of sex hormone is what causes the bone weakening I had heard the opposite before this, but now that I've looked it up in an actual reliable source, you're right. I guess this is what happens when you get your information from imageboards. Sorry for the misunderstanding. >that hormones are necessary to mental development >(I'm 19) Okay. Like I said, I'd be hesitant before 21 (at which point you're probably going to be fuarrrking with your development anyway, via alcohol). >going no-hormones is a recipe for depression and problemes Being trans in the first place is a recipe for depression and problems, but I can see why no hormones might increase the problem. Do you happen to know if there's an increase vs non-HRT trans (not just vs Gen Pop)?

>>5986 >Like I said, I'd be hesitant before 21 literally why would you even bother after 21 you're just pouring money down the drain at that point any damage you'd hope to avert is 99% done by then "non-HRT trans" is hard to quantify(and qualify) since everyone these days is genderfluid nonconforming queerbinary metrosexual (which I imagine leads to a good deal of suicide but what do I know) Honestly, the whole thing is a political movement and seriously tied to postmodernist philosophy..being libertarian myself, I don't want to get too into the whole "muh librul boogeyman is trying to weaken western values so it can be destroyed" but to be honest I don't have much argument against the idea that that's happening either (other than just: you are worried they're trying to "sissify" your society? man the fuarrrk up yourself, then) Most of the anxiety (at least for those not drinking the "trans" kool-aid that says that your "gender" is separate from your sex and needs to be expressed, is legitimate, yada yada) comes from knowing that 1. Your body is being poisoned and corrupted by these chemicals 2. It is already irreparably damaged 3. It will get even further damaged unless you do something == 4. You're not doing something == That alone causes so much internal screaming (whether said points are consciously acknowledged or not) that I imagine it accounts for mosta the stress (aside from that which is avoidable by a shift in philosophy/worldview) IMHO, feeding the "you're actually <feminine expression> inside" and you're just "letting your inner feminine shine through" is just feeding a solipsism that will ultimately not serve you well But that's not to say that HRT isn't the best solution under the sun currently for preventing your body getting raped by whatever hormones it is you don't like the effects of

Not only that, but talibans are heroes of all transexuals

>say that is in favor of transhumanism >thinks that morphological liberty is a disease You guys really know your soykaf, eh? The core of transhumanist thinking advocates about the freedom to modify and "enhance" your body, it's not only about not dying, having a better life is relative in many aspects. If one person wants to modify his/her body with machines or treatments that will make him/her have a "better life" and the tecnology to do it exists they should just do it, I can't see the problem.

>>6002 >putting hormones in a body that isn't meant for it >"enhancing" I guess lyposuction and hair implants are transhumanist also. Damn, just why isn't OP talking about that? Is it that there might be a hidden political goal for these pathetic excuses for thread? Hmm really takes your noggin for a joggin. not even mentioning the study about depression and suicide of trans people (post op and pre op) NOT BECAUSE BULLYING (study was made in Sweden, most pro-trans country on world) which tells you it isn't about bullying or culture or systemic oppression but about their fuarrrking heads (not to mention OCD and depression and bipolar disorder numbers in trans community)

>>6002 I was trying to find the image where there's two guys one of them says >I like <thing> the other one says >I dislike <thing> and then a 3rd guy walks up and says >you guys are such hypocrites! but I could not find this image anywhere Or is there a specific post you meant to reply to? >>6003 Yes, we know that cuttin ya dick off leads to suicide But there's realistically no way to prove it's not just because the technology isn't there yet and really, even with all the research that's gone into it, the results are still ass. I think >>5983 brings up one of the big points, too. When the results are half-decent, then we can talk, but for now "muh surgery suicide rates" is basically a strawman unless you're dealing with someone arguing for surgery

>>6004 >for now "muh surgery suicide rates" is basically a strawman more like the whole transexual thing is a dumb strawman when talking about transhumanism until they have decent results to show off Although to be honest I'd rather get over with this sht asap since trying to acheive stuff half the humanity can already do is pretty dull anyway, maybe once it's done they'll shut the hell up and then we'll focus on interesting stuff like getting gills or something

>>6005 I meant strawman as in >but what about le suicide rates is a counterargument to >surgery works; we /transhumanist/ now The latter being an obviously weak statement, which nobody here is trying to claim Are you concerned that people will hold up transsexualism, with all its political and philosophical implications, as an "example" of transhumanism, and then discount it?

>>6000 I didn't know you could have a window on the side of a magazine like that, that's neat. I really love the aesthetic of those countries, a shame most of them are in the hands of religious nuts nowadays.

>>6010 >religious nuts WOAH Islamophobic much?

>>6011 Yes, very much, if by islamophobic you mean hating the islamists. I don't have any strong feelings against the general muslim population, only against those that thinks that women should be subjugated to men. ie the majority I know you're joking but I'll answer seriously anyway.

>>5998 >literally why would you even bother after 21 Mostly because I had literally never heard about any of this until I was 23, and really only want to look more androgynous (not entirely feminine) anyway. >everyone these days is genderfluid nonconforming queerbinary metrosexual I'm not sure if you're spending too much time talking to one side or too much time listening to the other, but if you actually talk to the general public, maybe 2% of people are trans anything, and the vast majority of those are either mtf or ftm, not, "Genderfluid nonconforming." >but to be honest I don't have much argument against the idea that that's happening either Well, who would want Western Society destroyed? Who would actually benefit from that? Probably the people living in societies that aren't as powerful as the West, but would stand a chance at being the most powerful if the West fell. Do they seem to be the ones promoting this in the West? Is China or Japan exporting pro-crossdressing propaganda? (Actually, now that I think of Japan...) >IMHO, feeding the "you're actually <feminine expression> inside" and you're just "letting your inner feminine shine through" is just feeding a solipsism that will ultimately not serve you well Personally, I'm not even sure I'm anything, "Inside." I just kind of want to look a certain (androgynous) way, so I'm modifying my body to get the aesthetic I want.

>>6030 this. The idea that everyone is genderfluid is a huge departure from reality. Estimates of most large population centers in western civilization will have a contingent of around 7%~ at the most of anyone identifying as trans-anything or homosexual for that matter (lets leave out bi for now).

>>6030 >Personally, I'm not even sure I'm anything, "Inside." I just kind of want to look a certain (androgynous) way, so I'm modifying my body to get the aesthetic I want. I am the you replied to but even so "are you me" applies strongly here I agree that trying to make these claims about >you hate the physical and mental effects of testosterone >therefore you 'are' [in any legimate capacity, at all] > a woman [lie] or androgyne [not real] or nonbinary are useless/meaningless, deconstructionist philosophy at best (and relativist at worst) that _doesn't negate the fact that I'm a dude and nothing can or will change that_ except maybe in the most distant fantasy imaginable, in which case the lie is actually believed, explicitly (and genuinely unwittingly) by the others, and implicity, perhaps ostensibly denied, but ultimately deceived even the self >Japan exporting pro-crossdressing propaganda [to destroy the west]? kеk not that I think this is a serious theory much since we are probably keeping them safe from China and NK, but it's still hilarious because if it's a strategy, it's got waaay more than a 50% backfire-inefficiency rate Like a cultural kamikaze..but against the tank. Who's protecting you. had a genuine small out loud chuckle IRL upon reading that suggestion, though; thank you for this. even though LOLers are liars

>>6032 > the fact that I'm a dude and nothing can or will change that I mean if we just put your brain in a (pre-existing) female body things become a lot more fuzzy (and transhumanist). That might be an actually interesting thought experiment for determining how you define, "Man," and, "Woman,": which would a brain born (and genetically) male inserted into a genetically female body be? >not that I think this is a serious theory Well yes obviously. > waaay more than a 50% backfire-inefficiency rate Japan's birthrate was already low before CLAMP came along. It could be a, "Taking you with me," revenge for the A-bombs?

>>6031 >o-only 7% >for something that should be even rarer than homosexuality >(and used to be until recently) >what is trends >where are the brakes >what parent is yanking their kids out of school before they're indoctrinated+normalized with deconstructive gender theory >d/dx=0 if you think x is constant because this moment is all that was or will be That said, I think that Darwin is going to do his thing and the estrogenized insecure wimps (so to speak) are going to be bred out of existence because even if they land a "winning combination" with some testosterone-riddled dyke (so to speak) with a rotted or removed womb, good luck either a) reproducing or b) having your kid grow up well-adjusted enough to even get married >healthy, fertile women are going to go after Chad >Chad is going to reproduce >Guys who haven't integrated their masculinity (or even regard it as their shadow at all, in fact) don't get laid >When they do settle down anyway, it's with a gold-/comfort-digging roastie who, if still fertile after 30 years of birth control, probably won't be faithful anyway And the situation is even more dire from the female side of the LGBTWTFBBQ spectrum: >Cut off boobs because doctors do that to college age kids >Start birth control at 11 instead of 15 because periods trigger dysphoria >A lifetime of ingesting pseudofeminist memes (not just "meemays" from Tumblr but books/ideas/etc) leaves you at the bottom of the barrel intellectually; why would any well-off guy put you in charge of his offspring when he could have generic Stacy who will at least not be terrible (not to mention dat risk; in a society soft enough to have these issues, the reproductive risk lies with the guy, so you've got to convince him) Now, granted, the whole THING isn't genetic, after all; but there will certainly emerge a trend very quickly of which genes (or memes, theoretically) provide either resistance against "falling" for this (think either a genetic predisposition to hypermasculinity, perhaps; or, meme-wise, let's say the Christians keep themselves safe from the Soul Destroying Devil's Homosexuality 2.0), or somehow mitigate the negative effects of it (perhaps some pagan sect finds a way to still respect "the built in Nature's biological plan for a family" without being ostracized, or even just the Free Love hippie kids can get along with the Mini Mohammeds well enough to not get bombed on the way to collect the Living Wage™ welfare check)

>>6035 >should be even rarer than homosexuality Lain was including homosexuality in the 7%. >7%~ at the most of anyone identifying as trans-anything or homosexual for that matter >or homosexual for that matter And if you're such an anti-wimp chad, why are you on an obscure anime/tech imageboard instead of doing bowflex or the Charles Atlas workout or whatever it is makes you a man in seven days this month?

>>6034 >if we just put your brain in a (pre-existing) female body things become a lot more fuzzy That's the thing, though I am reasonably certain this will never happen Since if nothing else I'll still have the pineal gland (unless that's counted as "body", in which case the brain boundaries are even fuzzy) The brain patterns, "wiring" as well as software, formed through 9 months in the womb and a lifetime of low-level normal T levels, plus puberty, as well as the lifetime of..well, LIVING, as a dude, such as it matters. A little boy raised as a girl his whole life, put on T blockers, and never "clued in" on it might "for all/some intents and purposes" count as a girl in a lotta situations, and would certainly have a "leg up" on "trans" people You are the composite sum of your experiences (to include thoughts and actions) Even if we subtract the not-yet-elapsed effects (social and neurochemical) of living in a given body, you've still got all of "you", the objective dude by every metric, that was formed up till that point >Japan's birthrate was already low before CLAMP came along C: Cute L: Ladies A: in Anime M: whoM'st've "canonically" have P: Penis or am I misreading that?

>>6036 >7%~ at the most of anyone identifying as trans-anything or homosexual for that matter OK fine then My point is that's like two or three times as much as is reasonable >what is trends still applies >if you're such an anti-wimp chad I'm not, though I am actually going to (as soon as finals are over, assuming I don't fail out) schedule an appointment with the psychotherapist so I can have my 3 months elapsing and get my letter Used to be doing DIY but parents noticed budding tits as I ran to grab some clothes out of the shower one day, so that put an end to that (At least until I move out :^} ) As for reproducing, I'll sperm bank if it looks like it will become necessary I trust that if I keep myself sane, interesting, and healthy (by all metrics except pushups lol), eventually I'll find a healthy, slightly gay non-roastie who wants to start a stable nuclear conventional family, and wife her and maybe even outbreed the Diverse Saracen Refugees someday

>>6037 >I am reasonably certain this will never happen I figure that sooner or later, everything will happen. Maybe not on earth or to humans, but whatever. It's a big universe. >Since if nothing else I'll still have the pineal gland Is there any particular reason that the pineal gland is the one thing that the magical future technology couldn't have a converter to connect to the woman-corpse? Is it just that growth hormone would make the body go through male puberty, because I was assuming both the brain and the body were post-puberty. >The brain patterns, "wiring" as well as software, formed through 9 months in the womb and a lifetime of low-level normal T levels, plus puberty, as well as the lifetime of..well, LIVING, as a dude, such as it matters. Okay, so you're going with a definition where some part of being a man is mind-based? I'd say (after just thinking about it in this conversation)there's three different distinctions that could be made as to what makes somebody a man or woman: 1. Genital shape (or maybe ability to reproduce in a particular role, but that would make a lot of old people nether). 2. Brain. (Most of what you brought up). 3. Genetics. And what the hypothetical Bride of Frankenstein would be changes between the first two, and is ambiguous with the third. > you've still got all of "you", the objective dude by every metric, that was formed up till that point You've still got all of it that was in your mind and not your gut fat or muscles, anyway. And I'm not sure how much that is for me, personally. Like I said > I'm not even sure I'm anything, "Inside." I kind of feel like there's nothing really to my personality, and I'll just be whoever I think the people I'm talking to expect me to be. (That's actually a big reason I like imageboards. I can be five different people in five different threads with five contradictory opinions, and as far as I can tell, they're all equally, "Me.") >>6038 What's, "Reasonable?" Where's your benchmark coming from? >trends In order to determine a trend, you need at least two data points, preferably a lot more. We were only talking about what the percentage is at right now. What do you think it used to be? I actually looked up some numbers for this reply. http://news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx It rose by about half a percentage point in four years. If we assume that that's an average rate of increase, then there will be no straight people in the US in 384 years, but on the other hand, if we assume that, then there were zero gay people before 1982. > maybe even outbreed the Diverse Saracen Refugees someday Good luck. My plan is to basically have a Tim Leary's League for Spiritual Discovery-style cult and have a cozy house with 5-15 close friends and lovers and just try to ride out the coming storms. Maybe we'll both make it through.

>>6038 Whats your metric for "reasonable"? What /reason/ are you using.

I don't see the connection. Chopping off their dingdongs doesn't turn people into cyborgs.

>>6062 Getting parts removed is usually pretty late in a long series of different processes.

>>6072 Clearly even genital mutilation can be improved with technology, but the point of transhumanism is to improve upon being human, to become more than human.

>>6077 >Clearly even genital mutilation can be improved with technology, but the point of transhumanism is to improve upon being human, to become more than human. I think that even altering a naturally immutable product of your birth like gender is being more than human. I agree it's not a massive improvement though

>>6083 I think what >>6072 is saying is more along the lines of pic related (That said, I disagree; at least with my current understanding of "transhumanism" as basically just "the opposite of being afraid of prosthetics", which is a nonreprehensible stance)

>>6062 Nor does "cutting out your eye" make you a cyborg But what's it to be replaced with? Body modification, basically You may not become a "cyborg", as in, embedded computers, but your body isn't what it used to be (Could you argue that a lab grown penis with erection and linked into pleasure nervous system is /tech/? idk. But I won't try to argue that the current state of the technology is anything approximating acceptable or useful)

>>6085 The very broadest definitions of transhuman have included things like tooth fillings. A better case might be made for pace makers, still these are things meant to correct a fault and not to grant extrahuman powers like Batou eyes. Also I think *most* transhumanists would reject these examples.

to be honest I don't know much about transhumanism but according to wikipedia's definition: >Transhumanism [...] aims to transform the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellect and physiology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism technically going from one half of the "HUMAN condition" to the other doesn't transform the whole that much, even if it indeed transforms female and male condition a lot. All this is assuming the transformation is 1/1 perfect of course to be totally fair one could argue that being stuck in your birth sex is part of the human condition so yeah there's cases to be made

>>6087 A great deal of this thread seems to be about debating the definitions. The terminology associated with TH was spread by people who didn't all agree in the first place so it may be too late to find consensus.

>>6088 human condition in itself is already pretty loosely defined to start with, no wonder any movement refering to it is struggling to be coherent. Blame OP for not defining the terms beforehand

>>6089 >>6088 wasn't trying to be blunt btw, sorry if it came out that way i'm not native english speaker but yeah pretty hard to discuss about anything if the terms aren't defined, as you said ITT it seems everyone has a different definition for transhumanism too

>>6087 >physiology Is being free from the mental effects of an undesirable hormone "enhancement"? Is aesthetic effect (or, in the case of FtM, practical advantage/tradeoffs) physical "enhancement"? Are such changes broad enough to "change the human condition" in any real capacity? Who knows I myself think this lies squarely in the "frivolous"/"cosmetic" side of things, but that's not to say I don't think it qualifies as transhumanism It'll be \cyb\ af if/when we get implantable wombs

>>5904 Yea but doesn't HRT make you impotent after a certain period of time? Yea you can freeze sperm, but it is still a headache and I don't like the thought of being impotent if I regret it.

>>6304 The pyus come back after 6 mo. off hormones if you’ve only been taking them ~3 years. A decade down the road and ymmv, plus we’ve no idea what this kind of fuarrrkery does to future offspring, so be careful.

>>6305 > plus we’ve no idea what this kind of fuarrrkery does to future offspring The obvious solution is to build robots and call them your children.

>>6314 Latex and steel, zeros and ones make up my son This world gave no child so I build one...

>>6315 >>6314 Cast in living metal, I am alpha and omega, my own beginning and my own end, father and son. In all serious though, if you wanted biological offspring and don't want to wait for super advanced AGI, just have yourself cloned. Its not cheap, but raising children never is. You would probably have to have 500k to 1mil on hand in cash, and go to south Korean company Soaam to have it done, as well as a willing surrogate ...

>>6329 >tell your wife you're going to have kid via IVF for "reasons" (just make something up like narrow urethera, or that the titty skittles sterilized you but you've got sperm banked) >going to Korea because "trusted doctor with better success rates" or "that's where I stashed my spoo" or something >you're actually just impregnating her with a clone of yourself

>>6331 Sounds super fun though. If neuralink comes along with some really solid BCI tech, you could have one implanted, and store your experiences on it to then pass to your clonal offspring so that your memories and identity live on in them. Digital identity expressed through a biological substrate. While they would remain individuals, at least they would be like a version of you continuing from a previous save point.

>>6336 >While they would remain individuals, at least they would be like a version of you continuing from a previous save point. They'd be like Leto Atreides II to your Paul Maud'dib.

>>6331 Problem is, if you don't have the best genetics, you won't be improving them which could lead o a failure in another replication.

No dysphoria here, I don't like to label myself as a man. I guess you could call that nonbinary? Are there still people who think gender is a biological term? It's a social structure. You're probably thinking of sex.

>>6830

>>6830 Exactly I am also a black chinese woman that is 7 feet high Race, ethnicity and nationality alongside with sex are just social constructs .... Race as "white" or "asian" doesn't really exist, that's just a social construct, just like AHEM "gender". Give me a fuarrrking break. Word "gender" was coined by a dumbass ideology pusher that tortured a little boy as a social experiment to prove that boys are socially molded into being a man. That boy endured going through sexual reassingment surgery and being psychologically molded into being a woman through various means. This sexual transformation worked SOOOOO well that in the end that kid killed himself. Mind you, this is a trained psychologist specialized in sexology that coined the term... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money Stop using newspeak 1984 terms like "gender". They hold withing them an ideology that is patently false. You can't change what you were born with. Also, not to be a nag but you users that are saying "HURR it's a social construct DURR" need to stop implying all social constructs are inherently meaningless or valueless and that therefore we can change them and ignore them. You need to make that a provable thing before begging the question. That's a quick fedora tip from the old toothbrush moustache guy. Now gotta go troll some idiots in Last Week Tonight youtube comment section. My hunches this necrobumping of old thread is just exercise of seeing if us right wingers left the chan, no? I will hold you people at bay, don't worry ;^)

>>6840 I miss the good old days when only liberals threw whiny, ragey tantrums. You new guys are just an embarrassment and I'm not just talking about this site. It's the entire internet lately.

>>6841 I don't know man, it's a day by day basis for me sometimes. I like teaching kids about the basics while acting smug, makes me feel superior and stuff.

>>6842 You come across like an angsty teenager who is likely to perform an ISIS style car attack on some student protesters the next time mom suspends your internet privileges. This is what passes for "right wing" these days? I'm ashamed.

>>6843 yea, you should be ashamed....for someone else acting angsty and cringe?

>>6844 nah because he's a right winger, which he has every right to be what he doesn't get is that all political movements contain dumb soykafs, and always have, and that's not what's new. Right winger have been throwing tantrums just like liberals, since your grandpa's racist grandpa. The thing now is that people are all taught the same stupid routines. The gender etymology thing, for exemple, is absurd ; the term could have been invented by Ben Laden, it would still be useful to designate social beliefs about sex roles, as opposed to the biological reality. The only debate is were the frontier between the two lies, and how they interact, and that's where things are complex and don't fit any socially or biologically deterministic option. It's really "the antinomies of dumb political beliefs for twelve years old".

>>6830 >Are there still people who think gender is a biological term? It's a social structure. You're probably thinking of sex. You are wrong. >Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, sex-based social structures, or gender identity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender Are you trying to change the common definition of a word to suit your political preference? That's very 1984 of you.

>>6845 >>6845 >the term could have been invented by Ben Laden, it would still be useful to designate social beliefs about sex roles I think he was talking about how that original psychiatrist didn't prove that to be the case by his experiment on now killed boy. I think it is fair to say that if you a first scientist thinking about gravity and are going to prove gravity exists and an apple starts flying off into space then you forfeit any idea of "gravity" existing in the first place, let alone there be a word for it. Same goes with that sexologist that killed a boy and is now killing hundreds of thousands through ideology.

Due to continuous breach of rules ITT, the thread has been locked.