Yeah, it literally is. That's not an exaggeration at all.
Ever heard of Andrea Chu? This dipshit won the Pulitzer prize and claims that he knows what being a woman is because he's been fucked in the ass. So apparently being fucked in the ass makes you a woman, because, you know, being fucked is what being female is all about. Did I mention this dipshit won the Pulitzer prize?
Now he's coined a new term for people who disbelieve in trans ideology: Trans-Agnostic Reactionary Liberal... TARL... like TERF I guess, but for people who aren't radfems. But when you're making a pejorative out of agnostic, it kind of gives away the fact that trans ideology is a cult, doesn't it? They're basically accusing everyone who doesn't accept the ultimate truth of Big Pharma synthetic sex identities of being infidels, blasphemers, unbelievers, or heretics.
Hey! Wow, this is worthy of a lengthy response... but it might be a minute before i get around to it. Im thinking about posting this as its own post. How would you feel about that?
After all, Nevermore is all political reorientation, not just what i think...
I thought the essay was excellent, but I am somewhat upset about your introduction, I have to say. And I apologise in advance but I really, really need to get this off my chest.
I don't know where you get this link between 'porn' and 'transgender' from? Can you provide a link, other than a link to an awful, patriarchal, right-wing abusive bigot?
You see this is the whole purpose of the anti-trans psyop - it's to suck in the resistance (meaning 'conspiracy theorists' and of course anarchists), lure them into bigotry and hatred against trans people, especially trans children, so they can then be seen as patriarchal fascist bigots, meaning that everything else they say is discredited by association. Why, after all, would a normal decent person want to listen to anything else you say, however noble and good it is, if you are abusing trans people?
Aside from anything else, I thought anarchism was in large part about the acceptance of diversity, it was about liberty - the freedom to be oneself without fear of prejudice or violence? Or was I wrong here?
I think maybe the problem is that you have no idea what 'trans' actually means. Perhaps you have been fed a one-sided diet of lies and propaganda from the psyop fascists? I'm hoping that's the explanation but at the same time I'm disappointed you haven't done your own research and questioned what these evil people are saying.
So, let me put things right here - this is an explanation of 'trans' as briefly as I can make it.
'Identity' is essentially the brain's 'awareness-of-itself'. That means awareness of its particular 'wiring' if I can put it that way. It is not set at the moment of conception like the physical/biological gender, but develops epigenetically during gestation, childhood and adolescence. Identity itself develops between the ages of 5-7, when the child understands other people have their own unique point of perception.
Now, in a dimorphic species like humans, we have 'male' and 'female'. By definition they behave differently. That means they have different brains, because brains govern behaviour (just imagine the what-if scenario if men and women were the same). Yes, the general areas of the brain are the same but the wiring and functionality are distinctly different (they respond to different hormones, for example). And this is entirely separate from the physical body in which the brain resides.
To access or 'be aware of' your identity you don't look at your physical body, do you? You don't look down and say 'I've got a cock so I'm a bloke' or 'I've got a cunt so I'm a woman'. No, it's in your mind. You *feel* like a bloke, or in my case, a woman. Children are aware of this from the age 5-7.
In 9,999 out of 10,000 people, the gender aspect of identity, formed in the brain by the age of 7, is perfectly matched with the physical gender. So, no problem. But in 1 out of 10,000 there is a mismatch. This is what is called 'trans' (erroneously, in my view, since you can't 'change' your gender). It's actually just an 'abnormality of brain development' - it's NOT a psychological condition. Yes, it obviously and understandably gives rise to psychological symptoms, known as 'gender dysphoria', but the cause of those symptoms is not psychological and it's not a 'delusion'. The treatment for this condition can only be symptom-relief, mainly involving cosmetic changes to the body to make the mismatch less apparent. And this MUST start with 'puberty blockers' - if you force a child with this condition to go through the irreversible changes of puberty then you are inflicting a life sentence of suffering on them (40% suicide rate risk). This is followed by hormone replacement therapy (oestrogen for females, testosterone for males), then, and only when the body is fully grown (aged around 18) can 'surgery' take place. By the way, to say that a child aged 7 is 'not mature enough to understand or make these choices' goes directly against the basic neuroscientific fact of brain development, as I've outlined.
Similarly - given this is a brain development disorder, you can't 'convince someone's brain it is a different gender' - you can't 'spread transgenderism' for fuck's sake. MK-Ultra style brainwashing takes years and years of trauma-based stuff starting in infancy. There is no 'cult' here. There is no 'craze'. It's just a fucking medical condition!!!
Trans people do not have an agenda. Unless that 'agenda' is 1/ access to the treatment pathway, and 2/ just being treated with some fucking respect and not being subjected to evil, abusive, patriarchal, fascist bigotry.
The psyop is not 'supporting trans people' - the psyop is attacking trans people, and evilly masquerading as 'wanting to protect children' or 'wanting to protect women' - you should know they always deceive and 'evil always pretends to be good'. If you buy into this psyop then you discredit the entire resistance - and it's really, really not a good look for an anarchist.
I believe in nature. In love and empathy and compassion. And I fucking hate psyops and I fucking hate bigotry. That's why this issue makes me so angry (that and being a former victim of abuse myself). Especially because it's clearly doing a massive amount of damage not just to innocent trans people and especially children, but to our resistance movement. It's simply not comradely!
Perhaps, to end, you may like to try the following meditation: imagine yourself waking up tomorrow morning in the body of a fat ugly woman and, after a while, you realise you are stuck with that for the rest of your life. Observe how you feel and how others react to you when you keep insisting that you are actually a bloke.
I think that's a meditation on empathy.
I hope this long comment hasn't upset you, by the way. That wasn't my intention. But please do contemplate what I've said.
Oh, and in case you're interested, which I'm sure you are - look up 'two spirit' people from Turtle Island.
I tend to think if there's a psy-op going on it's that there's a thing called straight, trans, gay....whatever identity word you want. Cause divide and conquer is always the main goal of ruling authority. People are people regardless of any descriptive traits and saying "these people are like this and those people are like that" is the inception point of all bigotry.
ARE GAY PEOPLE REAL?? If a guy who likes sucking dick decides to get married because he wants to start a family, is he still gay? If a guy who likes pussy has gay sex because hes in jail, is he suddenly gay?
Not entirely sure whether I agree or disagree with you.
My instinct tells me to disagree because saying 'there's no identity' is an attack on the self, as well as on 'self-determination' and 'individuation'. So, philosophically, I disagree.
Where I agree I think is in the sentiment behind what you might be saying, if you're saying 'live and let live'. But I'm still not sure. Otherwise I'd click the like button.
I think you misunderstood my meaning to a degree, I think everyone is an individual on the inside but they tend to make themselves less an individual when they try to align themselves with being a cultural role. And when you take large groups, introduce a system of social power, and create segments of identification in that system, then stereotyping becomes a given.
Ah - now I get it. And I think I may have worked out what I forgot to say.
First, being 'trans' or 'male' or 'female' or 'gay' or 'straight' or whatever is not an 'identity' and it's not a 'cultural role'. It's a product of the brain's internal configuration. You don't get to choose that. Sexuality, for example, is determined by a particular area of the brain. Brain scans have proven all of this stuff. 'Trans' for example is in fact 'either male or female but residing in a body which has a different biological sex'. That's not an identity in the sense I think you are meaning. The brain, however, is 'aware' of all of these aspects of itself and that's how it determines its own 'sense of self' in terms of 'male/female' or 'straight/gay/bi' etc.
You might as well say that having a prefrontal cortex or a hippocampus is a 'cultural role' or an 'identity' that you can just slip on and off at will. Neuroscience doesn't work like that.
What can be called 'cultural roles' would be a 'chosen' position or function within a society, which you can accept, refuse, or change. Your job, for example. Which political party you vote for. Which football team you support. What clothes you wear or how you style your hair. Perhaps we could say 'cultural role' is what you choose to do or express with your fixed identity. Fixed identity is a product of brain development, not culture.
There's a difference, in this sense, between 'role' and 'fixed identity'. I should've made that clear, so that's my mistake.
The 'anti-trans' brigade either deliberately, or out of ignorance, confuse 'identity' with 'chosen cultural role'. No one chooses to be trans because it's an awful condition to have and if you were to ask any trans person if they want to be trans they'd say no. A medical condition is not a 'chosen role' in that sense.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Glad I got a chance to do so.
I'm not sure how it can be asserted that "trans" is not a choice. Didn't it used to be that someone who is "transsexual" or "transgender" was someone who chooses to have an operation and/or take synthetic hormones to "change their sexual identity"... or did I get that all wrong. If that wasn't what trans used to mean then what word did (or does) mean that? Because I just looked up transsexual and transgender in my updated Webster's Collegiate and it doesn't say a peep about hormones and surgery. Does that seem at least a little fishy to the older crowd?
Young people, even pre-adolescents are now being screened for "sexual identity", even without parents knowing about it, and then counseled about taking hormones and other "sex affirming" measures. Are you sure all of this is just innocent and helpful "gender affirmation" or is there something else at play. Mind you this is a huge industry with exponential potential for profits, just like the psychological drugs industry that pushes their products on youngsters and adults alike. The harms caused by these drugs to peoples lives are immense, lifelong. Does hormone "therapy" do nothing to alter what you refer to as a "fixed identity"? Is there even such a thing? Certainly there are native inclinations, or inclinations that may develop with sexual maturity. That much seems obvious.
But what about sex hormones that are introduced to people via the food chain (via eggs, milk or meat)? Certainly this has it's affect, wouldn't you think?
But as for people who do undergo operations and "hormone therapy" there are those who regret it, even years or decades later. And it doesn't even begin to resolve the inner issues: insecurity, lostness, depression, the desire to be loved/loveable...
Problematic psychological dilemmas are common among those who look to medical procedures in hopes of resolving their inner dissatisfaction... This inner dissatisfaction with life does not change with a "sex change"; it may even be exacerbated. The best hope is to address the inner issues directly, head on, wherever possible.
Yes, I think you have understood the condition mistakenly. I'm not saying this is your fault, by the way - there is a deliberate load of misinformation being pushed out there, and I'm sure the psyop attacks this vulnerable minority group from both sides. But we have to remember to attack those doing the attacking, not the minority group themselves.
You may also be confusing 'sexual identity' with 'gender identity' - the two are completely separate and are governed by different areas of the brain. This is why, for example, we can have males attracted to males and females attracted to males - brain scans show clearly the sexuality bit of their brains are very similar. Likewise vice versa. So what you seem to be calling 'inclinations' do not 'develop with sexual maturity' - they are a product of brain development. And no, sex hormones do not affect that aspect of brain development.
Your confusion probably also stems from misinformation about the therapies involved. Firstly those who 'regret it' are a very, very, very tiny minority, less than 0.1-something percent. The success rate of the treatment pathway is in fact around 97%. By 'success' it's meant 'living a normal life with relief from the symptoms of dysphoria'.
One of the reasons the hormone therapy is successful is because a male brain is configured to respond to testosterone, just as a female brain is configured to respond to oestrogen - thus a transgender person who is denied these hormones will experience the symptoms known as gender dysphoria, because they know their brains are being denied those chemicals. They have the receptors, but the receptors aren't receiving. When they start to receive the hormones, however, most of those symptoms disappear. Many trans people in fact don't have therapy beyond this (surgery, I mean).
It is true though in my opinion that the word 'trans' as in 'transsexual' or 'transgender' is fundamentally wrong, because these patients do not in fact change their sex/gender. Actually, trans people of all people know - to their despair - that changing gender is not possible. The point is that they are already female (for trans-women) or male (for trans-men). It's just that their body/physical appearance doesn't match their inner identity/essence. That's where the dysphoria arises. So, likewise, I would disagree with the term 'transition' which is applied to a trans person receiving the treatment pathway. I mean, yes, technically it's a transition in the sense of a 'change', but it's not a gender-transition, because that's impossible. It's simply a change of the physical appearance combined with hormone replacement therapy, to replace the hormones their body isn't producing.
So you have to understand that the condition is not a psychological condition. It's not some 'inner turmoil' that can be resolved with some kind of psychotherapy. You can't 'get used to it'. Like I suggested, meditate on the thought experiment of yourself waking up to find yourself in the opposite gender body and then tell me how you feel when someone says it's all in your head and you should just 'get used to it'. Likewise tell me how you would feel when someone accuses you of having an 'agenda'.
So in fact, all the evidence shows that the 'inner dissatisfaction' - which is a product of, not a cause of, their condition, really is resolved with the treatment pathway, not exacerbated. By having the treatment pathway, they are addressing the inner issues. That's the point.
As a victim of childhood abuse, if someone told me it was 'all in my head' and 'I should address my inner issues' then I'd get pretty fucking angry. Or likewise being poor - 'get used to it' and 'it's all in your head' - these are insults. The things that are causing that suffering is not 'inside the head' - there are clearly defined external causes. Which - should be emphasised - I didn't 'choose'. That's what I mean when I say that no one would ever 'choose' to have gender incongruence (that's a far better, more accurate term to use, I think).
I often sometimes wonder if people confuse 'transgender' with 'transvestite'? Transvestite is a sexual fetish, and completely unrelated. Likewise, do people confuse 'transgender' with 'transhumanism'? Obviously transhumanism is an agenda and a serious problem, but it's completely unrelated.
Anyway - these are the (neuro)scientific facts about the condition known as 'trans'. I don't know about the 'screening' of children you mention - if that is taking place then yes, it's a serious issue because it's entirely unnecessary - a trans child will know they are a trans child around the age of 7 or 8 with or without 'screening' - but, it is important they are not somehow 'repressed' by adults around them. A lot of older trans people talk about how they were 'repressed' when they were children, despite knowing they had this condition. Today, with greater awareness, the chances of a child being prevented from diagnosis and treatment is, thankfully, much lower. But it just needs adults (especially parents) who are sympathetic and understand, it doesn't need screening. So yes, if that is taking place then it's probably doing more harm than good. This might be why people think there's some kind of agenda going on here. I confess I may not know enough about that. But I would imagine this is part of the psyop - provoking a reaction from the other side.
Ah - yes - your comment about hormones entering the food chain. This is something I've thought of and I am inclined to believe it. The reason is because one of the epigenetic causes of gender incongruence is exposure (of the foetus) to excess hormones during pregnancy. Excess oestrogen, for example, can have a masculinising effect on a female brain, and a feminising effect on a male brain. That's an example of epigenetics with regards to brain development. So yes, this kind of thing may well increase the prevalence of gender incongruence, and if so that's a serious issue. People using the pill, for example, or big agriculture using growth hormones and the like.
Anyway - I hope I've clarified a few things there. This is about a very rare medical condition, not a psychological choice. And those people who are suffering from that condition are being used and abused for the purposes of stoking up this 'culture war' and 'woke' shit. It's the people doing the stoking we should be attacking, and it's the victims - especially those children with the condition - who we really, really need to give our love and support and solidarity to.
How do we know that what they're calling trans these days isn't simply gay? If you accept the premise that being gay (male or female) is biologically rooted, then perhaps these kids identifying as 'other' are really just gay and haven't come to terms with it yet? I've seen this view expressed by gays themselves, so I'm not taking a position, just repeating what I've heard.
Ah - this one is easy to answer. 'Sexuality' is a completely separate thing from 'gender' (or 'gender identity' even). I don't even need to explain any neuroscience here, it's just logical. If sexuality was a product of gender then there would be zero 'gay' or 'lesbian' or 'bisexual' people. Clearly there are such people. Neuroscience has, however, already identified the area of the brain responsible for sexual preference, and it has been shown that for example, this area of the brain is similar for, say 'straight male' and 'lesbian female'. So it's unrelated to gender, although obviously the vast majority of people have an 'alignment' of their sexuality with their gender - i.e. they are heterosexual. But in nature there are always 'outliers' or 'random exceptions' - this is simply an expression of nature's wonderful variety - which should be celebrated, not 'othered'. Perhaps just as 'trans' means 'gender incongruent' we could even say that non-heterosexuality is simply 'sexuality-incongruent'. An amusing thought there.
Furthermore, with regards to 'trans' - the variety of 'sexual preference' amongst trans people of both genders is just the same as for non-trans people (so-called 'cisgender') - this proves that 'trans' is NOTHING to do with sexuality. This has, in fact, been part of the anti-trans propaganda, and it is extremely reminiscent of the anti-gay propaganda which was especially prevalent in the 1980s trying to equate 'homosexuality' with 'paedophilia'. In fact this is part of the nastiness of all this bigotry.
Blanchard tried to claim that 'trans females' are simply men who 'get sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as a woman' (autogynephilia) - his 'studies' were subsequently debunked as fraudulent by virtue of pre-selecting subjects to fit the hypothesis. There are, for example, just as many non-trans lesbian females who express the same criteria for 'autogynephilia' as there are 'trans women'. Interestingly, of course, he never talked about the same thing for trans-men, i.e. 'autoandrophilia' - that term doesn't even exist as far as I can tell.
And it is indeed telling that most of the anti-trans thing is directed against trans women (male to female) - this is why as a feminist I find the whole thing disturbing, and that there is clearly a patriarchal element in the anti-trans agenda. It's quite revealing, in fact.
Lastly, I should add that 'patriarchy' meaning 'dictated roles for men and women' is one of the principle methods by which the authoritarians achieve social control. This is why for me anarchism is inseparable from anti-patriarchal feminism. It's understandable they would be anti-trans because they will be anti anything which doesn't conform to these dictated social norms. It extends not just into non-heterosexuality but also into, say, the counter-culture movement and, of course, original feminism. This is why they needed to infiltrate these movements, control them, misdirect them, discredit them, demonise them and so on and so on. The anti-trans thing is simply, in my view, yet another example of that. And as someone who doesn't particularly like authoritarianism or fascism or simply 'being told what I can or can't be or do', I see this issue as a matter of principle and I feel offended by it. Maybe that's my empathy coming through there, as much as my anti-authoritarian sensibilities!
Anyhow - hope I've cleared up that aspect. 'Trans' should not be confused with 'sexuality'. Interestingly, it was really only when the standard 'diagnosis' dropped the 'it's a psychological problem related to a sexuality disorder' (from the DSM) that the anti-trans rhetoric was ramped up so much. Today, the condition is officially known (e.g. in the ICD-10 classification) as 'gender incongruence' which is more neuroscientifically accurate.
She's not wrong.
We could have Michael Angelo's David and "Birth of Venus" by Boticelli, but we have An upsidedown cross in Urine and Brazzers.
We could have grand cathedrals, but we have a church in an old Pizza Hut building.
We could have building that inspire, but we have buildings that I don't even want to step inside.
We could have prisons that inspire the inmates to become members of society, but we have boxes with more boxes inside.
We could have "The Story of O", but we have "Debbie does Dallas."
We aren't progressing, we are regressing.
Porn is addictive and it ruins marriage and normal loving sex.
Back in the good old days, it was kept in the back rooms and people were ashamed to go beyond those curtians.
Now, it's out in public and ruining lives.
Yeah, it literally is. That's not an exaggeration at all.
Ever heard of Andrea Chu? This dipshit won the Pulitzer prize and claims that he knows what being a woman is because he's been fucked in the ass. So apparently being fucked in the ass makes you a woman, because, you know, being fucked is what being female is all about. Did I mention this dipshit won the Pulitzer prize?
Now he's coined a new term for people who disbelieve in trans ideology: Trans-Agnostic Reactionary Liberal... TARL... like TERF I guess, but for people who aren't radfems. But when you're making a pejorative out of agnostic, it kind of gives away the fact that trans ideology is a cult, doesn't it? They're basically accusing everyone who doesn't accept the ultimate truth of Big Pharma synthetic sex identities of being infidels, blasphemers, unbelievers, or heretics.
Meghan Murphy did a great piece about Chu:
https://www.meghanmurphy.ca/p/you-shouldnt-have-come-for-the-kids?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Hey! Wow, this is worthy of a lengthy response... but it might be a minute before i get around to it. Im thinking about posting this as its own post. How would you feel about that?
After all, Nevermore is all political reorientation, not just what i think...
I thought the essay was excellent, but I am somewhat upset about your introduction, I have to say. And I apologise in advance but I really, really need to get this off my chest.
I don't know where you get this link between 'porn' and 'transgender' from? Can you provide a link, other than a link to an awful, patriarchal, right-wing abusive bigot?
You see this is the whole purpose of the anti-trans psyop - it's to suck in the resistance (meaning 'conspiracy theorists' and of course anarchists), lure them into bigotry and hatred against trans people, especially trans children, so they can then be seen as patriarchal fascist bigots, meaning that everything else they say is discredited by association. Why, after all, would a normal decent person want to listen to anything else you say, however noble and good it is, if you are abusing trans people?
Aside from anything else, I thought anarchism was in large part about the acceptance of diversity, it was about liberty - the freedom to be oneself without fear of prejudice or violence? Or was I wrong here?
I think maybe the problem is that you have no idea what 'trans' actually means. Perhaps you have been fed a one-sided diet of lies and propaganda from the psyop fascists? I'm hoping that's the explanation but at the same time I'm disappointed you haven't done your own research and questioned what these evil people are saying.
So, let me put things right here - this is an explanation of 'trans' as briefly as I can make it.
'Identity' is essentially the brain's 'awareness-of-itself'. That means awareness of its particular 'wiring' if I can put it that way. It is not set at the moment of conception like the physical/biological gender, but develops epigenetically during gestation, childhood and adolescence. Identity itself develops between the ages of 5-7, when the child understands other people have their own unique point of perception.
Now, in a dimorphic species like humans, we have 'male' and 'female'. By definition they behave differently. That means they have different brains, because brains govern behaviour (just imagine the what-if scenario if men and women were the same). Yes, the general areas of the brain are the same but the wiring and functionality are distinctly different (they respond to different hormones, for example). And this is entirely separate from the physical body in which the brain resides.
To access or 'be aware of' your identity you don't look at your physical body, do you? You don't look down and say 'I've got a cock so I'm a bloke' or 'I've got a cunt so I'm a woman'. No, it's in your mind. You *feel* like a bloke, or in my case, a woman. Children are aware of this from the age 5-7.
In 9,999 out of 10,000 people, the gender aspect of identity, formed in the brain by the age of 7, is perfectly matched with the physical gender. So, no problem. But in 1 out of 10,000 there is a mismatch. This is what is called 'trans' (erroneously, in my view, since you can't 'change' your gender). It's actually just an 'abnormality of brain development' - it's NOT a psychological condition. Yes, it obviously and understandably gives rise to psychological symptoms, known as 'gender dysphoria', but the cause of those symptoms is not psychological and it's not a 'delusion'. The treatment for this condition can only be symptom-relief, mainly involving cosmetic changes to the body to make the mismatch less apparent. And this MUST start with 'puberty blockers' - if you force a child with this condition to go through the irreversible changes of puberty then you are inflicting a life sentence of suffering on them (40% suicide rate risk). This is followed by hormone replacement therapy (oestrogen for females, testosterone for males), then, and only when the body is fully grown (aged around 18) can 'surgery' take place. By the way, to say that a child aged 7 is 'not mature enough to understand or make these choices' goes directly against the basic neuroscientific fact of brain development, as I've outlined.
Similarly - given this is a brain development disorder, you can't 'convince someone's brain it is a different gender' - you can't 'spread transgenderism' for fuck's sake. MK-Ultra style brainwashing takes years and years of trauma-based stuff starting in infancy. There is no 'cult' here. There is no 'craze'. It's just a fucking medical condition!!!
Trans people do not have an agenda. Unless that 'agenda' is 1/ access to the treatment pathway, and 2/ just being treated with some fucking respect and not being subjected to evil, abusive, patriarchal, fascist bigotry.
The psyop is not 'supporting trans people' - the psyop is attacking trans people, and evilly masquerading as 'wanting to protect children' or 'wanting to protect women' - you should know they always deceive and 'evil always pretends to be good'. If you buy into this psyop then you discredit the entire resistance - and it's really, really not a good look for an anarchist.
I believe in nature. In love and empathy and compassion. And I fucking hate psyops and I fucking hate bigotry. That's why this issue makes me so angry (that and being a former victim of abuse myself). Especially because it's clearly doing a massive amount of damage not just to innocent trans people and especially children, but to our resistance movement. It's simply not comradely!
Perhaps, to end, you may like to try the following meditation: imagine yourself waking up tomorrow morning in the body of a fat ugly woman and, after a while, you realise you are stuck with that for the rest of your life. Observe how you feel and how others react to you when you keep insisting that you are actually a bloke.
I think that's a meditation on empathy.
I hope this long comment hasn't upset you, by the way. That wasn't my intention. But please do contemplate what I've said.
Oh, and in case you're interested, which I'm sure you are - look up 'two spirit' people from Turtle Island.
I tend to think if there's a psy-op going on it's that there's a thing called straight, trans, gay....whatever identity word you want. Cause divide and conquer is always the main goal of ruling authority. People are people regardless of any descriptive traits and saying "these people are like this and those people are like that" is the inception point of all bigotry.
ARE GAY PEOPLE REAL?? If a guy who likes sucking dick decides to get married because he wants to start a family, is he still gay? If a guy who likes pussy has gay sex because hes in jail, is he suddenly gay?
Not entirely sure whether I agree or disagree with you.
My instinct tells me to disagree because saying 'there's no identity' is an attack on the self, as well as on 'self-determination' and 'individuation'. So, philosophically, I disagree.
Where I agree I think is in the sentiment behind what you might be saying, if you're saying 'live and let live'. But I'm still not sure. Otherwise I'd click the like button.
I think you misunderstood my meaning to a degree, I think everyone is an individual on the inside but they tend to make themselves less an individual when they try to align themselves with being a cultural role. And when you take large groups, introduce a system of social power, and create segments of identification in that system, then stereotyping becomes a given.
Ah - now I get it. And I think I may have worked out what I forgot to say.
First, being 'trans' or 'male' or 'female' or 'gay' or 'straight' or whatever is not an 'identity' and it's not a 'cultural role'. It's a product of the brain's internal configuration. You don't get to choose that. Sexuality, for example, is determined by a particular area of the brain. Brain scans have proven all of this stuff. 'Trans' for example is in fact 'either male or female but residing in a body which has a different biological sex'. That's not an identity in the sense I think you are meaning. The brain, however, is 'aware' of all of these aspects of itself and that's how it determines its own 'sense of self' in terms of 'male/female' or 'straight/gay/bi' etc.
You might as well say that having a prefrontal cortex or a hippocampus is a 'cultural role' or an 'identity' that you can just slip on and off at will. Neuroscience doesn't work like that.
What can be called 'cultural roles' would be a 'chosen' position or function within a society, which you can accept, refuse, or change. Your job, for example. Which political party you vote for. Which football team you support. What clothes you wear or how you style your hair. Perhaps we could say 'cultural role' is what you choose to do or express with your fixed identity. Fixed identity is a product of brain development, not culture.
There's a difference, in this sense, between 'role' and 'fixed identity'. I should've made that clear, so that's my mistake.
The 'anti-trans' brigade either deliberately, or out of ignorance, confuse 'identity' with 'chosen cultural role'. No one chooses to be trans because it's an awful condition to have and if you were to ask any trans person if they want to be trans they'd say no. A medical condition is not a 'chosen role' in that sense.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Glad I got a chance to do so.
I'm not sure how it can be asserted that "trans" is not a choice. Didn't it used to be that someone who is "transsexual" or "transgender" was someone who chooses to have an operation and/or take synthetic hormones to "change their sexual identity"... or did I get that all wrong. If that wasn't what trans used to mean then what word did (or does) mean that? Because I just looked up transsexual and transgender in my updated Webster's Collegiate and it doesn't say a peep about hormones and surgery. Does that seem at least a little fishy to the older crowd?
Young people, even pre-adolescents are now being screened for "sexual identity", even without parents knowing about it, and then counseled about taking hormones and other "sex affirming" measures. Are you sure all of this is just innocent and helpful "gender affirmation" or is there something else at play. Mind you this is a huge industry with exponential potential for profits, just like the psychological drugs industry that pushes their products on youngsters and adults alike. The harms caused by these drugs to peoples lives are immense, lifelong. Does hormone "therapy" do nothing to alter what you refer to as a "fixed identity"? Is there even such a thing? Certainly there are native inclinations, or inclinations that may develop with sexual maturity. That much seems obvious.
But what about sex hormones that are introduced to people via the food chain (via eggs, milk or meat)? Certainly this has it's affect, wouldn't you think?
But as for people who do undergo operations and "hormone therapy" there are those who regret it, even years or decades later. And it doesn't even begin to resolve the inner issues: insecurity, lostness, depression, the desire to be loved/loveable...
Problematic psychological dilemmas are common among those who look to medical procedures in hopes of resolving their inner dissatisfaction... This inner dissatisfaction with life does not change with a "sex change"; it may even be exacerbated. The best hope is to address the inner issues directly, head on, wherever possible.
Yes, I think you have understood the condition mistakenly. I'm not saying this is your fault, by the way - there is a deliberate load of misinformation being pushed out there, and I'm sure the psyop attacks this vulnerable minority group from both sides. But we have to remember to attack those doing the attacking, not the minority group themselves.
You may also be confusing 'sexual identity' with 'gender identity' - the two are completely separate and are governed by different areas of the brain. This is why, for example, we can have males attracted to males and females attracted to males - brain scans show clearly the sexuality bit of their brains are very similar. Likewise vice versa. So what you seem to be calling 'inclinations' do not 'develop with sexual maturity' - they are a product of brain development. And no, sex hormones do not affect that aspect of brain development.
Your confusion probably also stems from misinformation about the therapies involved. Firstly those who 'regret it' are a very, very, very tiny minority, less than 0.1-something percent. The success rate of the treatment pathway is in fact around 97%. By 'success' it's meant 'living a normal life with relief from the symptoms of dysphoria'.
One of the reasons the hormone therapy is successful is because a male brain is configured to respond to testosterone, just as a female brain is configured to respond to oestrogen - thus a transgender person who is denied these hormones will experience the symptoms known as gender dysphoria, because they know their brains are being denied those chemicals. They have the receptors, but the receptors aren't receiving. When they start to receive the hormones, however, most of those symptoms disappear. Many trans people in fact don't have therapy beyond this (surgery, I mean).
It is true though in my opinion that the word 'trans' as in 'transsexual' or 'transgender' is fundamentally wrong, because these patients do not in fact change their sex/gender. Actually, trans people of all people know - to their despair - that changing gender is not possible. The point is that they are already female (for trans-women) or male (for trans-men). It's just that their body/physical appearance doesn't match their inner identity/essence. That's where the dysphoria arises. So, likewise, I would disagree with the term 'transition' which is applied to a trans person receiving the treatment pathway. I mean, yes, technically it's a transition in the sense of a 'change', but it's not a gender-transition, because that's impossible. It's simply a change of the physical appearance combined with hormone replacement therapy, to replace the hormones their body isn't producing.
So you have to understand that the condition is not a psychological condition. It's not some 'inner turmoil' that can be resolved with some kind of psychotherapy. You can't 'get used to it'. Like I suggested, meditate on the thought experiment of yourself waking up to find yourself in the opposite gender body and then tell me how you feel when someone says it's all in your head and you should just 'get used to it'. Likewise tell me how you would feel when someone accuses you of having an 'agenda'.
So in fact, all the evidence shows that the 'inner dissatisfaction' - which is a product of, not a cause of, their condition, really is resolved with the treatment pathway, not exacerbated. By having the treatment pathway, they are addressing the inner issues. That's the point.
As a victim of childhood abuse, if someone told me it was 'all in my head' and 'I should address my inner issues' then I'd get pretty fucking angry. Or likewise being poor - 'get used to it' and 'it's all in your head' - these are insults. The things that are causing that suffering is not 'inside the head' - there are clearly defined external causes. Which - should be emphasised - I didn't 'choose'. That's what I mean when I say that no one would ever 'choose' to have gender incongruence (that's a far better, more accurate term to use, I think).
I often sometimes wonder if people confuse 'transgender' with 'transvestite'? Transvestite is a sexual fetish, and completely unrelated. Likewise, do people confuse 'transgender' with 'transhumanism'? Obviously transhumanism is an agenda and a serious problem, but it's completely unrelated.
Anyway - these are the (neuro)scientific facts about the condition known as 'trans'. I don't know about the 'screening' of children you mention - if that is taking place then yes, it's a serious issue because it's entirely unnecessary - a trans child will know they are a trans child around the age of 7 or 8 with or without 'screening' - but, it is important they are not somehow 'repressed' by adults around them. A lot of older trans people talk about how they were 'repressed' when they were children, despite knowing they had this condition. Today, with greater awareness, the chances of a child being prevented from diagnosis and treatment is, thankfully, much lower. But it just needs adults (especially parents) who are sympathetic and understand, it doesn't need screening. So yes, if that is taking place then it's probably doing more harm than good. This might be why people think there's some kind of agenda going on here. I confess I may not know enough about that. But I would imagine this is part of the psyop - provoking a reaction from the other side.
Ah - yes - your comment about hormones entering the food chain. This is something I've thought of and I am inclined to believe it. The reason is because one of the epigenetic causes of gender incongruence is exposure (of the foetus) to excess hormones during pregnancy. Excess oestrogen, for example, can have a masculinising effect on a female brain, and a feminising effect on a male brain. That's an example of epigenetics with regards to brain development. So yes, this kind of thing may well increase the prevalence of gender incongruence, and if so that's a serious issue. People using the pill, for example, or big agriculture using growth hormones and the like.
Anyway - I hope I've clarified a few things there. This is about a very rare medical condition, not a psychological choice. And those people who are suffering from that condition are being used and abused for the purposes of stoking up this 'culture war' and 'woke' shit. It's the people doing the stoking we should be attacking, and it's the victims - especially those children with the condition - who we really, really need to give our love and support and solidarity to.
How do we know that what they're calling trans these days isn't simply gay? If you accept the premise that being gay (male or female) is biologically rooted, then perhaps these kids identifying as 'other' are really just gay and haven't come to terms with it yet? I've seen this view expressed by gays themselves, so I'm not taking a position, just repeating what I've heard.
Ah - this one is easy to answer. 'Sexuality' is a completely separate thing from 'gender' (or 'gender identity' even). I don't even need to explain any neuroscience here, it's just logical. If sexuality was a product of gender then there would be zero 'gay' or 'lesbian' or 'bisexual' people. Clearly there are such people. Neuroscience has, however, already identified the area of the brain responsible for sexual preference, and it has been shown that for example, this area of the brain is similar for, say 'straight male' and 'lesbian female'. So it's unrelated to gender, although obviously the vast majority of people have an 'alignment' of their sexuality with their gender - i.e. they are heterosexual. But in nature there are always 'outliers' or 'random exceptions' - this is simply an expression of nature's wonderful variety - which should be celebrated, not 'othered'. Perhaps just as 'trans' means 'gender incongruent' we could even say that non-heterosexuality is simply 'sexuality-incongruent'. An amusing thought there.
Furthermore, with regards to 'trans' - the variety of 'sexual preference' amongst trans people of both genders is just the same as for non-trans people (so-called 'cisgender') - this proves that 'trans' is NOTHING to do with sexuality. This has, in fact, been part of the anti-trans propaganda, and it is extremely reminiscent of the anti-gay propaganda which was especially prevalent in the 1980s trying to equate 'homosexuality' with 'paedophilia'. In fact this is part of the nastiness of all this bigotry.
Blanchard tried to claim that 'trans females' are simply men who 'get sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as a woman' (autogynephilia) - his 'studies' were subsequently debunked as fraudulent by virtue of pre-selecting subjects to fit the hypothesis. There are, for example, just as many non-trans lesbian females who express the same criteria for 'autogynephilia' as there are 'trans women'. Interestingly, of course, he never talked about the same thing for trans-men, i.e. 'autoandrophilia' - that term doesn't even exist as far as I can tell.
And it is indeed telling that most of the anti-trans thing is directed against trans women (male to female) - this is why as a feminist I find the whole thing disturbing, and that there is clearly a patriarchal element in the anti-trans agenda. It's quite revealing, in fact.
Lastly, I should add that 'patriarchy' meaning 'dictated roles for men and women' is one of the principle methods by which the authoritarians achieve social control. This is why for me anarchism is inseparable from anti-patriarchal feminism. It's understandable they would be anti-trans because they will be anti anything which doesn't conform to these dictated social norms. It extends not just into non-heterosexuality but also into, say, the counter-culture movement and, of course, original feminism. This is why they needed to infiltrate these movements, control them, misdirect them, discredit them, demonise them and so on and so on. The anti-trans thing is simply, in my view, yet another example of that. And as someone who doesn't particularly like authoritarianism or fascism or simply 'being told what I can or can't be or do', I see this issue as a matter of principle and I feel offended by it. Maybe that's my empathy coming through there, as much as my anti-authoritarian sensibilities!
Anyhow - hope I've cleared up that aspect. 'Trans' should not be confused with 'sexuality'. Interestingly, it was really only when the standard 'diagnosis' dropped the 'it's a psychological problem related to a sexuality disorder' (from the DSM) that the anti-trans rhetoric was ramped up so much. Today, the condition is officially known (e.g. in the ICD-10 classification) as 'gender incongruence' which is more neuroscientifically accurate.