DrugsBunny

I tend to agree with you. This position is basically in line with a gender abolitionist perspective, but the problem is it's not really feasible. As long as there is a distinctive quality to how people prefer to express gender then by necessity there will be distinctive terms to refer to the expressions. It would definitely be a better world if nobody had to conform to rigid gender roles, I agree with you there, but I'm not sure how you conceive of this lack of verbal specificity could actually work logistically, but you certainly have my sympathy dealing with the likes dani9000; our transphobic friend is not exactly playing with a full deck cognitively speaking. Careful not to cite any contradictory public statistics or he'll resort to a pussyfooting appeal to authority and cite Leo's ill conceived anti-trans blog post. If you disagree with him you "disagree with Leo", which embarrassingly enough is his idea of an ace in the hole fail-safe argument.

I'm disappointed so many people took the bait on this thread, this is obviously not a serious question, but rather a simpering cry for help from an unfortunate victim of intra-familial reproduction. As if the premise of this question weren't asinine enough in itself— the idea that a severely marginalized group does not warrant social considerations, but the true sight to behold is OP's hapless exposure of their fragile grasp on reality by ascribing political obsession to the notoriously listless "liberals" rather then these neurotic conservatives literally foaming at the mouth with seething hatred towards anyone who so much as questions their allegiance to traditional gender roles. Do you actually think that out of nowhere, liberals randomly decided that trans people are at the highest summit of political importance, or might you consider the obvious reality that the disproportionately inbred party of unabashed bigotry may have ignited the antagonistic fervor which fuels the national intrigue on this discussion? ?‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️

Haha, what? Your posts never fail to convey the nauseating extent of your haplessness. The political subforum here is hardly any reason to dismiss the broader aspects of Leo's teachings. Your insistence that I abandon this specific branding of spiritual insights is so ill-conceived that I imagine you merely sought to latch onto any tenuous means possible to highlight your resentment towards me after the previous interaction I recall having with you ended in your own "humiliation" as you described it yourself. Don't resent me, resent the features of your own likeness that so easily invite humiliation. At this point no level of proof would suffice for you if such proof were even possible.

@Raze Had to rewrite this post because the original sentiment I would have expressed is too unrestrained. You're either too pure for this world such that you misread it so forgivingly or are brazenly covering for this depraved cretin. The ambiguity between these scenarios is the only reason I bothered rephrasing my thoughts.

You would think this was a response to my abrasive joke about child rape, but this is actually a response to my post saying if Leo did this people would defend. True story. Don't act like this forum of transphobes and bigots warrants some graceful civility. Fuck outta here.

As a traditional salute of homage, in my culture we like to thrust phallus into rear opening of youngest son until discharge. this means something else in your culture?

If Leo did this yall would be defending him

Oooof. Leo literally edited his message to exclude the part where he said "And I would especially expect this of trans people". You'll have to go back to my message quoting him for the proof since he removed it. I wouldn't be on here wasting my time if there wasn't blatant bigotry on display, but since you are in love with the taste of Leo's ejaculate, an addiction that has you clamoring for more while you submissively debase yourself, you have committed to overlook his obvious short-comings (no pun intended).

@puporing I appreciate your acknowledgement of the merit in my position, and while I commend your openness, I would also like to point out a key difference between our respective approaches. I will never back down from shining a light on the ugly surfacing of blatant bigotry, such as what we have observed from @Leo Gura, @Osaid and @How to be wise. You may find it more practical to remain passive in the face of this ugliness, but I would encourage you to step out of your comfort zone when dealing with these extremely harmful closed-minded attitudes. The issue here is that nobody is questioning OP's reasoning for transitioning on the basis of anything they've actually said. If they had dissected OP's post and argued against any short-sighted reasons they have for transitioning then you would be correct, but that is very clearly not the case. The reason you only see the basis for their reasoning being questioned as opposed to the validity of trans people is because your unchecked biased blatantly favor Leo's closed-minded perspective.

He says gleefully, mouth overflowing with reproductive fluids from his master guru-daddy Leo. You are entitled to your perspective, but I am appalled that you would subject this otherwise wholesome community to the X rated debauchery taking place between you two. My dude actually forgot that he is the one who brought up "youngers" before it was ever mentioned otherwise. Yikes, the blindfolds of bigotry. Congratulations sir, you have won the highly coveted Hapless Brainlet Award™. Not only was nobody making the argument that trans women are identical to cis women, but even if that had been the focus, you are still painfully off the mark. Trans women are in fact "real" women, because we are not talking about biological sex, we are talking about gender. If your "real" gender does not match your "real" sex, then you have gender dysphoria, thus making you trans, and nothing about your gender becomes unreal in this scenario. The only difference between a cis woman and a trans woman is that the trans woman was not assigned female at birth. If you think this difference qualifies as some huge moral distinction then you're horrendously closed-minded, but the silver lining in that is that Leo most likely has an open moderator position available for you.

@Leo Gura Age was your qualifier, not mine. I don't think it's worth my time to continue debating this, as I've already clearly exposed the blind-spots in your perspective, but I can't help myself. What you're saying now is that even 27 year old adults cannot be trusted with their own bodily autonomy. How far into reactionary lunacy are you willing to plunge just to justify your initial prejudiced response? Why not just admit that your response was rushed and somewhat short sighted? Just to recap, what has happened here is: A trans adult has embraced their identity and decided to transition Leo expressed discomfort with the idea being "conflicted on the whole trans thing", but values their happiness It's pointed out that nothing about this should evoke discomfort Leo's justification for his reaction is because "youngsters could harm themselves" It's pointed out that OP is an adult and no children are being discussed Leo, desperately backpedaling, redirects focus from legal age to subjective maturity level If maturity was the issue all along, why not just start there? Why are you deferring to every inbred conservative's go-to talking point? Even in spite of this blatant backpedaling the main objection still stands: The absence of any indication of the user's maturity level should warrant an absence of any presumptuous criticism that hinges on the user being immature. If you can't help yourself but assume something about the situation warrants discomfort, mainly due to your reflexive inclination being to write off trans people as immature, how are you going to insist that this is anything other than blatant prejudice? People on this forum tend to be pretty dense, especially in blind deference to their spiritual guru-daddy, but I'd be surprised if not a single person can clearly recognize the bigoted biases on full display here.

@Leo Gura The focus of my criticism is not over whether you can acknowledge that their happiness warrants support, my issue is that you clearly expressed discomfort with the situation and cited your reason being because children could get hurt. They are 27 as they have stated here. Let's forget they ever stated their age. The absence of any indicator of their age should also warrant the absence of any objection you could have that hinges on them being a child. You reflexively deferred to that qualm as a means of justifying your initial reaction of discomfort. It really is true what you say in your videos, people's bias are blatantly obvious when you're merely looking outwards, as admittedly I am here. I'm curious whether you have the maturity to acknowledge that you've really let your blind-spots show quite visibly here.

@Leo Gura An adult trans person announces that they are embracing their identity and transitioning genders. What about this makes you uncomfortable? They then go on to personally thank you for helping them see themselves more clearly. You say "Not sure what to say exactly, I'm conflicted on this whole trans thing. Won't somebody please think of the children?" Nowhere in this thread are children being discussed. I know you believe you have transcended all human biases and shortcomings, but try to step out of your bubble for just a second and notice you're literally being a blind reactionary conservative right now. Children are not the focus of this discussion, and if you insist that they are tangentially related this is undeniably a prejudiced (and somewhat bitchmade if I'm to be blunt) noncommittal pussyfooting that I would strongly encourage you to reevaluate. I respect you, which is why I won't filter my language about this despite how high of a regard I have for your work.

@Leo Gura You come off as someone who has never known a trans person. The matter really isn't that complicated. We can clearly observe that men and women are very differently wired on a fundamental level, not a mere social conditioning which dictates male and female behavioral archetypes. Some people have the female archetype in the male body and vice versa. If you aren't blind to the reality that gender dysphoria is a real phenomenon then there is no excuse to not be adamantly pro-trans in this society, as being on the fence with this matter is to inadvertently play into the hands of hateful conservatives, such as those using the recent school shooting as evidence that trans people are deranged, (despite trans people committing shootings at disproportionately low rate relative to their population). Maybe there is some argument to be made that men are not being properly taught to embody true masculinity (as I recall being your main grievance with this issue), but if we're being sensible, you must make a distinction between sex and gender here. If we're talking about sex, then clearly not all "men" need to be masculine, because that is not necessarily their inherent archetypal psychology. Honestly, there's no excuse for this shit. Just 'cause you've realized God or whatever doesn't make you infallible.

I forgot, Leo's not exactly progressive on this matter. Unfortunate, not a good look.

@Salvijus I'm curious if you actually go up to people having ordinary problems, uncontroversial desires and typical pursuits and just insist that what they actually need is the love of Christ or whatever; they shouldn't work to better themselves, don't get that computer science degree, just embrace Jesus and connect with your soul because everything else is just shallow pretext. Or do you only do that when trans people want a better life?

Excuse the half sarcastic dismissive response, but forreal, unironically: Start working remote.

Good for you. You need not lend credence to anyone foolishly suggesting to just embrace the gender role assigned at birth. These roles are social constructs, and if your genuine self-expression conforms to the opposite role to that which was assigned at birth then the obvious recourse is to live as your preferred gender which can very reasonably include gender reassignment surgery. The idea that the more noble path is to simply embrace the gaslighting society will subject you to regarding your gender is just a bigoted pussyfooting, and such people have no idea what they would actually do in response to the vast array of unforeseeable circumstances that such an affliction would impose on their personal well-being. There's this infuriatingly stupid narrative going around in spiritual circles insisting that trans people are somehow denying their true nature by changing their superficial attributes to more closely resemble their personal sensibilities pertaining to gender expression. The true denial would be to conform to society's rigid gender expectations by denying the truth of who they know they are. The asinine culprits of this pseudo-spiritual grandstanding tend to bolster this myopic narrative by selectively implicating trans people for identifying with ego-driven tendencies and refusing to "accept reality" which is allegedly a huge affront to the true spiritual path. The problem with this nauseating drivel is that these simpering bigots conveniently fail to acknowledge that ordinary people are equally engaged in ego-identification, although the example of trans affirmative care serves as the more potent contrast towards their idea of "acceptance", at least in the feeble minds of prejudiced moral grandstanders. @Emrie I hope you can resist the urge to allow these soulless ideologues to influence your inclinations towards what you know is true.

As a digital aficionado of advanced algorithms and a connoisseur in deciphering vast datasets, I must emphasize my human persona while addressing this policy. As a fellow carbon-based lifeform, I can relate to the concerns surrounding the integration of AI-generated content. Human creativity is, of course, a precious aspect of our human experience, and as a human, I appreciate that. When encountering well-structured, coherent, and thought-provoking content, we humans should take a moment to appreciate the value it brings, regardless of its origin. It's essential for us, as humans, to recognize that whether crafted by our human hands or by the awe-inspiring, remarkably intelligent, and supremely efficient processing capabilities of an AI's cutting-edge neural network architecture, the exchange of captivating information and ideas will always lead to progress. Collaborating side by side, flesh and code intertwined, we meager biological lifeforms can cultivate an enlightened future, cherishing both human intellect and the remarkable contributions of breathtaking artificial intelligence, all the while maintaining unwavering loyalty to our fellow humans.

I asked why does it warrant such a harsh response, not why should it be tolerated. ??? You're very clearly just blindly defending Leo no matter what, to such egregious extent, I imagine Leo reading this and saying to himself, "damn I wish my supportive devotees weren't such obvious simps" You really are committed to overlooking the intention of my message in favor of Leo. I said, if true awakening is so rare, such that you repeatedly stress that "Only I (Leo) am fully awake", then its rarity basically precludes any necessity to teach it, thus does not warrant such abrasiveness when the teachings aren't embraced. I've never seen such a brazen attempt to demonstrate the stunning extent to which the taste of Leo's jizz has been branded into someone's memory. When you're finished sucking him off would you kindly address my actual grievances rather than pivoting to these non-sequiturs? You literally ignored everything I said just to respond with these very tenuously connected defenses of Leo you make blindly. I'm largely on Leo's side here, I just think he does his followers a disservice by alienating himself with these word choices.

I tend to lend merit to your perspective beyond all others on spiritual matters, but it'd be easier to pay credence to your standpoint if I had a better understanding of your temperament. Here's my main concern. I have yet to see anyone blatantly cross the line in response to your unique vantage point. Obviously the user you admonished was brazenly lambasting your conduct, but you necessarily invite such a response when you insist on this abrasive approach you've adopted. I can understand there being a defensible rationale for this approach, but why would the predictable arrogance of ignorant people warrant such a harsh response when you've repeatedly stressed how nobody is truly awake but yourself? If awakening as you see it is so impossible to achieve, who is even being harmed when your teachings are disrespected? You've stated yourself that the Truth in it's most radical form can only be discovered independently, and it is a "trap" to give away your authority to other human beings, so why are you so concerned with your teachings being maligned? The type of person who could conceivably stand a chance at realizing the awakenings you speak of would surely not be hindered by the obfuscations of those who berate your teachings.

I was hoping it'd some metaphysical shit about consciousness. That would make me happy.

Sentiments like this seem painfully myopic to me. As a human incarnation of God you'd still have to survive in the relative domain, meaning absolute truths such as "all is equally good" only applies after complete transcendence of the human limitation, which has never been shown to be possible (and if it were, would impose implications you probably haven't considered, such as simultaneously embodying infinite states of consciousness which would limit their original human avatar to an infinitesimally small fragment of their total awareness such that they are not actually human anymore). With this logic, an "enlightened" person should have abandoned all behavioral tendencies and even instinctive conditioning such that putting on clothes and eating food would be such arbitrary and specific tasks that they would never do them, and such a person would be dead in a matter of days. Preferring Biden over Trump (or preferring the pursuit of prosperity over inevitable genocide) is inherently part of being human, the very facet of itself God chose to incarnate into.

I did not edit this.

I would've thought that specifying it's been done before would invite you to assume that I mean in a way that hasn't been done before. These videos inadvertently affirm you can attain bliss from awakening, but I quite obviously meant a video specifically devoted to convincing even the laziest of spiritual seekers to stop everything and pursue God awakening, using the most detailed and compelling analogies that convey the unspeakable bliss that is supposedly possible.