Israfil

@DrugsBunny Such powerful ignorance, it's quite impressive actually. Honestly my good man, you'd be seriously devastated by the brutal epiphany of how bafflingly fucking stupid your perspective is if the divine revelation ever magically occurred to you. There is no "belief" whatsoever involved in my position, which is as follows: As a society we should attempt to glean the highest amount of utility from language as is conceptually possible. Linguistic utility can simply be considered the usage of language which sufficiently accounts for all varieties of people, so long as this inclusivity does not affront the unadulterated truth. Thankfully with transgender people, such a solution is very feasible. Race and race identity are two distinct things, not because somebody said so, but because it indisputably serves the highest utility to acknowledge the distinction between the anatomical racial characteristics vs the "white" and "black" socio-cultural roles. Race refers strictly to your physical anatomy (ie. facial hair, penis/vagina, breasts), whereas socio-cultural roles refers to how you express yourself in relation to the commonly associated traits of the racial spectrum (ie. clothing, culture, speech tonality). Racial dysphoria is a valid condition that severely threatens the quality of life for many people suffering from it, as it is a scientifically substantiated affliction, bearing no semblance of likeness with the asinine concept of "transgederism" (the obscure, entirely unsubstantiated concept regarding the presupposed fictional phenomenon of "gender dysphoria"), therefore people with this socially devastating affliction should be accommodated with our use of language and our social expectations regarding race. Because not all people can comfortably conform to rigid racial roles and the imposing social expectations therein, the terms "white" and "black" provide the most societal utility when they are regarded as social categories which allow for appropriate usage in reference to any person who identifies with the respective racial role of their choice. Because race and race identity are not the same thing, a biologically ordained 'black' suffering from gender dysphoria can adopt the "white" racial role, or vice versa, and our societal accommodation of such people is a practical, feasible and morally appropriate application of our linguistic utility. Words change, language evolves, just deal with it. It may make you uncomfortable to acknowledge that transracial people are valid, but try to recognize this is only a product of your closed-mindedness and your primitive inclinations to dehumanize people who don't conform to your bigoted expectations. Again, nobody is denying that cis black and trans white are two distinct varieties of black. Of course they are different. The only thing I'm saying is, you're seriously kidding yourselves if you think it makes sense to call Blaire White (a deplorable self-hating racist, who is only used as an example because they pass exceptionally well) a white because technically they were born with a small dick. That would be such an absurd and contrived example of ideological stubbornness.

The point is that pick-up artists will charge you more than your hourly wage to teach you something you can learn by doing. If you buy a 10k, 2-hour course from a pick-up artist to learn a skill you can learn in less than 100 hours, and you make less than 100 USD an hour, you're burning money.

There are many things that are true and can't be proven.

Coke and alcohol create cocaethylene. A very toxic substance that increases the time alcohol stays in the bloodstream. You can look up more specifics, but that's one of the main problems with cocaine, actually.

Taking psychedelics by the beach is actually quite good. I took 125ug of LSD on a beautiful beach once and the visuals are amazing. You can always bring a sheet or towel to lay down in the sand. Incredible connective experience.

I doubt Andrew Tate has any true and meaningful connection. He instrumentalizes everyone in his life. Human connection is a hole that 33 Bugattis can't fill up.

Watch the video. The title is just clickbait.

That's the beauty of this deepfake hahahahahha

You should watch the video.

Yes, made with AI

Yes. Sorry. It was almost 1 AM after 3 hours of music rehearsal. My head was gellyfied. I don't see this as a necessity. As we both stated, there are people that simply identify themselves with a different gender and people that feel a need to change themselves in order to match what they ideally would like to see in their bodies or behavior. correction: Another one in the 3 hours of rehearsal bill. Sorry.

I agree. And the argument I posed didn't say that identification requires necessarily physical qualities, you can identify with the whole spectrum of stereotypes of either gender. I stated that if mere identification wasn't enough, there wouldn't be any trans people that changed themselves to feel that they're being authentic. I wouldn't say that identification necessarily entails the display and performance of those stereotypes, but the correlation is high. People that don't change anything in themselves when gender identification occurs, already see themselves displaying or having the characteristics they perceive as part of that gender. If you conceptually that such and such should be a part of your gender identity but you don't have that characteristic, you would either defy this norm or comply with it, assuming no further revision in your perception of this concept.

Can't make an omelettenghtment with breaking your eggo

You are misguided.

It's one of the strongest strains out there. Weed strain names are not coincidence hahahahaha

I was just kidding, man. I knew what you meant and you were right.

Different men, different needs. Don't be so quick to judge, pal.

My point is that people that identify with something are equating their own self-perception with some set of characteristics that the thing that they identify with has. Even in the case you mention, there is a connection between self-perception and those certain attributes that lead to this whole phenomenon. Even if I say I am a "feminine man" I am still stating the connection between my self-perception as a male, and therefore a bearer of male attributes, and my self-perception as feminine, as in displaying feminine attributes. If man or woman refers to "someone who identifies as such", I would simply kick this pebble down the road. I would identify as someone who identifies as something. And that something would be "someone who identifies as man/woman". So the only way "identifying as man" has any meaning is if man has a set of characteristics that can be identified with in the first place. My point is not the inability of identifying with a stereotype, but the necessity of positing what is that you're identifying with before identification can even occur, therefore, a concept of womanhood or manhood is required for you to compare yourself to, and therefore identify (to see identity, to see equivalence, to see "equalness") with.

Does it include the need for obsession and disregard for balance itself?

That's the summary of the Ken Wilber video I shared.

Death is the fuel of life. It is the reorganization process that nature is always doing. We transform solar radiation into vitamin D, plants transform it into glucose. This process of reorganization is integral to all life and the universe in general.

The male/female distinction is a gross oversimplification of the biological reality. It doesn't serve the purpose of defining biological sex in its entirety. And the argument of identification with gender being the same as being such gender is a circular argument in disguise. If a woman is defined as anyone who identifies as such, what is that they're identifying with? If gender is a declaration of identity, what is it that you're identifying with? By definition, an identity is a dichotomy between two objects that share similar characteristics. This definition of "anyone who identifies as such" simply states that there is an abstract woman stereotype that people are identifying with, and therefore "woman" must describe a summary of characteristics that people perceive in themselves and equates those with the summary "woman". You can talk about expanding the perception of a woman to include people who transition, i.e. identify with the set of "womanly" characteristics and seek physical and behavior changes to externally reflect those characteristics, but you cannot say that the mere identification turns that person into a woman. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any trans people. They would simply identify as a woman and that feeling would be enough. The whole point of transition is the presentation to self and to others of the archetypical gender characteristics that are perceived as man and woman by the individual in question and society in general.

You don't understand Green Stage properly. The kind of integration you say the lack is the exact reason they're not Yellow yet. This is to be expected. In this interview, Ken Wilber explains this dynamic as concisely as one can. I really hope you watch it and understand the mischaracterization you are falling into. Your critique is valid, you just lack the perspective to understand that this societal pressure is what's required to move on to stage Yellow.