Trans women are women! Why? Love and Truth that's why

[Consept]

33 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

I think nobody should be raised "as a man" or "as a woman", just raised as they are. Which parents (and societies) are notoriously bad at, but which I do think would solve the issue of limiting a child's natural expression. Not just in terms of gender but in many other ways in which society imposes itself on the human spirit.

This can be difficult though, the way i see it as humans we are like conduits for different energies, the masculine and feminine are extremely powerful and important energies. Usually boys and men are the best conduit for masculine energy and women and girls are the best for feminine, of course this is not to say that there cant be great conduits in the reverse I'm just talking generally. So i think its important that healthy masculinity be taught to boys and healthy femininity taught to girls, if it so happens that a boy shows feminine traits then there is no problem in teaching them healthy femininity. Both sexes should also be taught about the other energy and look for it in themselves as well. The key thing is that the other side should not be demonised, it should be understood, explored and integrated. 

So i dont think we should suppress or ignore this polarisation at an early age and in fact i would suggest that because we have been doing that in the last few decades, ie encouraging men to be more feminine and women to be more masculine or at least to lessen these energies, we have seen a decline in relationships not only a rise in divorce but overall happiness. Dating is also harder for men because they are no longer as masculine as they were and that is what is attractive to women. (I actually experienced this at a speed dating event a few years ago where women were complaining about the men) 

[Consept]

4 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

@Consept We don't need to teach them healthy anything, we just need to provide some guard rails on the road they'll seek to travel of themselves, let those energies find their own way. And we need to stop thinking that we know everything better and stop tinkering and meddling. Adults are fucking stupid and fucking dangerous. The one thing that children need protection from the most, is adults.

lol yeah maybe, but i would say there is value in teaching the next generation but not necessarily forcing them down a certain path. Healthy values can always be passed down, keyword being 'healthy'. Say you had someone who was healthy stage yellow their wisdom could be passed down to the next generation, that is how society evolves. Even you saying adults are stupid the adults before them were probably even more stupid and caused more damage. 

A good example of this is if you have a genuinely psychologically healthy couple and they raise a kid, they are very likely to be psychologically happy themselves. Most boys go off the rails specifically because they dont have positive male role models, so i wouldnt downplay the importance of it, especially with how destructive boys and men can be without proper guidance. 

Here is an example of i think incredibly healthy masculinity being taught to young boys, the effect it must have is immense 

 

[Consept]

8 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

That's where the guard rails come in.

The problem I have with "postive role models" like the one in the video, however well intentioned it may be, is that it's a moralizing way of raising children, no better than the "men don't cry" way of raising. You're still trying to sculpt them into a predefined mold. And it still imparts the sense in children that if they don't measure up, they're not good enough. And that's exactly where things go south. And the kids go for it because they just want to be accepted.

I know that's what societies do and maybe it can't be helped from a survival point of view. But I don't really care about survival at all cost, and the way I see it, this is costing us the human spirit. Mankind are the living dead. To me, the way humans have been surviving for the sake of surviving, is just not worth it.

This is why I have no sympathy for those who choose and defend the herd. They can do what they want, but if someone asks me what I think, I'll probably answer.

Cheers

I get where youre coming from but again something like 'men dont cry' I would consider unhealthy masculinity, healthy would be teaching a child how to navigate and express their emotions. The fact is that not teaching your kids anything or just having guard rails, which in some ways i agree with, is also a way of raising kids which could potentially be damaging. Kids in general do need direction and that is the point of role models and parents. Without these they can very easily slip into toxcity especially males, Leo did a video on toxic life purpose which highlights this. Also from personal experience I have worked in a charity that was supposed to help children, the most problematic boys were the ones with really bad home lives and in most case there wasnt a father figure in sight. These boys got into trouble, were watched by the police etc, when hey did have male role models and activities and whatnot you could see that it was something they craved for and desperately needed. So i would argue that you're actually downplaying the need for healthy role models, Ive seen the results first hand and its not good. 

Also i think there is this fear of restricting people and making them fit into a mould, the goal of a healthy teacher would be to give the guidance for that boy or girl to become the best person they can be. One example would be to teach taking responsibility for your actions, i really believe this one teaching, reinforced with consequences, would literally change a persons life if taught correctly. 

[Yog]

@JoeVolcano  What if your kid watches a serial killer movie and they model after that. Do you intervene ?

Kids literally imitate/mimic/model everything, that is how they learn.

 

[Consept]

19 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

Let me be clear about this, the only unhealthy thing in the universe is the paradigm of human society. No other organism needs to be taught how to be healthy. And the only thing we can do to be healthy ourselves is abandon the unhealthy paradigm. Which is basically everything you think of as human society.

I think we maybe speaking about different things. But to speak to what youre saying, the more complex the organism the more teaching is required, for example chimpanzees, doplhins, Elephants etc, all have very complicated societies and they are taught how to navigate that society if only by seeing what their parents do or being reprimanded when they do something wrong. 

As humans we are very complex beings in comparison to other organisms on earth and ass such more direction is actually required not less, to avoid catastrophic consequences. Further its not just about survival or preventing bad things happening its how can we prepare ourselves to live the best life we can and give value to the world around us. 

I think in general there is a fallacy, its also in libertarian beliefs, that if everyone is just left to their own devices and is free everyone would be fine and happy. What you dont take into account is that our society now IS the product of everyone being left to their own devices, we have organised ourselves in such a way because its the current best way that we can conceive and agree on life to balance autonomy with organisation. 

I can guarantee you that kids that grow up with someone like the guy in the video as their father will have a very positive outlook on life and will most likely enjoy it as well as being productive. A lot of kids that grew up in hippie communes actually seek structure and go into careers like the army. Point is there has to be a balance between not suppressing kids but also giving them good role models and guidelines 

[Consept]

@JoeVolcano

I'm more thinking about how you can actually make this society as great as possible. I have had the thought of yes if everyone's consciousness rose and everyone chose freely the kind of personal transformation you're talking about then yes of course it would be amazing and everyone would be happy etc, but for me it's kinda waste of time as it's not going to happen anytime soon, further to that humans just don't evolve in that way.

Development is messy and takes long, as in thousands of years. Your perspective is that things could be much better, but that could and should always be the perspective throughout human history. Where we are now is built on what was down before and where will be in the future is built upon what we do today. Saying this society is terrible and not worth it because everyone is not fully conscious and aware is really absolving yourself of any responsibility. 

[Bobby_2021]

On 7/1/2022 at 8:57 PM, Gesundheit2 said:

Privilege and oppression are relative to society.

Yes, even Bill Gates and Elon Musk is also oppressed and , relatively speaking.

That doesn't mean everyone else must cater to lower the price of their private jet fuel and their shitty concerns. That's just moronic, silly and even manipulative. Plenty of people have nothing real to worry about so they manufacture crap out of nothing.

If you want to have a serious discussion on oppression and take actionable steps to eliminate it, instead of crying about it, we must adopt an absolute scale of oppression.

Else it will lead to madness since everyone will cry oppression, thus the truly oppressed people don't have a voice to raise their concerns.

On 7/1/2022 at 8:57 PM, Gesundheit2 said:

Happiness is not an argument here because it's subjective, and more complicated than just food or clothing.

Happiness is independent of everything.

You can be happy no matter where you are and sad no matter how good your life is.  

[The_Searcher]

@Carl-Richard  I know it's an older topic, but I vibe with your opinions from a quick look. 

@BeHereNow The big question for me is why being trans is important? What identifying as a gender brings you? Trans people say that it's limiting to be assigned sex at birth. But isn't identifying as gender is limiting? To me trans goals would be not to identify, but free yourself from conformity of gender entirely. Where you don't put such importance on gender and allow yourself to express however you want. To me it seems like trans people don't want to conform but gets trapped in another conformity(of their own ideology). This what I cannot understand about trans fundamentally.

[Arcangelo]

On 7/1/2022 at 9:24 AM, Zeroguy said:

Question is simple .Trans women are women.

Answer is also simple : no they are not.

I agree 100%

 

Trans women are women!

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Razard86]

All separation is imaginary. 

1. Demonizing others and blaming them for not agreeing with you, is the same thing as complaining about discrimination. Think about it, you are mad at them for not agreeing with you, so you call them a slur like phobic, racist, whatever. So they then get mad for you calling them that and they call you some slur. So both parties are engaging in the same situation demonizing each other because they disagree. 

2. You need to understand that disagreement is normal, you disagree with your self (have conflicting thoughts, fears, and doubt) but yet you expect for that to be any different when you deal with people? Notice that makes no sense.

3. Nobody triggers you, YOU trigger you. Triggering happens when something bothers you. The cold can bother one man, and be heaven for another. Its a personal problem that needs to be worked through. As long as you blame outside forces for what you create, you will live in hell a hell you have created for yourself. If you want to be Satan and torment yourself be my guest you have that right. But only you are responsible for your feelings NOBODY else. 

[Ramu]

@BeHereNow Trans women are not real women.  Gender is determined by chromosomes.  Did you take biology in high school?

[Carl-Richard]

38 minutes ago, BenG said:

It’s actually not. You misunderstand what gender is. It has nothing to do with biology.

Oxford Languages

Gender: either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.

World health organization

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other.

Are you a woman if you inhabit the norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman? 

[Ramu]

@BenG yet a woman is a woman (xx). Man (xy).  Hence a man who chops his penis off and wears a dress is not a woman.  It's ridiculous.  Then a man will say, but I feel like a woman.  But how can a man know what it's like to be a woman???  He's a man!!!  That's why he'll never know!!

[Ramu]

@Carl-Richardthere are also not 10 or 15 genders.  It's man or woman.  You get to be one or the other...not some other gender you made up in make believe time....this whole movement is absurd.

[Carl-Richard]

46 minutes ago, BenG said:

For practical purposes, I think that definition is much better than the bio-essentialist definition.

But it still doesn't work in every case, because... who gets to decide what the norms, behaviors and roles associated with being a woman actually are? Who associates traits with being some particular identity? And whose association is valid?

I think the best definitions are the most restrictive ones. The inclusion sentiment boils down to social activism, not the soundness of definitions.

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, BenG said:

So, the question I would ask is this: What’s the point of a restrictive definition if it’s not accurate? 

If I were a girl and this guy asked me out and then invited me home and took his clothes off, I would be like "hang on..." That's how accurate the definition is.

[Danioover9000]

   So, what has happened while I was away from this thread? Have we made any grounds, where do we agree on now?

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, BenG said:

Hahaha ???

Well, at least I know where we stand when you need to make up unrealistic hypotheticals just so you can cling to any ground you might have had in this discussion. 

peace, bro 

I don't think having sex is an unrealistic hypothetical, but you do you.

[Scholar]

One of the problems with the way these conversation goes is that they basically are just about fighting for labels, We aren't discussing what something means, we are discussing what we can use the word "woman" for.

In the end, everyone understands the differences between a trans woman and a woman. We can both label them the same thing, but we will still understand the difference. It seems to me that a lot of the fight about the label is an attempt to delude away the differences. If we call them the same thing, it must mean they are the same thing!

But that's not the case. Trans people will still have a certain set of genitalia, that maybe they made a surgeon change into something that resembles another genitalia. Whether or not we call that being a woman does not change that underlying reality.

 

So really, the game is about the label, and the label is so powerful because we have revolved entire identities around them. Instead of moving society away from the attachment to these labels and constructs, we give them more power, we attach ourselves more, and revolve our entire identity around a simple label.

[Bobby_2021]

12 hours ago, BenG said:

This guy has xx chromosomes and a female reproductive system.

Now, do your best to hold a straight face while you say (out loud) that he’s a woman… I bet you can’t do it, right? And if you can, I don’t even know what to say to you.

So, the question I would ask is this: What’s the point of a restrictive definition if it’s not accurate? And if we aren’t concerned about the accuracy of definitions, then what do you mean by soundness, and why should I place it above accuracy?

Is anybody really supposed to care about what’s theoretically sound if it doesn’t accurately describe reality? That would be prioritizing theory over truth. 

If you want an accurate definition, you need to allow a detailed study and it's possible to accomodate for the edge cases quite accurately. That's what scientists devote their entire life into.

In the case of the man you have shown above you don't have enough information about his/her biology, genitalia, any complications or mishaps at birth etc 

You have to provide all such information to have an accurate definition, which is absolutely possible, biologically and scientifically.

You are not really undermining definitions here.