MMX2010

I feel bad that I can't provide any specific examples, but I know that your female bully is full of self-loathing and ultimately fears being humiliated / rejected by the crowd (her housemates). So the solution is to stand up for yourself in a cocky / funny way that embarrasses her, and turns the crowd against her. Make her look like a pathetic, whiny four year old by portraying yourself as the strong, unfazed, smirky older brother.

Chateau Heartiste is often too in-your-face for some people's liking, but this article is both relevant and tame-by-comparison. http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/a-white-woman-walks-through-a-white-part-of-town-and-gets-no-catcalls/ The takeaway paragraph: "Lesson of the tape: White men don’t catcall. If you are a woman who secretly wants catcalls to feel attractive to men, and you don’t care about catcaller quality or courtship skill level, your best bet is to have a steatopygic ass stuffed into fuck-me jeans and a parade route through Harlem during work hours."

Have you read Real Time Relationships? I ask, because I have a lot to say about this paragraph, but it would be far easier for me to use an example from RTR.

I like meditating on Stef's words, but I feel most self-directed and focused when I develop an aphorism inspired by Stef's words. My current one is in response to podcast 1763 Irritation, which I found thanks to Joel Patterson. It reads, "Mourn the permanent loss of your natural self, but take pride in your robot reconstruction. Robots can be happy, too." What are yours?

I understand your point - both in this post and your earlier one. Since you don't (yet) grasp mine, I think I didn't make my original point clear enough. Part One - "Maturity" is a subjective concept, and I automatically think of Religion whenever discussing subjective concepts. "Tolerant" believers in subjective concepts are open-minded enough to realize that their arguments ARE NOT truths that should be imposed on everyone. You showed "tolerant" behavior when you admitted that "You have no idea when the brain is sufficiently mature enough to consent to sex." - and I admire you for that. Unfortunately, most believers are "Intolerant" because they mistake their subjective opinions as objective truths, and then try to impose those opinions on everyone else. Most people who discuss "sufficient brain maturity to consent to sex" are "Intolerant", and I find their intolerance annoying. Part Two - Always try to replace a subjective concept with an objective one, even if only to see what happens. I did this when asserting that one possible answer would be to declare, "No one under age 25 may consent to sex, enter into legally binding contracts, get married, have children, vote in elections, nor anything else considered 'Adult Behavior'." I don't know whether you like this idea, but you have to admit that the idea uses a Universally-Defined Objective Standard. And if you spend a couple of hours reflecting upon it, you might come to like it. There'd be so much fewer children born out of impulse, and so many neglected children become criminals (or costly in other ways). Thus, a ban on younger-than-25's having children may lead to many positive outcomes. However, the most important thing about the "25 years old" argument is that it replaces the subjective concept "sufficiently mature" with the completely objective measurement "fully mature". Part Three - When you disliked my assertion that "many 38 year old men would inevitably date 25 year old women", you uses an equalist notion of "maturity" - which is, again, a subjective concept. My support, however, is based on Rollo Tomassi's research into Sexual Market Value - (SMV). http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/ Both a 38 year old man and a 25 year old woman are at the peaks of their Sexual Market Values, which is why such a relationship is both natural and probably successful. Simple...as....that. ---------------------------- I don't know how much of Rollo Tomassi's work you've read, but if you're not familiar with it, you'll probably experience a lot of disorientation, confusion, and probably hostility while reading it. And it's also impossible for me to summarize all of his work in a single topic, but I can provide two anecdotal examples. (1) When a 22 year old woman begins dating a 22 year old man, they may get married at age 25. Such an arrangement is glorified by those who believe in an equalist definition of maturity, but those who accept SMV will understand the weakness of such a marriage. The woman, being at the peak of her SMV, will hold most of the power in the marriage. She will constantly test him for "alpha characteristics", of which he doesn't possess because he has neither been taught them, nor naturally grown into them. When he accumulates enough "failures", she'll divorce him - (usually at around age 29 or 31) - to "cash out" and "not blow her only chance to find true love". (2) I'm 38 and can easily imagine dating someone as young as 18, and I already know how to navigate many of the social challenges. I enjoy reading about other men like me, who've been told by women their own age, "Looks like you enjoy doing your shopping in the juniors department." I can easily deflect questions like, "What do you two even talk about?" - (which is a passive-aggressive dig at either her perceived immaturity, or mine, or both) - with silly answers like "We talk about what we talk about, and never talk about what we never talk about." or "We talk about how she has to sleep with me every day, whether she likes to or not, because I might die of a heart attack tomorrow." OR with serious answers like, "We talk about what she likes to talk about. If I feel the need for something more mature / intellectual, I just go online to certain message boards. In time, I can easily see her becoming more and more interested in such topics; if I didn't, I wouldn't be dating her." And I can also see myself cavalierly hanging out with her friends, while wearing a white wig, carrying a cane, and limping along. Defiance, coupled with strength and a sense of humor, are the constant prescriptions. http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/14/amused-mastery/ The takeaway paragraph from that article: "And thus we come full circle; Amused Mastery is a form of social dominance. That sense of knowing the answer before the question is asked, but still giving the answer with a smirk is a very effective form of demonstrating higher value (DHV). An attitude of Amused Mastery begins from a default position of social dominance." ------------------ I hope that was helpful. If you find Rollo's articles confusing, you may have to read every article associated with "the rational male best of year one" before you get a full grasp. Edited to add: Part Three of my post implies that "sufficiently mature enough to consent to sex" is an abstract, subject concept that doesn't really exist - and casts it aside to implement Sexual Market Value instead.

I assert, with no evidence whatsoever (just very strong feeling), that (1) "a market of ideas" has never existed, because people always grab power to distort the market of ideas, and (2) "a market of ideas" inevitably leads to disaster, because the argument that "ideas should be evaluated on their effectiveness and NOT on any appeal to higher knowledge" allows "popular but ineffective ideas" to flood the marketplace - i.e. feminism, government schooling, any woman can decide to have a child with any man she wants - whenever she wants, and pro-spanking.

I'm sorry to press you for details, but I'm not sure how I feel about your post due to so many missing details. How old are you? How old is your sister? What do you mean by "ground your mother down"? And what do you mean by "whenever Dad has her on weekends"?

During a necessary (but horribly annoying) argument between my father and I, my niece told him (without being provoked to do so), "I used to find him really annoying, but in the past year or so we've talked a lot, and now I look up to him." "The past year or so" corresponds perfectly to my time listening to FDR. And since FDR's main focus is children - and adult responsibilities to children - I take her compliment as heavy praise for both FDR and the lessons I've learned from it. I'm not exactly happy right now - because that argument with my father was horrible. But I hope in a couple of days to fully absorb what my niece told me, and be happy. To those of you with children, especially if you've started listening to FDR only recently, may FDR provide you with both the ammunition and training program necessary to win this desperate fight for both your lives, and your children's lives.

I get it, and I agree with you. Imprinting: "When a father exposes his son/daughter to porn at a very early age and engages in mutual masturbatory actions, thereby making his son/daughter prone to engaging in future sex acts with older men." Not-imprinting: "When Lena Dunham exposed her sister to same-sex mutual masturbation at a very early age, thereby making her sister prone to engaging in future sex acts with women." --------------------------- But it's not enough to point out obvious hypocrisy - especially when "one side of the debate" doesn't care when their hypocrisy is exposed, choosing instead to double-down. It's necessary to shame them, and rob them of their power. Hence the amygdala attacks, and the "pulling of sponsors", and the public shaming to deprive person of their audience. I'm working on that by sending a couple of emails. Will let you know how that goes.

I don't think her victim (sister) is speaking out against her. She's either speaking in support of her sister, or taking no sides at all. The victim's (sister's) only tweets have been: (1) "heteronormativity deems certain behaviours harmful, and others "normal"; the state and media are always invested in maintaining that." (2) "As a queer person: i'm committed to people narrating their own experiences, determining for themselves what has and has not been harmful." -------------------------- AnonymousConservative praised this photo http://i.imgur.com/W6PPyMs.jpg for triggering conservative fears against liberal policy, which will enable conservatives to more committedly fight against liberal policies. So I think an even more effective amygdala attack against Grace Dunham would be: "QUICK! Name two people who think children as young as three are mature enough to engage in sexual acts - A pedophile and Grace Dunham."

Sorry to be precise, but I would say, "The distinction is important if and only if you want to be open-minded and scientifically-thorough in this discussion. If not, that distinction is unimportant." In my opinion, there are three very different answers. (1) Scientific studies of full brain maturity ONLY leads to the ultra simple answer, "No one shall have sexual intercourse of any kind before age 25." (2) Non-scientific studies of "gender equality" leads to the convoluted answer, "It's impossible to say when a person's brain is sufficiently mature to engage in consensual sexual intercourse, BUT I know that consensual sexual intercourse should be between equals." Rollo Tomassi's article on The Curse of Jung illustrates this principle quite well. Article - http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/11/the-curse-of-jung/ Crucial Paragraphs: "One of the key elements Jung introduced into western culture’s popular consciousness is the theory of anima and animus; that each individual, irrespective of sex, possesses greater or lesser degrees of association and manifested behavior of masculine and feminine psychological affiliations. In 2012, when you hear a 6 year old girl tell a 6 year old boy “you need to get in touch with your feminine side” in order to get him to comply with her, you can begin to understand the scope to which this idea has been internalized into societies collective consciousness. So long and so thoroughly has this theory been repeated and perpetuated that we can scarcely trace back it’s origins – it’s simply taken as fact that men and women possess varying degrees of masculine and feminine energies. First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today. The seeds for the feminine-centrism we take for granted today were planted by a Swiss psychiatrist in the early 1900’s. Whether or not there’s merit to Jung’s ideas, there’s little doubt of the impact they had on fem-centrism. Early feminists saw Jung’s theory as the perfect springboard to further a pretense of ‘gender equality'; thus making individual gender balance (i.e. androgyny) a new idealized goal state. Men simply needed to be perfected by exploring their ‘feared’ feminine natures, and women needed to be allowed the opportunity and freedom to masculinize themselves in order to perfect that androgynous balance. Introduce convenient, feminine controlled hormonal contraception and viola, gender equalism was born." (3) Scientific studies of sexual market value lead to the completely opposite answer, which goes something like, "The purpose of men is to be as masculine as possible; the purpose of women is to be as feminine as possible. This will naturally lead to large age differences in long-term relationships, such that the coupling of a 38 year old man and a 25 year old woman is natural and expected." These three answers are only the gateway to a more thorough understanding of modern political/sexual dynamics. They are not the end of the discussion. But most people are thoroughly unaware of those three answers, and are especially unaware of the scientific / philosophical roots of those answers.

I emailed the author of the anonymousconservative.com blog to get his expert take on it. But I've noticed: (1) Lena Dunham literally has no idea why people are shocked/horrified by the story. Hence, she has a small amygdala that is typical of leftists/feminists. (2) She immediately tries to assuage peoples' legitimate fears by saying, "And by the way, if you were a little kid and never looked at another little kid's vagina, well, congrats to you." (3) Her use of "This is a rage spiral." is an easy and simple indicator of both small amygdala and extreme narcissism. (4) Her idiotic argument, "Those Right Wingers twisted my words!" is LOL-dismissible - but her argument isn't meant to be factual; it's meant to get other people to unite in force and attack the oppressive Right Wingers. (Rabbit behavior). (5) The people who've supported her have said, "I don't think I should dictate Grace's (the victim of Lena's sexual abuse) experiences to her. (Rabbit Behavior.) (6) Grace's tweets are also LOL-dismissable, "heteronormativity deems certain behaviours harmful, and others "normal"; the state and media are always invested in maintaining that." AND "As a queer person: i'm committed to people narrating their own experiences, determining for themselves what has and has not been harmful." If AnonymousConservative is correct about the amygdala, particularly about how you can directly attack it in order to make the Rabbits surrender, then there has to be a way to expose Lena, Grace, or both to the impending negative judgments of the crowd. My amateur attempt at this is to ask, "Since every scientist agrees that suffering sexual abuse, and *especially* committing sexual abuse, both gravely increases the risk of developing a personality disorder, why don't Lena and Grace get interviewed by the three most world-renowned experts on sexual abuse and personality disorders? They can refuse, if they wish. But such refusal literally means that they both think they're smarter than the experts - which is laughable sad." I dunno whether AnonymousConservatve will respond, but I hope he does. And if you're not familiar with r/K selection theory, and with his thesis on the amygdala, his blog is here: anonymousconservative.com/blog.

I admire yagami's enthusiasm, but I disagree with his conclusion that FDR is the best way to promote the message. No, the best way to promote the message is to embody the message. When we've become who we're meant to be, then we'll embody the message.

In my opinion, there are only three ways to acquire safety and security: (1) Get someone else to provide it for you. (2) Acquire it yourself through your own efforts. (3) Just be it. A woman who acquires a husband primarily through her sexual attractiveness is engaged in the first way. Unfortunately, that way is easily seen as the most tenuous, because men can get bored, can stray, can get fired, can die, and so on. So any woman who engages in this pursuit must bombard her man with constant "tests" that he must continually pass - from as simple as, "Does he notice the other woman over there?", or "Does he quickly and easily accomplish every item on the To-Do list I gave him?", to "Does he believe me when I lie?" Rarely, a woman can acquire safety and security in the second way. They value their jobs, they make good money, and they're not actively on the hunt for a long-term mate. When Christina told Stefan, "If we were to ever divorce, I wouldn't want anything.", that was a very Second-Way statement. And it's very admirable that she, a woman, has achieved this level of security. Even more rarely, a woman can acquire safety and security in the third way. A third-way secure person knows that they can be fired tomorrow, can be homeless next month, can be stricken with a debilitating disease next week - but they stoically face life anyway. They're secure Just Because They Are Secure. They say things like, "Even if I were homeless, I'd be perfectly at peace with that. I'd find a way to survive, to fulfill my mission, and to be happy." Any First-Way woman who has achieved safety and security doesn't really believe that she's achieved safety and security - so there must be a demand for more resources. And there must be that unspoken rule, "He never gets to relax and enjoy himself in my presence, because something bad might happen, and he needs to protect me." For the record, I know a couple of Second-Way women, but I know no Third-Way women. And almost every woman is First-Way. Every woman lacking in self-knowledge follows the dictates of her biology. Worse, her biology is double-minded AND deceptive. "Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks" isn't frightening because a woman can pledge her life to you today, and dump you tomorrow. It's frightening because her brain convinces her that her coldness isn't cold, her deceptiveness isn't deceptive, and her selfishness isn't selfish. Being dumped sucks, but being dumped by a solipsistic woman is scary. Rollo's best trait is his writing - direct, sharp, and utterly non-hateful. His second best trait is his long-term, happily married relationship. He's even written about his conversations with his daughter over what types of boys she likes and dislikes. His argument in favor of nature is solid, though. His best post is War Brides, which argues that, "Because women have been victims of centuries-long male violence, women have learned to quickly adapt to the needs and desires of any man they're under. They anticipate his needs, laugh at what he finds humorous, enjoy his hobbies - like beautiful social chameleons. But when they're displeased with him, out he goes, and another man is acquired." http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/ (Rollo doesn't go into what he means by "the harsh realities that women had to endure since the paleolithic era" - but Matt Ridley's book "The Rational Optimist" contains one very chilling sentence, "It was a very common experience for a woman of the Paleolithic era to have her children murdered before her eyes, and herself kept as a sexual prize." Doing such things to women for thousands of generations simply must've hardwired their brains in certain ways.) Personally, I do hope that women's biological nature for deceptiveness and constant anxiety can be mitigated by peaceful parenting. But such a hope rationally means that, although I'm 38 right now, I should still ONLY marry a woman between 18 and 20, who has never formed a serious sexual relationship with anyone else, and who was raised by Peaceful Parents. But such women are extraordinarily rare in modern society, and there are very good reasons why her family wouldn't want her to be with me. Otherwise, I can marry whomever I want, whenever I want - but I shouldn't never expect her to be with me forever. (Ironically, by choosing this option, the only way for me to achieve security and safety is Third-Way, to Just Be it. And consequently, I can never express my "vulnerability" to such a woman, because she is acquiring her safety and security through my lack of vulnerability.) If I want to piss myself off, I can casually comment that today's women have the greatest number of personal, professional, economic, educational, leisurely, and sexual opportunities than LITERALLY EVERY OTHER WOMEN IN HUMAN HISTORY, and there are no friggin' Third-Way Secure women - but I don't want to piss myself off, and I've already forgotten what I just typed. And you can't make me re-read it. Or I can remember what I just typed and say, "Well, at least expressing my vulnerability is really awesome NAWALT-detection."

I was very much impressed with this series of articles at therawness.com - http://therawness.com/the-myth-of-female-maturity-part-1/ The shortest possible summary of those articles is: (1) "Girls mature faster than boys, but men mature much more deeply than women." (2) "Everything a woman does is to acquire safety and security, while men display their superior maturity by knowing, deep down, that there IS NO safety and security." Because there is no safety and security, men remain stoic in the face of uncertainty - (whether financial, familial, marital, or all-at-once). Because there is no safety and security, men's stoicism allows them to do their damn jobs - without complaint - in the face of uncertainty. Women, in their immaturity, believe that there is safety and security, so they either: (1) petition their men to acquire more resources, or (2) petition the government to confiscate more resources. And you would think that the massive influx of women into the workforce would make them realize how replaceable and disposable they are as workers - which would in turn make them realize that men have faced these challenges for centuries. But it doesn't work that way. So men aren't allowed to be vulnerable, because male vulnerability threatens to expose the female-centric delusion that safety and security can be attained. Thus, I don't expect males-en-masse to be able to express their vulnerability within 200 years. Rollo Tomassi, at therationalmale.com, did an excellent job of explaining this lack of female empathy for men in this article - http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/13/empathy/ Best quote of the article: "Women cannot bear to see a Man experiencing negative emotions such as extreme anger, rage, fear, despair, despondency or depression for extended periods of time. You say you want to “be there” for your Man; but you cannot do it. If it goes on long enough, it kills the attraction; it sets off your hypergamy alarms; and subconsciously causes you to start hunting for a replacement Man. A woman seeing a Male go through the above will seek to replace that Male immediately. Women cannot listen to Men talking about or working out their dating/mating/relationship issues or problems. Women reflexively view a Man discussing such issues as “whining” or “complaining” or “bitterness” or “sour grapes” or “well, you just chose poorly, so sucks to be you” or “suck it up, no one wants to hear you bitching about it”. As to both of the above principles; when a Male is involved, ratchet up by a factor of 5 the disdain and repulsion a woman experiences when seeing a Male do or experience the above."

I think your original post suffers from an insurmountable weakness: the transition from physical objects to intangible abstractions. When you described how Euclid's fifth postulate must get re-worded, depending on which physical object you're describing, I was filled with happiness and a sense of deeper understanding. But once you start talking about Queer Theory and Political Correctness, I'm filled with annoyance and confusion. I respect that you've studied Queer Theory more than I have. But if we all agree that gender is a continuum, and that a number line is a continuum, then I can argue that no one has the exact same gender as anyone else. (Like this: Picture a number line from 1 to 10, with 1 meaning "extreme male" and 10 meaning "extreme female". With clever use of decimal point, I can assert that there are "hundreds of thousands as many different genders as there are humans on the planet", thereby mathematically proving that no two people have the exact same gender. Basically, the number 5.5555555555556 is not the exact same number as 5.5555555555557.) This argument is only possible due to the abstract nature of both gender and numbers.) At some point, arguments that assert "the fluidity of meaning" become bogged down by ever more "precise" arguments that assert the "fluidity of meaning".

This article by Matt Forney isn't scientific, but it touched off a firestorm of angry, senseless criticism. http://www.returnofkings.com/45334/5-reasons-why-girls-with-tattoos-andor-piercings-are-broken This article by Dr. Caveman is scientific. http://www.returnofkings.com/45944/science-confirms-tattooed-women-are-indeed-broken

Josh F - Your post is interesting and well-communicated, but I don't get the point. The only use I see in your post is clubbing nihilists over the head with it. But I don't know the degree to which anyone else can club me over the head with it.

The calm businessman has not committed a similar cognitive error, though. If anything, the calm businessman is correct that a slow, patient accumulation of profits is the best way to build a nest egg, and his partner (the wild businessman) is wrong. The point of the article is that two people can participate in the exact same activity, and with the exact same purported goals. But they can easily be on completely opposite pages, due to the dishonesty of the Ends-perspective individual.

Kevin Beal said, "And what if I said that I had applied philosophy in my own life more consistently than you and claim to see through you?" Well, then you wouldn't believe it, would you? I'd hate to whip this one out. If you're wrong, it's pretty messy. Everyone who reads Kevin Beal's statement knows that "whipping this one out" means "Stating or implying that you've used philosophy better and more consistently than the person you're disagreeing with." ----------------- Nathan Diehl replies to Kevin Beal's words by saying, "Where did you get the idea that I hadn't read the thread? I never said that. Wtf, kev?" Not only is Nathan Diehl's statement presumptuous and accusatory, but it also COMPLETELY MISREADS what Kevin Beal actually stated. Lastly, Nathan Diehl has ALREADY "whipped that one out" by saying, "The way that MMX uses philosophy is atrocious" and by saying, "Those of us who have actually learned to apply philosophy and face ourselves can see through you." (The problem, though, Nathan Diehl, is that you're the only one claiming to "see through me" - (Everyone else either agrees with me, or doesn't reply to me.). This begs the question of whether you think you're the only philosophically and morally upright individual on this board. Because you're definitely acting like you believe that. And if you're wrong, it's pretty "messy" and self-detonating.

Messy isn't the right word for it. If he's wrong, then he's guilty of everything he's accusing me of. First, he accused me of not being curious, because I only answered one of his questions. But he's never answered any of my questions, which makes him guilty according to his own philosophy. Second, he accused me of wanting to be right and needing everyone else to see that. But I said that since everyone's feelings about their own (and other people's) gender are subjective, there's no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" feeling - so I can't possibly "want to be right and need other people to see it". Third, he accused me of "trolling". Fourth, he accused me of being "abusive" (AND strongly implied that no member of the FDR Staff was smart enough, nor alert enough, to see this). So "messy" is the wrong word for it. But "self-incriminating" is the right word for it. --------------------- As an aside, one of the more amusing aspects of Queer Theory is how it states that everyone's feelings about their own gender are subjective, and that no one has the authority to tell you what your gender is. In that case, why not just declare that everyone's gender is either slightly or significantly different from everyone else's? Meaning that, as of right now, there are approximately 7.5 billion genders in the world. Some people would find this conclusion annoying and inconvenient. Some would find it offensive and baffling. But since neither of those four words are arguments, and since it's consistent with Queer Theory, why not?

I can appreciate your perspective. In my childhood, my father would always do the teasing - but he's also the major source of my (and my family's) trauma. But I think there's something special about only letting certain people tease me.

Right! I'm glad you used the headache metaphor, because we know that some people are speaking genuinely when they claim to have headaches. And other people are lying when they claim to have headaches, because they want sympathy or want to avoid doing something they find unpleasant. Thankfully, because science has proven that the cause of headaches can be objectively observed, we can use scientific instruments to separate the genuine sufferers from the non-genuine sufferers. BUT the moment I suggested that transgender is a medical reality, and that, therefore, every individual who claims to be transgender must have their feelings verified via a brain scan, Josh F. (and presumably you) rejected that notion. It's philosophically inconsistent to SIMULTANEOUSLY say, "Transgender is an objective medical reality, directly observable via brain scans." BUT "No individual transgender person must have their feelings confirmed via brain scans before anyone else believes them." You have to pick one or the other. Nathan, you're arguing that "On the FDR message boards, where 'pushing people around via philosophy' is both against the rules and aggressively downvoted, THE LACK OF downvotes against my posts is evidence that I'm 'pushing people around via philosophy'." At this point, retract the accusation - because there's no evidence to support it, and because I have a triple digit positive reputation. Seriously, step away from this thread. It's against the rules to make accusations that you cannot provide strong evidence for. To me, I think it's the difference between "players" and "fans". "Players" are those who are transgender and suffer prejudice and other negative experiences from birth over a long period of years. Most of these "players" are humble and looking to avoid the spotlight. "Fans" are either transgender or not. And it feels like the non-transgender people have the strongest opinions about what other people "should do" and "should believe". Their very nature as "non-transgender, but fans" disconnects them from what transgender individuals feel. So it's easier for them to make global pronouncements. In that other thread, one transgender individual (won't say who) chatted with me for about an hour. And it was a good conversation, with a lot of mutual questions being asked. And he/she (forgot which....sorry) taught me that it's offensive to say "transgendered" - so I've never used that word since. I appreciate that one-on-one "player"-to-person interaction. The "fans", however, can't bring themselves to have this one-on-one conversation. They'd rather use insults and accusations which, when levied from a distance, create that sense of "superior distancing" that I think is the number one goal of their participation.

Nathan, because feelings about gender are 100% subjective, it's impossible for anyone to be "full of crap" when discussing their feelings about either their own gender or someone else's gender. So I don't ask why you think I'm full of crap, because it's philosophically impossible for me to be that way. Nathan, because feelings about gender are 100% subjective, there's no such thing as "being right". about gender-feelings. Hence, it's philosophically impossible for me to "want everyone to see that I'm right" with regard to this issue. ------------------------- @Kevin Beal - In an earlier thread, I illustrated the means-ends paradox: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42150-the-meansends-paradox/ In this particular thread, (as well as the other Transgenderism thread), it's quite likely that there's a means-ends paradox involved. Individuals who see those threads from a Means-driven perspective are willing to undergo often uncomfortable discussion in order to achieve a deeper understanding. But other Ends-driven individuals are only pretending to be willing to undergo uncomfortable discussion, and are instead only interested in portraying themselves as enlightened / authority figures on the topic of transgenderism. I thought iHuman's post in the other thread was well-articulated and informative. There was a certain humility contained in his/her words that made it clear that s/he wasn't interested in being the center of attention, nor in portraying himself as either superhuman or authoritative. Others, however, inevitably find themselves "looking down on" you and me, castigating our "ignorance" and "bigotry" but never, ever interacting with us as curious equals. Do you experience that constant sense of being looked down upon? I definitely do.

Your goal is impossible. At best, you can only explain your feelings about Queer Theory to anyone interested. Since Queer Theory is subjective - (to the point where some very cynical people, such as Captain Capitalism, believe that it's 100% made up) - you don't have the authority to explain Queer Theory to anyone. If Queer Theory were objective - (like the Theory of Evolution) - then you'd be able to explain those objective aspects of it to anyone. "Quite frankly, I find you to be full of crap." is a accusation without evidence. It's also impossible for anyone to be "full of crap" when discussing SUBJECTIVE ideas. Furthermore, you're arguing that "MMX isn't curious, because he only answered ONE of my questions!" But Nathan Diehl, you've never answered ANY of my questions, so you're detonating yourself by accusing me of being non-curious along those grounds.