Donnadogsoth

Freud opened the door to the Oedipal complex, the subconscious, and the concept of psychic distortions arising in childhood, all patent concepts. If you'd like to move through the door instead of waiting at it, I recommend the following essay: Beyond Psychoanalysis, by L. Marcus http://wlym.com/archive/campaigner/74BP.pdf EDIT: Transference. As far as I know, Freud gave us the patent idea of transference. EDIT 2: I really don't like the voting system here. Someones is anonymously pissing on my post and they don't have the grace to let me know who it was.

Theoretical physicists don't build consumer-ready technology, either.

Touché.

Do you need a brainscan to prove someone loves you?

Reasonable enough. But a therapy that includes the possibility, if true, of revealing to them that they are misled and transitioning would be a ghastly mistake. A quibble. It's been said that no suicide actually wants to die. The chief purpose of gender segregated washrooms and change rooms is to shield people from being eyed up by the opposite sex. Since homosexuals are not made to use the opposite sex's washroom, there's really no point to the segregation, is there? Women should be made to use the same washrooms as men and vice versa. What percentage of trans people regret transitioning? We humanity. Trans is arguing a medicalisation (and then, soon, a demedicalisation and normalisation) of a condition that is allied in spirit with the sexual perversions. A MTF who married a man is, in plain (you'll call it naïve) terms, a homosexual in drag. How bent out of shape will we get over the snowball effect this is going to have? I used the fallacy very well. You're shifting the goalposts. Who are you to say he does not meet the “certain requirements” when he had his penis amputated to prove he did? That's commitment, for sure. If he's not MTF transgender, no one is. Human nature as being made in the image of the Creator is a fact. We may argue over the nature of the Creator, but that humans are creative, potentially omnipotently, at least in theory, through their discovery of principle and reordering of nature by same, is fact. From this, the question turns to Christ. The question of Christ is whether Christ was right, most specifically and in kernal over the Crucifixion. If man is indebted, in bondage, in sin, then the only possible answer is Calvary. That is, man, the sensitive, thoughtful man, realises he is indebted, seemingly hopelessly, to the great figures of the past, and to the small ones who sustained the race through their significant efforts—people who lived and died for principle. The only way to escape a sense of indebtedness, a kind of mental pain, is to live according to principle. Hence, Christ. This is the important point; all else is secondary.

Interesting article, thanks, especially this clarification: "In human beings, the sex status is defined at four levels: chromosomal (XY; XX), internal organs (ovaries; testicles), external organs (breasts, vulva + vagina; penis), and psyche (sexual identity)." The thing to bear in mind is that the archetypal norm is the sexual binary. Deviations occur, for which we must allow, but we must not allow the mere presence of deviations to wreck the archetype.

A trans person has correctly identified that they like to dress up, act, and look anatomically like, the opposite sex. The only question is how much society is obligated to accept this and treat them as cis people, including washroom and change room rights. Which, of course, is why in the rainbow age we might as well throw in the towel and have unisex wash and change rooms. Because they can never get “real” enough, no matter how much they partake of drugs and surgery? Or because they're not “trans” enough in the first place and are instead hopelessly confused and conflicted about their identity? Or their "trans-ness" is associated with mental illnesses, abuse, defective fathers, etc.? Are you applauding anorexic suicides for being authentic? Including those women who are forced by peer pressure to change with biological men, etc.. Wait for it. No, I am arguing that we are on a road to infinite perversity. No true transwoman? If you get to say that Walt Heyer isn't trans enough to count as trans, I can say the exact same thing about EVERY trans person. Ravi Zacharias says the four fundamental questions of any belief system reduce to meaning, morality, origin and destiny. In terms of meaning, atheism has no ultimate meaning for man. We are accidents, there is no reference to anything noble or higher or perduring, and our higher intentions are interred forever with our bodies. Morality is might makes right, the will of the mob, rather than the Christian base of a God that embodies and incarnates goodness. Origin for atheism is the inconceivable Void, that, for no reason, produced everything. And destiny is the heat death, where all human aspirations, and all memory of its struggles and joys, are forever obliterated. Christianity offers hope to the hopeless, that there will be meaningful justice for the oppressed, and that beauty, truth, and goodness cohere into a grand Intentionality behind the observable universe. Contrast this with atheism that says all the evil people of history got away with it. Christianity creates a morality based on the empirically observable nature of man as being so made in God's image, as creative beings whose origin is intelligible, whose morality is sacrifice for the good, and whose intended destiny is judgement, paradise and glory.

Gnar.

An efficacious and timely observation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya Islam is a Janus-faced beast, as Dr. Bill Warner has described. There is the homicidal warlord version, and there is the we-just-want-to-do-our-thing version, both derived from the same basic texts of Koran, Sira, and Hadith. As he says in https://www.politicalislam.com/author/ The only standard I apply to Muslims with regards to terrorism is whether they, without qualification, renounce violent jihad, and if they similarly denounce all who adhere to it. If they distance themselves from violent jihadi acts but do not renounce violent jihad and denounce all who adhere to it, consider them taqiyya.

Wouldn't it be nice if feminists would take one for the team now and then?--that is, to read that a woman died to save her husband, instead of vice versa?

Like the microchippee: Just as a transgender person is incorrectly identifying the reality of their physical sex. Like the anorexic: Just as a transgender who commits suicide rather than live as their biological sex is irrationally acting against the fact of that sex. There are misfires of nature, you mean. I mean, I forgot, there is no natural bilateral symmetry in human beings either, because we can example people born with cyclopia, and Franceso Lentini, the three-legged man. These are deformities, not part of the intentionality of the species. Have you addressed the gist of my response: What limits are there to society's accommodation of freaks? Including “irrational” and “factually incorrect”​ It's not overwhelmingly positive for everyone, and again, what about people—including, especially, children--who get hurried along the “transition” road by “helpful” professionals without any countervailing voices of reason and authority telling them they might regret what they're doing? Indeed. Nevertheless, it's all part of the increasingly diverse stew of sexual and identity weirdness that is presently being boiled. The “horse” of the trans person who came to regret it and transitioned back MTFTM. “Extremist Christian”? If I'm against terrorism, does that make me an “extremist anti-terrorist”? Good grief. I'm afraid I don't agree that “extreme” Christianity is not a valid response to personal problems. I bet you can find testimonial after testimonial that Christianity has helped people overcome their problems, including in this case, transtransgenders.

Here's from the horse's mouth: http://www.sexchangeregret.com/ and, http://www.catholic.com/audio-player/30567

Transgender is a pathology, like transableism or Body Integrity Identity Disorder, or thinking the government has already put a microchip in your head (which, admittedly, is only pathological for being a few years premature). The question is, as I have stated previously, how much should society accommodate these people? Do we call the man who thinks he is Napoleon, Napoleon? Do we insist he doff his bicorne hat for a funeral? What about that long, sharp sword he likes to carry around--okay with that everywhere, too? What about anorexics who starve themselves to death--just a personal preference? How libertarian are we in our thinking that every twisted notion must be accommodated, as if out of inexhaustible politeness for the foibles of others? And why are the preferences of the majority not taken into account, that they maybe don't want to modify their esses, and turn the natural gender binary of complementary anatomy and sexuality upside-down, inside-out, and sideways? Yes, it's unfortunate, sad even. Who was it who cited data that said transgender people are often still disturbed even after every effort has been made to accommodate them? That some suicide out of realising they've made the wrong choice? In a culture of trans-acceptance, how much effort is going to be made to "talk down" someone who's almost trans enough to benefit from surgery, but actually just got a bunch of wrongheaded notions and would have ruined their life by going through with it? What's also sad, or should I say gives one grave trepidation, is how sexuality is being overheated and melted down, towards an unknown omega point. I think incest is coming next, then bestiality, then pedophilia, but perhaps there are a dozen minor flavours waiting in the wings to be added to the alphabet soup of LGBT&c. Wanna know something? I think all this "freedom" (license) is not leading us towards "libertarianism," it's leading us towards Molech.

Yes, I think homosexuality is a mental disorder, or a neurological disorder, as you prefer. In many cases it appears intractable. In other cases, the person is merely "on the fence" and confused and demoralised about heterosexuality, and so can be set straight. (The gayification of contemporary media doesn't help this.) Or, the person is incarcerated and is resorting to homosexual behaviour for sexual relief, not because it is their first preference. People in "prisons" can be set free. But, as I said, many cases appear intractable. No, we shouldn't persecute gays. Peer pressure is worse than force. Force can kill you, but peer pressure threatens social death. Both are ways of getting what you want. I don't see how the former is purer than the latter.

Force as in any kind of coercion, whether state authority or community (peer pressure) authority. Must the seats on airliners be widened to accommodate the morbidly obese? Must wheelchairs be provided for those tranabled persons who have had their legs amputated? Must tiger-man with tiger tattoos and tiger piercings and who walks on all fours as much as possible be given a job as a bellhop? Or should society have the liberty to refuse all these and the many more things transoid people will come up with?

How is CAFE "trying to deny the individual rights and steal tax money and special privileges through the state"?

Men’s rights group barred from Toronto’s Pride Parade http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/national/men%E2%80%99s-rights-group-barred-from-toronto%E2%80%99s-pride-parade/ar-AAbRd0C?ocid=mailsignout The alphabet soup is expanding, viz., "“I must give the complaints of members of the LGBTTIQQ2SA community precedence when they indicate the participation of CAFE could directly undermine the participation of queer, lesbian and trans women in the Pride Parade,” said Bent." Let me see if I can guess the abbreviations: Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Two-Spirited Intersex Queer Questioning 2-Spirited (again?) Asexual What's next? Why not Polyamory, Slut, One-Night-Stand, Incest, and Sado-Masochist?

I was responding to your question quoted above. I already accept there are subtleties to a broad view of gender. That said, do you have any thoughts on my question: ?

I believe that if something is prevalent, then it's normal. Sexual bifurcation, or gender binary, in humans is normal. A few outlying cases doesn't change this fact, any more than the existence of a glazed portal halfway between a window and a door changes the fact that the categories of "window" and "door" are normal. That's like saying "Being a firefighter is about preference--someone wants to fight fires--not identity." Everything you prefer to do, or don't prefer to do, is part of your identity, including firefighting while gay.

It it possible to have a criminal at or above the age of reason, who, by virtue of circumstance has been so victimised, brutalised, or brainwashed as to be unaccountable for his actions? Or is there an age beyond which a person is instantly, suddenly, and totally accountable for everything they do?

Not for most people, it isn't, or else there would be no need to point out how nuanced gender is.

Everyone has a body map in their mind, NotDarkYet. Some people's maps map to the opposite sex, some people's map to a different race, some people's map to having missing limbs, some people's map to weighing 500 lbs, and some people's map to elvenkind with pointy ears. The only question is how much society should force other people to accommodate the physical expressions of these alternate mental maps.

Good find, MMX2010. A timely message. But how many of you saw the implication looming on the wide horizon? You're probably heterosexual, aren't you? Well, guess what's next! If female beauty is a myth, "programmed" into hetero males, then why isn't heterosexuality itself a myth, programmed into bisexuals? Shouldn't we all be bisexual? What's wrong with you if you're not bisexual? Everyone is "equal," right? The big bugaboo today is the white, heterosexual, cisgender male. View everything in that moniker as under attack by identity politicians wishing to "deconstruct" and "dismantle" these things for the greater benefit of the nonwhite, queer, trans, female, etc., nation (read: oligarchy). The method is to introduce so much strangeness, hypersexality, confusion, and angst that we'll all melt sexually into a big pot of blubbery bonobos. Better take off your heterosexuality and stuff it and mount it on the wall.

Finding it merely amusing or ridiculous is missing the larger danger, that the culture is being eaten. It is like noticing a single claw and saying, that claw is not very harmful in itself, do not worry about it, missing that the claw is attached to the predatory animal. All of the attacks of the animal will be of that small, ridiculous type, just little bites and scratches here and there. Eating the elephant one bite at a time.