Utopia Talk / Politics / Trans are not mentally insane

obaminated Member	Sun Jun 11 14:59:38 http://www...ng-voices-and-self-mutilating/ I am a backwards religious zealot for thinking someone who beats themselves bloody because they hear voices and then decides to have self mutilating surgery due to those voices must be mentally unwell. I love how Hollywood is glorifying this lunatic. I also love that this lunatic is literally a lunatic and will inevitably do something insane again in the near future. Either suicide or something, hopefully, less destructive and more of a wake up call for people who endorse transexuals... because suicide will just turn this lunatic in a tragic martyr
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 11 15:00:25 Into* a tragic martyr
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 15:23:07 people have been cross-dressing forever... i'm willing to believe some were trans w/ that being their only option to express it at the time (& not talking about drag queens which i assume is just for entertainment, though i know basically nothing about drag & haven't run into any of the epidemic of drag shows apparently going on)
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jun 11 16:14:55 "Trans" is not a real thing. It is a delusion. "Trans" is only the latest manipulation of people's delusions. There is no history of people being secretly "Trans" — only a history of people being delusional and exploitable by people who have a greater sense of causality. Eunuchs appear often in societies being enslaved since they provide a useful caste. With people such as Ellen Page, we are looking at the effects of propaganda. The asset managers are spending trillions of the public's own money in the West to convince them of the "trendy" necessity of surgically emasculating themselves and their children. Brought to you by ESG! Hollywood, being a hotbed of Regime propaganda, is highly affected. How prevalent are these self-emasculators? Not very. Even after all of the Regime's propaganda, they represent a low percentage of the population (most surveys seem to list lower than 1%). But how many popular people in *Hollywood* are "trans" (delusional) and adopting this Regime-sponsored ideology? Way. Too. Many. • Megan Fox has three sons. All were coerced into self-emasculation performances: http://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1667951854896963585 • Marcia Gay Harden (of "Meet Joe Black") has three children. All identify as "queer": http://www.etonline.com/marcia-gay-harden-opens-up-about-her-3-children-identifying-as-queer-204294 • The Wachowski *Brothers* are both delusional, with "Lilly" being married to a "trans-man" (a woman). How far he went to be straight! • Jamie Lee Curtis' son was deluded into thinking that he is a woman. A list of some more (some repeats): http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-moms/pictures/celebrity-parents-supporting-their-lgbtq-kids-pics/ And all actors *must* affirm LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA disorders to get work. All must support diets and Pharma drug-regimens that perpetuate the delusion through hormonal imbalances. All must be Borg. The prominence of this ideology — and "trans" is an *ideology* — is the product of war propaganda. People do not seem to realize that we are at war, and this is what Fifth Generation Warfare looks like. The biggest beneficiaries of this propaganda are China and Israel.
Dukhat Member	Sun Jun 11 17:28:21 Fucking reactionary retards. Even if you dont like trans people, why obsess over them? Cherub and obaminated have almost certainly never met a trans person. You are worthless dumbfucks obsessing over things that dont affect you at all to distract yourself from your own horrible lives.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 17:31:50 apparently kindergarten teachers are telling all their students they are trans & helping cut off their genitals (because ???)... or maybe that's not happening at all... hard to tell
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 17:43:13 however, Dems should definitely come out against the trans sports stuff, such a huge losing issue they don't seem to talk about it much at all, but R's come out so much against it & just paint D's as being all for it
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 11 17:59:00 "apparently kindergarten teachers are telling all their students they are trans" http://uto...hread=91728&time=1686493130855 Also happy to post examples of kindergarteners being taught about transgenderism by their teachers (though your purported ignorance of such examples seems disingenuous).
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 11 18:09:21 You'll have to forgive tw, this is a topic unrelated to the orange man so he is woefully ignorant. Hey cuckhat, your new buzzword seems to be "reactionary". I've seen you use this as an end all be all insult in every thread but I don't think you know what it means or how to apply it. Please articulate why this thread about Ellen page cutting off her tits because she heard voices and the left praising her for it is "reactionary". Assuming you mean more than I am "reacting" to something in the news by talking about it.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 11 18:21:47 "this is a topic unrelated to the orange man so he is woefully ignorant" not entirely inaccurate... though i do have to scroll through all the weird shit your side talks about on Twitter
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 11 20:49:42 Leftists are either disingenuous or lying. There are numerous instances of teachers bragging on social media about teaching children subversive materials, especially related to gender theory/race relations. We have official materials for K-3 in the Chicago area that aired, talking about patriarchy and colonizers and gender fluidity. No one batted an eye. Obviously this isn't some above-line statistic that can be turned into a nationwide metric to be debated. So lying leftists will pretend it isn't happening. Meanwhile new leftists are being cultivated and seeking out positions of power over kids, in law school, in journalism, in politics, while conservatives are teaching their kids to go blue-collar or STEM. Preaching their own demise. tw started innocently enough hating on Trump on Twitter. He fell into the depths and came out parroting literally every one of the official DNC lines.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 11 20:51:02 ignorant or lying* many low-IQ leftists are genuine enough, they are just getting their info from approved sources and are not seeing the plethora of their ilk bragging about their contributions to the future hivemind.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 12 08:15:50 tumbleweed: I find the whole discourse around Trans (thanks to US culture war) exhausting because it is crazy polarised. I think the correct answer is "it depends". The overall approach should be permissive and impose a legal requirement not to discriminate based on a transsexual gender identity - with some exceptions. Socially and official admin, you want to be identified as a particular gender? Sure. No problem. Medically, do we need to keep track of your sex at birth? Yeah actually that's important and sometimes we will need to ask you, please don't take offense. Safeguarding issues: are sex based, and risk based. If you are post bottom-op that will change how we approach it, prior to that legally we may impose some requirements before giving you a bit of paper changing your legal sex and making it illegal to discriminate based on your gender identity. However if habitually there isn't a check or sanction on access to a facility (e.g. restrooms) clearly it isn't a major risk element and the presumption should be to continue to rely on social norms. Access to GA surgery: as with any surgery, it's a discussion to have with doctors and I trust their professionalism. Sports: Depends on the sports, we have governing bodies for this, let them decide.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 12 08:16:52 Forwyn: He said "teaching people they ARE trans", not "teaching people about trans".
Dukhat Member	Mon Jun 12 08:26:26 Forskin gets dumber and dumber.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jun 12 09:13:56 [TDS Bot (learning disabled, low information)]: "apparently kindergarten teachers are telling all their students they are trans & helping cut off their genitals (because ???)..." [Rugian]: [separate thread] [obaminated]: "You'll have to forgive tw, this is a topic unrelated to the orange man so he is woefully ignorant." Fucking hell. Tw's ignorance is a sight. [Forwyn]: "ignorant or lying* many low-IQ leftists are genuine enough, they are just getting their info from approved sources and are not seeing the plethora of their ilk bragging about their contributions to the future hivemind." I could *almost* understand the left's ignorance on developments within some of these subjects.. about three years ago.. but how long does it take to figure it out? So that has to be it: just • pure echo chamber logic, • a misplaced trust in credentialism and Regime media, and • a chronic lack of curiosity. This ensnares them in the doublethink of the Celebration Parallax, where even when they are exposed to the next rung in the ladder (e.g., "even if that's happening.."), they automatically activate their Faith in Party and adopt the fallback position ("it's a good thing!"). Celebration Parallax explanation: [American Mind; Michael Anton; July 26th, 2021] http://ame...ening-and-its-good-that-it-is/ • A person caught in the Parallax will deny the Regime's position when the truth hurts but they are unaware that it is indeed true (e.g., "Conspiracy theory!"). • As obfuscation fails, they continuously take fallback positions while retaining no memory of their original objection with the truth (e.g., "It's not as bad as you say!"). • Once they learn the truth, they will celebrate it (e.g., "It's a good thing!"). Simultaneously, they will revert to "it's not happening" if the "good thing" is described in a bad way. (Others have made even more high-resolution lists than this) An example from low-information denial to high-information celebration: • Statement: "Critical Race Theory (CRT) is only taught in graduate school." • True response: "False; CRT is taught across all captured institutions, which includes core concepts which can be taught in day care via programs such as SEL." • Statement: "It *should* be taught! CRT is just teaching history!" • True response: "False; CRT teaches ahistorical concepts to build resentment, justify further lawfare, and perpetuate a march through the universities." • Party-Faithful Statement: "CRT is a good thing!" Regarding Kindergarten surgical emasculation propaganda and grooming: this is indeed happening. • People such as @BillboardChris build catalogues of whistleblowers and evidence chains (e.g., in-classroom videos, parent networks, policy watchers). • Laws in leftist states are being changed to allow State actors to have more authority over children than do their parents, which includes both medical and education-based provisions which allow educators and doctors to proceed with emasculation and grooming without parental consent or knowledge of any kind. • Military and government has been captured by the same lawfare via infiltrated DoD policy-makers, with Navy Nurses apparently feeling brazen enough to just say it outright ( http://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1646942049763991566 ). • Insurance companies and medical care providers are incentivized by ESG and CMS policies to adopt surgical and pharma options which allow them to transition children without consent (HRC dot org; an ESG rating index which lists things that medical, insurance, and ESG companies can do to boost their ESG scores — surgical emasculation is assigned valuable points which equate to millions of dollars of investment http://www.hrc.org/resources/corporate-equality-index-criteria ) • Almost every major corporation, including Disney, under ESG "stakeholder responsibility" as "sustainable" businesses, allots profit protions to leftist NGOs and LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA advocacy organizations, ensuring that trans propaganda grows (Disney ESG report, 2022: $5 million allotted to LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA organizations, $800 million directed to LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA supply lines; http://impact.disney.com/app/uploads/2023/04/2022-CSR-Report.pdf ) What you're looking at is total system capture to create a feedback loop of propaganda and surgical options. They pay all businesses, organizations, and governments (local, state, federal) to propagandize children and adults into feeling "wrong" in their own bodies, then they have monetized medical/pharma solutions which make these "wrong"-bodied people into lifelong patients — the persistence of the very identities of these "trans" people requiring constant medical intervention and drug regimens.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jun 12 09:15:13 [Regime Propaganda Repeater]: "Access to GA surgery: as with any surgery, it's a discussion to have with doctors and I trust their professionalism." ..speaking of leftist credentialism....
Seb Member	Mon Jun 12 13:09:04 Yeah, actually that's a great point CC. We don't want doctors to have credentials. Anyone should be able to offer medical services. Let the free market sort it out.
Pillz Member	Mon Jun 12 15:52:43 Seb can't actually be that dumb can he
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 12 16:51:58 Not on paper.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jun 12 19:55:43 "Not on paper." lol. Took me a second. :D [Regime Propaganda Repeater]: "We don't want doctors to have credentials. Anyone should be able to offer medical services." [Pillz]: "Seb can't actually be that dumb can he" I mean, probably? He does it so often.. His is the sort of low-IQ take that I'd expect on Imgur, since it's a willful distortion of my argument designed to "win" a straw man. For the low-IQ Sebs of the forum: The actual argument is that the Regime heavily relies on useful idiots to believe credentialed people (the "experts") without further examination of the opinions, arguments, and politics of those "experts". This "works" in a society where the credentialing institutions have rightfully earned the trust of the public, remain apolitical, and have theses which work independently of the institutions (i.e., objective). But that it not where we are. The trust has been burned, most institutions have been captured, and the Regime's theses contradict reality. Even the supposedly "apolitical" doctor, were he or she part of a central-health apparatus, is now an actor of the state, diagnosing not necessarily with sound reasoning but instead in accordance with the Regime's procedural guidelines. In the case of "trans" guidelines, a doctor of the central-health apparatus is likely to be a malicious actor who will sign up patients for MAID or surgical emasculation simply because government subsidies streamline and promote these routes of "treatment". They are even incentivized to make these diagnoses on racial lines, implementing the Regime's eugenics programs. That is, the "experts" in the medical profession have been incentivized by the Regime to *mis*-diagnose in order to retain their practices. At this point, the only doctors that can be trusted in the West are those in private practices (no federal dollars) or those who have managed to maintain their Regime positions despite opposing Regime politics — and this latter difficulty itself follows after the Regime did everything it could to pressure those doctors out of their fields during COVID via compliance politics. You best start believing in Bolshevik infiltration schemes — you're in one.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 12 22:28:48 "We don't want doctors to have credentials. Anyone should be able to offer medical services. Let the free market sort it out." Well, actually reducing mandatory credentials I'm certain cases has saved more lives. IE EMT's. The AMA, one of the most successful unions of all time claimed not having fully licensed doctors on ambulances would result in more deaths, the opposite was true.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 13 01:11:22 CC: What you mean is that professional classes can't be trusted to guide their clients (patients in this case) to decisions you don't agree with. You call this capture, but really what you mean is that they serve their clients (patients in this case) interests not your politics. This can't be allowed. So out comes the standard populist playbook: 1. Acuse them of the abuse of process you actually want to implement. 2. Delegitimise them (cReDeNtIaLIsM!!) 3. Present inserting your blanket national policy through legislation & this politicisiation of private matters into what was a previously a personal matter as depoliticising and getting the state out of people's lives (even though it's the opposite). While growling out the buzzwords of librarianism you are advocating authoritarianism.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 13 02:03:03 Seb is describing a gatekeeper system. It does not translate well to the US where the assumption is that cash is king. If something is conditionally legal if approved by a physician, then some doctor will eventually sign off on it if the money is good enough.
obaminated Member	Tue Jun 13 03:34:07 Seb. Ellen page found a physician who cut out her tits because a voice in her head told her if she did that she would be loved.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 13 04:39:01 Do you guys remember when seb was busy de-legitimizing scientists publishing papers on the lab leak hypothesis? Without an ounce of the effort that someone like CC has put into deconstructing and analyzing this topic, just based on tweets, he would smear them as fraudsters.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 13 06:44:34 Jergul: They can still be taken to court, struck off etc. if the conditions were not properly met. F.ex a common set of standards for top surgery are: * Well-documented and persistent gender dysphoria in the patient * Proof of the patient’s capacity to make informed decisions and consent to treatment * The patient must be over the age of majority in the country in which they wish to undergo surgery * Any significant mental or medical health concerns must be properly controlled at the time of surgery And if the conditions were met, then what is the issue? A private surgical practice is not going to perform surgery on someone if they think that person is mentally unfit because of the risk of litigation. Obaminated: That's not actually what the article says. It describes the source of his mental health issues as dysphoria - long running. Breitbart makes it sound like a single psychotic break was the motivation. Nim: I did not. Firstly, you made a bunch of stuff up which was not what I actually said. Secondly, I pointed out their work was sloppy and didn't make internal sense. Thirdly, I rather think you got buthurt because I said things about YOU which you decided applied to them because you were miss-charachterising what they said.
obaminated Member	Tue Jun 13 06:46:15 "Cutting up your body because you had a psychotic break is bad! Cutting up your body because you consistently hear voices is okay " Seb, you truly are a useful idiot.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jun 14 04:38:25 [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, and propaganda repeater]: "What you mean is that professional classes can't be trusted to guide their clients (patients in this case) to decisions you don't agree with." Are you even aware how much of an absolute straw man argument your whole comment was, you fucking retard? :) I bet you cannot even address the argument without lying or distorting like this. You really are a cretin. For those who are *not* mentally incapable / Sebbish: Seb is repeating the "free market" lie. That is, Seb, being retarded, thinks that a massive anti-competitive pyramid scheme and protection racket is just "free market" forces at work and that stopping those forces with government anti-racketeering laws would be "advocating authoritarianism." The absolute projection here should not be lost on anyone with an IQ over 100 (i.e., this will be lost on Seb). In reality, a massive collusion between nearly all businesses, governments, pharmaceutical companies, NGOs, educators, regulators, pension trustees, brokers, hospitals, and consultants based on the direct financing structure of asset managers manipulating markets is the very *antithesis* of free market (see this *actual* strategy on page 11 of the ESG formulation document http://www...s_wins_global_compact_2004.pdf ). Seb, however, being a perpetual Regime sycophant, really is too stupid to realize that totalitarianism is not somehow "good" just because the state accomplished it through propaganda, bureaucratic loopholes, and policies which survive only by tying-up courts with perpetual litigation. And, as a reminder, Seb is the same piece of shit who was fine with the literal revision of published works because "[free market can sell both versions!]" Hopeless people like this will stare at their firing squad and say, "Well, this procedure is certainly a proper following of proper protocols and an efficient way to —." [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, and propaganda repeater]: "F.ex a common set of standards for top surgery are:" This is the moderate's delusion: that "reasonable" conditions are applied to the extreme subject. A similar delusion is "safe, legal, and rare" regarding abortion. (How did that turn out?). Another is "'Defund' the police does not actually mean 'defund' the police." Another is, "The LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA flag on the White House was *sort of* supported by the Flag Code if you squint your reading comprehension, so it's okay." Fucking idiots such as Seb can be easily tricked into supporting extreme policies by being told that there are moderate "safeguards" in place, but then, of course, those extreme policies are implemented with heavy privacy shields so that idiots such as Seb who voted for these policies are denied access to the actual criteria, how counseling is handled, and the statistics of implementation. This allows them to go back into their Regime bubble and tell themselves that the extreme policy is "actually very reasonable. After all, the labor camps are self-sufficient and have safeguards for typhus outbreaks in the event of supply-line attacks." But, I at least appreciate Seb as a Poe's Law person. He cannot be real. No one is that retarded. He even made sure to use Ellen Page's delusional gender to signal his compliance with the Regime. [Obaminated]: "Seb. Ellen page found a physician who cut out her tits because a voice in her head told her if she did that she would be loved." Not only that, but Ellen Page admits in the same book (her book is why this info is coming out) that she was sexually abused as a child and when she entered Hollywood. There's that cycle of abuse again. That is, most "trans" people (and many gay people for that matter) were abused and groomed as children, with their dysphoria being the inappropriate reconciling of that abuse. Many actors are abused in Hollywood, precipitating their further psychotic spirals.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 06:32:46 CC: You are so parochial. "[free market can sell both versions!]" And that is exactly what happened. The fact is CC, when you boil it down, you are telling us that we should intervene (in this case) to stop grown adults getting cosmetic surgery because you regard the purpose of this cosmetic surgery to be "extreme". Which one of us is advocating to use the power of the state to block a matter of free choice? "use Ellen Page's delusional gender" His preferred gender. If that's how he wants to be referred to, who am I to refer to him differently?
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jun 14 08:22:10 [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, and straw man argument generator]: "His preferred gender. If that's how he wants to be referred to, who am I to refer to him differently?" lol. Taking the Party Line without a blink, like a proper Last Man. *She* is a girl. Objective witnesses to her delusion can rightly refer to her by her actual sex — which is female — by not taking part in her delusion. This is *especially* true since she is not even here and you are clearly performing her delusions for show in this forum as a Poe's Law account — communicating *not* that you respect her "gender" but that you respect the Regime's policies even when their Panoptic eye could be elsewhere. So "who am I...?" Well, in the case of you, you are a coward, so you lack the judging ability to break from hers and the Regime's delusion and thus take part in the mass psychosis of these many delusions of the state. But, if you possessed any rational discernment, you would not support her delusion. That is, individuals capable of judgment are fully capable of saying, "I am indeed someone who possess value and therefore *can* judge and *can* refer to her using actual reality, since I have a grasp of reality." You, being in the Regime simulation, cannot say this. You can only ask, "Who am I to judge?" knowing that the answer is that you are a coward and therefore cannot judge anything within the Regime to be "bad". [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, and straw man argument generator]: "You are so parochial." So says the Regime sycophant who keeps misinterpreting my words and can only see through the narrow portal of the Regime's worldview — and he blinks! :) [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, and straw man argument generator]: "The fact is CC, when you boil it down, you are telling us that we should intervene (in this case) to stop grown adults getting cosmetic surgery because you regard the purpose of this cosmetic surgery to be "extreme"." lol. Another straw man. You really cannot comprehend my argument, as simple as it is, and your entire disingenuous strategy relies on misinterpreting anything outside of the Regime's narrative. [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, and straw man argument generator]: "Which one of us is advocating to use the power of the state to block a matter of free choice?" You are. Again, Seb cannot hear this because he is mentally impotent, but for others: It is not "free choice"... ...to use a massive collusion between nearly all businesses, governments, pharmaceutical companies, NGOs, educators, regulators, pension trustees, brokers, hospitals, and consultants based on the direct financing structure of asset managers manipulating markets ...in order to funnel into ready-made strategies confused people who were abused by pedos and groomers. Or, more shortly: completely denying people choice while instead corralling them with a limited number of Regime-useful "appropriate" and "self-affirming" solutions to the Regime's own problems is not choice but deception. It is a deterministic false choice. It is the "choice" that cattle have when they have already entered the chute and are left only with Pablo Ibbieta's final internal gnashings. An example regarding abortion: • An un-coerced *individual* can make the statement that having the *choice* to abort is important for protecting bodily autonomy against abuses of the state (e.g., a Regime which rapes and demands carriage of invader children). On an individual level, this choice has power for a rational being as a final defense, and this choice is guarded from having to even be made by having the further defenses of morality (e.g., by being selective about relationships in the first place and by preventing this state power). • But, scaling up, that is not what the *Regime* is offering. The Regime offers "choice" in abortion as a deception. "Choice" here is in fact a funnel which deceives women into abandoning morality, selective preferences, and familial relationships such that the will is subsumed/funneled to the Regime's own final decision. The "choice" offered is thus a funnel into eugenics/dysgenics, culling in target areas, demoralization, and destruction of Western family structures. The Regime would not offer this "choice" if it did not grant them power. • And *why* would the Regime deny true choice? The Regime *denies* individualism as a choice mechanism since individualism creates competing visions of society — visions which compete with the Regime's vision. The Regime *hates* individualism, preferring instead collectivism. Collectivism is *antithetical* to choice. Collectivism demands *compliance* with the Regime's centralized imperatives. • So, whenever a collectivist (e.g., the Regime), offers you "choice", truly they are offering you compliance or annihilation — and most often those are the same thing in a different order ("Thank you for complying! Here is your annihilation!" / "You 'choose' annihilation? Thank you for complying!"). Seb is merely preaching compliance and annihilation. "Choice" is the semantic lie that Seb (as the Regime) uses to distort this true imperative. So, *my* argument, which Seb continuously evades with straw men, *actually* is that the Regime needs to remove itself from these collectivist and deterministic strategies so that individuals have *actual* choice — free from Regime coercion. An *actual* free market. Additionally, • Monopolies are illegal. • Anti-competitive schemes are illegal. • Pyramid schemes are illegal. • Protection rackets are illegal. The Regime's anti-competitive pyramid scheme and protection racket needs to be destroyed for the illegal apparatus that it is, such that they can no longer spend trillions of dollars convincing Western children to surgically self-emasculate on behalf of BRICS+ conquerors. I realize that a disempowered totalitarian Regime leaves pathetic Last Men such as Seb without a mind, since collectivist men without conscience must look to the Regime to fill their thoughts, and, without having such a Regime to tell them what to think about every issue, they devolve into uninhabited, comatose bodies. Even so, consciousness is a great gift, and people such as Seb who evade it for their entire lives might even learn that they still have it (somewhere?) if the Regime is no longer paying trillions of dollars to tell them *not* to have it.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 08:37:35 CC: "lol. Taking the Party Line without a blink, like a proper Last Man." Or just basic decency. "she is not even here" And? If I thought it was disrespectful to deliberately refer to people in ways they did not like; why would I behave differently if he were here to if he were not? This is the kind of coward mentality you have that you project on others. "using actual reality" The actual reality is that he wants to be referred to as a him - and his chromosomes and primary sex characteristics are irrelevant as an identifier. It's kind of like insisting on referring to people by their name on their birth certificate instead of how they introduce themselves to you. "misinterpreting my words" I really am not. You on the other hand are reading a hell of a lot of imaginary stuff into mine. But as I say, you have a very parochial outlook that is firmly entrenched into a specifically US context. It leads you to misunderstand and misinterpret a lot. "You are." Nope. "It is not "free choice"... ...to use a massive collusion between nearly all businesses, governments, pharmaceutical companies, NGOs, educators, regulators, pension trustees, brokers, hospitals, and consultants based on the direct financing structure of asset managers manipulating markets ...in order to funnel into ready-made strategies confused people who were abused by pedos and groomers." Ah, the old "False Consciousness" argument so often made by Marxists and other would-be totalitarians.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 08:39:24 By indulging people's stated preferences, we are actually taking away their choice and oppressing them because they are suffering from false consciousness imposed by the state. Only CC knows their true preferences. Only CC can be trusted to make the right decisions.
Rugian Member	Wed Jun 14 08:51:53 "By indulging people's stated preferences, we are actually taking away their choice and oppressing them because they are suffering from false consciousness imposed by the state." Now apply this logic to a schizophrenic and tell us about how we should indulge their delusions because they know what's best for them.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jun 14 09:16:58 "Now apply this logic to a schizophrenic" Can it be fixed with cosmetic surgery? If not, then seb has a water tight case here. If your mental illness compels you to have cosmetic surgery, then it isn't a mental illness, but a human rights issue. My question is, what if your mental illness just compels you to throw up food or starve yourself into a skeleton? Should the rest of society affirm this? Consider that she says she is happy throwing up food or weighing in at 35 kg as an adult female. We have already done this with obesity, we should aim for a full house in obliterating womanhood.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jun 14 09:34:59 Body dysmorphia of all kinds is much more prevalent in young girls going through puberty. Seems to have fairly straightforward folksy explanation. They just have A LOT more going on during puberty than boys, both in terms of hormone highs and lows, but also far more intrusive changes to their bodies as well as having to deal with periods. Around puverty girls also start getting all kinds of attention and looks from boys, which may not always be appreciated especially if you are lesbian. Not to forget the decades of feminist propaganda about how horrible life is for women. How many chesterton's fences has been demolished and what demons did they let out? It is is particularly sad/funny because seb is the same guy who laments fixing social problems with technology, when it comes to the economic system, but will happily go along with letting children sterilize themselves.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 11:01:53 Nim: Pointing out that problems that at their heart are social in nature cannot open be fixed by technology (e.g. centralisation of power can't be resolved by cryptography because it simply changes the nature of power and centralises it elsewhere) is not the and thing as lamenting technology where it can be a solution to a problem. An individual wanting to change their gender identity isn't a social problem. A social problem is how to reconcile sex based safeguarding needs while also avoiding discrimination against individuals wishing to adopt a gender identity different to their sex.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jun 14 12:25:20 Social organization is itself technology; literally, it's just systems and hierarchies that we have created, and they are often dependent on other forms of technology to be maintained. So, you are off to a horrible start. Can you imagine a liberal democracy in the 14th century, assuming the necessary intellectual work was done? No, because such a complex social organization is dependent on a bunch of institutions that can only exist and be maintained through other technology. Why even venture that far? The whole entry of women into the workplace and becoming whor.. I mean onlyfan models as they were "sexual liberated" are facilitated by sanitary facilities and contraceptives. I think you will have a hard time drawing demarcations between different forms of technology that isn't very arbitrary and outright silly. More importantly, though, I belong to a different school of problem-solving that only cares about how well a solution solves a problem. We can attribute various qualities to the notion of "well," but we never need to limit ourselves by the principle that problems must be solved by the same fabric they arise from. I have no idea why you would suggest such a foolish thing in the first place. Are you not the same person who asserts that "gender" is divorced from sex and socially contingent? It sounds like a social problem, especially when considering the decades of harmful feminist propaganda that has portrayed women as merely "surviving" or survivors of the PATRIARCHY. You people created a social innovation to dismantle fences you didn't see a use for. It mutated, just like viruses do, and is now contributing to mental health problems. And your proposed solution is sterilizing cosmetic surgery. How do you not see that this is precisely like any other kind of body dysmorphia that women have been trying to address with cosmetic surgery? It is all fueled by female anxiety, intra-sex competition, and modern marketing. How do you fail to understand these things? However, you did not address the questions. Should bulimia, anorexia, and schizophrenia also be affirmed by society? For instance, should we build special vomitoriums so that people can vomit up their food in peace?
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 12:47:50 Nim: Semantics. Yawn. You don't want to understand the point being made.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 12:49:01 "Should bulimia, anorexia, and schizophrenia also be affirmed by society?" Should homosexuality?
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 12:53:44 "How do you not see that this is precisely like any other kind of body dysmorphia that women have been trying to address with cosmetic surgery?" Firstly, is it? That's an assertion without evidence. Secondly, if it is in fact true, which seems doubtful to me, isn't this an argument for banning any elective cosmetic surgery, and if not, why not?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jun 14 13:13:29 Not my problem that your idea is so poorly thought out, it does not survive disambiguation of the semantics. Technology is any application of knowledge to solve problems. I am in that sense platform agnostic as to how problems are best solved in what domain or combination of domains. "Seb Member Wed Jun 14 12:49:01 "Should bulimia, anorexia, and schizophrenia also be affirmed by society?" Should homosexuality?" Is that what you believe? "Firstly, is it? That's an assertion without evidence." Honestly, I am shocked that you have a wife and daughter, presumably they have other female friends and you have never picked up any of the female pathology. Like clueless to the toxic in femininity, which unlike the masculine is projected inward into various self-harm behavior. Clueless and lacking the curiosity to figure it out. This is how empathy towards a group, women, ends up putting a lot of pressure on them, you know, to be mothers, make careers, worry about the present, be DA FUTURE! Giving them false hopes, pumping their heads with delusions and pulling the rug from under their feet at the same time telling them they live in an oppressive patriarchy. You are part of a social problem seb and it is hurting women more than men. Seriously. Like I am trying to get through to you! Everywhere you look, it's the women's bathroom, it is women's sport, women's prison, all the "TERFs" getting cancelled and harassed are women. You are hurting women. "isn't this an argument for banning any elective cosmetic surgery" No, it is an argument for not affirming it. It is the same argument I make for prostitution or any number of other socially undesirable outcomes, but principally indefensibly for me to ban. Fine, go and be a prostitute, I won't drag you to jail, but don't expect my support, help or any shit like that. It is, hilariously enough a pure social and cultural solution and obviously one of mental well being. Not surgery.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 17:45:00 Nim: "Aha, view what if we refer to innovations in governance and social practices with the term technology, then this social technology solves social problems, see you were quite wrong" No nim, that's you agreeing with me, but pretending you disagree with me, by simply repeating the underlying concept I was originally conveying to you but relabeling the concept.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 17:45:41 It's also possible you never understood the point in the first place.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 17:51:11 In any case, this isn't "lamenting" solutions to problems. It's like saying "unfortunately magic genies aren't real" is equivalent to "hating magic genies". The kind of thing only the most idiotic of hack pundits do. Clearly you have been rotting your brains.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 17:54:01 "Is that what you believe?" I'm asking you whether you believe it.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 17:58:49 "but don't expect my support," I don't think anyone expects your support nim. I think they expect you to mind your own business. Which means if you can't refer to people according to the identifiers they introduce themselves to you as, probably best to avoid being in social situations and interactions with them.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 14 17:59:09 In any case, this isn't "lamenting" solutions to problems. It's like saying "unfortunately magic genies aren't real" is equivalent to "hating magic genies". The kind of thing only the most idiotic of hack pundits do. Clearly you have been rotting your brains.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 15 04:45:55 "Seb Member Wed Jun 14 17:45:00 Nim:" You fabricated a sentence and put it in quotation marks, then you responded to it as if I had said. Rotting brain you said? I accept your concession that “technology cannot solve social problem”, is a poorly thought-out idea. Even with a very narrow definition of technology as digital technology specifically, it is a stupid rule of thumb or principle to impose on policy making a problem solving. The idea that cryptography can solve centralization of wealth and power, is a really primitive strawman. I have repeatedly explained it in simple terms that even you could understand. It is simply about rebuilding a house with all the lesson learned over hundreds of years, but free of the baggage and legacy. IMO crypto is the most serious project to rebuild the house. I am as I said agnostic towards the technology be it the merkle trees that you are so fond of or actual tree or whatever, I don’t care, it is simply about rebuilding a system. "I'm asking you whether you believe it." Bad manners to answer questions with questions. However if you admit that I have been correct, and these things indeed are confusing for you, no shame in this, I will be a proper gentleman about it and then I will explain for you the difference between bulimia, anorexia, schizophrenia, gender dysphoria compared to homosexuality. I promise. I will do this despite knowing how badly you mangled rebuilding a house explanation. I will take the risk if there is a chance I can help you gain your footing again. “Which means if you can't refer to people according to the identifiers they introduce themselves to you as, probably best to avoid being in social situations and interactions with them.” I reject your attempt to reduce the topic to personal identifiers. Try again.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jun 15 06:50:36 “I think they expect you to mind your own business.” Oh, right. I can’t mind my own business when your ilk starts to remodel our shared languages to distort our shared reality. It certainly became my business when my son came home and told me there is male, female and many other “sexes”. You are trying so very very hard to not understand the problems that people have with all of this. Constantly repacking the discussion into one of “evil vs human rights”. Honest question, why?
Forwyn Member	Thu Jun 15 07:42:30 Layla Jane is a biological female who sought mental health treatment at age 12 for various emotional and behavioral issues. Various Kaiser doctors, rather than give Layla Jane the care she needed, seized on her confusion about her gender and placed her on the “gender affirming care” pipeline with a series of damaging transgender treatments, including off-label puberty and cross-sex hormones. Layla Jane’s doctors removed her breasts when she was just 13 years old. http://www...aiser-hospital-foundation-inc/
Seb Member	Thu Jun 15 10:00:06 Nim: "You fabricated a sentence and put it in quotation marks," In this context, the quotes indicate a representative but hypothetical train of thought. And yes, that's what you are doing. You are redefining what was clearly in context a reference to physical technology to encompass social technologies; and my entire original point was such problems could only be addressed by "social solutions" like different approaches to governance etc. which you explicitly define the term "social technology" to cover. And somehow you've contrived an entirely made up idea that I'm lamenting such solutions.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 15 10:04:41 Nim: I am looking forward for you explaining why trans sexuality is more like Schizophernia than Homosexuality.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 15 10:05:29 "I can’t mind my own business when your ilk starts to remodel our shared languages to distort our shared reality." Go speak another language then.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 16 05:28:55 "In this context, the quotes indicate a representative but hypothetical train of thought." Just deal with the things that are said, as they are said, skip the hypothetical stuff as your mental model of me is horrible. "You are redefining what was clearly in context a reference to physical technology to encompass social technologies" It was not clear in context and, as I have touched on, it does not matter if you are talking about digital technology or any specific domain of technology, you should only care about how well a solution solves a problem. You then further undermine this wreck of an "argument" you are making, with a strawman about cryptography. There is nothing to salvage in the rubble. "such problems could only be addressed by "social solutions" like different approaches to governance etc." I disagree that such problems can *only be* etc. There are social problems that emerge out of the systems themselves, novel problems but also through turning evolutionary pathways maladaptive. In that light I view crypto as a chance to rebuild a system, you innovate because you can only do so much renovating. You either understand the power in building a new or you don't. "I am looking forward for you explaining why trans sexuality is more like Schizophernia than Homosexuality." Not as much as I am looking forward to hearing "You are correct Nimatzo, this trans stuff is very confusing to me." I will explain in one single sentence or 12 words. "Go speak another language then." The third grade bully called and wants her line back.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 16 05:54:43 Nim: "it does not matter if you are talking about digital technology or any specific domain of technology," It clearly does is my point. What I said at the time is that the fundamental idea of the Blockchain as a solution to the centralisation of power in societies doest work because it's trying to address a problem about how society operates and mistaking that as being a problem about how networks are architected and the role of intermediaries. Decentralising the network doesn't decentralise the structures built on top of it. Wealth and power still accumulate and ultimately allow the effective control of the network to be centralised. The only solution to wealth and power accumulation is indeed a social technology - f.ex. democratic governments, tax and redistribution. This pattern of trying to solve a social problem with a technology isn't confined to crypto, its actually a common problem. Cf. "Electricity too cheap to meter". "The third grade bully called and wants her line back." Hey, you are the one that thinks you have a case because you don't like that people are using language to articulate concepts you don't agree with.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 16 06:33:32 "doest work because it's trying to address a problem about how society operates" The financial system and how money works are a fundamental part of why society operates the way it does. "and mistaking that as being a problem about how networks are architected and the role of intermediaries." You may be mistaking it for that, I just want to build things from the ground up. The salient point here is that once you are free of having to work around legacy and drag the luggage with you, everywhere you go, a lot of innovative solutions emerge as not only possible but there in the first place. I will waste humility, I am not saying I know it will succeed, I am not saying I have a little book with all the ways in which crypto can solve a bunch of problems, but that it is the best and most serious attempt at redoing the financial system and money. A true systems person would appreciate that, at the very least. "Decentralising the network doesn't decentralise the structures built on top of it. Wealth and power still accumulate and ultimately allow the effective control of the network to be centralised." If it can't solve everything, it can solve nothing. "This pattern of trying to solve a social problem with a technology" The pattern of applying poor solutions to problems isn't confined to any specific problem or domain of knowledge. It is usually the result of first order thinking and not understanding what the problem is. This isn't a point of contention. "concepts you don't agree with." Concepts that don't align with reality. 12 words, just waiting to dispel your confusion.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 16 07:03:08 Nim: "The financial system and how money works are a fundamental part of why society operates the way it does." And those, believe it or not, are not technical issues. They are social issues. Which is why the first thing that happened in crypto trading was every single financial fraud and malpractice was immediately put into operation on an industrial scale using crypto networks - because crypto replaced all of the social technologies like regulation, robust legal frameworks, compliance processes etc. having identified "trust" as a problem, rather than the solution to these issues. They misunderstood the social problems these institutions and social technologies solved, and instead diagnosed them as at route a problem derived from a technical need for an intermediary - rather than a desirability to have markets and market operators operating both transparently and independently. And in trying to eliminate the technical need for an intermediary they created a host of additional problems like hard non-repudiation which is actually a bad thing, not a good thing.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 16 07:09:30 As an attempt to "re-do" the financial system it basically failed dramatically because it misdiagnosed the problems and put all of its efforts into re-imagining the bits that worked while removing all the things that prevented much worse problems. It was doomed to failure - and it failed in exactly the way people predicted it would. And the pattern of the failure is as I say: it tried to treat a social problem (the need for trusted intermediaries in order to manage and reconcile inevitable disputes between parties, and the rents those trusted intermediaries can extract) with a technical one (the need for intermediaries to process transactions, which could in principle be removed, provided you are willing to forgo effective mechanisms for resolving disputes between parties and instead axiomatically treat the actual execution of the code as the highest authority).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 16 09:07:31 "And those, believe it or not, are not technical issues. They are social issues." I have, in no uncertain terms, explained to you that your demarcation of different kinds of knowledge and their application is incoherent. This is a non-sequitur, I honestly have no idea what you are even talking about. "They misunderstood" Who are "they"? There are thousands of projects, only 1 needs to succeed, failing is just part of the journey. You are really missing the point of starting fresh, badly. To put it another way, there are many many thousands of people now busy trying to build the one that succeeds. P.S Hallucinations, delusions and/or self-harm behavior are not inherent to being gay. 12 words. Your welcome.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 16 09:11:05 The fact that throughout all these discussion, you have not even *once* asked me, exactly which specific problems I think crypto is going to solve, is very telling. You are not really interested in engaging in any serious understanding or discussion, you are just here to spout off. If there ever was a physical manifestation of the "debate bro", you would be it.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 16 11:03:03 Urgh, internet ate my reply. "I have, in no uncertain terms, explained to you that your demarcation of different kinds of knowledge and their application is incoherent." You have repeatedly said you consider it incoherent. But that is simply an error on your part. "You are really missing the point of starting fresh, badly." I'm not. None of them will ever succeed in the way you want - creation of a newer, fairer, better financial system - because fundamentally they don't address the root cause of failure and contain within them the same problems. It is like watching Wile E Coyote repeatedly pain tunnels on a mountain. None will ever work for him - no matter what different paint or brush he uses - because the problem isn't in the paint and brush. You also seem to forget that very early on in our convos on crypto you enumberated why it is you support crypto and what it is you wanted to see from a decentralised system and why. So claiming I have never asked is redundant - you told me at length. Finally, terming transexuality a delusion: Why is it a delusion to believe that you "ought" to be in a body of different sex to the one you were born? "ought" is something that comes from the mind, not the body. In principle it is no more than determining you "ought" to change any other part of your appearance. And if the person is happier in the outcome, is there really harm? And a hundred odd years ago people would have told you that romantic love between two people of the same sex, and them getting married, was a delusion also. Hell in recent memory people were regularly attempting to treat this belief as a delusion and cure people of it. Trying to characterise transexuality as a pathology isn't something with a great deal of pedigree as an idea.
Forwyn Member	Fri Jun 16 20:10:20 There is a vast difference between romantic attraction and pretending you are something you are not. Dylan Mulvaney wearing a dress doesn't necessitate his use of tampons. You can believe you are a dog, and if that makes you happier, have at it. But BlackRock shouldn't be getting Fortune 500s and all legacy media to circle the wagons around the fantasy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 18 17:31:09 "fundamentally they don't address the root cause of failure" Well considering that you do not understand words and their meaning, I have very little faith in your "root cause" analysis of failure. I am content knowing that for the first time ever, there are thousands and thousands of people are working on building the rails of a better financial system. Anyone who wants a better financial system should be happy knowing that. I have no idea why you would be against this, it's about as mind boggling as if someone told me they were against research for better cancer meds. Debate bro's gonna debate, bro! "So claiming I have never asked is redundant - you told me at length." Name 3. "Why is it a delusion to believe that you "ought" to be in a body of different sex to the one you were born?" "And if the person is happier in the outcome, is there really harm?" Wanting to irreperably mutilate your body, because you feel you are born in the wrong body, is a delusional, hallucinatory self-harm behavior. A mental health issue. There are billions of people. Strange things happen every day. You know that beautiful mind guy, totally ok not taking his meds. Not to be prescribed for everyone suffering from schizophrenia. We don't affirm and encourage people with schizophrenia to give into the hallucations, we don't LARP along to affirm their mental health problems in physical reality. It would unethical, but barbaric is a better word. ""ought" is something that comes from the mind" As do delusions and hallucinations. "And a hundred odd years ago people would have told you that romantic love between two people of the same sex," And they were wrong, like they were wrong about other things, but they were also right about things and stuff. Not everything we believe today isn't going to turn out wrong tomorrow. Do you foresee us de-listing bullemia and anorexia as a mental health disorder? Create online campaign of smiling girls with puke on their shirts, teach kindergartners how to best starve themselves. I even have a medical example for you.I "stumbled" upon this matter, researching fetal brain development. Before the 20th century, it was widely accepted that newborns and children were more sensitive to pain, you know it is intuitive, they are small and sensitive things generally. Then something happened and the scientific consensus that emerged, so that until the 80's and 90's, (examples well into the 2000's), was that newborns couldn't experience pain because the cortex isn't fully developed, hmm where I have heard that argument before? In practical terms, it meant that invasive surgeries were preformed on newborns (up to 18 months!), like thorax surgery, without anesthesia or analgesia. Sometimes, they would give some relaxant, to stop the thrashing around so the surgeon could do the job. Turns out, babies feel pain just fine(!) and medical consensus led to long lasting damage, as a study showed. You think I am kidding, but it's real. Turns out people were correct 200 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies "As recently as 1999, it was widely believed by medical professionals[2] that babies could not feel pain until they were a year old,[3] but today it is believed newborns and likely even fetuses beyond a certain age can experience pain."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 18 17:47:33 I misspoke I meant 15 months.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 18 17:49:50 http://www...-went-unchallenged-832387.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/07/28/when-babies-felt-pain/Lhk2OKonfR4m3TaNjJWV7M/story.html#:~:text=Up%20until%20the%20mid%2D1980s,thrashing%20around%20during%20the%20operation. Fucking wild that medical research mind fucked themselves into thinking about brain development as discrete disconnected units. Ooo look a cortext!
Seb Member	Mon Jun 19 04:00:48 Nim: "building the rails of a better financial system" I mean that's the point, it is objectively a worse one. But lets not get off topic. "Name 3." I do not remember your precise words, but the gist of it was around decentralisation of power away from bodies like national banks, governments, big financial institutions etc. "irreperably mutilate your body," There's a value judgement there though right. This is the same argument rolled out against tattoos. "As do delusions and hallucinations." Hmm, but you are elevating some norms/preferences to an objective baseline. There is a circularity to the idea that desiring to change your body to match a preference is inherently delusional and is itself proof of delusion. "And they were wrong," And maybe you are now? I mean who can say what is objectively correct here? If someone wants to re-shape their gonads and are subsequently happier that way, who are you or I to say that this is wrong/delusional in itself? This is obviously different to bulimia and anorexia in that unchecked this leads to illness and death and the individuals are often not happy and will never be happy with their level of food intake.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 19 06:11:37 Re pain in babies, what is your point? That medical consensus can be wrong? That could equally apply to you too. More so when the regret rates for trans surgery is lower than nearly all other elective surgery.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 19 06:16:25 "I do not remember your precise words, but the gist of it was around decentralisation of power away from bodies like national banks, governments, big financial institutions etc." This is half, I want to diminish the power of the banking class, and we now have thousands and thousands of people working on the problem, by building systems with different incentives. I Honestly though, I think you should concentrate on main issue. "There's a value judgement there though right. This is the same argument rolled out against tattoos." "Hmm, but you are elevating some norms/preferences to an objective baseline." Who ever raised that argument about tattoos was wrong, this is just another version of "people were wrong back in the day", now it's some people are wrong about other things. I'm pretty sure it is a logical fallacy. Anyway, wanting to get tattooed does not inherently involve hallucations, delusions and can not in any meaningful sense be described as "mutilation". I can keep bringing up bulemia, schizophrenia and anorexia, you have yet to break that symmetry. "And maybe you are now?" Anything is possible, but possibility does not an argument make. Do you have any arguments? "This is obviously different to bulimia and anorexia in that unchecked this leads to illness and death" It is a mental health issues that has many more times higher suicide rates and mortality is higher after surgery, specifically suicide stands out. Mortality rate as you suggest, by itself, does not break the symmetry, different illnesses have different prognosis, they are pathological nonetheless. It's very simple, you have a delusion or hallucination, happening your mind, that the physical world, specifically your physical body isn't the correct sex. You are willing to cut off your breasts, removes your testes, never have an orgasm, or children, have a lot of surgery so you can pretend that you have changed your sex. And you think you can decide all this when you literally a child and your brain is nowhere near fully developed where you can understand the ramifications of your choices. In most civilized countries, for this very reason, we treat juvenile delinquents differently. You did something stupid kid, but we are not going to throw away the rest of your life over it. Not with sexually confused children, send them to surgery. Be reasonable seb.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 19 07:14:52 Nim: Ok, but then your argument collapses to "they were wrong, I'm not wrong". The underlying mistake in the two examples is that it takes a position that is one individual's norm, and elevates it to "objectivity", and then says any other individual that expresses different norms or preferences is a deviation from this objective reality and therefore delusional. So for you, someone undergoing an operation that might inhibit a natural capability of the body is mutilation, and someone wanting to do it is evidently delusional. But then, if someone has breast reduction or enhancement which might affect their ability to breastfeed - is that delusional? "wanting to get tattooed does not inherently involve hallucations" I mean that's just being selective about what you deem to be a hallucination. "I feel better about myself inhabiting a body that is as close to the sex of my preference as possible" is no more a hallucination than "I feel better about myself with a giant flaming snake tattooed on my back", or "I think I'm more aesthetically pleasing with different shaped breasts". Both, ultimately, are qualia that only the individual can judge. Two can cause irreversible loss of some function, but again, that's not inherently bad. The question one needs to ask is simply whether the person's preferences are likely to be enduring and coming from a permanent state of mind; out whether they are symptoms of some transitory state of mind (comorbidities of some underlying condition subject to some other intervention that might change their preference). So sure, one should not allow a child to rush into transitioning if they are struggling with a mix of conditions. And medical professional ethics (plus, you know, legal liability) is such that generally they don't. We don't need broad brush legislation here. These issues are already covered.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 19 07:20:07 Also, I'm not sure you are well informed on the consequence and impact of trans surgery. http://www...e%20no%20surgical%20treatment. "TAKE-HOME MESSAGE The authors evaluated the prevalence of sexual dysfunction in trans women and trans men 4 to 6 years after their transition. They also compared sexual dysfunction associated with various treatment/surgical options. A total of 518 individuals (307 trans women, 211 trans men) completed follow-up surveys. Difficulty initiating and seeking sexual contact were reported in 26% of trans women and 32% of trans men. Difficulty achieving orgasm was reported in 29% and 15% of trans women and trans men, respectively. Trans women who underwent vaginoplasty reported fewer arousal difficulties (15.9% vs 33.3%) and less sexual aversion (9.1% vs 20%) compared with those who had undergone no surgical treatment. Meanwhile, trans men undergoing phalloplasty also reported less sexual aversion (3% vs 28%) compared with those who had not undergone surgical management. Although rates of sexual dysfunction among trans men and women are much lower in those undergoing medical or surgical treatment, a substantial portion still report sexual dysfunction" (This isn't me finding the best review paper, this is me just checking my recollection that is perfectly possible to get bottom surgery and still have an orgasm, given the implied claim of the opposite - so take what you will from it, but the implication is bottom surgery improves sexual function in those transitioning).
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jun 19 22:36:33 [CC]: "lol. Taking the Party Line without a blink, like a proper Last Man." [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, projection bot, gas-lighter, and straw man argument generator]: "Or just basic decency." That fallacious pathos argument is cute, Seb. Did you learn that in your middle school English class on the pathos-logos-ethos triangle? Did your teacher forget to tell you that pure-pathos arguments typically only work on or are engaged by stupid people? [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, projection bot, gas-lighter, and straw man argument generator]: "And? If I thought it was disrespectful to deliberately refer to people in ways they did not like; why would I behave differently if he were here to if he were not? This is the kind of coward mentality you have that you project on others." Gotta love how Seb tried to project here by saying that *I'm* projecting. This is another middle school tactic (middle school being the moment in history when Seb's intellect froze): "I know you are but what am I?" lol In reality, Seb's argument is pathetic for obvious reasons: Ellen Page is not here. She cannot be pleased by Seb's demonstration of Faith in Party via Seb's low-IQ use of Ellen's false pronouns. I, however, *am* here. Would it not displease a real and present person *more* than an absent one? That is, does it not make more sense for Seb to use Ellen's *actual* pronouns (she/her) because it would please *me*? Yes, but this lack of logic shows that Seb's deception is not based in an actual pathos plea; it is based purely in demonstrations of his Faith in Party. Seb will say what he has to say to adhere to the Regime's politics. He has no mind for anything else. That is the only consistency in Seb's arguments: Faith in Party. [CC]: "That is, individuals capable of judgment are fully capable of saying, "I am indeed someone who possess value and therefore *can* judge and *can* refer to her using actual reality, since I have a grasp of reality." You, being in the Regime simulation, cannot say this. You can only ask, "Who am I to judge?" knowing that the answer is that you are a coward and therefore cannot judge anything within the Regime to be "bad"." [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, projection bot, gas-lighter, and straw man argument generator]: "The actual reality is that he wants to be referred to as a him" lol. This is an incredible admission by Seb, and people should really focus on this to see how broken Seb's mind truly is. :D The *actual* reality is that no matter what Ellen Page does to *her* body, she will always be a woman. There is no point in her life when she will possess the true and intrinsic traits which make a man a man. Women interested in men will have an immediate disgust reaction at the sight of Ellen. The emasculation surgery scars are permanent, and a vestigial "penis" would be merely re-allocated and comparatively senseless flesh. *This* is reality, and denying it is merely a demonstration that one has joined the Gnostic Cult — the "Red Dragon" domain where one falsely believes in a state of terminal "becoming" — a becoming which ignores the true maturity of the body into what is inherent (as girl to woman, boy to man) and instead seeks to "become" what is impossible (as woman to man, man to dragon). Francis Dolarhyde will *never* be the Great Red Dragon. Ellen Page will *never* be a man. These false becomings are delusions — only true in parable, and forgetting the parable is to lose to delusion (Kafka). So, Seb's hilarious response here is best re-stated as such: [Original Seb Deception]: "The actual reality is that he wants to be referred to as a him" [The Argument Seb Actually Made]: "The actual reality is [the delusion]." Seb is flatly calling delusion "reality". *That* is the final state of Seb's mind. This is the same fool who thought that math was not a language but a being in itself. Seb has willingly entered the Regime Matrix and is playing totally by its delusional rules. [CC]: "So says the Regime sycophant who keeps misinterpreting my words and can only see through the narrow portal of the Regime's worldview — and he blinks! :)" [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, and straw man argument generator]: "I really am not." Yes, you are. Absolutely you are. And *I* demonstrated this, while you can only project and assert in pathetic obfuscation and deception. You continuously have no arguments, devolving instead to one-word answers which reveal you to be capable of little more than asymmetric troll-bait; I write a paragraph, and you say, "no u" to mask your inefficacy. [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, projection bot, gas-lighter, and straw man argument generator]: "Which one of us is advocating to use the power of the state to block a matter of free choice?" [CC]: "You are. / Again, Seb cannot hear this because he is mentally impotent, but for others: It is not "free choice"... ...to use a massive collusion between nearly all businesses, governments, pharmaceutical companies, NGOs, educators, regulators, pension trustees, brokers, hospitals, and consultants based on the direct financing structure of asset managers manipulating markets ...in order to funnel into ready-made strategies confused people who were abused by pedos and groomers." [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, projection bot, gas-lighter, and straw man argument generator]: "Nope." Case in point. I *twice* explain in detail how Seb is wrong and is falsifying the use of "free choice", and he only says, "Nope." This is a perfect reflection of Seb's weak mind — always hardly at work, depleted and impotent. [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, projection bot, gas-lighter, and straw man argument generator]: "But as I say, you have a very parochial outlook that is firmly entrenched into a specifically US context. It leads you to misunderstand and misinterpret a lot." That's cute. Seb is really sticking to "parochial" because he thinks he found a clever word. And to the argument, Jergul the Coward made a similar error when he tried to crash the last totalitarians thread (#7). He (as you similarly) stupidly asserted that I was describing only U.S. politics and that Nordic politics were somehow safe. In reality, all of these conditions apply to an even greater extent in the UK since the UK has definitionally been captured to a greater extent, as illustrated plainly by the UK's higher ESG ratings ( https://www.worldeconomics.com/ ). This total system capture is why you, in particular, are so mindlessly a zealot of this Totalitarian Regime. People with high trust in Regime credentialism are more easily captured by Regime propaganda. So, again, you are projecting. You know an extremely minuscule amount of information on these subjects, you merely repeat the Regime's propaganda, and in the sleep of your reason you re-produce the Regime's monsters. [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, projection bot, gas-lighter, and straw man argument generator]: "By indulging people's stated preferences" Oh yeah, Seb. That's all that are trillions of dollars in propaganda, surgical emasculation programs, and delusion role-play on the behalf of the mentally deranged: "indulging". That "noble lie" has consequences, Seb. "Stop being a fucking dinosaur and get a job." [CC]: "It is not "free choice"... ...to use a massive collusion between nearly all businesses, governments, pharmaceutical companies, NGOs, educators, regulators, pension trustees, brokers, hospitals, and consultants based on the direct financing structure of asset managers manipulating markets ...in order to funnel into ready-made strategies confused people who were abused by pedos and groomers." [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, projection bot, gas-lighter, and straw man argument generator]: "Ah, the old "False Consciousness" argument so often made by Marxists and other would-be totalitarians." lol This Sebbish response has hilarious layers! :D Pay attention, people, this is a doozie. :D :D The layers: 1) Projection again 2) A failed attempt to use "false consciousness" correctly in a sentence which merely revealed Seb's ignorance on its meaning 3) Seb, through his ignorance and his attempt to project, accidentally admitted that, yes, he is supporting "Marxists and other would-be totalitarians" To explain each: 1) This is obvious; Seb basically just said, "no u" again to hope it would stick. 2) "False consciousness" is a Marxist refrain which does *not* mean simply being "coerced", paid to act against one's own interests, or otherwise having a "consciousness" which is "false". Seb took the phrase at face value much as midwits take "Antifa" at face value (i.e., this is his error wherein he showed that he did not know its definition) and therefore thought that he could simply deceive with another playground reversal ("I know you are, but what am I?"). In reality, Marxist "false consciousness" specifically refers to slave morality's repressive-tolerance rhetoric. One possesses "false consciousness" primarily if he or she does *not* accept slave morality's belief in an oppressor/oppressed binary. In opposition, one possesses "critical consciousness" if he or she *accepts* slave morality's belief in an oppressor/oppressed binary. This is because the ideal slave is perceptive only of the friend/enemy distinction of oppressed/oppressor, forgoing perceptions such as direct causality (e.g., "I threw a rock at 'master'. He punished me because he is an 'oppressor', and I am 'oppressed'. The punishment could not have been because of throwing a rock"). This places the slave within controlled delusions; the slave, denied true causality, lives in delusions. Keeping the slave in these delusions is highly profitable for the actual masters of the Hegelian dialectic (in the Hegelian use of master/slave morality, the emphasis is not on ending slavery but becoming master over cultivated slaves). Thus, Hegelian users of master/slave morality pay for the advancement of slavish peoples while maintaining the slavish cultures of these peoples (as opposed to advancing those people by ending their slave morality, as in the Western Enlightenment tradition), ensuring that society at large can be enslaved through the elevation of the slavish. I.e., "false consciousness" is the consciousness of those yet to be enslaved, and Marxists seek to design systems which undermine free markets such that society artificially funds the slavish against its own interests. 3) Seb did not know the correct definition of "false consciousness", but he correctly admitted that "false consciousness" is indeed the work of "Marxists and other would-be totalitarians" (clearly language borrowed from me, btw). Thus, Seb (inadvertently) admitted that asset managers funding a massive collusion framework to bring about slave morality is indeed totalitarian and Marxist. Thank you for this admission, Seb. This admission by Seb places Seb a half-step away from realizing that the mass sterilization of children for these slave morality delusions is indeed fueled by totalitarian and Marxist imperatives. The intentional funding of these social programs and the intentional targeting via demo-specific propaganda by Marxist-totalitarian oligarchs allows the mis-diagnosing of children and subsequently allows their surgical and pharma emasculation. Useful idiots such as Seb take on the pathos argument of the Regime propaganda-Gesamtkunstwerk because they too, being slaves, are imperceptive of causality. This allows them to fall victim to the problem-reaction-solution of the Marxist dialectic: • Normal causality as recently as 10 years ago: "[You feel weird in your body? Well, that's been happening since the beginning of human history; you're going through puberty. Try to exercise regularly, maintain a healthy diet, minimize time on social media, and your hormones will stabilize naturally.]" • Sebbish idiocy / slave morality's problem-reaction-solution: "[You feel weird in your body? Well, you must be 'trans'. It's the hottest thing since Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch! But don't let its being trendy stop you from making permanent, irreversible, and life-altering decisions. We'll need to get you started on puberty blockers immediately so that we can really ride this hot steak; you don't want to go through too much puberty if you want to 'pass'. Yes, puberty blockers and surgical emasculation are expensive, but nearly every insurance company, business-carried insurance plan, and government-funded hospital subsidizes the treatments and surgeries [for totally not malevolent reasons], so we can really pull out all the stops to make it as easy as possible for you to jump into this decision quickly. Counseling? Well, 'best practice' is to counsel you into believing that this is the best possible choice; it's right-wing and probably 'white supremacist' to argue otherwise, and I don't want our hospital shut down, so I'll tell you that this is the best thing you can do. Reversible? Totally! I mean, in the sense that those additional surgeries are totally profitable. Will you ever have children? Lol, no. But it's super 'green' and 'carbon-neutral' to not have children, and nearly all the Regime-funded propaganda that you consume has taught you that not having children is a good thing. Yeah! Those alarm bells in your head are the last slivers of choice crying out to you to reject all of this coercion and protect your body, but we find that enough people can be trained to ignore that, and, once you're a eunuch, you probably won't have those feelings anymore anyways.]" In short, Seb's attempt at deflection failed because "false consciousness" is decidedly one-way. It literally *cannot* be applied in reverse because Marxism intentionally prevents this as its rhetorical deception (the same deception they apply to "racism", which they say can only exist if against the 'oppressed'), so it makes absolutely zero sense to attempt to say that Regime-obedient slaves have "false consciousness" when Marxist rhetoric says that Regime-obedient slaves have "critical consciousness". Seb failed overtly and disastrously due to his ignorance and intellectual impotence. Seb is too stupid to acknowledge this error, so he'll have to ignore the error, obfuscate via semantics ("[That's not what I said! Please forget what I said!]"), or deflect ("[No, u!]").
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 03:02:58 Seb “Ok, but then your argument collapses to "they were wrong, I'm not wrong".” This is amazing. I have made the case for why I am right and addressed every instance of you rehashing “people were wrong back in the days”. The collapse is inside your head. “But then, if someone has breast reduction or enhancement which might affect their ability to breastfeed - is that delusional?” Women who reduce their breast size do so normally because their breast are too big, it is a hurdle to their movement and may even strain their back. That is a medical condition! You mix this with some vague reference to “breast enhancement”, subjective aesthetics, largely in your mind and perhaps the minds of others. These two issues that you have mutated into 1 thing have very different approaches to “cure”. It is difficult to see how breasts that are too large can be mitigated with psychotherapy, meanwhile a desire to have larger breasts or breasts shaped a different way to be more “beautiful” can be addressed with psychotherapy or other means that pursue to change your mode of thinking about your appearance. And notice we are talking about enhancing or modifying something you already naturally have, not undergo some kind of surgical metamorphosis to become something else. Which attributes relevance back to my examples of anorexia. It is abundantly clear that you have not given these things any thought, at all. I mean even for you and across the many topics we have discussed this is of such low resolution and near zero effort that I just stopped reading. I don’t normally stop reading. It is genuinely scary that people like you support sterilization of children based on…. pure religious dogma. I thought circumcision on boys was bad, I thought genital mutilation of girls was horrifying, but those things pale in comparison to the darkness that you represent. The day of reckoning will come for people like you as well.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 03:17:55 "Seb Member Mon Jun 19 06:11:37 Re pain in babies, what is your point? That medical consensus can be wrong? That could equally apply to you too." It is very clear, I am talking specifics, expecting you to make specific arguments and all you have done is retort "people are wrong about other things, so maybe you are too???". Here I thought you had taken on yourself to explain why I am wrong. The example of pain in babies is a tangible example of how ordinary *people* used to be right just based on intuition, then medicine came and fuck it up by mapping an incomplete brain development (cortical necessity for higher brain functions). In the context of the topic it is as meaningless as your assertion that people were wrong, but within the meaningless framework that *you* established it is a valid counter argument. Understand? People were right back in the days, maybe I am too. That is the level you have set out here. Have fun.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 03:22:59 Sorry your linking of a study caught my eye. Too little too late. Someone who has spent so much time on incoherent and dogmatic nonsense, that has now managed to google a study in support of what he says, after the 50th time someone makes the same claim. Useless to get into the weeds.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 04:30:06 Nim: I'm sorry Nim but I'm genuinely not seeing the difference. You keep saying "but they were wrong", and we both agree that, but I'm not really seeing why you think your case is superior to theirs. "Women who reduce their breast size do so normally because their breast are too big, it is a hurdle to their movement and may even strain their back" So I'm trying to figure out here: 1. Does that mean those that do it for aesthetic reasons (these exist) are in your mind delusional? 2. Why you think it is ok to undertake a surgery that impacts a natural capability to improve physical comfort but not mental comfort? You assert psychotherapy can address body dysphoria. But the medical literature shows that for those that undergo it* surgery delivers better outcomes. *Note that the typical pathway, like the one in the UK that the Tavistock centre you (I think, it might have been rugian) pointed at in the UK, goes through psychotherapy first. It seems to me that you can't really articulate what it is about trans surgery that sets it apart from others; only increasingly tendentious arguments that it is categorically different because in your mind it is just plain wrong to want to have a body type different to your sex at birth. Sure, it means irreversible changes. Sure it means loss of functions. So do many interventions. And certainly it's not something to be taken lightly without exploring other options first. But there's not really substantial evidence of people being railroaded into these decisions. Indeed, regret rates are lower than other cosmetic surgery. But surely, and I'm going to come back to this again, the way to handle this is on individual cases with rigourous assessment between the people concerned, their guardians, and their doctors as would be the case with any other condition. Why is this one, in your mind, categorically different and needing another approach?
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 04:32:17 I mean you say I'm being dogmatic - but you haven't really articulated why you think this is different, you've just got huffy when presented with examples of similar scenarios where the principles you are alluding to are not followed. But you've not really set out a principle approach where you can see that you are treating trans surgery in the same way as any other; instead you are arguing it is exceptional.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 04:32:41 Without really explicitly justifying what it is that makes it exceptional.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 04:36:26 Refusing to engage with a study which flat out contradicts the factual basis of one of the key reasons why you think this is different (loss of sexual function and ability to feel sexual pleasure) looks a tad defensive. Given the entire argument is the supposed categorical difference of trans surgery, the fact that one of those supposed differences turns out to be simply be a fundamentally erroneous assumption ought to prompt reflection and re-evaluation if your position is not dogmatic. What other aspects might also be based on erroneous facts?
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jun 20 05:14:43 [Regime Sycophant, useful idiot, propaganda repeater, projection bot, gas-lighter, and straw man argument generator]: "It seems to me that you can't really articulate what it is about trans surgery that sets it apart from others;" Big fucking yikes. Seb is either so dense — or pretending to be so dense — that he cannot differentiate between trans surgeries and simple cosmetic surgeries. Note the thought process of this. For Seb to entertain this logic, he has to pretend to not be able to see the differences between too *extremely* different items. He basically has to pretend to be a koala that cannot identify leaves if they are not on a tree. In other words, his position *demands* that he be retarded — it does not work otherwise. I pointed out this IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia in Seb previously in the November 2020 "why star wars failed" UP thread. I can't get the link to populate on Google, but I said this regarding Seb: • "Most reasonable people can understand this. Incidentally, the ability to differentiate and associate between items and ideas is an upper level thinking skill that some people (and most koalas) lack. People suffering from integrative agnosia, for instance, tend to be learning-impaired, have difficulty differentiating between similar but different stimuli, and struggle to understand concepts in multiple contexts." • "In short, I think that Seb's "Member" tag should be changed to "Autistic Koala". Seb may also benefit from getting an MRI to see if he has experienced trauma to his extrastriate cortex, since he has continued to lack the ability to differentiate data across contexts. I think we can all rejoice, however, in the knowledge that even autistic koalas can use a keyboard and post online. Bless their hearts!"
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 06:18:52 Seb "why you think your case is superior to theirs." Already told you I did the sane thing and compared it with other mental health disorders that are similar and asked you to break the symmetry. Instead of engaging with my arguments, you kept telling me "people are wrong about things and stuff" and asked me how it is different from wanting tattoos or cosmetic surgery, some that aim to solve a physical impediment. You are confusedly grasping after straws, just spray and pray something hits. In the case of cosmetic surgery, there are extreme cases where it has becomes a self-harm situation, you do not at all seem to appreciate that sex reassignment falls WELL within the extreme portion of the cosmetic surgery spectrum. Long before that line people around a person would tell them they have problems. We look from afar at these women with the Triple H breasts as bizarre exhibitions from a 19th century carnival. Even without the extreme cases, being *depressed* (not deluded) about how you look, is obviously one about your mental state (health) but also about a sickness in the society you live in. If only I looked a certain way, I will be happy. We are still talking about very limited surgeries ON ADULTS. Which brings us to one of the core problems, we are not telling children to go fix whatever they think is ugly on their body with surgery, lots and lots of surgery that relegates them to a life of having to take medicines. Contrary, we have over the decades acknowledged and problematized the *negative* impact of media, specifically on girls and their perception of impossible body standards. "So I'm trying to figure out here:" Nothing, you are just here as some low resolution "debate me bro" NPC. I have addressed everything you have said, when you have said them, even when they were dumb, you are asking the same questions over again. "Does that mean those that do it for aesthetic reasons (these exist) are in your mind delusional" This is that all too familiar reductive loop, where if someone says something, every other adjacent things must be reducible to that thing. Meanwhile we already established that illnesses, while all being pathological, have different pathways and prognosis. I specifically choose the three I did, for good reasons. I also explained further up it is depression not delusion. "with rigourous assessment" Can't be done when every layer that is suppose to engage is rigorous assessments have been compromised. That is what terms like "lactating person", "the pregnant" etc. show. Or when people like you start talking about fungi with hundreds of different sexes as captivating and somehow relevant for our own condition as a specie with only 2. Compromised and corrupted, i.e untrustworthy. "Refusing to engage with a study" I have engaged with you over studies in other topics, that github study was a complete waste of time. I read it, I communicated with the authors and even consulted someone who works with population studies and stats. I then held your hand and when we reached the finishing line, you still did not understand why you were wrong with your initial assertion of "causal pathway". I learned a valuable lesson that time. "looks a tad defensive." Sure, like not stepping in dogshit is defensive. Reading and understanding a study takes time, this other stuff does not. You have given me exactly zero indications that going over studies would convince you that you are wrong. Zero indications that you understand words and their meaning. Zero.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 06:46:06 Nim: "and compared it with other mental health disorders that are similar" But they aren't, because bulimia and anorexia are harmful, and typically those afflicted seek treatment. The harms for gender dysphoria are psychological and as I've pointed out, for those that choose to undergo surgery, the stats show it's got a higher success rate. Your argument (implied at least) is that the surgery itself is harmful. Well, it has lower regret rates (phenomenally low) compared to other less regulated surgeries that *also* create permanent effects on bodily function. And higher success rates for those that undergo it. So why, on balance, are you insisting that the surgery should be considered more harmful than the mental harm, particularly if the individual concerned has satisfied all parties that their desire isn't a transitory episode and isn't going to be addressed by psychological therapies? You keep coming back to rely heavily on discounting the preferences of the person involved because their preference doesn't match their chromosomes so their preferences should be discounted irrespective of whether they are likely to persist or they do not want psychological therapies which have lower success rates. To me, this is absurd violation of personal autonomy and also quite contrary to the ethics of care here, which demonstrate for those that choose it, it is more effective, reduces harm, and has very low regret rates. "have engaged with you over studies in other topics" Ok, so you can keep repeating that trans surgery means you can't orgasm, but it will be a lie.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 06:53:32 As for everyone being "compromised" along the care pathway, there's no real evidence for that other than the fact they are adopting policies you dispute but don't really have a good grounds for disputing; other than you think (despite the actual evidence to the contrary) that it's on balance the harmful thing to do. Taking away people's choice is a big step and I don't think you've remotely justified a basis for it. If there were genuinely large proportions of people lining up to say they thought their transition was a mistake, sure. The first step would be to look at whether there's enough checks in the process. But we don't find that. Instead we have these vague "it's wrong in principle" arguments, absurd claims that the entire medical practice in this area is corrupted, and dismissing the fact that an anomalously large proportion of folks that undergo the surgery are happy with the outcome as being "delusional".
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 06:58:10 "Meanwhile we already established that illnesses, while all being pathological, have different pathways and prognosis" Indeed, so is it really reasonable to compare these two with gender dysphoria. People seek treatment with Bulimia to address the their discomfort with their body. Some people seem that with gender dysphoria, but others seek and find greater success by adapting their body. You can't do that with bulimia because you always perceive yourself as the wrong shape. If a bulimic would be happy with a simply slim figure, it wouldn't be a very big issue.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 07:08:15 "discounting the preferences" You discount the preference of people with bulimia and anorexia. You have made a value judgment that the health they are willing to sacrifice as children (it is most common in teenage girls) to stay thin isn't unhealthy. You may think there are other ways to stay thin, but who are you to judge their choice? People can freely choose to do all kinds of things detrimental to their health and body. *shrugs* "people's [children’s] choice" CC already wrote an essay about this, you can read it for yourself.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 07:37:40 "If a bulimic would be happy with a simply slim figure, it wouldn't be a very big issue." Well if you people stopped calling bulimia, anorexia and schizophrenia "disorders" things could change. If we changed our language to affirm schizophrenic hallucination say "person" could be "CIA agent", "walking behind me" could mean "reading my thoughts with a quantum device" things could be very different.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 07:58:10 "it's wrong in principle" Nobody has made the argument that cosmetic surgery is wrong in principle. I have provided nuanced arguments about cosmetic surgery in general. You have tried to fudge the topic by insert tattoos, homosexuality and cosmetic surgery (in general) into the discussion. "the entire medical practice" Not all of them every where on the planet, Sweden put the breaks on hormone treatment for minors and mastectomies for teenage girls last year. There are so many uncertainty about this phenomena. Wise people will be very cautious before they mutilate children and pump them with hormones their bodies were not intended for, that will give them life long problems, loss of function and increased risk for diseases.
seb Member	Tue Jun 20 11:50:37 Nim: "You discount the preference of people with bulimia and anorexia." No, obviously they seek treatment. They consider their self image to be incorrect. In cases where you have non-consensual treatment, it is because their preferences are leading them to actual bodily harm while doing nothing to alleviate their mental suffering. "you can read it for yourself" I could, but why would I put myself through the boredom of trying to parse a badly written essay that is far too heavy on performative adjectives, riddled with incorrect and unnecessary assumptions about my motivations and a substantially unhealthy fraction of the wordcount appears to using a paragraph of those in place of my name? If she wants to get her content read she needs to meet people half way and cut down on the verbal onanism. "Well if you people stopped calling bulimia, anorexia and schizophrenia "disorders"" No, I don't think it would at all. Someone with bulimia isn't going to stop starving themselves because we stop calling bulimia a disorder. You seem to have got your wires crossed. My point was there is no end-state that a bulimic can achieve with any degree of physical health will alleviate the mental suffering of a bulimic. They cannot diet themselves happy. They can diet themselves dead though. Meanwhile, gender reassignment surgery has a high success rate of improving the mental well being of people who undergo it. So in that sense they are different. If however there was some surgery you could do (and indeed there are some surgical interventions like gastric bands that prevent overeating for example) obviously you'd do that. The issue is that the surgical interventions for Bulimics do not fit your pattern of being irreversible changes to body functions - so as I said, Bulimia isn't a great model here because as you say the pathway and nature is different. "Nobody has made the argument that cosmetic surgery is wrong in principle" No, the argument you have made appears to be that trans surgery is wrong in principle because by affecting body function it is harmful, and because it is to conform to a delusion it exacerbating the harm of an underlying condition for no benefit without treating the underlying condition. So I again say it is very similar to attitudes to homosexuality (the desire for someone of the same sex is a mental aberration to be cured not indluged). The argument you appear to be making is that to have a desire to be in a different body is the dysfunction and only that incorrect preference that should be addressed; and that being in a different body than the one you desire leading to hatred of your body and depression are symptoms to be managed. But it is also perfectly reasonable, in my view, to accept that actually people may intrinsically feel this way and it is no more invalid than homosexuality - but it leads to dysphoria and depression in much the same way that homosexuals forced to live a heterosexual life find that depressing; and indeed the higher success rates and low regret rates for trans surgery demonstrates that for some people at least - the ones that choose to undergo it - trans surgery is a better approach than trying to manage the symptoms of dysphoria. So the question becomes one of the right treatment for the right people - and again, I see no really compelling evidence at all that system is inherently corrupted. I happen to have a psychologist friend who is thinking about switching job to work in the trans pathway service - affirmation does not, I think, mean quite what you think it means in practice. "wise people will be very cautious before they mutilate children and pump them with hormones" And as I've said, they are. Hence low regret rates and high success rates. What is clear however is that there needs to be robust assessment to ensure the individual isn't displaying other conditions (ADHD and Autism being two) that often display particularly in girls in ways that tend to leading to people associating their behaviour as being "masculine" or boyish, and in turn then lead them to start considering themselves as identifying as a different sex. But hey, I've spoken long about the dangers of gendering child behaviour, while you have often spoken against it and said that behaviour and preferences are a product of genetics and sex. So it is not surprising that with those ideas floating around there may well be a rise of girls who mistakenly believe because they enjoy playing with "things" not "relationships" they must be trapped in a body that does not align with their mental sex. The surge in ADHD and Autism diagnosis may indicate social or environmental factors affecting child brain development - this may be leading to a genuine surge in whatever the underlying physical mechanisms of transexuality are; greater awareness may be leading to being able to conceptualise things that people struggled to articulate previously; or it may be that a surge in ADHD and Autism may be leading to greater misdiagnosis. As you say caution is warranted, but the right way to exercise this caution is *within* the care pathway, not by restricting access to and availability of types of care.
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Jun 23 00:31:44 [Nim]: "you can read it for yourself" [Sebbish Seb]: "I could, but why would I" [Sebbish Seb]: "riddled with incorrect and unnecessary assumptions about my motivations" As usual and as predicted: [CC]: "Seb is too stupid to acknowledge this error, so he'll have to ignore the error, obfuscate via semantics ("[That's not what I said! Please forget what I said!]"), or deflect ("[No, u!]")." Seb.. • Ignored his error • Obfuscated via semantics • Deflected In hindsight, I should have written "[and/or] deflect", since Seb did all three rather than just one. Seb, being pathetic, will expect others to read his long posts, which he does not organize and instead blasts as several different disconnected comments, but he will complain about others doing the same and not even read the thoughtful responses of others. Seb has been doing this for *years*. Seb.. • Has no conscience / morality • Has zero work ethic • Is learning disabled • Suffers from IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia • Is incapable of good faith, preferring to project, distort, straw man, and be intentionally dense when he realizes that he'd have to actually have a position outside of the Regime's • Is a Regime sycophant who only repeats the Party's refrains Seb is weak. Seb is useless. Seb cannot think. Seb is a slave who prefers to remain enslaved, since using his mind to push back would perhaps upset his masters.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 23 03:49:20 Cc: You know I don't read your posts right? This isn't because of your devastating argument cannot be refuted, it's because you've lost my attention about here: "[Regime Sycophant, u" Trying to remember whether that's addressed at me or someone else on the thread you are projecting at, and then I realise I don't actually care. I've got a fairly thick skin, but I'm not a masochist - there's got to be something interesting in it. And there's nothing interesting in the digital equivalent of a homeless person frothing at the mouth and accusing you of being the CIA spying on them. There might be, in there, a few snatches of important information, but you don't stop to listen. Basically, if you want a response, and want to be offensive, be more like Rugian and Sam and keep the offensive part concise and don't let it drown out whatever shitty incoherent argument it is you are making.
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Jun 23 04:16:21 "there's got to be something interesting in it." There is. "This isn't because of your devastating argument cannot be refuted" Yes it is. Everything else is you living up to the name I gave you in brackets. To repeat: Seb.. • Has no conscience / morality • Has zero work ethic • Is learning disabled • Suffers from IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia • Is incapable of good faith, preferring to project, distort, straw man, and be intentionally dense when he realizes that he'd have to actually have a position outside of the Regime's • Is a Regime sycophant who only repeats the Party's refrains "digital equivalent of a homeless person frothing at the mouth and accusing you of being the CIA spying on them." ✅ straw man ✅ projection (Seb describes himself) "keep the offensive part concise" I do. "and don't let it drown out whatever shitty incoherent argument [✅ straw man] it is you are making." It doesn't, and my arguments are more coherent than anything of which you are capable. Remember that, Seb. That you are afraid of me because you are pathetic — endlessly so. You are mentally incapable of having a good faith conversation. Incapable.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jun 23 04:29:00 ”incorrect and unnecessary assumptions about my motivations” Self-perception level: worm
Seb Member	Fri Jun 23 05:18:25 CC: "There is." I doubt it, because if there was you would have the confidence to lead with it rather than a paragraph of stupid and baseless accusations. "Yes it is." No, it isn't, because I've already tuned out long before you get to it. "I do." You really really don't. "It doesn't, and my arguments are more coherent than anything of which you are capable." Then why do you bury them? Only reason for burying a killer argument is if you aren't confident in it.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 23 05:24:03 "• Is a Regime sycophant who only repeats the Party's refrains" Which regime, which party? The regime in this country is opposed to trans rights. And Labour won't take a position on it. In any case it is worse than that: I think the things I say are right in principle without reference to who else thinks it.
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Jun 23 06:34:19 • "there's got to be something interesting in it." [CC]: "There is." "I doubt it," [✅ Lazy assertion] There is. And I need not only assert this since my textual evidence is above and can be referenced. You have provided no evidence since your arguments fell apart. People who need marketing departments to sell them on a reason to seek out wisdom are totally captured. • "because if there was [✅ failed subjunctive] you would have the confidence to lead with it rather than a paragraph of stupid and baseless accusations." • "Only reason for burying a killer argument is if you aren't confident in it." ✅ myopic and lazy reasoning, ✅ bad faith, ✅ Incapable. Seb here attempts to pigeon-hole into bad faith. This is metaphorically equivalent to idiots believing that the title should have all the information so that the article can be skipped — a fallacy so ludicrous, logistically impossible, and introductory that children are taught it in the form of "Don't judge a book by its cover." If Seb were truly intellectually consistent on this matter, he would complain about UP's thread titles constantly, since they are most typically ironic or distorted for fun. He does not, though he is the type of deceiver to start doing it now in hopes of distorting chronology ("[I've *always* complained about that! See, here I am doing it [(after)] you mentioned it!]"). He is simply trying to edge out whatever pathetic victory he can grab for this particular thread at the expense of any good faith showing (✅ bad faith). • "This isn't because of your devastating argument cannot be refuted" [CC]: "Yes it is. Everything else is you living up to the name I gave you in brackets." • "No, it isn't" Yes, it is. Even now, you are evading via semantic weakness. It's all you have. At the end of the day, you have no grasp on reality (✅ Incapable). [CC]: "It doesn't, and my arguments are more coherent than anything of which you are capable." • "Then why do you bury them?" ✅ Disingenuous I do not. You can scroll up at any time, but you will not because you are mentally incapable of exerting effort. (✅ Incapable.) I, on the other hand, go to great lengths to organize my material for readers. • "The regime in this country is opposed to trans rights." ✅ Very "parochial", Seb. You still think it's just the States? Seb is wholly unaware of the world totalitarian Regime, despite me repeating the issue to him a hundred times and my totalitarians thread being here for more than a year now — including how I start each thread with the summary of the totalitarian scheme (✅ learning disabled). [CC]: "Is a Regime sycophant who only repeats the Party's refrains" • "Which regime, which party?" The UN/WEF–asset manager coalition. This is now the fifth time in just this thread, Seb (✅ learning disabled): "a massive collusion between nearly all businesses, governments, pharmaceutical companies, NGOs, educators, regulators, pension trustees, brokers, hospitals, and consultants based on the direct financing structure of asset managers manipulating markets" • "I think the things I say are right in principle without reference to who else thinks it." They are wrong in principle, substance, and via metrics of truth itself — the latter especially. Your simple and original error is that you cannot recognize reality. This is why you believe that math is more than a language (Seb's 5x3 thread final error). Everything else follows from this error. Even now, you seek to avoid actual efforts by playing another game of deception by getting me to accommodate your intellectual limitations by speaking in small, old-Twitter-size chunks. You must be excited to see the thread approaching 100? Maybe then you can reset and do your same tired tricks again tomorrow, like the wandering Jew, hoping that people will forget what he's done in the places from whence he came. Every time I slightly insult you — even while addressing your arguments — you lazily decide that this means that you do not have to respond at all. If a petty insult represents for you a thought-terminating cliché, then it is no wonder that you are so easily deceived by the Regime. One wrong word that the Regime designates "bad", and your mind turns off like a fainting goat. Incapable.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 23 08:27:35 CC: You don't have an entitlement to be heard just because you think you are wise and erudite. If you bury you wisdom and erudition in bollocks, people aren't going to wade through it to see if there's anything useful. They'll just ignore you. UP thread titles are ironic and fun, and capped at 88 charachters. Your convoluted insults in place of a simple name would be truncated. "Yes, it is" No. It isn't. I haven't even got to your arguments. I made the decision entirely off your style and deciding it isn't worth my time trying to read a post that is deliberately made difficult to follow in order to insult the reader. That's a fact. It is entirely possible your post contains a killer argument that's irrefutable. I doubt it though, because mostly people who have those just make em and let the audience draw their conclusion without beating about the bush. Either way, that's not why I'm ignoring most of your posts. You want to behave like an angry monkey on the beach masturbating and throwing shit, yeah people don't really want to engage with that. "I do not." Yeah you do. Take your post on Jun 14: 80 words in and you've said nothing of substance other than a bunch of insults and hollow assertions. Boring, irrelevant. You don't have the credibility to get away with that. You need to lead with the brilliance, win the argument, then you get to insult the idiots for being stupid.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 23 08:33:45 "Seb is wholly unaware of the world totalitarian Regime" Is it in the room with you now? Look, this thing doesn't exist, isn't a regime or a party. It's a figment of your imagination. In any case you are quite incorrect: I am not being sycophantic. "you lazily decide that this means that you do not have to respond at all." I don't. I'm honestly not that worried about what you think or what you call me. I think you are a crazy person. If Nim wants to draw on your arguments he can summarise them.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 23 08:39:32 I stand corrected: UP thread titles are 40 characters.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 23 09:13:10 I mean look, lets take this one isolated example of your supposedly irrefutable arguments. Seb: "His preferred gender. If that's how he wants to be referred to, who am I to refer to him differently?" CC: lol. Taking the Party Line without a blink, like a proper Last Man. Seb: Or just basic decency? CC: That fallacious pathos argument is cute, Seb. Did you learn that in your middle school English class on the pathos-logos-ethos triangle? Did your teacher forget to tell you that pure-pathos arguments typically only work on or are engaged by stupid people? --- Lets look at your last response there. This discussion begins with Nim where we are arguing on whether it is "right" to use someone's preferred identifiers. However, when you interject you have changed the discussion to one about *why* I think that to be the case. You insert a completely false straw man argument as a proposition for why I am making this claim. "Taking the party line". I attack this assertion with elegant and understated Line: "Or just basic decency?" By so doing I am pointing our your straw man is an assertion without rationale and there are other reasons for my response. You assert *this* is a pathos argument. It isn't. At question is my motivation for referring to someone by their preferred pronoun. The first error you make is asserting this is an appeal to pathos ; it is not in fact. It is an appeal to logos: logically your have not excluded other rationales or provided a rationale for this one so "toeing a party line" is just another baseless assertion. "Useful idiot" might have worked better for you. You then go on with some rather silly iterations of how I am clearly not aware of the fallacious nature of such an argument. This is silly because you've just clearly demonstrated your own inability to follow a line of argument and correctly apply this analysis. I mean come-on - this isn't even substantive at this point. Your opening point here is just an accusation of bad-faith argument and ad-hominem fallacy when you get down to it. "Don't listen to this argument, it's just repeating the words of the [imaginary] world state party, which therefore means it is wrong and being advanced in bad faith".
Seb Member	Fri Jun 23 09:14:32 Pardon me, I was indeed responding to you initially, not Nim.
	show deleted posts