My ideas about transgenderism

[Harbal]

Of course men can't be women, and women can't be men, but if it is possible to make them feel more like the gender they feel they should have been,

"Should" have been? "Should have been?"

No, not should have been; FEEL how they should have been.

Wow. You're implying a lot, there. You're implying there's a way things "should have been" that they are not. But how do you know what "should have been"?

I'm not implying that at all. I am saying that certain people feel that their physical gender does not match the gender that represents there true identity. Their body is not the physical gender they FEEL it should have been. The way they FEEL about it is what makes it a problem. If they didn't care one way or the other, it wouldn't matter, and wouldn't be an issue.

But who "intended" that things "should have been" anything? Are we not mere products, according to your worldview, of accidental forces that didn't "want" anything to happen at all. Heck, natural laws are not even capable of "wanting" anything, or "intending" that anything "should" happen. They just make stuff go as it does. Thus, there's no way things "should have" been...there's only what is, what exists, what's here, right?

No, natural laws don't have intention, or care about anything, but people do. People have feelings, wants, emotional needs; you are perfectly aware of this, so why say something so idiotic?

Or shall we anthropomorphize? Shall we say there's a "Mother Nature," who thinks that body-dysphoric people "should" be other than they are?

No, let's just stick to what body-dysphoric people think and feel about their situation.

The problem is this: not whether body-dysphoric people deserve compassion, understanding and help, but rather what compassion, understanding and help actually look like. You say that telling them they're fine, and encouraging their delusion is "acceptance" and compassion.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying there are, it seems, some people who cannot live a satisfactory life as a person of the gender that matches their physical body. Some of them may well be suffering from mental illness, and need to be treated accordingly, but not all, and I'm sure the professionals who deal with and treat these people are far better placed than you or I to decide what is an appropriate course of action.

So we can both be thinking compassionately, but coming up with opposite expressions of compassion. One of us will turn out to be right, and the other will turn out to be wrong. But my money's on the person who respects reality, biology, and scientific facts.

My money is also on the person who respects reality, biology, and scientific facts, such as a qualified medical practitioner, rather than, say, some unqualified bloke who thinks the answer to everything is in the Bible.

Feelings and emotions are not delusions, they are very real to those experiencing them.

That they exist is real. What they refer to is not. That's what a "delusion" means.

So is someone who falls in love, wants to get married and start a family delusional? What do those feelings and emotional desires refer to that is real in a way that an emotional desire to live your life as someone of another gender isn't. One is normal and the other isn't, you might say, but why are feelings and emotions to be disregarded solely because they aren't normal? They are no less compelling, and will not result in less anguish if unfulfilled.

Belief in God is just a feeling. It does not refer to anything that can be seen or touched, and your delusion is even worse for the rest of us, because you insist that we should all change our whole approach to life based on it. According to your own reckoning, you need to be treated for mental illness.

That suggests it is the condition that drives them to it, and not the treatment that is responsible.

It doesn't actually tell us what's "driving them" to it. What it does tell us, though, is that whatever we're doing, it's not working. And right now, what we're providing is that euphemistically-named "gender-affirming care," which really means encouraging them to ignore their biology, be restentful of their lot in life, and refuse to accept themselves as God made them. Not a very loving thing to do, ultimately.

And God made me with too much intelligence to be able to accept the logical possibility of his existence, so why don't you encourage me to accept myself as God made me?

What I'm pointing out is that body dysphoric people, both before and after transition, are the most self-loathing, suicidal kinds of people on the planet. And that, it seems to me, argues they need mental health care, not an indulgent and ultimately uncaring society to drive them deeper into their mental illness.

When you produce your medical qualifications, I might take your view seriously, but not before.

If you woke up tomorrow and found your body had turned female, how cheerfully would you go about your day?

I would no doubt struggle. ButI hope I would thank God for what He had made me, accept the challenge of it, and become a better person through overcoming my confusion and learning to live gratefully for the things I have been given.

And I thought I was being ironic when I said you needed treating for mental illness.

Objective? You say there is no such thing. So if it's merely subjective, you're just saying, "Harbal likes the idea of transitioners,

I neither like nor dislike the idea of "transitioners", but I do dislike the idea of people suffering needlessly. I don't feel any need to defend that feeling just because you object to it.

I could condemn or approve of your position, just as you could with mine.

Not with any reasons. Your own viewpoint would undermine your credibility in the condemnation.

I think I could give you a reason for my having any of my moral opinions, and the fact that you would refuse to accept it as valid would merely be your choice, but not necessarily everyone -or even anyone- else's choice. And your stated grounds for your moral assertions would no doubt undermine your credibility in my estimation, of course.

When somebody comes along and says morally-judgmental things that their own reasoning says are purely "subjective" anyway, no more than their personal feeling-of-the-moment, should you listen to them? It's hard to see why you would.

I think everybody's moral judgement is subjective, including yours, and my only means of assessment is by comparison with my own moral judgement.

[Dontaskme]

Subjectivism has to be fatalistic, in that respect: it has to assume that whatever is, is all that could ever be. But Christianity does not assume that the way things are is the way things had to be, or the way they ought to be.

To know you are alive is to know you are going to die. That's a fact, that informs the one who knows it is alive that life is fatalistic, which is true, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's simply a fact.

Subjectivism is the sense of I am, it is the knowledge I exist and that I know I exist. It is the sense of being aware I am aware as and through objectivism in it's objective conception. There is nothing existing outside of this human knowledge. The belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them is illusory as any human made, mental belief is illusory, albeit appearing real.

The concept of 'should' or 'should not' should only apply to oneself...not another self.

You can't say that, rationally speaking. There is no application for "should" in a subjectivist world. You have no obligations, no duties, no ways you ought to be.

Yes you can say that, especially when there is an innate sense of awareness of being aware, a sense of self arising, for whom else can say anything at all but this sense of self? which can only exist in an objective sense as a concept known...albeit illusory, since there is no way for a subject to experience itself as an object, the subjects only experience is as a dream character within separation, in other words, as an illusory image of the imageless, appearing as seen as known in it's objective conception, albeit illusory as is any dream image.

To inform other people 'you should be this way' as opposed to 'not that way', is implying they should only follow a certain way of being according to someone else's worldview....

Are you trying to say that we ought not to use "should" for other people? But there are no "ought nots" for subjectivists. So you're accidentally smuggling in a preference of your own as if it were an objective obligation.

No, I'm not saying that at all, you are.

For the subjectivist, there are both shoulds and should not's present in it's conceptual knowing awareness. Both these are innately known through the direct experience of experience, that every one can know objectively in this conception. Any preference is purely optional as the idea one has a free will to make that preference seem real is available to all of us, since all of us have the same sense of being aware we are aware, the sense of self.

The truth, from a subjectivist perspective, is much simpler: every person can do whatever he or she can get away with. And so long as he/she is subjectively happy doing it, or even if not, there are no rules, no obligations, no duties, no oughts and ought nots, nothing a person cannot do.

Within the dream of separation, people/characters within the dream can know what's moral and what's not moral, whether they choose to adhere to what they know, is totally their preference, and there is nothing anyone else can do about it.

I hardly doubt the knowing of what's moral and immoral will convince anyone whatever they choose to do in life, especially to be immoral will commit that action knowing they will get away with it. People are not that ignorant of the fact that there are limits to what you can do in life without facing some dire consequences for your preferred actions. That's just how humans operate, because they have a mind and a mind can know things, and knowing things is also knowing this knowing comes with many consequences.

[Dontaskme]

No, let's just stick to what body-dysphoric people think and feel about their situation.

Hey, that's a good idea Harbal. I mean who else but the actual human person is going to feel and think about their situation?

Or, shall we anthropomorphize the human, by attributing human characteristics or human behaviour to these humans who are feeling and thinking about their situation?
Because IC believes that is possible, he believes humans actually exist, don't you know.

IC wrote:

Or shall we anthropomorphize? Shall we say there's a "Mother Nature," who thinks that body-dysphoric people "should" be other than they are?

What an idiotic thing to say IC, you are coming across as more idiotic by the hour. Soon you will reach idiotic overload where you are approaching immediate danger of meeting your own madness head on.

[Harbal]

No, let's just stick to what body-dysphoric people think and feel about their situation.

Hey, that's a good idea Harbal. I mean who else but the actual human person is going to feel and think about their situation?

Well, it just made sense to me, so I thought, hey, what the Hell, just say it.


Haven't seen much of you lately; fancy a shag?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course men can't be women, and women can't be men, but if it is possible to make them feel more like the gender they feel they should have been,

"Should" have been? "Should have been?"

No, not should have been; FEEL how they should have been.

But there is no "should" in your world...so the feeling refers to nothing.

Wow. You're implying a lot, there. You're implying there's a way things "should have been" that they are not. But how do you know what "should have been"?

I'm not implying that at all. I am saying that certain people feel that their physical gender does not match the gender that represents there true identity. Their body is not the physical gender they FEEL it should have been. The way they FEEL about it is what makes it a problem. If they didn't care one way or the other, it wouldn't matter, and wouldn't be an issue.

Not a very helpful observation. We all know they feel they want to be the opposite sex. The problem is that they simply cannot: biology defeats them, every time. And you and I are disagreeing over what is the appropriate and compassionate reaction.

But who "intended" that things "should have been" anything? Are we not mere products, according to your worldview, of accidental forces that didn't "want" anything to happen at all. Heck, natural laws are not even capable of "wanting" anything, or "intending" that anything "should" happen. They just make stuff go as it does. Thus, there's no way things "should have" been...there's only what is, what exists, what's here, right?

No, natural laws don't have intention, or care about anything, but people do.

Maybe, but that's irrelevant. All it would signal is that those people are not dealing with reality. For subjectivists, reality as it now is, is all that's possible. There is no "other way things should have been."

Or shall we anthropomorphize? Shall we say there's a "Mother Nature," who thinks that body-dysphoric people "should" be other than they are?

No, let's just stick to what body-dysphoric people think and feel about their situation.

Well, that's the vexed question: is what they feel possible? Clearly not. But being emasculated, sterilized, drugged into cancer, given early-onset osteoporosis, doing irreversible damage to their bodies, vastly shortening their lifespans, making them unfit for a relationship...all very possible.

You want to encourage them to do that. I want to give them treatment for their delusion. One is horribly invasive and scarring; the other is genuinely therapeutic. Which shall we choose...

The problem is this: not whether body-dysphoric people deserve compassion, understanding and help, but rather what compassion, understanding and help actually look like. You say that telling them they're fine, and encouraging their delusion is "acceptance" and compassion.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying there are, it seems, some people who cannot live a satisfactory life as a person of the gender that matches their physical body. Some of them may well be suffering from mental illness, and need to be treated accordingly, but not all, and I'm sure the professionals who deal with and treat these people are far better placed than you or I to decide what is an appropriate course of action.

So trusting. The same medical-intervention industry that's ginning up the "transitioning" craze benefits from it financially on a huge scale. ($30,00-100,000 US per patient, and rising) And you want to put the fox in charge of the henhouse?

Feelings and emotions are not delusions, they are very real to those experiencing them.

That they exist is real. What they refer to is not. That's what a "delusion" means.

So is someone who falls in love, wants to get married and start a family delusional?

They are, if they are transed. They're going to be sterilized, severely medically damaged, and live a shortened life. And that's assuming they don't turn out to be one of the many "detransitioners," who have learned to late what horrors they visited on their anatomies while they were confused, and nobody was helping them get free of the delusion.

...why are feelings and emotions to be disregarded solely because they aren't normal?

Use that argument with a psychopath, sociopath, predator or Muchausen sufferer. If it works for them, maybe you can make it with the trans. They've all got lots of emotions...but some of them are much better removed by proper therapy than given free rein.

Belief in God is just a feeling.

"Belief" is a state of placing trust in something for which you have less than total evidence, but you have enough to make a rational estimation...like science.

God made me with too much intelligence to be able to accept the logical possibility of his existence, so why don't you encourage me to accept myself as God made me?

Because it's not going to end well for you, no matter how strongly you feel that. And I would say the same about transers.

What I'm pointing out is that body dysphoric people, both before and after transition, are the most self-loathing, suicidal kinds of people on the planet. And that, it seems to me, argues they need mental health care, not an indulgent and ultimately uncaring society to drive them deeper into their mental illness.

When you produce your medical qualifications, I might take your view seriously, but not before.

Ah! So you think the answer is medical. Well, if it's medical, then the data's all on my side...chromosomes, sperm and eggs, hormones, brain types...there is zero medical data to imply that any man can be a woman. The whole 'trans' argument is premised on mental phenomena, you know. There are no medical arguments for it.

Objective? You say there is no such thing. So if it's merely subjective, you're just saying, "Harbal likes the idea of transitioners,

I neither like nor dislike the idea of "transitioners", but I do dislike the idea of people suffering needlessly.

Then you should advocate giving them therapy to restore them to reality. In their present mental state, they're killing themselves faster than any other demographic...even after the "trans" fraud has done all it can to convince them it's solved their problem.

[Immanuel Can]

Subjectivism is the sense of I am, it is the knowledge I exist and that I know I exist.

We're talking about moral subjectivism, not subjectivism in general. It's the belief that there is no objective basis in reality for moral values.

Please limit your comments to the relevant, if you would be so kind.

The concept of 'should' or 'should not' should only apply to oneself...not another self.

You can't say that, rationally speaking. There is no application for "should" in a subjectivist world. You have no obligations, no duties, no ways you ought to be.

Yes you can say that,

I don't. Moral subjectivism does.

To inform other people 'you should be this way' as opposed to 'not that way', is implying they should only follow a certain way of being according to someone else's worldview....

Are you trying to say that we ought not to use "should" for other people? But there are no "ought nots" for subjectivists. So you're accidentally smuggling in a preference of your own as if it were an objective obligation.

No, I'm not saying that at all, you are.

Funny. The words were yours.

[Harbal]

"Should" have been? "Should have been?"

No, not should have been; FEEL how they should have been.

But there is no "should" in your world...so the feeling refers to nothing.

There are lots of shoulds in my world, but I know they are conditional, whereas you are under the illusion that yours are absolute. And my feelings refer to lots of different things, actually, so I presume that everyone else's do.

I'm not implying that at all. I am saying that certain people feel that their physical gender does not match the gender that represents there true identity. Their body is not the physical gender they FEEL it should have been. The way they FEEL about it is what makes it a problem. If they didn't care one way or the other, it wouldn't matter, and wouldn't be an issue.

Not a very helpful observation. We all know they feel they want to be the opposite sex. The problem is that they simply cannot: biology defeats them, every time. And you and I are disagreeing over what is the appropriate and compassionate reaction.

My attitude is a heap more helpful to those involved in this issue. I don't want to interfere, on the grounds that I am not qualified, but you seem to want to influence opinion in a direction that these people most certainly would not find helpful.

No, natural laws don't have intention, or care about anything, but people do.

Maybe, but that's irrelevant. All it would signal is that those people are not dealing with reality.

That's a crazy thing to say. How can you seriously say that the things we care about are irrelevant? Are you a machine, or something?

For subjectivists, reality as it now is, is all that's possible. There is no "other way things should have been."

I don't even know what that means. It is just pure nonsense, as far as I can tell.

No, let's just stick to what body-dysphoric people think and feel about their situation.

Well, that's the vexed question: is what they feel possible? Clearly not. But being emasculated, sterilized, drugged into cancer, given early-onset osteoporosis, doing irreversible damage to their bodies, vastly shortening their lifespans, making them unfit for a relationship...all very possible.

You want to encourage them to do that. I want to give them treatment for their delusion. One is horribly invasive and scarring; the other is genuinely therapeutic. Which shall we choose...

It is not my place to choose, it is theirs. And who do you think you are kidding with your "compassionate" approach? You find these people and the way they want to live their lives offensive, and you disapprove of the whole affair.

So trusting. The same medical-intervention industry that's ginning up the "transitioning" craze benefits from it financially on a huge scale. ($30,00-100,000 US per patient, and rising) And you want to put the fox in charge of the henhouse?

If these people are being exploited and being inappropriately advised, that is scandalous, but what you advocate would leave them with no solution at all to their problems.

So is someone who falls in love, wants to get married and start a family delusional?

They are, if they are transed.

That was in reference to "normal" people, and my point was that seeking emotional fulfilment is not a delusion.

...why are feelings and emotions to be disregarded solely because they aren't normal?

Use that argument with a psychopath, sociopath, predator or Muchausen sufferer.

That's a telling comparison you are making.

Belief in God is just a feeling.

"Belief" is a state of placing trust in something for which you have less than total evidence, but you have enough to make a rational estimation...like science.

Science doesn't recognise God, so not really like science. Strictly speaking, it is actually a delusion.

God made me with too much intelligence to be able to accept the logical possibility of his existence, so why don't you encourage me to accept myself as God made me?

Because it's not going to end well for you, no matter how strongly you feel that. And I would say the same about transers.

Ah, the IC says so argument.

Ah! So you think the answer is medical. Well, if it's medical, then the data's all on my side...chromosomes, sperm and eggs, hormones, brain types...there is zero medical data to imply that any man can be a woman. The whole 'trans' argument is premised on mental phenomena, you know. There are no medical arguments for it.

I've already said that I agree men cannot be women, so I'm not going to argue about that. I was classing mental phenomena under medical. Just strike "medical" and replace it with the appropriate field of expertise, but whatever that is, I still doubt you have any qualifications in it.

I neither like nor dislike the idea of "transitioners", but I do dislike the idea of people suffering needlessly.

Then you should advocate giving them therapy to restore them to reality.

The reality is that they want to live their lives as the opposite to their biological gender, and it is perfectly possible to adopt the relevant lifestyle without medical intervention, but that, evidently, would not go far enough for a good many of them, so are you advocating therapy that would help them to feel satisfied with doing that without making any surgical or chemical changes to their bodies?

I do actually agree that would be a far more preferable solution, if it worked.

[Immanuel Can]

No, not should have been; FEEL how they should have been.

But there is no "should" in your world...so the feeling refers to nothing.

There are lots of shoulds in my world, but I know they are conditional,

"Conditional" on what?

You have to say it's "conditional on my subjective valuation happening to already be the same as yours." So there's no imperative there, nothing that gives reason or even conduces to anybody changing their mind. If they agree with you, then there's no "should": they already agree. If they don't agree with you, there's no imperative, no duty, no obligation for them to start doing so.

....you seem to want to influence opinion in a direction that these people most certainly would not find helpful.

You're dreaming. Sorry.

What I want is for mentally-ill people to get appropriate treatment, and to become well. I won't impugn your motives as you have mine: but if I did it might be to say that you seem to want to do is to self-present as tolerant and inclusive, no matter how vicious the ensuing harm to mentally-ill people.

That's a crazy thing to say.

Crazier than "I think I'm a woman, though my biology screams the opposite?"

I don't even know what that means.

Think about it. There is only natural law, physical objects and time. None of them can have intended that things "should" be anything but exactly what they are. In fact, none of them can have intended anything at all.

"Should" always implies the existence of two different things: that there's a way the world is, and another way that it isn't, but that it "should have" been. Moral subjectivism is based on a Godless universe, one that is merely the product of time, chance and materials. There can be no "should have been" in such a universe.

It is not my place to choose, it is theirs.

You want to give the mentally ill the license to hurt themselves? You want them to keep killing themselves? You wish them early onset osteoporosis, cancer, shortened lifespans, permanent maladjustment, infertility...? Really?

If these people are being exploited and being inappropriately advised, that is scandalous, but what you advocate would leave them with no solution at all to their problems.

You're right: it is absolutely scandalous. It's also true. But I do advocate a solution for them, though you've ignored it. I want them to be treated and relieved of their body dysphoria.

Science doesn't recognise God,

Actually, it does...many of the great scientists were Theists, and many still are.

I've already said that I agree men cannot be women, so I'm not going to argue about that.

Well, then, let me suggest another solution you may accept.

Since men cannot become women, let's not poison them with drugs, or hack of their genitalia, or whatever. Let's just accept them as people who feel like one thing, but are another. If their bodies do not tell us what they are, then why would we alter their bodies? Nothing's wrong with those bodies. In fact, they're as healthy as they're ever going to be. So we don't need to do anything at all.

But I'd still wish to give them some therapy to come to grips with their dysphoria, and to help them learn to live normal lives. What would you do with them?

...are you advocating therapy that would help them to feel satisfied with doing that without making any surgical or chemical changes to their bodies?

Yes. I'm advocating therapy that would help their mentally-ill minds become well. And that would allow them to be happy with their bodies...which you and I have agreed they can't possibly make into the other "gender" anyway. I'm talking about genuine "sex-affirming" care: where they learn to recognize, own and love the bodies they have, and the sex they literally, biologically and inevitably are.

[Dontaskme]

Well, it just made sense to me, so I thought, hey, what the Hell, just say it.

fancy a shag?

Could be funky, but I'm kinda grooving with these bad boys at the moment. Took me hours to lay them.

[Harbal]

Well, it just made sense to me, so I thought, hey, what the Hell, just say it.

fancy a shag?

Could be funky, but I'm kinda grooving with these bad boys at the moment. Took me hours to lay them.

I think you'll find they're not as bad as me.

I'm also much quicker to lay.

[Dontaskme]

We're talking about moral subjectivism, not subjectivism in general. It's the belief that there is no objective basis in reality for moral values.

It requires a sentient aware subject to talk about a subject, especially when the subject is about moral objectivism. So it's compulsive to include the concept of subjectivism.

Subjective ideas relating to objective morals are in fact mentally contructed myths and do not actually exist outside of human subjective thinking within reality.

But I do understand you cannot accept the ''myth'' idea. Rather, you prefer actual factual ABSOLUTES that everyone with a human brain can agree upon. But that reach is impossible taking into account that each individual is born with a sense of their own personal self-serving bias.

Without this self-bias, we may not attribute our failures to our own mistakes. That's how we learn morality by experiencing our own mistakes subjectively. So this self-serving bias, is actually a positive thing to have. We have to know what it is to hurt, to know not to hurt, and that hurting is not ideal. Morality is not an absolute law, morality is a relative experience within the human experiencer. Why, because the sense of ''I am'' is an illusion. And that illusion is apparent within every human brain.




.

[Dontaskme]

I'm also much quicker to lay.

Ok that's great!

Baggsy be your underlay.

[Harbal]

Science doesn't recognise God,

Actually, it does...many of the great scientists were Theists, and many still are.

No, actually, it doesn't. It wouldn't make any difference if all scientists believed in God; God still would not be taken into account by science itself. Scientific theories do not include God, it's as simple as that.

Well, then, let me suggest another solution you may accept.

Since men cannot become women, let's not poison them with drugs, or hack of their genitalia,

I had a friend with cancer, and they poisoned him with drugs, and then hacked out his intestines. He was in an awful state by the time they finished with him, so I have some sympathy with that.

I'm no fan of drugs or surgery, so I am all for anything that avoids them. And, with the right clothes and some well applied make up, lots of men can take on quite a convincing appearance as a woman. So yes, I agree, that would be a better option if they could be persuaded to settle for it.

But I'd still wish to give them some therapy to come to grips with their dysphoria, and to help them learn to live normal lives. What would you do with them?

I would take them shopping.

Yes. I'm advocating therapy that would help their mentally-ill minds become well. And that would allow them to be happy with their bodies...which you and I have agreed they can't possibly make into the other "gender" anyway. I'm talking about genuine "sex-affirming" care: where they learn to recognize, own and love the bodies they have, and the sex they literally, biologically and inevitably are.

Actually, a nice cup of tea and a good chat is sometimes all that's needed when we feel overwhelmed by our troubles, so that might be a good starting point.

[Sculptor]

Science doesn't recognise God,

Actually, it does...many of the great scientists were Theists, and many still are.

No, actually, it doesn't. It wouldn't make any difference if all scientists believed in God; God still would not be taken into account by science itself. Scientific theories do not include God, it's as simple as that.

Well, then, let me suggest another solution you may accept.

Since men cannot become women, let's not poison them with drugs, or hack of their genitalia,

I had a friend with cancer, and they poisoned him with drugs, and then hacked out his intestines. He was in an awful state by the time they finished with him, so I have some sympathy with that.

I'm no fan of drugs or surgery, so I am all for anything that avoids them. And, with the right clothes and some well applied make up, lots of men can take on quite a convincing appearance as a woman. So yes, I agree, that would be a better option if they could be persuaded to settle for it.

But I'd still wish to give them some therapy to come to grips with their dysphoria, and to help them learn to live normal lives. What would you do with them?

I would take them shopping.

Yes. I'm advocating therapy that would help their mentally-ill minds become well. And that would allow them to be happy with their bodies...which you and I have agreed they can't possibly make into the other "gender" anyway. I'm talking about genuine "sex-affirming" care: where they learn to recognize, own and love the bodies they have, and the sex they literally, biologically and inevitably are.

Actually, a nice cup of tea and a good chat is sometimes all that's needed when we feel overwhelmed by our troubles, so that might be a good starting point.

I had stage 4 neck cancer. They hacked me about, gave me chemo and radiation, and a bucket of vaious drugs.
It was terrible. Suffering I would not wish on anyone.
Yet 15 years later I'm still here.
If people want to be hacked about then that is their choice and not the choice of some idiotic religious nut, who lacks basic knowledge and imagation about the truth of transgenerism.

[Dontaskme]

Moral subjectivism is based on a Godless universe, one that is merely the product of time, chance and materials. There can be no "should have been" in such a universe.

That's just your subjective opinion based on your own self-bias belief about the universe. We could even argue the fact that a Godless universe includes the idea of God, so the Godless terminology is an absurd, pointless thing to say really. Belief in God is only meaningful to you the believer, it's realtive to your subjective thinking, and not an absolute fact we can all agree upon.

Your personal belief in God has no doubt in your mind assumed a certain standard of what you think is right and wrong on an absolute human level, and this belief is your conscience guide according to you only as you perceive reality to be.
There is nothing wrong this this, until you start expecting everyone else to follow your preconceived, self-biased versions of reality.

''Should have beens'' is the act of imposing artificial conditions on an unconditionally free universe.

In other words, there are no moral absolutes IC..except as wishful thinking. Just simple beliefs that you are so sure of including objective facts, which only exist because you personally believe they do. But as with any objective fact, it is subject to change, forcing your belief to match the change. Truth is, you cannot tell the world how it is, as that would only be your subjective self-bias worldview. Not an absolute objective fact that we can all agree upon.


.