A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Wrong.
It has to do with science, psychiatry, sociology, philosophy, personal experience history and culture.
When a little "boy" has an uncontrollable impulse to play with dolls despite the urging of his parents; to feel unhappy with other "boys", to seek the platonic friendship of girls to want long hair and make-up - science has very little to do with it, and has very little to say to parents who are confused.
Science is learning to identify some features of biology which validate trans, neuter and other sexual ambiguities but its not complete.

So what do you find so scary? DO you think LGBGT+ is somehow a challenge to your composure?

It's more likely that the parents are the one's influencing their children in such a way because they wanted a girl but got a boy, or vice versa, or just wanting attention.

No this is not the case. Most parents find the whole thin confusing and disturbing. You are speaking from ignorance.

Psychiatry informs us that those that either didn't get much attention or received to much attention during their development ends up doing extreme things for attention, or believing that everyone should give them the same undue attention when they are older.

You are now just bullshitting.

What makes sex so special that we can accept without question that someone claims to be the opposite sex, but if someone were to claim to a different race or species, then that is crazy?

What we do is listen and accept. WHy do you think it is up to you to "question"?
WTF do you think you are?

A person with anorexia nervosa can have a distorted perception of weight. "Gender-affirming care" would be like telling an anorexic person to go on a diet - affirming their distorted perception that in unhealthy. Just like lawyers support new laws being created because it gives them more job security, doctors - especially cosmetic surgeons - will support laws which give them more clients, regardless of the mental health of the individual.

A somatic delusion is one where the person believes there is something wrong with their body. Symptoms of a delusional disorder may include:

Feelings of being exploited.
Preoccupation with the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends.
A tendency to read threatening meanings into benign remarks or events.
Persistently holding grudges.
A readiness to respond and react to perceived slights.

These behaviors are exactly what you see when someone's "gender" claims are being questioned.

If someone came along and tried to tell you, you were mad to thing yourself a boy, you would justifiably feeling exploited and paranoid.
So what is YOUR reason for holding a grudge against trans people?


You are so full of your own invention on this matter.

What are you scared of?

All you have to do is leave children alone. How hard could that be for you?

[Immanuel Can]

Your "moral hygiene" is pretty clear just from who or what you exert the most effort in denouncing in your posts and who or what you don't.

Thank you. I like to think so.

I have fewer qualms about Marx than I do with the haughty taughty who orchestrated and maintained the conditions workers were subjected to in the early years of the Industrial Revolution.

I have "qualms" with both. But I wouldn't excuse the wretched blackguard who invented the ideology that killed over 100 million in a single century by way of appealing to the observation that other people did bad things too -- and I certainly would not promote his creed.

And a creed it is. Did you know, by the way, that the original title of The Communist Manifesto was...The Communist Confession of Faith? Look it up. You'll see that's true.

[Gary Childress]

Your "moral hygiene" is pretty clear just from who or what you exert the most effort in denouncing in your posts and who or what you don't.

Thank you. I like to think so.

I have fewer qualms about Marx than I do with the haughty taughty who orchestrated and maintained the conditions workers were subjected to in the early years of the Industrial Revolution.

I have "qualms" with both. But I wouldn't excuse the wretched blackguard who invented the ideology that killed over 100 million in a single century by way of appealing to the observation that other people did bad things too -- and I certainly would not promote his creed.

And a creed it is. Did you know, by the way, that the original title of The Communist Manifesto was...The Communist Confession of Faith? Look it up. You'll see that's true.

I don't buy it, IC. If you have qualms with both, then why is Marx "eviler?" Marx didn't kill 100 million people. Nor did he advocate it. He would doubtless be horrified to learn of that--especially since most of the people murdered were lowly peasants and workers--murdered by elites of the state. Stalin and Mao were little better than Marx's contemporary capitalists who pursued self-gain off of the misery they perpetuated for others. Marx doubtless wouldn't have done what Stalin or Mao did--if we are to take his position with respect to his contemporaries as evidence. By all accounts we possess, Marx refused to participate in that kind of evil. Instead, he pursued life as a revolutionary journalist, advocating for people being horribly exploited. He didn't make money off that decision. He also made a lot of powerful enemies and was shut down or driven off by the powers of his day. Instead, he struggled financially. (Probably why he was so irritable, I would be too.) He lost a child of his because he chose NOT to take the "easy" way in society. No. You're the deluded one, IC. Seriously, you need to remove that log in your face, before you go around offering to remove that of others--to cite your own hero, Christ--whom you claim to admire.

BTW: Since we're to hold Marx accountable for what Stalin and Mao et al did, then should we hold Christ accountable for those who died in the inquisitions, crusades, and witch trials performed by people claiming to do so in his name? I'm really curious now.

[Immanuel Can]

If you have qualms with both, then why is Marx "eviler?" Marx didn't kill 100 million people. Nor did he advocate it.

Hitler didn't personally round up or kill anybody either. He never personally fought in WW 2. So you're going to excuse him, for devising the National Socialism that empowered all that?

He would doubtless be horrified...

Judging by his biography, very little would "horrify" Marx, other than taking a bath or doing an honest day's work.

Stalin and Mao were little better than Marx's contemporary capitalists

They weren't contemporaries of Marx, and they were both avowed Marxists.

Marx doubtless wouldn't have done what Stalin or Mao did

You don't know what Marx "would have" done. What you know is what he did. And that's bad enough.

By all accounts we possess, Marx refused to participate in that kind of evil.

So you wouldn't fault his raging temper, his whining and bullying of his admirers, his rape of Helene Demuth, or his disowning of the child he thereby created? How about his fatally stupid political and economic theorizing, by which the deaths of over 100 million were rationalized?

Instead, he pursued life as a revolutionary journalist, advocating for people being horribly exploited.

He wasn't a journalist, anymore than he was a "scientific" mind, which he also claimed. He was a monumental fraud. And according to his biographers -- and his own mother -- the only person he really ever advocated for was himself.

I'm amused by your desire to imagine Marx as a saintly figure. It defies all the historical evidence, and even the evidence of his own writings. Here's your lovely "missionary" writing poetry:

… Worlds I would destroy forever,
Since I can create no world;
Since my call they notice never …

and:

Then I will be able to walk triumphantly,
Like a god, through the ruins of their kingdom.
Every word of mine is fire and action.
My breast is equal to that of the Creator.

and:

I shall build my throne high overhead
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark — superstitious dread
For its marshal — blackest agony.

and:

See this sword?
the prince of darkness
Sold it to me.

and:

With Satan I have struck my deal,
He chalks the signs, beats time for me
I play the death march fast and free.

and:

… I shall howl gigantic curses on mankind:
Ha! Eternity! She is an eternal grief …
Ourselves being clockwork, blindly mechanical,
Made to be the foul-calendars of Time and Space,
Having no purpose save to happen, to be ruined,
So that there shall be something to ruin …
If there is a something which devours,
I’ll leap within it, though I bring the world to ruins-
The world which bulks between me and the Abyss
I will smash to pieces with my enduring curses.
I’ll throw my arms around its harsh reality:
Embracing me, the world will dumbly pass away,
And then sink down to utter nothingness,
Perished, with no existence — that would be really living!

Lovely stuff, isn't it?

I didn't say he had any poetic talent -- just that he tried to write the stuff. Shakespeare, he wasn't.

[Iwannaplato]

If you have qualms with both, then why is Marx "eviler?" Marx didn't kill 100 million people. Nor did he advocate it.

Hitler didn't personally round up or kill anybody either. He never personally fought in WW 2. So you're going to excuse him, for devising the National Socialism that empowered all that?

That's a terrible analogy. Hitler made specific decisions that intentionally led to the killing of Jews, the classification of Jews as subhuman. He delegated powers to people so that they were specifically in charge of carrying of violence in factory style against Jews. He knew what was happening was key in allocating resources and power to people to carry this out.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If you have qualms with both, then why is Marx "eviler?" Marx didn't kill 100 million people. Nor did he advocate it.

Hitler didn't personally round up or kill anybody either. He never personally fought in WW 2. So you're going to excuse him, for devising the National Socialism that empowered all that?

That's a terrible analogy. Hitler made specific decisions that intentionally led to the killing of Jews, the classification of Jews as subhuman. He delegated powers to people so that they were specifically in charge of carrying of violence in factory style against Jews. He knew what was happening was key in allocating resources and power to people to carry this out.

Ask IC to describe Hitler's form of 'socialism'. He won't be able to answer

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Oh, that must be the 'totalitarian dictatorship' style of 'socialism', very much like the kristian version of 'socialism'

[Immanuel Can]

Hitler made specific decisions that intentionally led to the killing of Jews, the classification of Jews as subhuman.

And you think Marxism characterizes the bourgeoisie, capitalists and aristos, anti-communists and the counterrevolutionaries and so forth as beloved brethren, instead? Or would you say they're characterized as evil oppressors who deserve whatever they get in the revolution? Look around, and see exactly how Marxism treats them.

[Immanuel Can]

Ask IC to describe Hitler's form of 'socialism'. He won't be able to answer

It's called "National Socialism." Communism is "International Socialism." What do you think "Nazi" means?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Ask IC to describe Hitler's form of 'socialism'. He won't be able to answer

It's called "National Socialism." Communism is "International Socialism." What do you think "Nazi" means?

That's not what I asked. I said describe Hitler's 'socialism'.

[Iwannaplato]

Hitler made specific decisions that intentionally led to the killing of Jews, the classification of Jews as subhuman.

And you think Marxism characterizes the bourgeoisie, capitalists and aristos, anti-communists and the counterrevolutionaries and so forth as beloved brethren, instead? Or would you say they're characterized as evil oppressors who deserve whatever they get in the revolution? Look around, and see exactly how Marxism treats them.

We could have a discussion of that issue, sure. Perhaps part of Marx's texts parallels some of the ways Hitler characterizes Jews. But then Hitler organized the mass killing of people, intentionally giving his underlings orders and resources to carry out mass killing. The part you ignore. I think that's a significant difference. I do think there's a significant difference between the way Jews are portrayed in Nazism and how certain classes are portrayed in communism. But sure the latter can also lead to violence. However Hitler consciously chose violence and organized the mass killing of his targets. No need to argue that framing people like X could lead to mass killing later by other people. Here we have someone intentionally organizing mass killing based on his ideas of other people. It's not a possible interpretation or consequence. It is the carrying out of mass killing. That's note a footnote or quantitative difference between Marx and Hitler. That's fundamental difference.

Perhaps the way you write about Leftists will lead others one day to dehumanize them even more and kill them all in death camps. But I think any leader who does that is different from you. The one who actually decides, Jim, you set up the camps. Here's a team of people to work with you adn the resources to do this. Joe, you are in charge of rounding them up. Sally, you steal their valuable and occupy their property.

I think that person would be mass murderer and you on the other hand might be someone who classifies people in potentially dangerous ways.

Hilter combined both actions at the same time as an autocratic. If you can't see a qualitative difference, then perhaps someday this will come back to bite you at the Hague.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Sneaky little ****. You know perfectly well why Hitler used the world 'socialism' to describe his party. Or do you? Hmm. Perhaps not. You like to think of yourself as an 'educated man of the world' but that ends where your religioturdism begins.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Oh how adorable and 'inclusive'....

police.jpg (43.75 KiB) Viewed 345 times

[Trajk Logik]

Post deleted

[Trajk Logik]

It's more likely that the parents are the one's influencing their children in such a way because they wanted a girl but got a boy, or vice versa, or just wanting attention.

No this is not the case. Most parents find the whole thin confusing and disturbing. You are speaking from ignorance.

If parents found it so confusing and disturbing then why would they just let their kids be operated on - changing their life forever? Again, what makes sex so special that one can claim to be another sex but it they claim to be a different race or species then that is crazy? If your child claimed to be a cat would you then affirm their belief by taking them to a cosmetic surgeon to permanently implant whiskers and pointy ears?

Psychiatry informs us that those that either didn't get much attention or received to much attention during their development ends up doing extreme things for attention, or believing that everyone should give them the same undue attention when they are older.

You are now just bullshitting.

You are now speaking from ignorance. My wife is a teacher and I have coached flag football for years and I see all the time how parents lack of, or over- parenting affects their children. There are those parents who have their face in their phones while their child is playing and the child has self-esteem issues and those parents who constantly talk like their kid's shit doesn't stink and how that kid acts like his shit doesn't stink.
But if you don't believe me then read these articles that are very simple to find with a proper Google search ('cause your too lazy to do it yourself).
https://www.familyeducation.com/kids/de ... evelopment

https://www.healthline.com/health/menta ... g-behavior

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... indulgence

https://www.healthyplace.com/parenting/ ... too-little

What makes sex so special that we can accept without question that someone claims to be the opposite sex, but if someone were to claim to a different race or species, then that is crazy?

What we do is listen and accept. WHy do you think it is up to you to "question"?
WTF do you think you are?

A person with the same rights as you. You're questioning me. Why do you think it is up to you to question me? WTF do you think you are - an authoritarian that believes that they can question others but they cannot be questioned. I'm not the one telling others to not question. You are. I'm fine with people asking me questions so that I can give my answers and have them reasonably criticized. You've been criticizing me, but not reasonably.

A person with anorexia nervosa can have a distorted perception of weight. "Gender-affirming care" would be like telling an anorexic person to go on a diet - affirming their distorted perception that in unhealthy. Just like lawyers support new laws being created because it gives them more job security, doctors - especially cosmetic surgeons - will support laws which give them more clients, regardless of the mental health of the individual.

A somatic delusion is one where the person believes there is something wrong with their body. Symptoms of a delusional disorder may include:

Feelings of being exploited.
Preoccupation with the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends.
A tendency to read threatening meanings into benign remarks or events.
Persistently holding grudges.
A readiness to respond and react to perceived slights.

These behaviors are exactly what you see when someone's "gender" claims are being questioned.

If someone came along and tried to tell you, you were mad to thing yourself a boy, you would justifiably feeling exploited and paranoid.
So what is YOUR reason for holding a grudge against trans people?


You are so full of your own invention on this matter.

What are you scared of?

Right, so I identify as a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My Master" when you reply to me. If you don't I'm going to feel exploited and paranoid.