If Mind preceded Matter like Idealism says it does then why do transgender people exist?

If Mind preceded Matter like Idealism says it does then why do transgender people exist?

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2729718/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921311/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

there are plenty of issues with transgender, particularly ones that arise from the fact that gender is a social construct, but this isn't one of them

>when yu mean to troll idealism but you just fuck up empiricism
>when you probably a materialist too

but those constructs are to some extent determined by phsyicaly induced temperaments

transgender people are pareidolia, just like thefamous "face" on the surface of Mars. It looks like a person but it's pure matter, without any kind of mind or intention.

>transgender people
>exist

My shoes are a social construct, yet they are objectively shoes and will never be socks.

They don't. It's all a fantasy, a psychological disorder, or both.

>they

stop constructing their plurality

Shoes are not a social construct. They are an object.

But since we overcame natural alienation to such a degree that we have swathes of the population spending ther lives on the internet shows we shouldn't care so much about physical constraints as much as conceptual and institutional ones, which deprive us of the potentiality inherent to being

Well, first I don't see the problem. Like, literally: where is the contradiction?

Second, idealists aren't exactly right.

Gender is not a social construct. Social expectations regarding gender exist because gender existed.

Society does not arbitrarily define what masculine values and feminine values are. Millennia of men being men and women being women built expectations.

In other words, the Men and Women came BEFORE the social expectations surrounding their sexes.

Expectations surrounding gender may exist socially, but these are stereotypes, not gender itself.

These gender stereotypes were born over long periods of time, and although they can change, the overall consistency of these views globally suggests they will not change much because they are based on reality. It is likely views on the sexes will change only as the sexes themselves change - which will take place very slowly.

You mean that arise out of the misapprehension that gender is a social construct. Which is more likely: that someone raised as a boy will face being ostracized in order to become a woman just 'cause they feel like it, or that gender identity is inherent and that sometimes your identity doesn't match your sex?

>arise out
He means that transgenders want to have the classical sings of the opposite of their sex, so for women who want to be men, they want to have dick and stop having boobs, because they claim that masculinity is having a dick and not have boobs, a discourse which feminists and other teen leftists despise.
Transgenders are utterly patriarchal.

That's less of a result of an internal need to be as taxonomically close to the gender they're transitioning to than a need look as close to the ideal form of the gender they're transitioning to in order to avoid discrimination and to be accepted both sexually and socially. A trans woman who looks like a woman is going to be much more accepted socially than a trans woman who makes no effort to look like a woman.

Yeah, but as a consequence, a woman who is transitioning to male should identify herself as "penisful", not "man". And a male-to-female trans should state he is "boobful" or "penisless", not "female".

Trannies are the JUST brendan fraser meme of humans. That alone is interesting in its own right. is there any good transgender literature?

The definition of shoe and sock are social constructs.

Delusions of the mind.

Also note that men's shoes have the same penis-like shape as socks (which are penetrating objects), whereas women's shoes are just basically an exposed hole.

try hard

I don't think you understand what a social construct is mate.

It's something that only exists in a certain type of culture, and is something completely different in another. It's a meaning we place on something that doesn't really relate to what is actually the case.

Biological sex isn't a construct, but the expectations we have towards people of certain genders are. For example, look at how there's a social construct that men should be tough, and not have strong emotions or be found unable to cope with situations. This is obviously not the case, fucking everyone struggles with stuff and can't cope sometimes, we're communal creatures, yet we've still created a construct in which masculinity is emotionless.

The most likely situation is that there's a combination of the two that influences our behaviour. Are men more likely to act in a certain way than women? Sure, I'd say that even outside a society with strong standards that would be true. However, it's just ignorant to claim that social influences aren't a huge part of why people act certain ways, and in this case it would be the general construct of how men or women should act that influences them. There's nothing biologically that would make a man want to stay quiet about something that's making him absolutely miserable and may eventually drive him to suicide, yet the construct of a man as a stoic figure influences this.


Apologies for poor wording, I'm exhausted and dehydrated, but I think it made sense still. There's a lot of literature out there on social constructionism if you're interested, have a look for yourself.

Well yeah, language is absolutely a social construct, what's your point?

The definition of shoe is not the same as the object itself. The word shoe is not the same thing as an actual shoe, which can exist outside the confines of language. If I call a shoe a Higwat, it's still a shoe, I've just created a different thing to call it. Shoes aren't different things in French user.

In France I meant to type, sorry.

>There's nothing biologically that would make a man want to stay quiet about something that's making him absolutely miserable and may eventually drive him to suicide

Strong willed, stoic, men make better protectors and providers and thus better mates. Women are more expressive of their emotions because of estrogen, not because of a socially constructed femininity. Gender roles exist in the animal kingdom, and humans aren't really much different than animals when it comes down to it.

>Strong willed, stoic, men make better protectors and providers and thus better mates

Weak reasoning seeing as there's a huge amount of evidence to show that this is directly psychologically damaging. A man who's killed himself is not a good mate.

>Women are more expressive of their emotions because of estrogen

Evidence for this? I understand the impact estrogen has on emotion, but not expressivity of such.

>Gender roles exist in the animal kingdom, and humans aren't really much different than animals when it comes down to it.

False comparison, we aren't animals socially or mentally.

It's called a mental illness.

that's not what idealism states. idealism states that mind precedes the knowledge of matter. depends on what kind of idealist you are i guess, but few of them seriously believed that matter didnt exist at all. it's moreso the belief that our knowledge of everything is shaped by the mind, and thus the mind is granted primacy over matter.

>Weak reasoning seeing as there's a huge amount of evidence...

Let's see it

We're very smart primates, but we're still primates. Genetically we're not very different from chimps. Why would we be magically different from every other species of animal on the planet?

Even if "repressing" our emotions is damaging, it's not nearly so damaging as modernity itself. Primitive or traditional, cultures are much healthier both physically and mentally than Western city dwellers. I say we fix that before trying to monkey around with gender roles, no pun intended. Of course we wouldn't have feminism or diversity in that kind of culture but at least we wouldn't have skyrocketing rates of mental illness, drug use, violence, and perversion either.

Evidence that a support network is highly useful in dealing with our issues? I mean, sure, here

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2729718/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921311/
>Numerous studies indicate social support is essential for maintaining physical and psychological health. The harmful consequences of poor social support and the protective effects of good social support in mental illness have been well documented.

You can't have social support while also keeping everything to yourself and hiding your emotions, we're communal creatures, not solitary ones that just live around each other.

>Why would we be magically different from every other species of animal on the planet?

Maybe that we have higher functions? Developed culture? Have many languages and ways of expressing abstract thoughts? Are you seriously arguing humans are no different to chimps, or that one animal having something is proof that we must too?

>it's not nearly so damaging as modernity itself

Evidence for this? Modern culture is by far the healthiest we've ever been, don't try to act like some under developed tribe is better off than us, mental illness has existed in every culture ever, and infections and diseases are much, much more life threatening in less developed cultures than they are here.

>mental illness, drug use, violence, and perversion either.

As I said, mental illness has existed in every culture ever, an increasing rate is easily explained by us actually understanding it better and diagnosing it more, doesn't mean it was around less.

Drug use is just a complete non-issue, people have always used drugs, always will, you can't stop that.

Violence is actually way, way lower than it's been in the past, rates have steadily gone down.

And perversion? What are you even talking about? You get we have less sex than the last generation, right?

Drop the "le wrong generation" shit.

All definitions are social because language is by nature social you goon. If you use social construct to denote anything which can be defined then it literally encompasses everything and therefore has no meaning you retard.

Oh I understand perfectly what it is. It is you who didn't understand my point, mate.

>the social construct that men should be tough

The social expectation that men should be tough is a good example. This notion developed over millennia from widespread observation that men are generally tough, relative to women. This is easily proven, as this particular stereotype exists in all cultures, world wide, and is backed by biological data - such as muscle density, size, the effects of testosterone on the brain, average stress responses in males v. females - the list could go on. Likewise, similar analyses yielding analogous cornucopias of supporting data can be easily produced for the vast majority of objections (if not all of them outright).

>thats obviously not the case...and can't cope sometimes

Social standards and stereotypes, by definition, apply to the mean. You are attempting to use circumstantial variables to negate averages. It doesn't work that way.

Even if this were a trend among modern men, this would only tie into my final point - that these views can change only if the sexes themselves do. However, it is not a trend which is taking place on a biological level, it is taking place as a wind of culture which will pass as circumstances change, as they always do.

The point - the overwhelming majority of social constructions surrounding gender (if not all) are age old derivatives from the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES between the two genders.

Why should our lives be dictated by the bodies we are born in?
What if technology progresses to a point where we could eschew out born bodies and choose a new form. Would doing so be a mental illness?
Not everyone feels as attached to their physical forms as other people do. Transgender people probably view them as malleable.

Y'know what? I'd also like to add this.

"Tough" when applied to men, as in, "Men are generally tough," refers to a specific kind of toughness.

MASCULINE STRENGTH
Toughness, applied to Women, denotes FEMININE STRENGTH.

However, when men and women express their virtues - though there are areas of overlap, as we are all human - they are not analogous.

Women possess strengths which men do not generally posses, and the same is true of men in relation to women.

Similarly, shared virtues express themselves differently depending on whether they are being born of man or of woman. This is not merely a matter of the outward appearance, but a result of the deep interconnected wholeness of the human organism as a complete system.

>such as muscle density, size, the effects of testosterone on the brain, average stress responses in males v. females - the list could go on.

The list could go on with irrelevant data, sure. Testosterone causes emotions to be far more intense, by the way. Stress responses in conflict are not evidence of what's normal emotionally, and neither is fucking muscle density.

Humans are communal creatures, and the huge benefits of strong social networks and support networks are well documented (sources already in the thread). Men are not intended to be different in this somehow, which is shown in the fact that it's bad for both our physical and mental health to try to hide emotions and refuse to admit there's a problem or rely on others to help with it, despite there having been a huge amount of pressure for guys to "Be a man" or "Toughen up and deal with it".

>Social standards and stereotypes, by definition, apply to the mean. You are attempting to use circumstantial variables to negate averages. It doesn't work that way.


If you'd actually address my whole point instead of paraphrasing it to create a different point, and quit using random large words (Circumstantial variables? That's not in any way applicable to what I said, nor does it at all make sense) to try to make yourself seem smarter, you might see it very differently.

Everyone needs to rely on others, men or women. We are communal creatures, and the need for this communal attitude is well documented. As such, it's extremely obvious that men are not best served by hiding these emotions and refusing to rely on a social network, yet this is still what's expected of us as "masculinity", which is seen as a positive. As it's not backed up by any biological data, and in fact is directly contradicted by psychological evidence, it cannot be anything more than an extremely negative social construct expressed in the form of a gender stereotype.

>However, it is not a trend which is taking place on a biological level, it is taking place as a wind of culture which will pass as circumstances change, as they always do.

What are you even trying to argue? Seriously, what is your point? Are you making the argument that it being acceptable for men to have emotions and talk openly about their problems is somehow a negative thing? That they're not meant to do those things on a biological level?

>The point - the overwhelming majority of social constructions surrounding gender (if not all) are age old derivatives from the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES between the two genders.

Are you now arguing that everything we do is because of a biological difference between the genders, and that social influences just flat out aren't there? Are you retarded?

You should focus less on making huge statements and jumping point to point, and more on making an argument that actually makes sense and is easily understood, because I have no fucking idea what your position even is, bar thinking gender roles are biological.

If dick preceeded ass like leftists said, then why does homosexual exist?

Checkmate gaytheists.

Irrelevant data, heh. No, it's not, actually.

Your comment on testosterone, is a good example of why you're missing the point of our discussion. You need to enlarge your perspective before honing in on minutiae - otherwise, it will be a long, arduous process of building your way piece by piece to the perspective I am presenting you (which may take a few minutes, or a day, years, or never happen - depending on what you're actually like)

Testosterone is more intense? In what sense? [rhetorical questions] These things are ambiguous, you see. While testosterone is more intense in one way, estrogen is in others.

As for stress responses in conflict, I am referring to the median stress response for each sex.

This means, we establish first the base line of stress (picture a circle being drawn - this domain is the stress environment). Within this domain, what is the mean response for men and for women? They are, in fact, quite different - in a number of ways.

But by all means, continue believing what you believe as you will.

>address your whole point

That's what I'm saying. I addressed your whole point before your first reply. My second post was nothing more than a reiteration and extrapolation on my first. You cannot seem to see the big picture I'm painting for you, though I've boiled it down to one line for you.

>...is somehow a negative thing

No. Far from it in fact. I only adhered to the example of masculine strength expectations because you provided it, and it is an easy one to use.

>...and that social influences just flat out aren't there?

Again, not at all. Do you know what derivative means? If it is a derivative, then it exists. However, its existence is then contingent upon the existence of a predicate. In this instance, that predicate is biological sex - a physiological phenomenon not limited to genitalia.

What I am saying is there are layers. Your focus is on the currents in the ocean. My focus is on the base formations which have formed those currents in the first place, and which, should they change, can alter those currents ad infinitum.

Sidenote:

Any attempt to make oneself appear more intelligent is destined to fail for every person is precisely as smart as they are.

A person is not actually capable of appearing more intelligent than they are. All the methods of manipulation available to them are only available to precise degree of their capacity.

What actually happens is they are over estimated or underestimated, and it is a fault of the perceiver - born either of naivete, arrogance, or the intrinsic gap between the intelligence of the presenter and audience.

Also, you should know - when you accuse someone of trying to sound intelligent, you have unwittingly associated them with some form of intelligence. It is only by making the association that you can produce the accusation.

Quit the condescending shit mate, you're not anywhere near as smart as you think you are.

>These things are ambiguous, you see. While testosterone is more intense in one way, estrogen is in others.


No, it's not. We can measure this, as low testosterone can result in blunting of emotions, and adding testosterone past the normal range can result in much, much more intense emotions.

Estrogen tends to cause faster moving, less intense emotions.

>This means, we establish first the base line of stress (picture a circle being drawn - this domain is the stress environment). Within this domain, what is the mean response for men and for women? They are, in fact, quite different - in a number of ways.

The baseline of stress? As in how stressed people are day to day? Can you source a study that claims this, particularly one that claims it's a purely biological phenomenon, if it's true?

>My second post was nothing more than a reiteration and extrapolation on my first. You cannot seem to see the big picture I'm painting for you, though I've boiled it down to one line for you.

But you didn't? You just ignored what I said and spent a few thousand words trying to look smart instead of addressing what I said. You flat out made up words to look smarter.

>No. Far from it in fact. I only adhered to the example of masculine strength expectations because you provided it, and it is an easy one to use.

So, if it's a positive thing (which it objectively is as far as health goes, evolutionarily it is a strength), how does that work with your claim that social constructs come from biology? Biologically speaking, this standard is directly a bad thing.

>Your focus is on the currents in the ocean. My focus is on the base formations which have formed those currents in the first place, and which, should they change, can alter those currents ad infinitum.

Purple prose doesn't make you look smarter mate, and you've still not managed to actually address what I'm saying, just talk around it.

>Also, you should know - when you accuse someone of trying to sound intelligent, you have unwittingly associated them with some form of intelligence. It is only by making the association that you can produce the accusation.

No, by accusing you of trying to sound intelligent, I'm flat out saying that you don't sound intelligent, you sound like you're trying way too hard to sound smart, by using unnecessary words in a way that just obscures your point, by making up words, by acting condescending. I'm not associating you with intelligence at all, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do to try to convince yourself I am.


Talk like a normal person, stop trying so fucking hard, actually address the points, don't just go "lol you just don't get it", or don't bother replying, you're pretty much one more unnecessary metaphor off being enlightened by your own intelligence.

I am most likely almost precisely as smart as I think I am - though I may be a bit more or a bit less.

I'm speaking to you as cordially and directly as I may. Either you can handle it, or you cannot. You are not obligated to speak with me, and I am not obliged to accommodate you any further than I already am.

Yes, it is ambiguous. You will certainly not comprehend my argument in any reasonable amount of time if you cannot comprehend even so basic a point.

Your categorizations of the differences between the effects of testosterone and estrogen are spurious and frivolous. I am not asking you to define their effects - if I wished to know specifics, I would consult an expert. This is what I mean by broaden your focus. You need to stop honing in on the particulars and see their connection to the big picture. At the very least, you need to be able to do this to refute my point. Otherwise, you will remain contained within the sphere of my focus, unaware that you are merely examining something within it.

Also, I assure you, I would never profess a point to you as a biological one if it wasn't substantiated. I have no fear of letting anyone know which thoughts are mine and which are data.

There have been studies on male and female responses to stress conducted at Oxford and Cambridge - and I'm sure many other places.

One of the results, present even in very young children, is men prefer to isolate themselves while working through stress while women seek the comfort of a group, for starters.

As a testament to the ambiguous nature of all things, this is not a criticism of men or of women. Merely a statement of fact and a testament to one of our inherent differences. Though it may seem small, even this tendency alone can ripple outwards and manifest itself culturally in many ways. This rippling effect is what I have been attempting to bring to your attention. The social sphere of gender is derived from the intrinsic differences of the sexes. At a certain point, just akin to the effect of currents on an ocean surface, the social dynamics can take on a life of their own. However, they will never be, and never can be, disconnected from the source - the inherent differences of biological sex (which would be represented, in the ocean analogy, by the topology of the sea floor, and the atmospheric conditions which birth specific ocean patterns).

If you truly think I didn't reiterate and extrapolate, then it went entirely over your head, and I'm wasting my time with you.

You don't seem to get it. I'm not trying. If I were I'd speak to you as though writing a thesis. When you spend a large amount of time studying, reading, associating with academics - these things come naturally.

You don't realize that by so vehemently pushing your belief that I'm posturing, you are merely revealing that it is you who would need to try in order to be my equal.

Good luck.

Yeah, okay dude, writing a bunch more purple prose and chucking a few extra insults sure showed me just how smart you are.

By the way, half the words you're using don't make any sense in context. Do you even know what extrapolate means? You can't just put random big words in a sentence and act like it makes you smart dude. Kind of a giveaway that you're trying too hard.

I'm in no way trying to claim I'm a genius, or even particularly smart, but I'm glad I can say I at least write sentences that make sense.

If I punch you and you start bleeding, it's not really blood then?

Only because meaning is constructed interactively (i.e. through subject-object and subject-subject relationships), it does not follow that there is no meaning at all, only that meaning is grounded in the reality of human experience.

Transgender people seek to destroy the category of gendered existence, something which is very much grounded in genetic reality. Men and women do not solely conform to cultural gender identities but they also conform to a combination of cultural and genetic gender identities.

Isn't that the only way they can exist?

Oh, boy. They do make sense buddy. Just not to you.

I've really tried with you, but we're at an impasse it seems.

As I said, good luck.

You analogy fails because it exists, not within an amorphous world of social expectations, but in a concrete, physical reality of direct causal relations.

I am well aware of what ""transgenders"" are trying to do. I have just explained to you why it is an endeavor rooted in fantasy, though you do not know it, and though we did not get to delve as far as we might have if you had known it.

Farewell.

You literally made up words mate, and the other half you seemingly don't understand what they mean.

It's not that what you wrote was too advanced for me, it's that you just chucked in words you thought sounded smart, regardless of if they made sense or not.

Such as? I did not make up a single word. You just need to read more. Ironic, because we're on Veeky Forums.

Circumstantial variables is not a thing, you flat out made that up. I even googled it to make sure, and there was nothing that came up.

You can have circumstantial evidence, or variables, but you can't have a circumstantial variable, it's redundant.

I can go into other examples of shit you said that doesn't make sense if you'd like? Or maybe a bunch of sentences you wrote in an incredibly awkward and stilted way so you could force bigger words into it? The only people who talk that way are retarded fedora sorts that just want to make sure everyone knows how smart they think they are.

If you weren't using so many large words, I'd honestly assume that English wasn't your first language, the way you type is that stilted.

OMG DUDE.

You need to read more, or, if you are reading in earnest, you need to think more critically while you do. I have apparently transcended your ability to manipulate your own language.

Circumstantial variables.

Think about it.

The variables within a specific circumstance.

To put it another way, the elements subject to variation or change within a specific circumstance.

It is literally that simple.

I am not using predefined combinations of words. I do not need to. I understand the meanings of individual words well enough to be able to use them inventively AND accurately.

How can you ever say anything original and intelligent without attaining this level? I am being serious now.

Please, please do go into the other examples. I will be happy to explain them to you.

I also should have specified:

It is not redundant. Redundancy implies repetition, which implies that at least two of the terms or clauses in the sentence were synonyms.

Variables and Circumstances are not synonymous, and therefore, circumstantial variables is not redundant.

Is this serious? Are you being serious with all of this shit? Or have I just fallen for some elaborate ruse?

Do you honestly think that someone who doesn't even know what extrapolate means is somehow ascending my ability to understand language?

You're not an innovator, you're just making up terms and acting smart for it, even if it makes no sense.

You don't even know what redundancy means, and are still acting like your English is somehow superior?

I just can't believe that you're actually this retarded, congrats on actually writing a funny troll instead of just posting bait though.

>ascending

Yes, yes, I do. As the correct word is transcending and ascending and transcending are two very different things.

Your accusations are hollow. I know what each and every word I've used means, each and every metaphor, and analogy.

It is you who is lost, and too proud to admit it and so you attempt to disparage me - not realizing that it is impossible. Anyone who is smarter than you are will see through you as easily as I do.

Which brings us full circle, back to my statement about the futility of attempting to appear more intelligent than you are.

Hahaha. Wow. What a slice of fried gold.

Haha, okay man, you took it a bit far there I think, way too obvious.

In the off chance that you're not trolling, please stop posting, you're legitimately the stupidest person I've had the displeasure of talking to, you type exactly like the enlightened by my own intelligence sorts, and are incapable of admitting that you don't know what half the words you mean, and have made up terms yourself.


Maybe take the shitposting to a board more suited to it though?

Transgenderism is a globalist psyops to make men weaker and reduce birthrate.

Why couldn't there be errors in an idealistic world? Seemingly unsolvable ones, too?

>Modern culture is by far the healthiest we've ever been
Yes yes. The dopamine levels are natural and ideal. Yet he still wishes to kill himself. We have no idea why!
Obesity, lack of architecture and virtues is not health. Porn killed sex, together with feminism.

HAHAHAHAHA. Oh man, you're doomed dude. You're so delusional it is ludicrous. Literally giving me some great laughs though. Keep going. Really.

My linguist roommate [whom you'll no doubt think is fictitious] will love this. Really keep going. If you need another shovel I'll be happy to provide one for you. You seem to be doing a fine job on your own, however.

>doesn't like made up terms
>on /lit
Dude, what the fuck are you doing here? Time to take a deep breath and remember that you're anonymous. It's ok. It's only your pride you are struggling with. You can turn it off and walk away and your life will go on the same.

Obesity is true, but I'd much rather be overweight than die of a horrible infection, or catch a plague, wouldn't you? You can easily change obesity, it's a choice you can make. You can't do anything if you get a nasty disease without modern medicine except wait and hope you don't die.

Suicide's always been a thing as well, as has mental illness, we can track that back about as far as medicine goes under different names. There's more recognised mental illness because we just understand mental illness better, which means that we can as such treat it better. People have always killed themselves though.

Sex isn't dead at all, we're just having less of it than the last generation did. You shouldn't project your own issues onto others like that.


You got me.

Not the user you're responding to, but gotta be honest, you sound like a douche.

This image is the worst thing I have ever seen.

You say this in every tranny thread. And I'm working on it.

t. tranny

(In the meantime maybe The Book of Dolores by William T Vollmann, even though it's in no way good; it's just it's not quite plebby, either.)

they don't

How do you reconcile visiting this board with being a transexual, honestly. It seems absolutely bizzare to me. I understand how other boards would attract your crowd but I don't see how Veeky Forums is compatible with your choices in life at all?

Have you tried therapy

I like reading and writing.

And yes - the therapists told me to keep transitioning.

Trannies are proof of the non-existence of free will.

Idealism can be more or less contradictory since it's tough to posit thought as the sole, reliable reality, and advance at the same time the hypothesis of a more transcending reality.

You are now aware that Iran is the second place in the world in number of sex change operations.

I was already aware of that. It's how they punish homosexuality.

could someone explain to me why gender-change is still a thing for queers when this lady literally deconstructed gender? why not just be yourself, whatever performativity, without having knives put to your genitals and without taking hormones?

Trannies are crazy perverts.

I like dressing in a way that frightens Muslims.

Mr Vénus is about characters who are certainly trans, written in and set in turn of the century France.

Monsieur isn't abbreviated to 'Mr' in English; it's M or Mssr.

should have gone to a less ideological therapist imo
but each to his own desu
what's your opinion on sartre?

I'm not well-read on Sartre but will say his descriptions of Antoine Roquentin looking into the mirror in Nausea make for a useful adjacency to what happens in dysphoria.

Who knows - maybe Sartre was a repressed tranny and de Beauvoir would get him to be a good underage girl for her.

Honestly, I perceive Sartre as more of a high-ranking politician than an authentic intellectual. His 'revolutionary politics' were official-revolutionary politics, signed and stamped for by his quasi-official party: the wealthy communist intelligentsia. His support for Castro etc. had direct infrastructural benefits for that party, i.e. expansion of resources in terms of gains in financial assets and employees (via comm bureaucrats). So when he talks about creating oneself and accepting one's freedom, I notice, especially in that he feels the need to insist on the existence of slaves' freedom, that he's talking about an onus; fuck you, he's saying, don't tell me you're not free; accept that you're free and use your freedom to... well, he didn't think past that point because he was an intelligent dude born to money; who, like so many of those floppy, post/war-time intellectuals, refused to see how such ludicrous advices as (where I think they reached their ludicrous height) Bertrand Russell's admonishment to each confused young intellectual to 'become a pirate' might not actually be appropriate for everybody - refused to see how, for ordinary people, chaos has a negative value; and ultimately, who not only prioritised amusing himself over fulfilling his obligations as a political leader, but madly persuaded himself (and disastrously, his political colleagues as well) that doing so much was the precise best fulfilment of those obligations. In truth I don't think he understood Nietzsche when he read him, for example, and I think he ended his career in a state of ignorance and confusion, being unsure of what he'd ever said.

Why do women try to make themselves appear taller?

mind if I steal that comparison?

they cannot have dick so they wish they were dicks.
proof : as long as they believe they have dicks (that is, while they identify their clit as a small dick, hence before 7yo), they don't wear high heels.
Freud definitely understood everything.

Dickgirls don't wear heels then, unless it's part of the profession? Interesting.

Filtering out guys shorter than them in heels.

Because transgenderism is caused by ghosts, flawed reincarnation, and spirit possessions you fucking mongrel curmudgeon

Is this that theory that if you were a nazi in a past life you're reincarnated as a tranny, and that this is why there are so many trannies around lately?

What do you mean by identify clit as a small dick, you talking subconscious things that cannot be demonstrably proven? Is the dick a metaphoric representation of male privilege/power/prestige whatever you want to call it in society or are you really being that reductionist? Legitimately curious.

---

Also in general I never understand "gender is a social construct" as a way of a) ending a conversation/dismissing anything (society is inescapable essentially) and b) as an argument against transgender people. If anything I would think it would support them, if it's a social category the boundaries aren't as cut-and-dry as the state of an SRY-gene. Hell, it's even more broad than the state of pre-birth hormone concentrations/proportions.

epiphyseal plates close faster in people with higher+earlier amounts of estrogen (e.g. average woman) giving shorter stature. It could be argued high heels address this height difference

But also
Heels do more than just make oneself taller. The heels of most women's shoes specifically change one's posture in a way that brings in the waist and brings out ass + breasts.

They're also specifically not the shoe type of a laborer (hard to walk in, other shoes like boots can give height but are still practical) so something similar to long nails is probably going on too

Well Freud explains that little girls spontaneously see their clit as some kind of dick. They're not, like, "oh I have a hole instead of a penis", rather "here's my little penis, I have one too". And so the first genital pleasure of a girl is related to the clit, not the vagina.
Then when the girl realizes her clit is not a penis, and her genital organ is rather a hole, she develops "castration complex" (wtf, why don't I have a dick, I want a dick), and later she finally gets a dick when she finds a man. Or she can find a dick in some other symbols (bearing a baby for instance, for a baby is like a dick - it's something that fills their hole. symbolically speaking of course).

I'm not sure if this is all true, but it doesn't sound stupid to me.It's one of the points feminists hate in Freud - because they assume that he regards clitoridian pleasure as something childish that has to be overcome (whereas he just observes that usually, in order to become sexually mature, girls feel like they 'should' focus on vaginal pleasure instead of clit).

Yeah my issue with it is that dick is seen as the neutral/baseline of reference. It's about the baby being the dick it's about the clit being the dick etc etc. Interesting how it's never about dicks being clits (they are different organs but also one in the same, they develop from the same thing in utero but are warped by hormones). The problem is that it's made into an innate psychological facts about human development when one could actually make a similar argument and change it to be socially-driven (disadvantaged social and/or biological category craving the privileges of another, seeking to emulate it to try to gain access to those privileges or gain access to them by proxy [husband theory]) and more people would actually agree with it and it'd probably have more basis in reality.

This is anecdotal but in my experience thinking your clit was a dick is actually unusual. I actually did think my clit was a dick but only because I did not know what clits where but I knew what dicks were somewhat (I had seen a male baby getting changed) so I was like "oh I have a thing that sticks out.. it must be a type of dick."
Had I seen an externally visible clit and had it explained to me what it was I would have identified it as a clit. It was a deficit in my knowledge and a lack of a word for what I had exactly. I didn’t freak out and develop “penis envy” when I realized it was a clit, even when I thought of it as a dick I still saw it for what it was/saw it for its functions. When I realized it was called a clit, what changed wasn’t the perception of my own genitalia but the the meaning of a word/category.

Not sure how similar this is, but a less "political" example that might be comparable is how different languages map out color space differently. Some, like Japanese (at least before WWII/increasing Western influence) map green and blue together. Others, like Russian, divide light blue and dark blue into two colors that are thought of as basic/fundamental as our difference between light red/purple (pink [there are other languages that divide up what we call pink]) and medium-to-dark red (red).
These labels don't affect the hue value nor do they affect perception much.* If there is no word for orange specifically you can still see orange, you just map it to a different one. If there is no word for clit or you don't know it, that doesn't mean you think it's the exact same as a penis [specific male sex organ/equivalent of clit] even if you think of it as a penis. Penis could very well just be thought of "any genital that sticks out" until one acquires a word like "clit" and changes the definition of penis to exclude clits.
* (they do have a slight impact on memory tasks iirc because of the way they linguistically encode colors. also, where there are color boundaries in their language, there is an increased performance/speed in recognizing minute hue changes compared to speakers of languages without a boundary there)

> (You)
fuck sorry forgot to add in who i was responding to, it's (also sorry for the longass comment lmao)

>how different languages map out color space differently
There should be at least some tribe where the same word is used for clit and penis. Or maybe there isn't, but if there is, it's definitely worth studying them to see how language influences "penis envy" etc. (and also castration complex in little boys). A bit like what Malinowski did with the inhabitants of Trobriand island and the absence of "fathers" in their tribe, leading to something else than the usual Oedipus complex.

>I actually did think my clit was a dick but only because I did not know what clits where
I guess it's probably what most girls experience. Honestly I don't know at all if Freud states that "penis envy" is a universal phenomenon or not. But if all parents started explaining things, like, look kid, that's a clit and that's a dick, see ? - then yeah maybe there would be no "penis envy" at all since the female genital would not be seen as a lack-of-something.

I also had the impression that some 20-ish girls regarding themselves as adults, or as 'madame', or as fully mature, tend to favor "getting fucked" (in a plain vaginal way) over "getting their clit played with", as if the idea of genital organ being a hole was fully assumed (which I regret).

>There should be at least some tribe where the same word is used for clit and penis
I actually have some doubts there exists a community with a specific word that applies to both and has /no/ other words to distinguish the two (mostly bc male and female are so salient as concepts even if people say they aren’t, they are found across cultures because the vast majority of the population is divided into [can get pregnant or looks like they can] and [can get someone pregnant]. they could be so salient as concepts that there are some linguistic universals surrounding them.).

Closest you might get is a language where penis comes from a word meaning something sticking out that now only has the meaning of genitalia and one form of the word is feminine and one is masculine. I could be wrong though and there is a better example. Interesting either way, I'll have to look into it sometime.

(In Anglosphere science the term phallus is used somewhat close to this and i have seen phallus defined in a way that was inclusive to both clits and dicks. it is mostly used this way in the context of in-utero development as well as in descriptions of intersex conditions where "phallus" is a gender-neutral subsittute for clit/dick. IDK if it can count tho bc while science is impacted by social factors it still doesn't feel entirely comparable to layman/general cultural usage).

[There are also some universals with color too, if there is only one hue distinction in a language it is always something that maps roughly to our conception of red (no one knows why but I assume it’s because it’s the color of our, and other vertebrates, blood). I have yet to find anything about a language that has only white, black, and green. It is always white, black, and red.]

>I guess it's probably what most girls experience.
Yeah, it might. I just thought it was odd because I have asked many others about it and they thought it was weird/hilarious that I did. (and it's not like my friends are the sort to lie about that to act "modest"/"pure", we have academic interests in things like anthropomorphic rollercoaster porn lol).

>I also had the impression that some 20-ish girls regarding themselves as adults, or as 'madame', or as fully mature, tend to favor "getting fucked" (in a plain vaginal way) over "getting their clit played with", as if the idea of genital organ being a hole was fully assumed (which I regret).

Well, I mean to your credit there are individuals somewhat like this (including some of my friends). Usually it’s either due to clit hypersensitivity or due to feeling like clit stimulation would be too “inconvenient” for their partner.
BTW i’ll have to look into the studies you mentioned, they sound interesting, thanks for sharing

Just wanted to to say I appreciated these posts. The helped solidify some thoughts I've been trying to work through. The ocean metaphor was particularly apt and elucidating. Thank you.

But it isn't douchey at all to assume a random stranger cares what you think they sound like right?

Trannies are proof that human beings can be broken.

Thank you, for your kindness.

Nice samefag dude.

You're right, I did come off as a douche at times.

That user got under my skin a bit with all his accusations. Still, there's no excuse.

I'm sorry Veeky Forums, and I'm sorry to that particular user as well.

It genuinely wasn't me.

This and is me.

Sure it wasn't, just someone who types exactly like you did.

Nice deleted post by the way.

I thought so. That's why I deleted them. They were in poor taste, and on reflection I realized it.

Believe what you want.