There's no such thing as Transexuals

Yes, a sellout republican like most in the party are right now. If Trump drained the swamp there would only be a few public servants left on the floor of congress, standing next to Trump. Trump has beaten those republicans in the house and senate and they are pissed that he is rocking their long term boat.

I think that one of the 2 people to come out already and endorse him for 2020 reelection was indicted today for stealing campaign funds. They said he bought clothes at a golf course and listed it as spending money on balls for wounded warriors. Paid his dental bills with it. Took the family to Lake Tahoe and Italy. All kinds of shit. So far then that just leaves Trump and 1 guy.

Willfully ignorant of objective reality?

Claims about things like, “objective reality” are the stuff that philosophers talk about, and largely those debates are unsettled and consist mostly of logical connections between metaphysical entities, (and I don’t mean your voodoo witchcraft kind of metaphysical entities).

You should really reword whatever it is that you’re trying to say so that you can be understood by people who are used to seeing the terms your using mean something technical as opposed to just part of an emotivist coping response.

Objective reality, a man is born with a penis and scrotum and a woman is born with a vagina and reproductive organs, thus they are identified as such respectively and we don’t waste time debating the ridiculousness of social constructs to name non-biologically irrelevant individuals the same as biologically born individuals…a debate brought on by liberal lies…duh.

Liberal lies don’t want them to be settled that’s my point.

You have a weird way of interacting socially, and I would kindly ask you to stop thinking about my genitals.

Seriously though, it does seem very strange to think that you have to picture the genitals of whoever you’re interacting with in order to have a sufficient mental model of them for basic social interactions. Most social interactions don’t involve genitals, couldn’t possibly involve genitals, wouldn’t be the slightest bit different if the genitals involved were different. One knows so little about the genitals of the people one interacts with, even if you do hold an image of their genitals in mind to help make sense of the interaction, you are almost certainly mistaken on a regular basis (e.g. hermaphrodites, accident victims, passing transsexuals, etc., not to mention the numerous small ways in which a person’s genitals can differ from the norm), and the image in your mind is just a useful fiction.

So, you will accept scientific findings that conflict with your beliefs when they are not the findings of a liberal, and you can tell whether or not they are the findings of a liberal based on whether or not the findings confirm your beliefs… This is not an effective method for aligning one’s beliefs with objective reality.

But how do we determine to which referent a given symbol should apply? A man is a man, a woman is a woman seems straightforward enough. But those are just self referencing statements that don’t tell us anything regarding the meaning of the terms in any given context.

Check out this guy…he’s got a theory of names. It’s interesting stuff. Sometimes Wendy, when your entire world view is a big hilarious set of political memes and your overall view of things is actually very small, the only thing you can do when you don’t understand is attack the other. Like, trannies make you feel sick to your stomach and so they must be wrong, and people who say they’re not are the bad guys those lying liberals.

It’s sad to watch. Here…educate yourself a little. Objective reality as you call it, if there is such a thing, would be inherently apolitical.

This is a philosophy forum god damnit. So learn some philosophy and act like it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_and_Necessity

When the troll is dumb but you get trolled anyway because you want to help someone who is dumb.

Shit. Kripke…sounds like a Jewish name. That means his theory of names is probably just a globalist liberal lie.

Liberal liars due tend to get riled up easily.

Is that why you’re so riled up?

How many times do I have to repeat that it is their agenda that rejects objective reality, so their works would follow that agenda. It’s not difficult to identify a liberal just as it’s not difficult to identify a conservative. Liberals want to hijack names and ideas and reinvent them to mean something different, thus lying about the nature of reality as it has been for a coon’s age, maybe longer. The definition of insanity is trying to reason with a liberal. Bye.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAjPOpws0eE[/youtube]

coon’s age. proof of trolling. run along now.

For Mr R

youtu.be/UQjKGJZu4mg

I’d be willing to have a ball lift if it made that special lady happy.

Unfortunately, once you start you can’t stop… :mrgreen:

youtu.be/ViBdy1y-Gkk

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Repetition isn’t an argument. Where your position is that you will reject the evidence provided by anyone who believes X, you are closing yourself off to compelling evidence that X is true (since we should expect anyone with compelling evidence that X is true to also believe X). That is a rejection of any objective measure of reality.

It wasn’t a lie to call nephrite and jadeite, “jade”, and it wasn’t a lie to determine that they are in fact two different substances. So too was it not a lie to treat social and physiological sex as the same, and it’s not a lie to point out that they aren’t. Words meanings reflect the world, and as we gain a better understanding of the world, we need to change our language to suit. There is an important sense in which a man who sincerely feels like a woman trapped in a man’s body is a woman. Your objection so far has been to point out that there are important senses in which that man is not a woman, and I’ve acknowledged that (e.g., we don’t need to give her birth control to prevent pregnancy). But those claims aren’t in conflict.

This thread is full of bad arguments.

The Modern world is defined by delusions. Pretend to be something, and you are that something. That’s the bottom-line. Is it true, realistic, accurate, objective? No, it’s subjective. It’s “I say so”. It is not factual. It is not scientific. It is pseudo-intellectual. A guy pretends to be a woman, Careleass says it is a woman. We all disagree. But the liberals are caught in a cross-road between participating in delusions, and common sense.

The more absurd they become, the less they are taken seriously, and will continue to lose political power.

Western Civilization is approaching a crossroad.

How far is the liberal-left willing to go, to not tread on “MUH FREEDOMS”? At what point, does common sense step-in and say, “No, you have/had a pair of hairy balls. You have/had a dong hanging down from your crotch. Therefore you will always be male no matter how much you pretend to be female?” Never? Well, the distinction matters.

It’s a problem of all-inclusivity. The liberal-left want to include everybody, the homosexuals, the queers, the fags, the transexuals, all races, illegal immigrants, murderers, basically “all those oppressed by the white male patriarchy”. The liberal-left dooms itself by this goal, this ideal, this “value”. The liberal-left claim to care for the poor and homeless, but do they? No, not when push comes to shove. Not when reality appears. Not when the liberal-left must actually pay (their own) money. The liberal-left is content to raise taxes on the conservative-right (those who work the most, and hardest). But the liberal-left don’t want their own pocket books going to what they claim to care about.

It’s a lot of lying, contradictions, and sensationalism.

Most of it is virtue-signaling. The liberal-left are driven, compelled by, feelings of Guilt. So the liberal-left want to appease to those they feel guilty with and by. So the liberal-left panders to all “the oppressed”, without understanding the very nature of oppression. In reality, the liberal-left are the ones most responsible for continuing “the oppression”.

Personally, I don’t think the Liberal-Left is inclusive at all. It’s actually the exact-opposite. Conservatives are more ‘tolerant’ of others, than Liberals. Instead Liberals only claim to be inclusive, until the ‘merge’ occurs. Then the truth comes out. Liberals are Elitists in waiting. They promote “One-Humanity”, living behind gated communities, or high up in skyscrapers, away from the riff-raff.

“One-Humanity” (with walls everywhere)

To reiterate, if you’re a man, to refer to and think of yourself as a woman, is not similar to referring to and thinking of yourself as a Liam, Willian or Benjamin, that’s a poor analogy, because names like Liam, Willian or Benjamin are arbitrary, nondescript.

What it’s really similar to, is referring to and thinking of yourself as an extrovert, when you’re an introvert, or an empath, when you’re a sociopath, or as having Asperger’s or Down’s, when you don’t have Asperger’s or Down’s, or as a doctor, lawyer, child or African American, when you’re none of these things.

Not only are you not actually one of these things, try as you may, you will never be able to behave like them, because behaving like them would require you to have the same biology as them, or it would require you to have a degree if you want to be a doctor or lawyer.

And while some people are better, actors than others, imitation pales in comparison to the genuine article, and while the scientific jury is still kind of out, as the study of brain and gender is still “in its infancy”, the evidence available to us so far suggests generally speaking, so called ‘transsexuals’ have sort of androgynous brains, not a wholly female brain in a wholly male body, like the progressive media would have us believe, and again, that’s generally speaking, some fauxsexuals mightn’t have brains like the sex they believe they are at all.

Masculinity and femininity aren’t meaningless categories, they refer to thousands of physiological, neurological and psychological traits, and men always in some cases, and generally in others have masculine traits, and women feminine traits, because masculinity and femininity are, in the main, biologically determined, which’s not to say socialization doesn’t play a role, it does.

But even here, fauxsexuals are never going to be socialized like the opposite sex is, because people are never going to think of and treat them exactly like they treat the opposite sex, and also physiology, your body, determines how you experience the world, and so your experiences are never going to be the same as the experiences of the opposite sex, and so neither is your psychology, because experience also partly determines psychology, it’s the other side of the coin.

And disguising, referring to and thinking of yourself as something you’re not, when that something is of profound importance, like your sex is, is wrong, it’s mentally ill, deceptive, and we’re all mentally ill, or deceived if we play along with this, masquerade.
If you pretend to yourself and others you’re a cop, doctor, lawyer or the opposite sex, it’s wrong, because if you’re good at it, some people mightn’t realize you’re pretending, they’re going to have certain expectations of you, and through no fault of their own, at some point these expectations are going to be thwarted when reality intervenes.

I think there’s been a comparison of fauxsexuals to subcultures like punk or goth and cosplay.
The difference here is subcultures have nothing to do with biology, one, and two, cosplay is make believe, and the people who do it know it’s make believe, they don’t do it 24/7, but if they actually believed they were video game or anime characters, we would tell them to, cut that shit out, and rightfully so, because it’s mentally ill.

Fauxsexuals, knowingly or unknowingly, are, charlatans, frauds, hucksters, imposters, most of them are mentally ill, but some of them are probably downright liars, trying to pull one over the world.