There's no such thing as Transexuals

If you’re a woman, you probably have a woman’s brain/mind.
If you’re a man, you probably have a man’s brain/mind.
If you’re a fauxwoman, you probably have an androgynous brain/mind (according to science).
If you’re a fauxman, you probably have an androgynous brain/mind.

So physical sex socially matters, both in and of itself, and because it can be used to predict your brain/mind sex.

@Urwrong

I think we probably are too, but probably not for entirely the same reasons you do.

In the main, I believe we should have equal rights and freedoms, just not necessarily equal outcomes.
They should have the right to define themselves as they please…for themselves, defining themselves for me infringes upon my freedom of thought and speech.

I don’t think the left is necessarily anymore delusional than the right.
In matters such as these, the left often misses the big picture, whereas the right often misses nuance.
And the left often sides with women and minorities, whereas the right…used to side with the majority, in the last few decades it’s been put on the defensive, increasingly allying itself with culturally neutral, libertarian politics…at least in theory, in practice both the left and right by and large cater to the elite.
I try to think independently of both ideologies, but the way our government and society is structured, it cumbersomely pressures people into exclusively identifying with one or the other to the point of intellectual, political and social paralysis.

We can’t entirely trust science, because it has limitations, makes mistakes, and can be corrupted by both progressives, conservatives and government itself on the one hand, and (big) business on the other.
That being said, we should always at least try to consider the science, as well as think for ourselves.

As for sexual fluidity, I’m open to the possibility, I mean the body and brain/mind can change to some extent, for various reasons, naturally and synthetically, what bothers me is the fauxsexual community wants to be able to define themselves for me, independently of science and my interactions with and interpretations of them.
They also tend to exaggerate how possible sexual fluidity is.

I’m not sure I fully agree with the analogy you’re making.
On the one hand, I think the right’s position on trans/faux is more in line with the science, but because it’s in tune with the big picture, whereas the catholic church was wrong, because it failed, refused to see nuance, the imperfections on the moon revealed by Galileo’s telescope (in their model, the ‘heavenly spheres’ such as the moon were perfectly spherical and unblemished, kind of like thinking men are wholly men without any femininity or ambiguity, or women wholly women.
See you can go too far in either direction.
The right often fails to see exceptions, and the left often runs away with exceptions, trying to turn them into the new rule, when they’re not sufficiently significant to warrant such.

Ideologies like progressivism and conservatism are like religions in some ways, in that they both have and attempt to impose their belief systems on the people, culturally, politically and socially, often irrespective of what science and common sense have to say.

I agree, the left is way out in left field in all sorts of ways as of late.

All of us here probably at least believe we’re doing the right thing on some level, but whether we are or not is debatable, and that is why I will say: on with the debate.

I wonder if all faux really believe their neuropsychological sex is fully the opposite of their physical sex. Maybe some of them just want to become, thought of and treated as the opposite sex irrespective of what they are. I wonder what they think of the science suggesting most of them are neuropsychological androgynes.

Transexuality can be rationalized rather simply and easily.

A huge majority of transexuals are male-to-female, not female-to-male. The numbers are something like 80:1.

(bournemouth.gov.uk/councild … gnment.pdf)

So transexuality is not “gender-equal”. It is a one-sided affair. Feminists and liberal-lefts argue from the position that “white-males” have all the innate privilege and power in life. But why then would so many males want to be or become female, rather than female become male? Could it be, that liberal-leftist-feminists have it all wrong? And that women actually have the innate privilege and power in life? And that is one of the core and fundamental reasons why a male would want to pretend to be, to be, or to “become” a woman? Wouldn’t that be the easier and simpler explanation as to why a male would want to “cash-in”, if he could, gain access to, female-privilege.

In fact it’s not talked about at all. Why not? What is female privilege?

In terms of social-cultural-political-privileges-power, it makes sense for one group to want to tap into the privileges of another group. It’s mostly male-to-female, not female-to-male. Women, believe it or not, are not “fighting for their rights” to be garbage-women and coal miners. Women are not “fighting for the right” for super-models to be NFL linebackers.

So, with proper context, it makes sense why males would act faggy, act queer, act like girls. As I see it, the Modern world is all about ‘Victim’ status. If you’re a victim then you are morally righteous, good, and deserve protection. You deserve attention and nurturing by the state. You deserve free health care, paid by the taxpayers. This is all false, of course. It’s the opposite of reality. Just because you’re a victim, doesn’t you entitle you to a god-damned thing. That’s my position. And that puts me on the “Conservative-Right”, although I would consider myself more of a centrist.

On the racial level, I also want to point out, that it is usually non-white males that are transexual. I believe more non-white western males are “transexual” than white western males. I think there are racial factors involved too, not just gender.

Perhaps the achievable reality of being a willing trophy wife outways any negatives… and long-term security has been reached.

…and why, you ask, would a male choose a transsexual partner over a female one? The higher matching sex-drive, with the matching natural male comradery thrown in for good measure, perhaps. :-k

There is a disproportionately high number of female to male trans where I live, and in London in general… what gives with that? Fallout from feminism, perhaps…

Simply not true.

You would think so… but, where I live, is… and has been for some time now/since the 80s, an anomaly, and a catchment area for the weird and the wonderful… not surprisingly, seeing that Soho isn’t too far away.

Not all boroughs would be reflective of the average expected populis of that area, due to such factors as locality and local tolerances etc.

Also:

If you had bothered to read the scientific data, and statistics I linked, you should admit that you were/are wrong.

@Gloominary

Watching Kinky Boots (again)… it reminds me of this thread. Zippin up ma boots… going back to ma roots, yeah. Ain’t that whole closing dance scene somethin?

I guess all things are about the intent, and you can quote me on that.

I think your article is saying a large majority of fauxsexuals who undergo sex reassignment surgery are M-F, but only a smaller majority (2 or 3:1) of fauxsexuals in general are M-F.
Still, it is interesting.
Fauxsexualism is in all likelihood produced by a convergence of genetic and environmental factors beginning in the womb, like almost all behavior and psychology, and as I stated earlier, (part of) the reason why some people become fauxsexuals may be because they think the opposite sex has more privileges, or is superior.
And if more men want to (fully) ‘transition’ to women, that probably is just yet another manifestation of female privilege/supremacism in society.

And another factor is probably attention.
I met a M-F fauxsexual who said, not the sole, but the main motivation for his ‘transformation’, or masquerade as I prefer to call it, was to stick it to society, overturn its order and cause chaos, because he’s a troublemaker, and I’m sure he’s not the only one, but of course his micronarrative isn’t going to be published in the progressive MSM, because it doesn’t fit their macronarrative.

Kinky Boots?
I think I’ll pass. :laughing:

That could very well be the core motivation of faux-sexuality, a method of ‘feminine’ revenge.

“To prove everybody wrong.” Contemptuous, vindictive, vengeful. It’s a possibility.

Of course there are many other factors. The most obvious factor I can think of, is that males want a ‘piece’ of female-privilege. But females do NOT really want a piece of “male-privilege”. Male-privilege is fake. And this factor explains why far more males want to be female, than female want to be male. It also easily explains why a lot more black people want to be white, than white people want to be black. It’s about moving ‘up’ in (social)-status, privilege, protection. For example, “don’t hit women”. If women are automatically immune and protected from physical violence, then it’s obvious the instant benefit that a faux-sexual would have in male-to-female transition.

By being and acting female, the male, in a way, tricks the social-order into gaining aspects of that innate female-protection. Never hit a woman? What about a he-she who was born male, but later self-castrated? Is s-he protected? Does the same social rule apply?

The main thing about transexuality, and homosexuality too, is that most of these males are raised by a single-mother. Many were/are bullied excessively about being a “fag/gay/queer” as children, and is mentally scarred by such identities, eventually twisting and influencing the mind, dominating the mind. The child begins to believe that “Yes, maybe I am a faggot…?” Then there are many pathological developments/impairments from that point onward.

@Urwrong

Another reason why there are more M-F fauxs than F-M and far more M-F visibility is because, as has been said more than a few times on this forum, the elite want to feminize man more than they do masculinize woman, because women tend to be easier to control.

Agreed, in the 21st century at least, women are the more privileged class than men, and I’m sure that has a bearing on why there’s more M-Fs than M-Fs.
Of course like you say it’s multifactorial, this phenomenon doesn’t have a single cause.

Right, while I’m not denying the possibility of genetic factors and happenings in the womb, of course there are psychosocial factors too, like the ones you and I have been mentioning.
Of course the progressives don’t want to acknowledge the role family breakdown is playing in sexuality, because that would make them feel responsible, which’s the very last thing they want to feel.

Why is the life expectancy for fauxgenders so low?

https://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/162100680/no-more-lying-law-bolsters-transgender-argentines

Shocking statistic, eh?

Fauxgenders are also many times more likely to commit suicide than the gen pop.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

Of course progressives are going to blame their dramatically high suicide rate and reduced life expectancy solely on discrimination, but lesbians, gays and bisexuals face comparable levels of discrimination, yet their life expectancy is only several years lower than the gen pop, not several decades.
What else might be contributing to it?
Perhaps it’s because deep down they know they’re not what they feign to be, and can never become, for all the reasons covered in this thread, and many more, nor does society owe it to them to treat them as such.
How could a mental condition that reduces your life expectancy by 50 years not be classified as a mental illness?
And there’s no proof this mental illness is solely genetic, in all likelihood it’s a combination of genetic and environmental factors, so why in the hell is this illness, which more than halves a persons life expectancy, being promoted to children, who may develop it when they otherwise wouldn’t’ve, like it’s some wonderful blessing?
No it’s not, it’s a curse, and if anything it ought to be considered child abuse to confuse children about their sex.

Another point I wanted to make: the brain and mind are in all likelihood not two separate things, but two different ways of apprehending and thinking about the same thing, so you can’t have a mental sex different from your brain sex, so if scientists are looking at your brain sex, and they’re telling you it mostly matches your bodily sex, or it’s androgynous, your mental sex probably mostly matches your bodily sex too, or it’s androgynous, and you’re probably (sub)consciously feigning all or many opposite sex traits you think, or say you think you have.
The mind in all likelihood isn’t separate from the brain, nor is it a by-product of the brain, it is the brain, the mind is the brain perceiving itself by looking inwardly, whereas the brain is the mind perceiving itself by looking outwardly, so for every (sexual) change that happens in the mind, whether this change is produced by genes, and/or long, or short term environmental, social and/or self-conditioning, there is an equal and corresponding change in the brain.

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-brains-of-transgender-people-different-from-those-of-cisgender-people-30027

But again what they specifically found was that transpeople had brains that looked like the brains of the sex they thought they were, not the brain of their genitals. This is preop and prehormone.

Trannies:

  1. Promote a dysfunctional distribution of societal roles, which lowers the quality of the group (men are better at doing man things than female-to-male trannies, and women are better at doing woman things than male-to-female trannies). This is just a fact and not arguable.
  2. Take up a disproportionately large portion of political thought-space relative to their percentage in the population, which is very low. Just look at what has been the most popular thread in this subforum lately. There’s only a limited amount of time and energy to dedicate to things, trannies aren’t worth it.

Just by these 2 facts alone it can be easily determined that the costs trannies impose easily outweigh the benefits and therefore it is more profitable for any group that values health and sanity to physically remove trannies.