>we have no research on long-term hormone use. we will be seeing the first generation of long-term hormone use, and we already know at least ten years of hormones, you're giving yourself cancer.
big if true
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
We will never have long term data on hormone use if you know what I me- ACK!
Kek.
kek
I am going to say it
Kek
MADLAD
Would be hilarious if it causes lot of issues but I seriously doubt it.
It's hard to actually do proper studies due to science getting pozzed and 41%.
We know bodybuilders ruining their bodies by abusing hormones their body tends to produce naturally.
Taking hormones your body barely produces on itself just can't be healthy.
HRT causes serious cardiovascular problems.
In certain individuals who are otherwise healthy, walking can cause serious cardiovascular problems.
Post-menopausal women taking estrogen supplements can have serious cardiovascular problems, which is why in the last few years there's been a push to give them testosterone instead. So far it's been working pretty well, but further research needs to be done before it's a widely accepted practice.
Cool.
Those people are outliers and considered clinically exceptional. You should tell them to enroll in studies so we can have their vitals and medical histories for further research.
>other things cause cancer so that proves HRT doesn't
That isn't what I said at all. It's about statistical measurement. If 1,000 people in any given room have 200 smokers, 200 lazy people, 200 healthy people, and 400 mishmash of the three categories and then another 1,000 people in another given room have 200 smokers, 200 lazy people, 200 healthy people, and 400 mishmashers but 10-20 of each category are also on HRT. And those 80-120 people develop cancer at the same rate of the first 1,000 given people despite having the same statistical trajectories, then their cancer rates are considered statistically moot.
What's more, the smokers and the lazy people will have statistically higher chances of developing cancers compared to healthy people. Mishmashers, or what we call the truly-average person; that is, somebody who takes life in moderation while still succumbing to certain vices though tend to function well, despite having 400 people in their category, will have statistically equal cancer rates compared to 200 healthy people.
That doesn't mean and I am not saying "being healthy doesn't matter" it means that the probability of developing cancer is a nearly moot point. And the longer you live the likelier you are to develop, at least, early cancer markers despite anything else you do or take despite also being healthy.
Yeah, cool.
You will never be a woman.
They already said so far it causes oesteoporosis and cancer. Not to mention that FtM troony said 10 years of suicidal thoughts after the surgery with no support
Men get serious health problems from injecting themselves with testosterone, imagine what will happen to a man after injecting large amounts of estrogen into their body during long periods of time?
Now I'm not a medical expert, so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. But this is what I remember from Internet researching online arguments from yeas past:
Did you know MtF hormones cause the brain to shrink/shrivel? See, the interesting thing is that it's really debatable if there's such a thing as a sexed brain, but one actual difference is that male brains tend to be slightly bigger on average (lol). This might have something to do with men being physically bigger and therefore having bigger heads but anyway. But here's the thing, the hormone therapy brain shrinks even greater than to a woman's average size.
I don't know what the effect, if anything, of this is. But personally I always think about it when I notice trains being crazy.
>replacing the entirety of your body's natural signalling chemicals responsible for pretty much all aspects of homeostasis with years and decades of artificial Big Pharma israelite-juice probably doesn't have any lasting effects
Try cutting a piece of your finger off once a year and see how long it takes before your whole hand is gone and it affects your day-to-day life, moron. Hormones are the same thing but chemically and with far more widespread problems than just having a stump hand after a few years.
People have been using prescribed HRT since the 70s, my uncle has some degenerative thyroid condition and has been on a version of phytoestrogen to stimulate it since the traditional thyroid hormone medicine didn't work for him. He also has to take testosterone to counteract the parts of the phytoestrogen he doesn't want (ie., what trans people use estrogen for) so he's effectively been taking both major hormones for 40+ years.
He's the healthiest of all my uncles/aunts, runs marathons, does the NYT crossword, learns and utilizes new programming languages as a hobby, and runs a self-made trucking business. He refuses to vote, doesn't own a smartphone, and I'm one of two people in the family he's willing to talk to. He says the internet is the most dangerous thing ever invented but he loves internet porn and narco footage.
Cancer is how organic matter begins to break down, it used to be known as the "living decay"; sure, shit like childhood leukemia and brain tumors are awful things, but something like 90%+/- of men over the age of 55 die with some form of prostate cancer and that statistic goes back to the early 1900s when we started keeping generalized medical records-- that doesn't mean the cancer killed them, just that cancer was in their bodies and was confirmed during the autopsy.
I'd be more worried about the internet. Early on-set dementia rates have been steadily increasing since the 1990s and there's been a peak of 20-40 year olds developing it, and schizophrenia rates have increased alongside it, that's been studied since 2010s. My neuropsych professor was talking about this shit during my graduate thesis in 2009. He said in the 80s he'd have 1-2 students a year develop schizo/bipolar/serious mental illness, between 2000-2009 he had nearly 200.
It got to be so common he could pinpoint likely suspects (he wasn't always right but he kept a running tally and it was about 60-65%).
That shit is way scarier to me.
Shit my pants
Yes, HRT has been around, but not in people who are not that gender.
I also think the internet will have a ton of unforeseeable consequences.
Phytoestrogens have been a valid medical prescription for men with hypothyroidism dating back four decades though. They give testosterone supplements to premenopausal and postmenopausal women who suffer from lowered sex drive, depression, or fatigue syndromes and that's been true since the Stepford wives of the 50s-60s.
Cancer rates aren't higher in those categories of people except in the smokers, habitual alcohol drinkers, sedentary lifestylists, and processed food eaters. However, those 4 categories of people have always had higher rates of every disease available.
>Cancer is how organic matter begins to break down
it's literally the opposite of that
Eventually it's not. If angiogenesis doesn't keep up, the neoplasm destroys itself from the inside out. Just like the economy, endless growth is destructive.
>60-65%
damn
If there's one thing that man was good at it was trusting his gut and keeping track of his instincts with reviewable data. He told me a surefire way of knowing somebody's personality was changing was their vocabulary. If they start using more complex words while at the same time their points are becoming harder to follow, they're likely either developing a mental illness, are suffering insomnia, being poisoned in some way, or are growing a tumor.
And these aren't necessarily obvious changes in vocabulary either. One subtle example he gave was a girl he had in his class started hyphenating words in her notes, like to make a point she would string-together-words or she would use-hyphens-to-enunciate. She didn't do it in term papers, only her notes, since term papers have a stricter set of rules. The only reason he even knew her notes had changed is because she spent time with him during office hours so he got to understand her process of learning.
Those few hours a week over the course of a year and he picked up on something nobody else did; she dropped out with bipolar type II a semester later.
Of course some people, students especially, are eccentric types with no rhyme or reason. He thought I might develop something because of the way I spoke when out of class, but when he learned I was a writer in my spare time he just said "Oh, that explains my worries." I'd love to know what the rates are between 2010-2020 on his board, might look him up and reach out.
Extremely interesting. Do share more.
One of the more extreme students developed paranoid delusions over the summer between semesters. He was becoming a 4th year at the time, Deans/Presidents list every term, and had a full-ride scholarship and was on track to get a Rhodes scholarship for his upcoming graduate work if his 4th year would match his previous 3. Basically, the dude was brilliant and it made me sad to hear what happened to him.
So, at the end of the semester before that summer in question he had sent my professor a long list of random things. Mind you, he was never a super personal guy, so when the list included random youtube links to music video playlists and galleries of supermodels, my professor put a tallymark on his board and asked the student health services to check in on the guy.
This is where it gets sad for me; the SHS decided, since it was the summer, it was not their job to fulfill the professor's wishes. Mind you, the student lived in housing on campus and he worked in the library over the summer cataloguing ... something, I'm not sure what he did actually.
Anyway, sometime in July or August the guy got arrested for throwing hot coffee in a barista's face one morning, yelling at her about trying to burn his tongue and how "My mouth is my security"
His delusions were, basically, narcissistic paranoia. He thought because he had been awarded so often that his speech was, in itself, golden. Mind you he didn't give oral presentations, he just read and wrote papers like most students.
Anyway, he managed to get it knocked down to a slap on the wrist. But the next week he's in a car accident, totaled like four cars in an intersection and severely maimed a woman, because he believed other people would stop because they'd know He was driving.
So he had to go to jail now. Lost his scholarships, obviously. His academic standing was gone. He only had to serve like 90 days but pay a lot of money too. He committed suicide the day he got out because his world was gone.
>He committed suicide the day he got out because his world was gone.
Good.
>the internet is the most dangerous thing ever invented
Pointless discussion that isn't going to change anyone's minds aside, I'm happy I stumbled across this description of the internet. Nobody goes around saying those exact words, but it's the absolute truth (except it probably should be "one of the most dangerous...").
A statement as true as "The people involved in the propagation of transgenderism to children are guilty of crimes against humanity."/spoiler]
If the people were healthy then the taking of hormones would begin to cause some sort of measurable affliction on their moods, especially as their bodies began to change. That's why the detransing community needs as much support as the trans one, both should be given the same amount of care; this isn't happening as the detrans community is becoming more heavily politicized by trans-supporters as being, basically, turncoats.
The main issues I have are not in the teachings of children about these things, but in the rare cases (and yes they are rare) of unilateral decision-making by children's caretakers and healthcare professionals in determining a child is trans/gender dysphoric.
In the Catholic faith a child is considered at the Age of Reason at 7 years old. Which is either 1st or 2nd grade depending on their birth month. At this time you are considered to understand right from wrong, to be responsible for your sins, and be considered, effectively, your own person. Now, obviously, we aren't sending 7 year olds off to war nor are we allowing them to drive cars or run banking institutions. There are also highly immature children who will likely never properly grow up and be able to make meaningful decisions about their own lives. However, there are a great many prepubescent children who can make correct decisions for themselves and will know themselves better than their parents; which is a why a minimum of a year should be allowed where the child is allowed to explore their identity before any medication is dispensed.
In the detrans community, the most common timeframe in people realizing they were not trans or simply had short-term issues they projected onto gender dysphoric beliefs is 9-18 months.
I don't think children as young as 7 should be on hormones blockers or be on HRT. But if a precocious 7 year old begins to develop early ideas of identity issues, then allowing them to play dress-up or be referred to by another name seems fine.
You are only capable of making correct decisions if you've been taught properly. If you've not you can't make them well into your adulthood, if ever.
There are tons of people who were reared in good homes, free of abuse, obvious mental disorders, pollutants, had caring and giving parents, developed healthy identities early, could play the piano, learned a second language, were athletic, and had an active psychosexual development in their teenage years that went on to become NEETs or failed out of college or began self-harming for no clear reason.
They're the opposite end of the spectrum of what clinicians call crack-slippers. On one end you have people who have obviously been abused, alcoholic parents, clear signs of mental illness passed down, remained uneducated or ignorant of the world, self-hatred or ruptured identities, who then as they grow older develop the same tendencies they were raised in. Nobody bats an eye at somebody with a hard life growing into a hard person.
People praise those who rose out of hardship and developed very well.
Well, there are people who were reared with perfect lives (not coddled kids, mind you, I mean genuinely good homes) that still slipped through the cracks. In fact, those kids are often more ignored than the obviously abused, which means they tend to fall further in life and have fewer opportunities, which is called ironic displacement theory. It's kinda newer in clinical terms because most of the soft sciences have been focused on people with hard lives or obvious trauma/mental illness.
We never thought that people with good lives and no obvious illness could also just fall away socially without major trauma, but it's actually becoming more exceedingly common.
The rise in young men AND women forfeiting from dating, sex, and marriage is coinciding with the idea of ironic displacement beliefs.
Kids have never in history had it easier to develop and yet we're seeing masses of those same kids detaching in a lot of ways.
Reactionaries say parents have gotten too soft, but neuropsychiatry is positing a 3-pronged idea: hyperstimulation, pollution, inflammations.
A rodent wants its teeth to grow at exactly the right rate for its wear-and-tear. Too little, it won't have teeth when it needs them. Too much, it's wasting resources on growing unnecessary teeth, and on wearing down the unnecessary growth so that it doesn't hurt itself even more.
Then, if in one generation you remove its ability to wear its teeth down at all, they end up growing into its body, killing it.
If your organism's adapted to hardship and you naively remove it, it will have the apparently paradoxical effect of causing more harm than the hardship did. Pain and struggle is food for you - in moderation.
Access to "ease of development", when "development" is pointless, doesn't predict increased rates of development, it predicts a decrease. That would be the -"economic" of "socioeconomic". The "socio-" part is where e.g., your culture stops discouraging reward hacking. E.g., it stops saying that porn, drugs, alcohol, shallow entertainment like books/movies/video games, etc., is immoral. Or where naive ideas like "suffering is categorically bad" / "'well-being' is categorically good" are considered wise.
It is conspicuous that elite cultures, especially in america, but in the west in general, actively do the opposite of these malignant memes they publicly encourage the underclasses to embrace. They say marriage is bad, while getting married. They say religion is bad, while being strongly "culturally religious". They say stereotypical gender roles are bad, while strongly adhering to them. They say guns are bad, while having armies of heavily armed private bodyguards. They say open borders are good, while living in gated communities. They say diversity is good, while rigidly enforcing intense conformity. And they all do very well for it.
Everybody KNOWS that these are terrible ideas. Nobody, who isn't a fawning PMC idiot, thinks that encouraging them would result in anything positive.
To follow up my previous post:
The whole "removing harm is harmful" trope isn't really a thing. In certain settings, yes, it's absolutely true. The average human, however, will suffer enough pain and struggle in any given life that to encourage more on some preconceived notion of people needing to be toughened up-- it's more likely to lead to rejective qualities in the individual.
But overall what you're talking about is soft science stuff and getting into the creases of human psychology comparative to disabled rodent teeth gnawing in clinical vs wild settings is out of my wheelhouse. The rodent can be taught despite its disability to not allow itself to die. Humans are the same way, but we don't tend to watch humans kill themselves in experiments so all we have are lived experiences to extrapolate from; and a story told is just that, a story. It isn't measurable, quantifiable, or otherwise by any merit rigorous. It's data, sure, and important to listen to and to understand.
But it's mostly meaningless as the subjectivity of a lived experience extends as much through genetics as it does some ephemeral belief in luck/fate.
I do agree that most people live a life of mostly cognitive dissonance, and the most active thing people discourage or encourage are often at odds with said persons true beliefs.
Advertising isn't really that strictly regulated to kids, or to anybody. Sure, you can't advertise Camel cigarettes anymore to children, but have you seen what aged-restricted YouTube accounts can see despite there being restrictions? And what of the unhealthy foods aimed at kids, sodas, belief systems. There's no regulation of political opinions aimed at kids either. Kids are gonna get fricked up by the people in their life, they should be allowed to frick themselves up a bit too because there is proof that self-learning/failing carries more weight than what is taught from outside.
But that has nothing to do with my opinion on HRT and cancer rates.
>The whole "removing harm is harmful" trope isn't really a thing.
Your muscles and bones work this way, your immune system works this way, your brain works this way.
>The average human, however, will suffer enough pain and struggle in any given life that to encourage more on some preconceived notion of people needing to be toughened up-- it's more likely to lead to rejective qualities in the individual.
Contemporary westerners are not "the average human", that's the premise of the argument.
>But overall what you're talking about is soft science stuff
"Muscles grow bigger when you exercise", "people get better at fighting when you fight them", "Immune system gets better when exposed to pathogens", etc., is not "soft science stuff".
>getting into the creases of human psychology comparative to disabled rodent teeth gnawing in clinical vs wild settings is out of my wheelhouse.
It was an analogy to illustrate the argument. Obviously - or so I thought - I'm not saying they're literally 1:1.
>The rodent can be taught despite its disability to not allow itself to die.
Right, that was the argument. You can teach them to not kill themselves. And you can teach them to kill themselves. Heck, you can teach them to kill themselves 30 years down the road. E.g., say that taking certain performance enhancing drugs at the cost of half your lifespan is a great idea. They'll be doing really well until they drop dead from a heart attack at 35. And that's a really easy one.
Of course, humans are not rodents. They don't come out of the womb with knowledge of basically anything besides how to gauge social responses and minor things like the intuitive understanding to not put plants in their mouths. It's far more important to teach a human properly. Where your argument so far has essentially been "eh, just let them figure it out on their own", as if humans ARE rodents.
The thing is, I'm not arguing with you at all. Also, I don't really understand your point. In no way are your muscles or bones harming themselves by removing harm. At most your muscles ache and we feel that ache through the secretion of lactic (and other) acids. That's a defensive system so combat overexertion, the acid itself is not harmful to the muscles-- if it were we'd be crippled as babies as we begin to develop musco-skeletal structures, of which lactic acid is a building block. It's a deterrent, much as a stitch in your side after running or pain receptors in general. Removing harm is harmful is a big belief system in popsci Darwinism that I see touted around; the most common form you may know it as is the "strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create bad times, bad times create strong men" -- the idea that to be strong you must suffer is pretty low hanging fruit. Pain is not the same as suffering, and your body's natural inclinations to not become crippled by overexertion is not pain nor is it suffering. You can have strong men, weak men, good times, and bad times simultaneously. To believe otherwise is to believe in some made-up hierarchy based on nostalgia for a time you never lived in.
>Contemporary westerners are not "the average human", that's the premise of the argument.
You need to sum up your point in a concise way, because your original post was all over the place and conflated six different categories with each other. But once again, this isn't an argument.
>"Muscles grow bigger when you exercise", "people get better at fighting when you fight them", "Immune system gets better when exposed to pathogens", etc., is not "soft science stuff".
You're once again conflating multiple things. Suffering/mental anguish is not the same thing as biological imperatives. People grieving the loss of a loved one do not get a runner's high or a weightlifters euphoria.
I'll follow up with more in my next post--
>your muscles' defensive system isn't a response to harm
come on man
>Pain is not the same as suffering
it literally is
>your body's natural inclinations to not become crippled by overexertion is not pain nor is it suffering
it literally is
>You need to sum up your point in a concise way, because your original post was all over the place and conflated six different categories with each other
no. it's saying one thing over and over again. it's saying, a hamburger today for two tomorrow is a good deal. assuming you get the two tomorrow. pain is good if it leads to less pain in the future. harm is good if it leads to less harm in the future. suffering is good if it leads to less suffering in the future.
i.e., teaching your children properly is important.
making them suffer today, so they don't suffer more tomorrow, is good
shielding your children from suffering today, only to cause more suffering tomorrow, is bad
pain is good, sometimes
pleasure is bad, sometimes. if from rewardhacking, presumptively bad
>People grieving the loss of a loved one do not get a runner's high or a weightlifters euphoria.
that is exactly what people do when they consume e.g., sad stories
they get the "runner's high" of sorrow, without the normally-prerequisite loss of something important
if someone got a strong enough high, they would induct the sorrow in more visceral ways.
like someone who weightlifts until their heart gives out. because killing yourself just feels so good.
when killing yourself feels good, you need to teach people not to kill themselves
and a lot of ways of killing yourself feel real good
HTR = permanent physical alterations. Childs can consent permanent physical alterations on their bodies? No. Why do you write and trip so much?
Technically it's a deterrent and it's your nervous system's response network, not your muscle's. Your muscles only defense exist in reflexes and in repairing themselves, though both of those are also highly reliant on the nervous system as well. So really your argument should be that because your brain likes to choose between fight or flight at a moment's notice strengthening your muscles and your cardio is the real defense mechanism.
But there's also so many issues with conflating harm with perceived harm. A man can be considered weak for running away or stupid for letting his ego get him into a fight he can't win, both can be involuntary decisions effectively made for us based on either twitchy microfibers vibrated by adrenaline secretions or a shot of dopamine in our brains telling us we're stronger than the other thing. Whether we let ego control us, adrenaline push us to run, or the 3rd very real option of being stuck in place depends rather heavily on how we're conditioned. But that's where you start getting into the soft sciences of psychology, the whole nature/nurture aspect. A bodybuilder that can lift the back end of a car is just as likely to collapse from fear in a fight because he was traumatized as a child by an alcoholic father and an uncaring mother which conditioned him into being helpless. That learned helplessness is the reason he got into lifting weights, to try and take control of the "weakness" in him. But again, like I said, once the adrenaline and dopamine are in your system and pumping it's likely involuntary.
Now, you could have a point in saying that training for specific events is more important than generalized control, but how are you going to train for a million variables of increasing or decreasing likelihood? Guess what, your brain has done that already due to evolutionary development. Which gets back to the neurochemicals, which again you'll conflate to some psychology.
More in next post-
>Pain is not the same as suffering
it literally is
It isn't, but sure.
>your body's natural inclinations to not become crippled by overexertion is not pain nor is it suffering
it literally is
It isn't, but sure.
>You need to sum up your point in a concise way, because your original post was all over the place and conflated six different categories with each other
no. it's saying one thing over and over again. it's saying, a hamburger today for two tomorrow is a good deal. assuming you get the two tomorrow. pain is good if it leads to less pain in the future. harm is good if it leads to less harm in the future. suffering is good if it leads to less suffering in the future.
Again, we're back into semantics and psychology. Also, the phrase you mean is likely, ironically named given the conversation, Wimpy's "I'll gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today."
>pain is good if it leads to less pain in the future.
You know that weight lifters continue to feel muscle stiffness, soreness, get injured, overexert themselves. Runners get runners feet, bikers get bikers legs, swimmers get swimmers shoulders. You can literally look at a skeleton and tell if they were a manual laborer, a tennis player, or if they sat at a desk for hours at a time. Your idea that pain subsides with experience is laughable. You only stop feeling that type of pain if you plateau and stop progressing in your goals. So at some point you basically decide, "This is the pain I am comfortable in feeling."
Arthritis alone debunks your point. There's a reason elite athletes retire early and spend the rest of their lives limping or leaning.
>assuming you get the two tomorrow.
Psychology.
>pain is good if it leads to less pain in the future.
Psychology.
>harm is good if it leads to less harm in the future.
Psychology.
>suffering is good if it leads to less suffering in the future
Psychology.
>teaching your children properly is important.
This is correct. It's also soft science psychology.
i think your brain broke
I get that psychology has been in vogue for the better part of your, I'm assuming, 22-32 year old life. Multiple movies, tv shows, music lyrics, commercials, they've all been pushing psychology as this big deal.
Then some of those practices, which have their place in therapeutic settings, were co-opted by people who didn't really understand the finer points of it but generalized them enough to make them easier to convey started to push pop-psychology.
This is why people on the internet think they can determine somebody has a personality disorder, it's why people think kids today are too soft, it's also a large reason scientific discourse in general has gone to shit.
People equate psychological principles taken out of context as some trope they can apply to further facets of real life where said tropes do not exist those forms.
It's like how weebs will call a girl that insults them a tsundere. Tsunderes do not exist IRL. Traits of them do, of course, but no person can relegated down to a handful of principles. And pop-psychology has taught us that if we hear/see certain keywords that we've figured out a person's definition and then we can make further assumptions based on already erroneous judgments.
You've done the same thing that weebs do, or that teenagers in media do when it's all about "jocks, cheerleaders, dweebs, nerds, geeks"
Except yours is boiled down into some strong man-weak man dichotomy related to child rearing.
A child learns best in an authoritative-permissive household. Not authoritarian, like you've implied. You allow the child to explore, to get hurt, you allow them to touch a hot stove or to go down a slide into the deep end. That is the permissive aspect. Then once they've developed an experience naturally, you become authoritative; "That's why you don't touch the stove when it's on, it can burn you." / "You're too small for the deep end right now, but if you learn to float you can go out further."
Authoritarians on the other hand will actively harm their children to teach them lessons the child would have naturally learned on their own with no input. Because they think they need to strengthen their child or toughen them up for the world.
All that does is imprint traumatic experiences inflicted on them by a caregiver, as opposed to them learning that the world can be inherently dangerous but that there are people willing to help.
You will actively teach a child to not trust you. Even the most basic interpretation of conditioning will teach you that you reward good behavior. You don't punish bad behavior, you teach good behavior and reward good behavior. Punishing bad behavior teaches distrust and aborts your position as a caregiver.
Pop-psychology is such a joke. Thank god I have petri dishes and PhD candidates around me instead of fricking social workers and idiotic patients.
>making them suffer today, so they don't suffer more tomorrow, is good
Punishment has its place in child rearing. It has nothing to do with making sure they don't suffer more tomorrow, it's about conditioning them to societal expectations.
But not every child responds to every suffering the same. So, again, psychology.
>shielding your children from suffering today, only to cause more suffering tomorrow, is bad
Psychology.
>pain is good, sometimes
True. Never disputed that. It's also psychology.
>pleasure is bad, sometimes.
True. Never disputed that. It's also psychology.
>if from rewardhacking, presumptively bad
Finally, you touch on a hard science. Neurochemistry. The direct relation of faking reward systems for no benefit other than pleasure. I assume that's what rewardhacking means, I'm working off context clues here.
And what's funny is that the moment you mention a hard science, you say "presumptively" bad. You're more absolute in soft science determinism than actual, measurable hard science.
Did you miss my entire post talking about the 3-prongs? Hyperstimulation is one 1 of those prongs, and is likely the exact thing you just named as rewardhacking. Porn, recreational drug use, doomscrolling, coomscrolling, internet arguments (hint hint, your fascination with pretending we're in an argument is rewardhacking and, hint hint, it is in fact bad; not presumptively, but it is measurably bad) getting into fights based on ego and not self-defense. Shit, technically, sports are rewardhacking if you're only doing it for money/fame.
At least with weight lifting and cardio you can pretend you're trying to be in shape.
>People grieving the loss of a loved one do not get a runner's high or a weightlifters euphoria.
that is exactly what people do when they consume e.g., sad stories
Catharsis is not the same thing as a runner's high, it doesn't even flare the same parts of the brain.
>"Muscles grow bigger when you exercise", "people get better at fighting when you fight them", "Immune system gets better when exposed to pathogens", etc., is not "soft science stuff".
Muscles need resistance, and also not every muscle gets bigger with every workout. Your muscular structure and the exercises you do have a larger impact on whether or not you'll get bigger muscles or leaner; the difference between a rugby player and a swimmer is not in "playing a rough game" vs "pushing in a resistant medium" it's as much as in your genetics as it is in your time spent doing XYZ.
>It was an analogy to illustrate the argument. Obviously - or so I thought - I'm not saying they're literally 1:1.
An analogy is not an argument. It's a tool. Your entire premise is structured on semantic illustrations of your thought process and has little to no bearing on actual literature. A good example of a comparative illustration is, to be a bit conceited, how I described telomeres as shoelaces and aglets as protections against cancer-developments. I laid out the premise of how aged-people have a commonality in not developing cancer markers as early in life as other people, given their telomeres are elongated and thus more protected against their own natural decay; much as shoelaces, if too short while suffering general wear-and-tear, will become frayed sooner and destroyed than if they were longer thus giving you more shoelace to inevitably work with as /some/ of it frays.
>Right, that was the argument. You can teach them to not kill themselves. And you can teach them to kill themselves. Heck, you can teach them to kill themselves 30 years down the road.
It's not really an argument since I agreed with about 1/4 of your points and even said as much.
>have you seen what aged-restricted YouTube accounts can see despite there being restrictions?
Not only you're incapable of arguing without anecdotes you also can only argue with moronic anecdotes that don't even apply as a counter point to the thing you're arguing against
Almost every country on earth has seriously legislation not only about advertising to kids but also what can and can't be added to any product directed at kids.
And then you starts mentioning the fricking place where AI generated videos are still the norm because Google just doesn't give a frick
I mean, I'm not arguing with you at all. If you believe kids are truly safe from advertisements then, by all means, allow them free reign over the internet. Just let them know to always be honest about how old they are if a website asks them.
And never let them stay up watching TV later than 10pm.
Don't take them to Coney Island or let them read any magazines you have lying around.
It's just weird to me that you think because there's a law disallowing cigarette and alcohol companies from advertising directly to a specific demographic that it somehow protects said demographic from advertisements.
Also your point is that
>Almost every country on earth has serious legislation to protect kids
but the next line you type is
>Well of course Google doesn't care
A 10 year old can walk to a magazine stall on any street corner in any metro area in America, Canada, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Korea, Japan, Australia, and likely a lot of other countries with serious legislation and pick up a titty magazine and look at it. Whether or not they get in trouble depends entirely on 2 people; the guy working the stall who likely won't give a frick or won't notice, and the parents of the kids.
Every bookstore I've ever walked into has a manga section with no age restriction, and has Penthouse and Playboy on the "top shelves" -- but oh hey look, there are step ladders for anybody to use.
Like, sure, okay, Camel got in trouble selling Camel Bucks that could buy you shiny toys back in the 1980s and now they can't advertise to kids.
Oh wow, a Happy Meal with a toy inside that's advertised directly to kids has to have a milk and an apple slice as options.
Those are not serious regulation. Serious regulations are building codes requiring wheelchair accessibility and running water. Nobody gets in trouble for advertising sugary cereals, processed foods,or for having smoking/drinking/softcore sex scenes in PG-13 movies. And the internet as a whole is completely unregulated.
Wrong it's genetic.
You are semi arbitrarily assigned as one who sees, one who sees when they are shown, or one who will not see even if they are shown and it is absolute.
Its interesting, the way were overstimulated constantly and growing up like that, just look at the the rise in adhd at around the same time, it just took one generation to see the effect, but what do you mean by pollution and inflammation?
Wtf who's gonna read this shit
Doesn't bother me if the thread slides into the archives and is never read by another human being. But I've spent the better part of a decade+ writing papers, researching, fiddling with pipettes and petri dishes, and washing my hands raw in a laboratory studying the sliding scale of our collective neurochemicals and the changes that you and I are currently unknowingly apart of is fricking scary.
Trying to broach some of the more terminal-slanted aspects of the microplastics, the extreme culling of diets culling gut flora and its far reaching effects on our brain's chemistry, or how we're now seeing the real dangers of processed foods on long-term health.
Mind you, this thread was about HRT and how in 10 years people on it will develop cancers.
But HRT has been used in clinical settings since the 70s, so we've had 4+ decades of research and yeah, cancer will develop in people. There's no proof of statistical impact of HRT on cancer development that can't be defined by other factors first.
However, processed foods have really only been entertained as a diet since the 90s. Yes, sugary cereals and poptarts and chips have existed for a long time, but the types of preservatives in our food is much younger than the use of HRT and there is no doctor or clinician prescribing junk food so there's no degree of safety or public research into any of it.
So we've had to monitor the population. Kids born in the late 80s->00s whose diets have contained even 15-20% of the most common preservatives have a higher chance of developing serious mental and neurological disorders.
People think diabetes and obesity are an epidemic? Those are just symptoms of a growing trend that even the scientists I work with daily don't want to outright name. It's harder to ignore fat people, but it's very easy to consider crazy people as crazy and chock it up to childhood trauma or some soft science explanation.
Microplastics seem to be the modern equivalent to Rome's lead pipes that slowly turned them all mad in the late empire, it's gonna be a wild ride kek
Scary thought.
Probably true. Like I mentioned there's a 3-pronged idea my colleagues focus on: hyperstimulation (internet, smartphones, social media; this is the soft science focus and all we can do is study what others write about) pollution (microplastics, carbon emissions, post-nuclear testing) and inflammation (processed foods [relates to microplastics heavily], the gut's role in our brain, sedentary lifestyles)
Our main focus in my work is inflammation but we overlap with pollution a lot. Most of my outside time I spend researching hyperstimulation, which is why Cinemaphile is one of my favorite places to lurk. Anonymity and the popularity of the website means there's a lot of valid data to draw. Not that I do much myself, I just like it here.
The only thing I've ever positively tested for, clinically speaking, is a tendency toward depressive streaks which I counteract with stimulants (caffeine, occasional amphetamine usage, and MDMA a couple times a year). No major disorders, no over-reliance on drugs or alcohol outside the self-treatment of malaise. If anything I'm an extremely apt individual and spend 90% of any given year completely lucid and sober.
We're required to undergo psych evaluations and we're encouraged to report any abnormal behavior or changes in our colleagues given our field of study.
This is... partially?.. true. It's not quite as trinary and it's definitely not absolute. As with anything there's more and more nuance to anything dealing with human behavior, but if I were to truly try to define the modern, Western human tendencies down to distinct hardlined definitions they'd look pretty similar to this but it'd likely be 5-6 categories and not 3.
There's also outliers and exceptional human beings which will never fit absolute terms and will be, in a sense, immune to typology and definition and we'd have no way of ever studying them.
The irony is that most people believe they're those types of people which they can't be.
You're gonna kick yourself when you find out what it is lmao.
>I just like it here.
To be honest I fricking hate it here, I was an oldgay back in the day and I realised how bad this site was for my mentality, it was turning me into a degenerate and making me reclusive, I quite for years but got dragged back due to covid lockdowns, started visiting biz cause I got into crypto, then I got back into wrestling and started visiting pw so now I guess I'm fricking back to being stuck in this butthole of a site kek probably should just delete the app cause I'm broke now and pw is full of the biggest morons imaginable, if you haven't visited I'd suggest checking it out for your studies
i think its time for meds
Not an argument. Don't try to obfuscate uncomfortable truths with paltry deflection.
Like estrogen?
Me
I don't get that reasoning. There's a difference between giving hormones to people who have hormonal issues, and people who are healthy. It's like saying that it's cool to irradiate healthy people because cancer patients have had that done to them for years.
>Cancer is how organic matter begins to break down
If you age human cells in a petri dish for long enough, cancer cells will develop. That's without outside factors of pollution, irritants, inflammation, or processed foods killing off gut flora. Most dogs and cats that don't die from other issues will inevitably die of cancer. In fact, most of the main issues domesticated animals die from that don't include infections or being maimed in some way, are exacerbations of early cancer signs. Not necessarily cancer itself, but the inflammation of early markers that almost always develop into cancer are the likeliest causes of kidneys shutting down, livers failing, intestinal torsion, and the development of neurological disorders. Most dogs that live 12+ years have these markers.
We'd know more about this if we did autopsies on animals, but we don't really do that except for laboratory specimens or wild animals so we can track diseases. But somebody's pet dog or cat, there's no reason to do an autopsy, we just call them old and inject them so they die quickly.
We're only finding out about these early markers in aging pets because a handful of vets got curious and did some technically illegal autopsies.
Most of the people that live to be 100+ years old have a handful of things in common. One of them are elongated telomeres. Which are like the plastic bits at the ends of shoelaces; only in this case the shoelaces are the ends of chromosomes. Without the aglets/telomeres, your shoelaces get dragged through mud, piss, shit, and start to fray. You tie them tighter and tighter, the frayed shoelaces break apart overtime. But if you had longer shoelaces and longer aglets/telomeres, then you could continue to drag those laces through a lot of shit and keep tying them tight.
What do shortened telomeres develop into? Cancer cells, genetic mutations, neurodegeneration, and outright cell death.
Cancer is just a way to break things down. But sometimes it happens earlier than it should have.
Cancer is the opposite of breakdown. It's excessive growth.
Most cancers feed on surrounding tissues to grow. It's why skin cancer is so easy to treat compared to, say, pancreatic or liver cancers. It's harder for skin cancer to find a vector to serious organs and their growth tends to be moles, some form of skin tags, etc.,
It's not about whether or not something grows or withers, our bodies are not gardens beholden to some spring-winter deluge-drought cycles. A prostate can enlarge without cancer, but an enlarged prostate is not a healthier prostate because it's bigger.
An enlarged heart is more dangerous despite there being more of it. In fact, taller people are unhealthier and at a higher disadvantage of cardiovascular disorders, bone growth syndromes, cancers, lesions, infection, and a multitude of other disorders. Yet you can pinpoint thousands of elite athletes who are taller than the average person, which is a valid point; except it ignores the fact that those elite athletes have to stay in shape and follow protocols to stay that way.
Also, not all cancers are tumors/growths. There are cancers that simply cause microtears in the arteries; they don't grow as tumors and they can only be measured in blood draws (and it's not something common enough to screen for), they don't show up on any of the typical scans that a cancerous growth would show up on. Yet the microtears when sampled and compared to the hundreds of thousands of different catalogued cancers show nearly identical similarities to the same common tumor-causing cancers. A tear is not a growth, and the tears are not caused by growths. The tears are caused by a malignancy in how the blood vessels respond to the changes approaching an arterial vessel. The blood basically surges, as if it's revving its throttle, and begins wearing out the walls. It's rare, admittedly. I think <1,000 cases per year in the world, but most blood-related cancers are pretty rare when compared to tumor-growth cancers.
Your uncle sounds pretty based, and I agree with him and your prof about the internet. In fact, I think we're about to make the rather horrifying discovery that schizophrenia is a communicable disease and it primary vector is social media.
Speaking to the hormone thing, your uncle is on drugs to treat a congenital hormonal problem. That's miles apart from introducing hormones into an otherwise healthy endocrine system.
Yeah he's a good dude. Definitely a mentor of mine growing up. You're right about him being, technically, a perfect specimen for hormonal medicines. But my point isn't that his anecdotal life disproves the theory of HRT as the devil's work. It's that the fascination with trans people or how we treat them is such a low hanging fruit that it's like you're worried about a stray dog pissing on your street cause you think the smell will drive down your property value.
It's just a knee-jerk reaction and is pushed, mostly, as a political chip.
This is coming from somebody who doesn't think kids should be on HRT, but they should be taken serious if they feel dysphoric and given a year or so of supportive identity exploration. Kids can figure shit out if given a slightly long leash. And if at the end of that leash the kid is adamant, maybe then begin a longer process of hormonal blocking/HRT, but this should only be done in mature children. Not some spastic that gets sat down with youtube videos as a babysitter.
And I also believe that detransing should get as much support as trans, which is the other side of the political spectrum wherein detrans are considered political proof that trans people are making it up.
There are a genuine though small portion of the population that through some means we don't quite understand (which /can be/ alleviated with supportive identity exploration and HRT) benefit.
Except, again, it's being conflated to a much larger issue for no reason whatsoever and people are clamoring to take a positional opinionated stance on what basically does not matter.
Estrogen and testosterone both give euphoria in both male and female receivers. Though there's also a lot of people that don't get euphoric. This is already considered in genuine receivers of HRT for any reason and is monitored by clinicians.
I so totally agree with you. Good luck in your research.
Thank you.
Not sure what you mean. If you mean that trans people are a direct result of the 3-prongs of our research, I'd argue that anthropologically trans people predate carbonized pollution, nuclear waste, social media, microplastics, preservatives in processed foods, etc.,
Sorry if I misinterpreted your post, it was pithy and I responded to 2 others.
It's strange in a way. People my age were pretty into MySpace-- and even before it officially shutdown, they moved onto other sites. Early BBS forums were all the rage, IRC was peak early internet, yet both are relatively empty spaces now. Tumblr/deviantart/newgrounds all very niche and while Tumblr/DA are still popular to some crowds, all 3 sites are effectively dead.
SomethingAwful exists, but not really.
Facebook is mostly middle-aged and older people.
We have Twitter, IG, TikTok, Twitch, and Discord filling in the gaps.
Yet Cinemaphile remains as a pretty distinct remnant. Even reddit, being relatively old and still very popular, has changed so much you can pinpoint exact moments of change like rings in a tree.
Cinemaphile has been mostly the same throughout the years. A few demographic shifts, different memes get spammed, oldgay/newbies, the summer tourists, yadda yadda, but it's mostly the same. And it's gotten more popular, has probably the largest measurable impact on internet culture, but it's so unique. It has a gravity and escaping its pull is harder the longer you're here.
I wouldn't quite categorize it as a drug or an addiction, because beyond the porn/gore/(You)s there aren't a lot of dopamine hits to be had here. It's more of a comfort thing, like your room during a snowday. I dunno. There's definitely something to it but unless I can measure it directly I can't define it.
I mean that when you find out what it is you are gonna be fricking furious and I am lmaoing.
Cinemaphile is the internet’s subconscious.
>Cinemaphile has been mostly the same throughout the years
I dunno anon. Since 2016 it's had a sharp culture change. Election tourists turned to colonists as they wouldn't leave. Every board is just /misc/ now. It's so bad that someone will probably call me a troony for this post even though I likely share their concerns for society
Meh, tbh this shit has been brewing since before trump and 2016. I remember laughing in some chicks face back in like 2012 for accusing me of "rape culture" when I said some chick was irresistible. Little did I know what was in store
>Kids can figure shit out if given a slightly long leash.
Kids don't have a fricking clue. There's a reason advertising to kids is so strictly regulated, because you can just straight up make them do whatever you want them to. If they see something as being cool, if their friends are doing it, they'll hop on the bandwagon with no understanding of the consequences.
How is a being with no actual understanding of sexuality supposed to explore it? Sexual identity develops with the onset of puberty, at which point you're no longer a child.
Hey anon, I am very interested and fascinated by what you have been posting.
Would you happen to have any resources you would suggest? Books, articles, videos, Twitter, etc.
>I think we're about to make the rather horrifying discovery that schizophrenia is a communicable disease and it primary vector is social media.
Real shit right here.
The term schizophrenogenic has been around since the 50s. We already know the parents' behaviour is a massive factor.
>YEAHBUT I KNOW A GUY WHO TAKES HORMONES AND HE'S HEALTHY SO
dumb
He's taken both hormones in a clinical setting for longer than I've been alive and he's not developed cancer. HRT as a prescription has been modeled and studied since the 1970s and in no way is there proof that they have a higher development of cancer. This isn't just about my uncle. HRT is in the probably top 15 of most well researched subfields and we'd definitely have noticed higher chances of cancer in people on the therapies. We haven't seen any rise in cancer in HRT that can't also be attributed to lifestyle choices outside HRT (smoking, bad diets, sedentary lifestyles) or genetic disadvantages. Leaded gasoline had a larger impact on society than hormone therapies.
It's just stupid to worry about trans people when we're surrounded by actual, literal, measurable changes in rates of schizophrenia, early on-set dementia, dissociative disorders, hypo-and-hypermania, the destruction of gut flora (which we collectively rely on other people's to help our own, it's why healthy individuals are naturally drawn to other healthy individuals-- it's both instinctual and psychological) through processed foods/microplastics.
Trans people are, what, <5% of the world's population? Even if every single person that thought they were trans were given hormones and told to live their lives from a young age, it would have no genetic impact on the human race anymore than incest has, which has about the equal rate of happenstance, historically speaking.
HRT developing into cancer in 10 years? Not proven.
There's so much worse shit happening right now in grocery stores, SYSCO delivered food trucks to restaurants, microplastics in the streams and rain cycles that our wildlife and woodlands rely upon. Let alone what it's doing to humanity. Couple that with the disinhibited nature of hyperstimulated peoples, trans people are just a medical anomaly given way too much attention by people pushed from both directions to care.
>BUT I KNOW A GUY WHO TOOK HORMONES AND HE DOESNT HAVE CANCER
Dumb.
Ya that’s cool and all I just don’t think they should have rights as a protected class and take tax payer money
I know people who have excessively smoked all their lives, breathed in asbestos on a regular basis for years and they haven't had any respiratory problems, doesn't mean that it's healthy to do so.
>other things cause cancer so that proves HRT doesn't
What the frick kind of logic is this?
>Porn is fine
based meth enjoyer. We should start handing out meth to everyone we can.
He's not huge into recreational drugs. He dabbles, I'd assume, we don't talk much about our personal lives that way. If I had to guess he smokes weed, he enjoys good alcohol, and probably psychedelics.
He does use modafinil and he recommends it to his trucker employees, but he has them get physicals for health insurance and lets them make their own decisions regarding it.
But I wouldn't be shocked if he did amphetamines/methamp, or if he at least used to. He's too open minded and self-aware to be against trying things, I just think he cares more about his long-term health to be too deep into it.
Admittedly the porn is probably the most damaging thing I think he partakes in, but as I understand it he has a seedbox for torrents and that's how he gets his porn. He doesn't browse endless gifs on pornhub's frontpage or anything, but again we're not that personal so I might be misreading him entirely.
Cool.
Everybody is protected by the 14th amendment. I'm not big into politics, but as far as I understand it everybody born in the US is meant to have the same rights and privileges as everybody else born in the US. Enacting laws to ban somebody part of a few % of the population from accessing healthcare, or disallowing their caretakers to make the decisions to allow them access to healthcare seems to fly in the face of that amendment.
Also, the standing US military and personnel make up <5% of the active US population and yet receive a higher % of taxpayer money than any % of trans people accessing healthcare or grants. Now, if you don't support the US military as well as not supporting trans people, the elderly, wheelchair users, people who wear glasses, children with leukemia, bald women, literary writers/artists, or people who took PPP loans to support their businesses then you're at least logically sound since every one of those categories receives taxpayer money through special grants, healthcare, or architectural regulation.
children with cancer need treatment
trans people don’t.
Prove otherwise.
There's nothing to prove because my field of study isn't the care for trans people nor is it in pediatric oncology. My point is that trans people make up a such a small sect of society that worrying about their well-being as an outsider of that in-group is a pointless endeavor and if clinicians, caretakers, their neighborhood, their family, their friends, or whomever else wishes to help them with their belonging in the world then they should be able to do so as per the 14th amendment.
The undue focus trans people get culturally is so highly conflated that you'd think trans people numbered in the billions, but they're a tiny fraction. They're culturally insignificant and the focus they're getting is pushed for political reasonings, those of which are beyond my scope of understanding. There are actual things happening that matter way more which get zero significant focus by anybody, because the current cultural politicization is on some microcosm instead.
Regardless, gender dysphoria is real despite your likely disagreements of such a thing. It's measurable in an fMRI, which is to say it's as real as anything else that occurs in parts of our brain and has a real effect on an individual's circumstances.
But not every gender dysphoric is trans, not every boy that wants to wear dresses is trans, and not every child should be given HRT or hormone blockers. Which I've reiterated multiple times.
Also, everybody with cancer deserves treatment and I believe any infringement of healthcare is a sin.
A rodent can be taught, before it wears its teeth down to nothing, that what it's doing is going to be bad. A wild rodent that gets struck in the head and confused won't learn that and will chew on cement until it can't eat real food (this has been studied) but a rodent in a clinical setting can be struck on the head and confused and taught that it's likely killing itself in the long run and will chew on other things.
>The undue focus trans people get culturally is so highly conflated that you'd think trans people numbered in the billions, but they're a tiny fraction.
The way things are going they won't stay a tiny fraction in the long run. The social contagion is spreading.
>A rodent can be taught, before it wears its teeth down to nothing, that what it's doing is going to be bad. A wild rodent that gets struck in the head and confused won't learn that and will chew on cement until it can't eat real food (this has been studied) but a rodent in a clinical setting can be struck on the head and confused and taught that it's likely killing itself in the long run and will chew on other things.
so you agree
what's keeping people from pressuring normal kids into trooning out got to do with the 14th amendment?
Like I've said, I don't follow politics very closely. But through simply existing and using the internet I come across this topic pretty often, my main boards are Cinemaphile Cinemaphile and Cinemaphile -- Cinemaphile has, by far, the most trans discussions of those 3 boards.
I'm interested in the hard science of the neurochemistry of trans individuals and in the sanctity of people being allowed to seek healthcare. If nothing else I just don't give much thought about the topic, but I disagreed with OP's pic and HRT is, unfortunately, conflated with the so-called Trans Dilemma so my posts have had to be tinged with trans-related stuff. I'm honestly more interested in the detrans community, because if nothing else, they're even more vilified than trans people who fully transition. One side thinks detrans proves trans are a farce, while the side that typically supports trans people will consider detrans a rejection of the supportive movement. There's more nuance involved, but generally that's what I've seen online.
Furthermore, not a single grad student, colleague, tangential research assistant, PhD candidate, or the people who sign my checks ever talk about trans people. I'd literally never see the discussion since I avoid the news, except I happen to browse certain parts of the internet like here.
I'm not a grad student. I'm a doctorate and, again, my field isn't in this. My issue is that HRT does not have statistical backing in higher development of cancers, like the OPs pic implies.
He has girlfriends. He has a seedbox because he doesn't use the internet as a whole. He accesses it like a library, through torrents, but he doesn't browse anything or doom/coomscroll like the average person.
>Like I've said, I don't follow politics very closely
yeah you do Black person, where do you think you are? you're a lying semantic moron go have a nice day.
I like memes and anonymity. Reddit is too filled with politics and its so corporatized that even if you spent a week perfectly filtering out every potential thing, the algorithm would still leak out and make me read some hacky headline from ABC News. Cinemaphile is an easy 2 click system and thread is effectively pruned. Sure this place is astroturfed, but organic discussion through (You)s is the only true metric of how popular a thread gets or how often I see a topic. I'm sure there's bots and shills, but they have as much power as any other Anon or frogposter or /misc/ack. So it's organic and disorganized, that's appealing to me since most of my day is spent with test tubes, note taking, and rigorous requirements.
Any other website has flags emojis and Support Current Thing. At least here the piss is taken out of most things before they're taken serious-- except a few choice topics, like trans people are somehow a very serious and real topic here. Which is weird to me.
He could be a deep liar, but I've met his girlfriends over the years. They've all been pretty cool, mostly just dinners and stuff so I don't know their sex lives. But the thing is, he never /had/ the internet to get rid of. He did started out on IRC and oldschool forums, then he drifted away from a lot of stuff IRL and moved across the country. Got his life in order, I guess? I'd ask him about various things like maybe a news story or if he had a Facebook and he'd legitimately not know wtf I was talking about or he'd know enough to know he didn't want them. When I told him I had a footnote in a paper he got excited about reading it so I sent him a copy by mail and it kinda started a storm of me teaching him about scihub and he basically asked if there was a way to just extract information without the rest of the internet. Few tech books later and he's torrenting, which is what lead to him getting into programming. He doesn't do anything in HTML just likes to code little programs
>I like memes and a-ACK
lol way to not even respond to what i said to you. this fricking insect head.
>He has girlfriends. He has a seedbox because he doesn't use the internet as a whole. He accesses it like a library, through torrents, but he doesn't browse anything or doom/coomscroll like the average person.
yeah I don't know, even being at the point of a seedbox is just a deep commitment, involvement and knowledge. Your uncle must have truly insane sexual stamina for his age if he has girlfriends and this committed porn habit, or he barely bangs his gfs. I only use porn when I don't have a gf and am not looking for one. My gf drains my balls enough that all my cum is for her. It's the way human relationships are supposed to go. Humans in their tribes just had sex all the time with their partners before civilization kicked in (read up on Hawaiian people, it's fascinating). I've broken myself of internet/screen addiction and kicking the porn habit was a hugely important component of that. It's basically a drug. Getting rid of most of the internet in your life EXCEPT for porn is a massive, massive cope and exception.
>he has a seedbox for torrents and that's how he gets his porn
your uncle is DEEP into his porn habit if he's at this point. If he's that physically healthy but isn't getting it on with women, he has a severe porn addiction
>90%+/- of men over the age of 55 die with some form of prostate cancer
Fricking bullshit
Early markers of cancers, the inflammations, and at least 1 of the 300-some cancer-related genes are detected in that number of men at that age and above when a proper autopsy is done. That fact is actually why deeper and longer autopsies are conducted on any cadaver found or brought to the coroners/medical examiners.
Not everybody that dies gets an autopsy though, hence my +/- // Now, I will say early markers are not guarantees of cancer growth. But there is literally no other form of early measurement of cancer available and those early markers have an extremely high chance (~60-85% depending on the location of the inflammation) of being correct.
If anybody lives long enough without genetic advantages in their telomeres or otherwise, they will develop cancer. They may not die of cancer, they may not even know they had cancer. But they will develop it in some form.
Somehow doubt it, the whole thing seems like a fad that's been kept alive by politics and some unscrupulous clinicians wanting a payday. Also, despite some trans people being able to have invasive surgeries and surgical wombs and all those other things, trans people aren't exactly procreating.
The rate of gay men has remained about the same, with a slight increase given the more acceptance. You can link a study (not even a study, a survey really) showing teen rates of LGBTQ identities is increasing, but I mean, there were 10 scene kids to every 1 Walmart shirt cargo short wearing kid in my middle school and now there's no scene kids. Kids and teens develop a multitude of identities, it's important for them to cycle through multiple, incomplete versions of themselves before they fully mature or they'll suffer repressive arrested development.
I don't agree or disagree. You've made about ten different points and tried to anchor them together with pop-science interpretations of Darwinism while also conflating clinical vs feral, disabled vs abled, and human vs rodent.
>grad student
>still thinks anybody gives a shit about anecdotes
Irrelevant anecdotes at that. His uncle isn't taking hormones to develop opposite sex characteristics.
Just so you know, you are conflating HRT (hint: it's in the 'R') with taking cross-sex hormones to reach hormonal levels of the opposite sex. No, this isn't a tomato/tomato situation - there is a big difference and you have drunk the troony Kool Aid that seeks to erase the profound distinction between these two things.
I know what HRT is. It's called HRT because, clinically speaking, trans people are considered the opposite gender and thus are needing to replace their hormones with the other. However, in trans-literary speak the term they use is GAHT which is gender-affirming hormone therapy. It's the same thing. HRT is referenced in same-sex hormones (replacing the ones you've lost due to surgery, cancers, menopause, thyroid issues) or replacing your hormones with cross-sex hormones.
And don't blame me for using HRT. My issue is with OP's pic saying long-term HRT will develop cancers or that this generation is somehow more unique due to HRT, which isn't true since HRT in a clinical prescription model dates back 4+ decades.
I believe the person in the OP is referencing HRT usage during the pubescent stage, which has not occurred before in a large manner and doesn't have long-term studies. Different than adults using it, or post-pubescent.
This is a copy paste. Ignore it.
What is this absolute schizo babble and why are so many people replying to it seriously?
circumcision unironically causes beurlogical trauma in infants, id be more worried about that than the voluntary meme machine
also your cancer diatribe is insane to me, the idea that people get cancer anyway so its fine to expedite that is fricking crazy
lastly regarding "more schizophrenics" for someone who sounds so into academia you dont even mention the possibility that our diagnosis umbrella has widened.
yeah in the 60 there was totally way less mental illness, meanwhile footage from the era shows 1 in 5 men ready to "slay asiatics in some frickin jungle who cares as long as i get to kill those slants"
yup totally sane people
Holy shit this post absolute ANNIHILATED chuds
>I'd be more worried about the internet.
Yup. Basically you have trannies who truly want to be the opposite sex. There's nothing sexual to it for them, it's just how they feel. Then you have the trannies who get horny from pretending to be the other sex. However, as long as they realize it's just a sexual fetish there's nothing wrong with this. And then you have the schizos, narcissists, etc. Amplified (and even created) by social media. Basically these people suffer from personality disorders and then Tumblr/Reddit, and nowadays *all* the major platforms, tell them their sexual fetish is an identity to be proud of! Add to this some French philosophy and communism and you've got yourself a movement/religion that can be heavily monetized. Welcome to 2022; AKA the 1930s 2.0.
There are no legitimate trannies. All trannies were gaslit into being the way they are by abusive predators. Before "gender ideology" was invented, there was literally no such thing as a person who felt the need to change their sex.
They existed but it was viewed along the same lines as pica or a disassociative disorder.
Most MtFs are cumbrained, autistic lost boys that look for anything to believe in and validate their existence in a world hostile to them and their pathologies and determined trooning out is the answer to all of their problems. It's tragic and the people pushing it should be the ones getting strung up.
Possible. I don't know the data. If it's true that all trannies were abused and/or suffer from severe personality disorders, then it seems that it's indeed a mental condition and not a legitimate issue. I'm talking about actual trannies here, i.e. transsexuals, not the gender religion bullshit about being some non-corporeal being outside of your body that's the true you. The problem is that the majority of these people are clearly mentally ill and there seems to be no effort to distinguish between them and the legitimate (if they exist) trannies.
What would be a "legitimate troony" versus a mentally ill homosexual?
Someone who is functional, doesn't sexualize it, and truly believes they are indeed the opposite sex, while also recognizing it's impossible to change their sex. Note that this can *still* be a mental disorder, but since the gender activists have hijacked the debate it's impossible to answer the question. You need to look at those people (the functional ones) and ask yourself is there's anything in their history that might explain it (like abuse). But, again, the gender religion doesn't allow this to be studied.
There are no credible historical examples of people sincerely believing themselves to be dogs, cats, trees, rocks or anything else biologically impossible. So it stands to reason there is no such thing as a real and sincere transsexual. It's just not possible. Everybody knows what they are. Only with the invetion of modern "gender ideology" have they been able to gaslight people into thinking they are the opposite sex.
There's a difference between being completely healthy and choosing to replace your natural hormones and having a condition that REQUIRES you to replace hormones or you die. One is endocrine dysfunction and the other is self-poisoning.
Honestly what the frick DOESN'T give cancer nowadays?
We have microplastics in our fricking blood and nearly every food we eat is now carcinogenic. The way we cook out food gives us cancer. Our phones give us cancer. Our computers. Our lights. Our sun. Our soap.
I would think the word that's more fitting would be accelerate.
What the frick are you talking about, schizo?
Are you moronic ?
>Our sun
>I accidentally got a papercut so now I guess I may as well decapitate myself
You're really on another level of stupid ain't ya?
The boomers handled leaded fuel, teflon, DDT and huge amounts of trans fats, can't say were worse of now than what they got.
Not a word of this post is wrong, the frick are the replies seething about?
Shill Shill Shill Shill
*what* is a woman?
what *IS* a woman?
what is a *WOMAN*?
What is *A* woman
*Black folk*
xx=woman
xy=man
NOOOOOOOOOOO IT MUST BE DETERMINED BY FEELINGS!!!
It must be fricked up to be a zoomer
Why don't we use ai to find it out?
Let's have it scan bunch of x ray of people. It can surely tell us what is what by science right?
huh. on an unrelated note, make sure you get vaccinated and boosted.
One little tidbit most people don't know is that high doses of estrogen injected into males causes feelings of euphoria, so when people think they feel gender confirmation by taking estrogen are actually just getting high off it, probably why they end up becoming so unstable and violent later on they're going through withdrawals and need ever larger doses
>humans are being experimented on without their known consent by scientist with insanity
Whoa, never heard that before
When will those anime tier traps be ready?
Just ignore stagnant wages and impossible house prices guys. These filmmakers care about you and what's really important. They don't want to distract you with inane fringe issues of the 0.1%
Trannies are mentally ill but you have to be an actual sub 100IQ mouth breather if your take is that social issues aren't worth talking about at all because economic issues exist.
There can be more than one problem in society at a given time
The Senator tricked you, Anakin! You'll never be a woman!
They reap what they sow.
Legitimately made me laugh out loud and kind of surprised it took this long. Sure, a few people posted the -ACK meme, but usually these threads derail a lot faster into troon suicide gifs or sexual reassignment surgery pictures.
Lots of genuine responses, felt nice to talk to people about some of what my work is that aren't in white labcoats or a bunch of grad students trying to suck up.
I’ve been on hormones for over ten years. no cancer. eat a dick chuds
inb4
>40%
>dilate
>ack
>cope, seethe, Black person, homosexual, etc.
40%
dilate
ack
cope, seethe, Black person, homosexual
etc.
This redditor troony actualy think anyone's reading his fricking bibles?
>you're giving yourself cancer.
Isn't literally everything giving you cancer?
I am tired of making this question and getting loop aswers. We already know the biologic definition of "woman". But what definition does the gender ideology have? They say beimg a woman is a matter of gender amd not biology. Ok, then what does it mean to be a woman?
By loop answers I mean that the only thing people on /lgbt/ can say is stuff like "a woman is someone who identifies as such" or "a woman is someone that decides to be part of a social group that is considered woman" so basically, all you are saying is "a woman is someone who is a woman" do you understand how stupid and nonsensical it sounds? I could use this definition for everything. A dog is something you identify as dog. A chair is something that can be identified as a chair. Ad infinitum.
This
is a woman.
Thassa man
Powerful, Floyd is smiling up at us
how accurate are IQ tests on people that moronic? i mean 80IQ vs 71IQ? whats the fricking difference lol
They're actually more accurate for people who are on the lower side of the spectrum. Some differences on retest with average and above average people can be down to nerves, tiredness, etc. That said, an 11% drop is significant with everyone.
looks like young Dave Grohl
>tfw zoomers and alpha are troony lab rats
>One simple image dismantles everything from the troonpeddler
Drugs are bad mmkay
Even if there are terrible long-term effects they will obscure the results and lie to people. If you personally experience terrible effects from the HRT and hormone blockers and try to report it you will be deplatformed. No amount of truth can defeat a power government/corporate partnership.
The frick is this thread? Someone should let know trannies their bot is bugged.
it's just an intelligent well-written schizoid venting to the internet to avoid emotional intimacy instead of someone they know in real life
this homosexuals iq is 90 at best. he says literally nothing in one giant post after another.
Stop replying to this fricking moron.
Why is this troony writing a fricking novel in this thread? Learn to be concise, gahd damn.
You are like the b***hes in my class that werent given a page limit for their paper and wrote 14-20 pages when i wrote 2 and we got the same grade. Dumb b***hes, just like you
he literally writes like a high schooler trying to pad out his research paper.
Why are they all have this dumb nose scrunch expression when they are trying to convince people about troony agenda? Are they subconsciously denied the explanation too or what?
They're aping feminine behavior and speaking in sotto babysitter tones because they don't want to invite violence. If they ape being defenseless ugly feeble women then they can spout nonsense and not be struck. That's why they do this. If people started hitting them in the fricking head like they should then this shit would stop immediately.
Transgender ideology is built on self hatred and the religious worship of shallow, sexist stereotypes. It teaches people that they were born wrong if they're a girl who likes kickball or a boy who likes having long hair and cooking. There's no reason a man can't fulfill the same roles and adopt the same traditions as a woman, and vice versa. There's no reason to "change" your "gender" in the first place because "genders" ought to be equally able to pursue their passions. The concept of gender identity is inherently sexist and limiting. It's built on bigotry. The man who came up with "gender identity" is a murderer who caused two boys to kill themselves. In reality all we have is biological sex. Your sex doesn't determine your hobbies, your roles, your fashion or your personality. You choose those things. As an individual. Isn't that a better, more free world? One where sex is all that exists and people are free to pursue whatever they want regardless of their sex? "Gender" is a needless restriction and it does not serve as a genuine identity. The logical progression of breaking down the differences leads to tomboys and femboys. It leads to people who don't let their biological sex influence their hobbies or fashion. The transgender cult is all about building up those limitations and enforcing them so strictly that any little boy who so much as glances at a Barbie doll gets put on hormone blockers so that he can be railroaded into becoming "a girl" because "only girls like dolls". We used to have a culture that said "if you're a boy you ought to like sports" and now we have a culture that says "if you like sports you ought to become a boy". We skipped right over the healthy, rational middleground that says there's no reason a girl can't play kickball with her friends without mutilating herself and taking testosterone.
>doctor says I have low test
Am I going to have to start taking pills to be normal, I don't want a personality change
your personality already changed without you realizing it when your test dropped. You're not going to be a different person, just a different version of yourself, the same way you've been changing versions all your life
lift, eat red meat, sleep, stop being a b***h.
Same guy, I must admit I don't get nearly enough sleep, maybe 5-6 hours a night. I didn't think that affected testosterone levels though.
I have some resistance bands I picked up and need to get into the habit of using.
sleep 8pm - 4am, you will feel young every day
Today I will remind them.
Transgender cultists and kosher boshers gaslight vulnerable people into thinking that hormones and surgery are the only way for them to be happy, that they were born in the "wrong body" and that the way to start living as their "true selves" is through experimental surgery. The gender identity lie makes it easy for them to convince anyone with even a single atypical interest that they were really "meant to be" the opposite sex. The guaranteed state mandated acceptance and constant positive reinforcement from the media and their fellow grooming victims helps sell the con, too. But in reality there's no genuine appeal. HRT is ugly serum that makes you fat and ruins your skin, it doesn't "feminize". The "bottom surgery" is simply genital mutilation. It can't give you a real vegana. They absolutely do not need surgery or hormones to start loving the way they were born. Boys don't need to cease being male to feel pretty. Girls don't need to cease being female to feel athletic. The gender identity construct is inherently limiting. It tells people they need to change themselves to express any feelings they have that don't fall in line with the socially accepted parodies that our media considers "masculine" and "feminine". It's sad that people get tricked into hating and destroying themselves like this just to appease sexist stereotypes, even moreso that a lot of them are kids. If we had positive femboy and tomboy rolemodels rather than these transgender groomers telling everyone that self esteem is achieved through hormones and surgery, I think you'd see a lot more happy people who accept that they don't fit into gender stereotypes and a lot less miserable mutilation victims who insist on being called something they're not. The world becomes a better place when we celebrate tough girls and sensitive boys who break the mold while invalidating this meaningless and dangerous fad.
>celebrate tough girls and sensitive boys who break the mold while invalidating this meaningless and dangerous fad.
Youre just as delusional about human nature as trannies are
not really. you're proving horseshoe theory true and proving that conservacucks are troony enablers. enforced conformity is bullshit no matter who's doing it.
More like you're proving yourself as a globohomosexual enabling homosexual that got crushed under the progressive march you were happily following along with until a moment ago
No, he's right. You're a troony.
>NOOO SALLY YOU CAN'T PLAY KICKBALL ONLY BOYS DO THAT
>NOOO SALLY YOU HAVE TO BE A BOY NOW BECAUSE YOU LIKE THE COLOR BLUE
You are a troony if you think stereotypes should be enforced. No matter how conservative you pretend to be, you're a troony. You share their ideology.
LMAO you think conservatives are mad that girls play kickball? You're a truly delusional femcel
They aren't these days. There was a time in the past when they were. There were literally protests to keep women from wearing pants. That behavior IS troony behavior. Slavishly worshipping "norms" and stereotypes and trying to force people to abide by them is troony behavior.
Yeah and the feminists back then were shaming men into fighting wars. Does that mean they were trannies for falling for the gender stereotypes?
Like 20% of the pale white autistic nerds that would have traditionally called Cinemaphile home in 2007-era chan have trooned out and are using their autism brain for evil rather than the traditional use of doing technology feats like hacking webcams and trolling online. It's why they seem so prevalent online and why they are feel so familiar. Trannies are to anons what Black folk are to black people. The darker element of a subgroup. They took their anime coomer bullshit too fricking far and anyone who has been on this board long enough can read them like a fricking book.
I love to read these kind of autistic headcanons
Am I wrong? A huge percentage of anons have trooned out and the vibe here is way different than it was back in the day, but it feels almost like a natural resolution to problems we saw back then. Too many porn-sick weebs, too many self-loathing men. If you can't see a correlation there, you're not paying attention.
Maybe its an overgeneralization, but there are definitely toons that post here. There's an entire troony board now. To deny their presence here is absurd. Do you think they only post on that board and never anywhere else? Do you not see the programmer socks bullshit on Cinemaphile? Do you not see the "I wish to be the girl" bullshit on Cinemaphile? The constantly euphoria troon spam here? Am I the only one paying attention?
The passive aggressive tone from the two anons you replied to is proof enough that those are both trannies and they're trying hard to mask their presence. They can't groom if everyone notices them.
I don't mean you're wrong, it's just annoying to be caught in the crossfire by schizos that thinking every opinion they don't like is from a trans. I think trans issues are something very closely related to the ascendancy of the internet. Trans people virtually don't exist in real life. MTFs by and large do not go out in public and just sit in their home all day and use the internet for socializing. They become moderators, powerusers, etc. and collect the power to influence the online discourse. Like think about the pronoun issue. I know trans people in real life. Pronouns are never relevant when talking to them, because I'm talking directly to them! It's only online where you have to speak to some vague crowd that pronouns matter.
As another example - I play a lot of strategy video games. It's an almost all male field. There are more MTFs in the community than there are women.
dilate
There's no such thing as "trans people" and nobody who belongs here would ever call them that. Trannies are just pornsick predatory men.
kick me out then lol. They're just mentally ill (maybe only like 2% of them are "classically" trans in the way that trans people did exist pre-industrialization) and I have sympathy for them as I do for all of the downtrodden and broken. It's funny when schizos like you who constantly screech about grooming (were you molested? I have sympathy for you too) call me a man who thinks he's a woman, because I'm jacked, tall, and bearded and definitely a man.
Trannies didn't exist pre industrialization. Trannies were invented in 1950 and they aren't downtrodden and broken. They're the ones doing the trodding, you absolute butthole. Gender ideology is bigotry. You're supporting people who are trying to kill and maim LGB people.
>You're supporting people who are trying to kill and maim LGB people.
Wtf, I love trannies now!!??
No, because literally every single thing you think you hate about gay people is just things that only trannies do. Stop falling for israelite propaganda.
>the israelites make gays abuse children
>make song about abusing children
>apologize
>make another song about abusing children
why even apologize in the first place?
>Trannies didn't exist pre industrialization.
yes they did. if you can't even get this basic historical anthropology fact correct then it just goes to show how you're a schizo that can't buck the narrative even slightly in his own head. Reality is complex and gray. Trans people have always historically existed. Acknowledging that fact doesn't mean you can't also acknowledge it's also way beyond historical proportions today. Just saying they magically got invented in 1950 shows you're some low IQ tribal moron playing out some culture war in his head with his epic Cinemaphile posts
No, they didn't. You're literally just erasing LGB people and crossdressers and tomboys and replacing them with your modern conversion therapy cult. You are a horrible person. Trannies never existed at any point in history before 1950. That's when gender ideologhy was invented.
you really have a severe mental block in your head if you can't even accept basic historical facts that are easily googled. Is this mental block in your head because you got diddled as a kid or something? I'm sorry that happened but stop taking it out on others. Don't continue the cycle. Be the better man.
It's a basic historical fact that gender ideology was invented recently. Who are you trying to fool and who do you think you're arguing with? Do you think that trying to erase crossdressers from history and replacing them with your modern conversion therapy cult makes you look noble? It makes you look like a homophobe. I am gay and I'm telling you, you DO NOT GET TO ERASE OUR HISTORY AND REPLACE IT WITH MODERN GENDER THEORY.
I said nothing about historical gays. Historical trans people have existed too. That's my basic claim. It's objective fact. All the modern social discourse around the issue, like "gender ideology" is irrelevant to that fact. The fact you refuse to acknowledge this shows you have some weird mental block. If you want to defeat the enemy you must understand them, and you don't understand them.
Historical trannies objectively did not exist. If gender theory didn't exist and hormone drugs didn't exist then trannies could not exist. How are you okay with being so fricking dishonest?
Here's just one (1) historical example I will spoonfeed you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_sworn_virgins
stop being moronic and get off the brainwashing you put yourself through. Just because you hate the modern trans movement doesn't mean they never historically existed.
Those aren't trannies. You realize eunuchs and castrata and crossdressers aren't trannies, right? You aren't this fricking stupid, right? There is not a single historical example of trannies.
those literally aren't trannies. you just proved his point. you're literally trying to erase people from history and replace them with your modern cult that didn't exist prior to the 1900s.
Did you even read it kek
Those aren't trannies.
Fricking kek you are so disingenuous. Imagine someone writing about you on a message board after your death asserting your identity as something you'd never heard of
LITERALLY trying to erase tomboys from history. You JUST PROVED HIS EXACT POINT YOU FRICKING GROOMER.
This utterly proves that troony supporters have malicious intent aimed at femboys and tomboys. They literally want to genocide all feminne men and all masculine women and replace them with troony abominations. This is enforced converison therapy. You are actively trying to genocide people who go against the grain. You're a cultist.
Historical trannies objectively could not and did not exist. What you're actually doing is plucking out men from history, men who were comfortable being feminine men, who saw themselve as men and didn't desire to be anything other than men, and you're projecting modern converison therapy theories onto them. You are erasing feminine men from history so you can replace them with trannies. You're a bigger bigot and a bigger homophobe than a KKK leader.
you're out of your element dude. look up john money and the history of gender theory. before this crackpot theory was invented society was more accepting to feminine men and masculine women. your theories are what's telling people they were born wrong and need to change their bodies. gender ideology didn't exist so trannies could not exist. you are a bigot if you think gender theory is a good thing.
>women accepted feminine men
and other lies leftards like telling themselves
buster keaton and chaplin could have fricked any woman on the planet and they were feminine as frick
Can you show me where in past history a group has existed that says the definitions/characteristics of women are "social constructs" and that a biological man that dresses up as a women is completely, totally and fully equally to a biological women.
As the other anon said, yes crossdressers, transvestites etc.. and the rest have existed at some point in history but never have they ever said that they ARE actual women and demanded to be accepted as such. That's what "transsexualism" is.
Nah, gays are doing just fine. It's the artificially propped up lesbos that are floundering, which is honestly pretty funny considering how they diminished gay men's contributions by demanding they be first in the acronym.
you're so moronic it's actually painful to read your post. no, trannies never existed. they arguably don't even exist now. their cult only exists because they gaslight people into joining it. it's a modernity cult, not a real phenomenon. i'm telling you this as a femboy. trannies have no history and they aren't valid.
They literally did not. You're projecting your bullshit onto history
>anyone who has been on this board long enough can read them like a fricking book.
there are plenty of schizos that just spam dilate or ywnbaw at anyone they disagree with. There are a lot of people that are way too confident in their ability to read anons
>And you've said even less with no effort at all on your part. Wish I could be as earnest as you.
calling you a moron perfectly sums you up. also i think youre tying less this time albeit being a mass replying homosexual.
>American education system is so bad they can't even answer a simple question
>what is the meaning of life?
>i dont know
>heheh i guess life is meaningless then chud... ACK
>Holocaust class
My sides
We spend all the last decades hearing how roids were awful and had serious effects but now they filling up Children with hormones and blocking their puberty.
What we do know is that hormones are very important for the development.
i'd like to see this movie fact-checked as much as it is shilled.
Trannies obviously lose the "discussion" on scientific level but even on a philosophical level (which they always try and pivot to) they still make no sense. Can someone explain this to me? I'm genuinely being serious, can someone act like a troony defender and seriously BTFO me.
So all the characteristic that we associate with defining a women are all made up social constructs and don't actually inherently define what a women is. Ok, fine. So then why do trannies have surgeries to create veganas, why do they have breast implants, why go on these various hormone treatments, even facial reconstructive surgeries etc..
Ok they'll say that not ALL trannies do these surgical interventions but then the rest wear dresses, makeup, wigs etc..? Speak in strange voices etc..?
If all these and more aren't characteristics that define a women and they're all just made up social constructs, and trannies SPECIFICALLY say we should NOT conform to these made up social constructs, then why do the adopt these social constructs when they "transition"? Isn't that a fatal logical incoherence?
Ok so you'll have some of them that say all of that is completely not required and simply just saying/"feeling" that you're a women, regardless of what you look like, is enough to be classed as a women. So then if say someone that looked exactly like pic related said they identified as a women, but didn't want to adopt all these made up social constructs and just look and behave exactly as he does now, would he be allowed to compete in womens sports, enter female changing rooms/bathrooms etc.. If it's a no then why not? The argument is that trans women ARE women, if answer is no that an individual like pic related isn't women enough than once again from a logical standpoint that can be extended to all trans women and therefor they aren't women. Isn't that a fatal logical incoherence?
Transgender and transsexual are 2 different things. The second is someone trying to change his anatomy. The former doesn't even exist.
But these groups say that they mean the same thing. Or to be more exact that "transsexual" is a offensive/outdated word and that transgender now replaces it since it more accurately describes those individual that both anatomical change and those that don't.
trannies dont have a mental distorder. they know exactly what they're doing, they are insecure psychopathic narcissists who are in it for power over people who are healthier, smarter, happier, more successful than them. they will go great lengths to ruin themselves their own future and wellness just to bring you down to their level of shit-failure-human. evil cannot create it can only destroy. i would befriend a serial rapist Black person immigrant paki sooner than a troony.
That baby face has to grow a beard big enough to hide his lack of chin
>I am gay and I'm telling you, you DO NOT GET TO ERASE OUR HISTORY AND REPLACE IT WITH MODERN GENDER THEORY.
he's right. you just conceded the argument by relying on a soijak. typical lefty, going to full on adhom the moment you realize you can't just call somebody a nazi.
I'm tired of homosexuals
Everyone is.. including themselves.
>he's right. you just conceded the argument by relying on a soijak. typical lefty, going to full on adhom the moment you realize you can't just call somebody a nazi.
The section with that slippery little shit calling himself a professor was the best thing ive seen in ages
He literally cannot go more than five seconds without trying to pull a power move and deconstruct the interviewers motives
Shame these people lack all insight and will never learn how they really look in the eyes of others (but what is le real after all eh :^))
He is probably the biggest villain of all the people in it, the rest of them just sound moronic or deluded but that guy has a mile wide streak of genuine political malevolence
cope
what is a woman
nothing because reality doesnt exist, moron.
A woman is a human being that identifies as part of that social group: women.
>A child is a human being that identifies as part of that social group: child.
Transage exist, anon.
It means that you feel part of what determines being a woman in society.
Why not
>why cant i identify as black
because a strong argument could be made for a potential rise in identity changes simply to reap certain benefits. Getting into an ivy league is a hell of alot easier when you are black.
why cant you answer anything about what a woman is without using the word woman? your answers are tautological
A woman is someone who fills that role in society. What is so hard to understand?
>women have a designated role in society
>anyone who doesn't live up to stereotypical woman behavior isn't a real woman anymore
So you admit that progressive ideolgoy is inherently sexist and bigoted and aims to chain people to sexist stereotypes.
Oh my god anon I have never said such a thing
what does fulfilling a role in society as a woman mean? specifically in the time
and place you live
Yes you fricking did you lying little shit. There is no other way to interperent "a woman's role in society".
that's not a good answer either. expecting someone to fulfill a specific role or else they are not allowed to identify as it is very bigoted anon.
You just replaced "woman" with "that" in your sentence. Define what a woman is without using the word woman or a placeholder for it.
fills what role? that of a woman? once again, tautological. you have given me no characteristics, behaviors, aesthetics, literally nothing. you just give a circular answer everytime
>a woman is someone who is a woman in society who fits into the idea of what a woman is
imagine if you answered literally any other question like this
>a chair is something that is chair-like and fulfill its role in society as a chair
lmao you answer nothing with that
What does it mean to identify as a woman?
so can I identify as black?
i mean yeah, look at shawn king and rachel dolezal
but their self-proclaimed identities are widely criticized by people on the left, why?
>I'm a zorp.
>What's a zorp?
>Anyone that identifies as a zorp.
>I identify as a child so it wasn't illegal for me to have statutory raped that child, officer
>implying this would be in any way offensive to leftists
you laugh but this will literally be the case in a few years. the new pedo push is starting and it's probably gonna work this time.
i've heard this exact thing said all my life
it's like you people desperately want it to be true, you're probably a pedo yourself
>What is a Woman?
A miserable little pile of secrets.
You're trying to kill femboys and tomboys and erase them from history because you're a homophobic bigot. You have more in common with the /misc/ caricature than we do.
why are you so obssessed with femboys and tomboys? I don't care about your gay fetishes. Stop trying to erase history. Trans people existed in the past. It's an objective fact.
No, trannies didn't ever exist. Are you baiting or something? Even your own best example was proven wrong. Those were women. They were tomboys. They just did things that were considered masculine.
look I know you're gay but really stop projecting your fetish crap on everyone, especially on history, keep it under control
You're literally projecting your gross troony fetish onto history. Trannies didn't exist at any point in history. You are projecting it onto people who were comfortable with their sex.
Because I am a femboy and you are actively marginalizing and attacking me. What you're doing to me right now is called erasure. You are trying to erase me from history and replace me with your cult. Trannies never existed. It's objective fact that your cult was invented in 1950. It never existed before that moment. You aren't legitimate. You aren't valid.
femboys and tomboys dont belong in the same basket. tomboys are trad right wing spiritually hence why they're masculine, and femboys are degenerate homosexuals who are hardcore lgbt and will die of aids.
Lol no. Femboys are conservatives and they hate trannies and "LGBT"
hahaha what are you smoking Black person, you probably think Hispanic fuentes is a femboy too but hes really a closet bottom homo.
He's right. I'm a femboy and a national socialist. I hate trannies so much it's unreal.
based tbqh
>I'm a femboy and a national socialist
nazis really never had a chance.
femboys are women though
They're men.
>tomboys are trad right wing spiritually hence why they're masculine
Oh man I think I just shit my pants over how fricking gay you sound right now
Not that other anon but femboys and tomboys are indeed gay fetishes
It doesn't matter what they are. The fact is that they existed throughout history. Trannies did not. Trannies are now trying to erase femboys and tomboys from history so they can pretend their cult has a sense of history when it doesn't. Trannies were invented in 1950.
They should all be erased from history along with trannies
Trannies are yet another experiment.
How do you not understand that what you're doing is called enforced conformity. You are forcing feminne men and masculine women to "identify" as the opposite sex. You realize that for the entiretry of human history it was fine and normal for some men to be feminine and some women to be masculine, right? They never had anybody telling them they were "born wrong" and that they needed to change their bodies to fit in with society. But that's what you're doing. You're trying to mangle anybody who doesn't conform to society's sense of normal. You are a bigot. A textbook bigot.
I'm not approving the modern social element at all. Stop trying to shove modern politics into the past. Trans people objectively existed in the past. Your schizo politics (or the schizo politics of the left) change nothing about this basic fact. The example I posted was literally women who identify as men and are treated as men and have male names.
>There are many reasons why someone might take this vow, and observers recorded a variety of motivations. One person spoke of becoming a sworn virgin in order to not be separated from his father, and another in order to live and work with a sister. Some hoped to avoid a specific unwanted marriage, and others hoped to avoid marriage in general; becoming a sworn virgin was also the only way for families who had committed children to an arranged marriage to refuse to fulfil it, without dishonouring the groom's family and risking a blood feud
From your own wiki page
R E A D I T
They objectively didn't exist in the past. You were proven wrong. Your example is proof that trannies aren't valid. Those women were happy being women and everyone saw them as women.
>male actors playing women on stage were trans
So you DIDNT read it kekeke
Protip - read BEYOND the first line
>troony theory defenders are now literally saying 'lol ur gay' at people defending LGB people who don't conform to standard gender expectations
Intriguing
Is it any surprise? These are the same "progressive" people who said "blacks are low IQ so they shouldn't be allowed to vote" the moment they realized that Trump had a large portion of the black vote.
it's intriguing to the extent you've invented a schizo narrative in your head based on whatever you project onto me from whatever moronic crap you've brainwashed yourself with from /misc/
They objectively historically existed. Go talk to any anthropology department. Go to Google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history#Earliest_history
Just because you're anti-trans doesn't mean you have to be an ignorant moron. Stop letting your hate blind you to basic facts. If you want to beat the enemy you must understand the enemy, and that means being able to accept objectively true facts.
They objectively did not exist. You can keep lying all you want, you aren't going to change reality. Trannies were invented in 1950. It's a modern ideology designed to gaslight people into an identity crisis.
stop posting you absurd moron. calling others 'schizo' isn't an i win button and neither is wikipedia
man if you aren't baiting you might be the most mentally ill person imaginable. trannies didn't exist at any point in human history. you're literally letting YOUR blind hatred of people who don't conform to stereotypes convince you that a modern theory extends backwards into history.
Those were transsexuals, not transgender
They weren't either. Every example on that list is just a normal person who defied stereotypes. Joan of Arc was not a transsexual or transgender because she had short hair and inspired an army. And the countless examples of feminine men like Bagoas were not trannies either. They are just people who went against the grain. That's literally all there is to it. "Gender identity" did not exist prior to 1950.
You got blown the frick out so hard you aren't even trying to provide proof anymore.
>drawings of androgynous figures from ancient stone tablets means that we've always been doing untested hormone therapies and gender reassignment surgeries
>They objectively historically existed. Go talk to any anthropology department. Go to Google.
Yeah, that shit isn't evidence. It's evidence some people broke with gender norms. But there could be a billion reasons for that. For example, the reason concepts like "third gender" exist in many non-western cultures is because they're so homophobic that the only way to be gay is to say you're literally not a man. But modern troonygays look at this and go "wow, so progressive!" even though it's the exact opposite. You see what you want to see.
When gender roles are very strict, women will dress up like men when they want to act like men, and men will dress up like women when they want to act like women. So all this shit's evidence of is strict gender roles.
By the way, what does this imply about modern troons? How "progressive" are they really? It's not exactly a secret that a lot of parents would misguidedly rather have a "trans girl" than a gay son. Indeed, "gay erasure" is a particular hobby horse of present-moment LGBTBBQs.
your posts have proven to me that trannies objectively did NOT exist at any point in human history. your arguments are so bad they proved your own premise false.
why is it whenever they do these they never interview hot women?
you know why. they're afraid of beauty because it looks back at them. when they see a hot girl or a hansome guy they dont go "wow i wish i was as beautiful as them" they want to destroy their beauty so they're uglier than themselves.
imagine being a zoomer going to school and having this shit forced onto you no wonder they go postal and shoot homosexuals
>cancer
Least of the problem. You're stopping brain development, skeleton development, muscle growth, etc. You're also creating a creature that has no understanding of sex. This is to say that these creatures aren't mammals anymore. You have more in common with a kangaroo than a kid who took those drugs. This is beyond Nazi science.
They all identified as their birth sex and none of them made physical alterations to their bodies. You are literally trying to erase people who were comfortable with themselves and replace them with cultists who hate their bodies and their real identities. You are actively trying to destroy the notion of healthy people and I honestly can't think of anything more vile and bigoted than you.
>They all identified as their birth sex and none of them made physical alterations to their bodies.
t. didn't read the article
cope more gay schizo
You didn't read the article. You literally did not read it. None of those people listed identified as the opposite sex. None of them changed their bodies to be like the opposite sex in any way.
>In Ancient Greece, Phrygia, and the Roman Republic and Empire, Cybele and Attis were worshiped by galli priests (documented from around 200 BCE to around 300 CE)[292] who wore feminine clothes, referred to themselves as women, and often castrated themselves
uhuh
keep reading homochudski maybe you'll educate yourself
seek therapy and medication
They identified as men. They never called themselves women. Crossdressing is something all men can do and eunuchs and castrata have never been and will never be transgender. You're conflating ideas in your head so justify erasing men who were comfortable being men from history.
>they identified as men
>just ignore the part where they identified as woman
this is pretty weak cope. Can you at least try? Is your schizo narrative really this feeble?
They didn't identify as women. You're projecting again. They were men, they liked being men and they knew they were men. It literally says so in the wiki article you linked. They were just crossdressers. You're literally trying to erase them.
it literally says they identified as women
cool story, trans people still existed historically
I think that isn't accurate. Calling them people.
They also didn't exist. Trannies were invented in 1950.
You realize wiki is written by people, right? You can literally look up who added that line. The editor of that article who put that line in is an actual troony with no qualifications and no authority. They didn't identify as women. They were male crossdressers who identified as men.
you can look up the sources if you want. They identified as women.
Anyone I cum in
They identified as women, sorry history chuffs you chud
It was a real thing. Historically trans people and third genders have existed. The binary is only a modern Western dynamic.
They identified as men. You're straight up just projecting your modern mental illness onto people from ancient history. "Gender" didn't exist. There's no such thing as "identifying" in the ancient world. They were men, they knew they were men and they were comfortable being men.
proof? you'd get a History PhD if you can offer proof for how you revolutionized the field like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
>Money introduced the terms gender identity, gender role and sexual orientation and popularised the term paraphilia.
Nobody identified as anything other than their birth sex until the concept of "gender identity" was invented. This is objective proof. You lose now.
I never claimed anything about those words you turbo sperg, I just claimed that trans people existed historically, which is a bona fide fact. Keep whacking down those strawwomen though
no they didn't. trannies never existed before. you're just straight up lying after being proven wrong.
you're just straight up lying after being proven wrong.
You're that same mentally ill Black person who goes on Cinemaphile and insists that having sex with men is straight, aren't you? I know you. You're the only person on Cinemaphile mentally ill enough to act this way, and that's saying something.
i think you clocked him. i know exactly who you're talking about and it's the exact same style. he just repeatedly posts the same thing over and over again, asserting a point that is objectively false over and over.
I don't use Cinemaphile, this is more proof you're just a schizo projecting narratives onto thin air.
>he just repeatedly posts the same thing over and over again, asserting a point that is objectively false over and over.
are you sure you aren't that person he's talking about?
>Anyone I cum in
You've been cumming in your own mouth for the whole thread. Can you consider yourself a woman, homosexual?
if you've read the whole thread you would know I claimed to be a tall, jacked, bearded man. I'll also mention that I'm white and hung and I have a gf that I bang all the time. There's nothing you can insult me with.
>There's nothing you can insult me with.
You did it yourself, I don't need to point your mental moronation.
meds
Homones.
dont need em
Your "girl"friend does, though
no she doesnt, the only hormones she's taken recently is plan B after I came in her
You don't have to worry about it anon, butchered penises aren't real veganas, she can't get pregnant.
she's thin too with big booba god she's awesome I'm gonna breed her in a year or two
but alert to the schizos though I'm going for my noon walk
my last word is that trans people are historical and epic and valid
She will never be a woman.
>my last word is that trans people are historical and epic and valid
Yeah, what is to be a woman?
>male and female are modern western concepts
Lol, I hope for your own sake that this is just bait.
And you still haven't aswered.
What is a woman anon? What is it?
He can't answer because he doesn't know what a woman is. No matter how many limbs he chops off of his body.
they literally didn't identify as women. they were crossdressers. crossdressers never identified as women, crossdressers always identified as men at every point in history prior to 1950. crossdressing was seen as an art that only men were capable of. they didn't want to be women and they didn't see themselves as women.
Nobody "identified" as anything. That's not a real thing. It's a totally modern concept. You just WERE one thing or the other. Those men knew they were men. They just wanted to be pretty. They were femboys and homos, but they were not trannies.
What is a woman?
you already lost dude. you got blown the frick out hard. crossdressers and eunuchs aren't trannies. tomboys aren't trannies. gender identity wasn't a thing until 1950. nobody ever identified as the opposite sex at any point in human history. you're just trying to erase tomboys and femboys.
Complete anachronism
they identified as men though. they knew they were dudes. they just liked to crossdress. you're literally proving his point.
Eunuchs and castrata aren't trannies. A boy having his balls cut off to prevent puberty has nothing to do with gender ideolgy or transgender theory. You're trying to erase people again.
>They cut off their dick and called themselves women
>They identified as men, yet cut off their dick and said they were women.
>Crossdressing
>Cutting off their dick's
Jesus fricking Christ what kind of goalpost shifting shit is this?
Castration is cutting off testicles. It was done for many reasons throughout history. It never had anything to do with "gender identity". You are literally proving yourself wrong.
Castration was done to prevent puberty in boys. It has absolutely nothing to do with trannies. They knew they were male and they never said otherwise. You're the one goalpost shifting.
Castrata and eunuchs always identified as men. They never said they were women at any point in human history. Do you ever get tired of being proven wrong? You've embarrassed yourself so fricking much this thread. You really don't even understand your own stupid ideology. You actually think transgender means "anybody who does anything unusual for a man or a woman to do".
a woman cannot have a willy
If troons are trying to pass as women, why do they all put on exactly the same horrid, screeching manvoice? I've heard dudes who can put on female voices compellingly, why can't a single troon pull it off?
My theory is, troons don't want to pass for women. Troons want to advertise that they're deviant men. Either to attract men to frick them, or because they get turned on by humiliating themselves and making other people uncomfortable, like exhibitionism. And some are just autogynophiles, like that Hunter guy from that Euphoria show. Dude obviously gets off on seeing himself as a woman.
I don't buy that a single troon genuinely think they're women.
Too long didn't read lol
>Trans people are a non-issue compared to the destruction of ourselves we're committing with every bite and submit.
I partially agree with this. Trannies are still a problem to themselves and others, but they are a symptom of an overall worse societal disease; an opportunistic infection that requires the organism to already be in a state of decay, if you will.
We just stone trannies and gays to death in my country