@hydroacetylene's banner p

hydroacetylene


				

				

				
8 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 04 20:00:27 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 128

hydroacetylene


				
				
				

				
8 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 04 20:00:27 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 128

Verified Email

The delusion is thinking that the hormones and whatever else actually make you a man/woman, rather than the opposite in a costume. It no more entitles he to she transgenders to use the women’s room than a naughty nun costume for a Halloween party does. People on ozempic are actually literally skinny, they can verify this with a scale. People on hormones are actually literally not the other sex.

Now like I said, this doesn’t have anything in particular to do with whether transition should be allowed. I would lean towards ‘no’, but that’s a separate point having to do with attitudes towards gender roles. It’s not some axiomatic conclusion from the point being made.

The Catholic scandals took off in places that did not have popular anti-Christian sentiment. It was actually the proximal cause of anti-Christian sentiment in Ireland, starting when Ireland was still religious(I would argue that Irish collapse in religiosity was overdetermined, but it was still the proximal cause).

The visceral horror of it was that it was happening to kids from good families, who were doing nothing wrong. The public doesn't care very much about homeless prostitutes, never has, never will. Trying to draw attention to their plight(and it is a plight, this is not a fun life), just makes people want to get rid of them. On the other hand the abuse victims came from families that did everything right and were betrayed.

The normal response to defecting from gender roles is, uh, not a polite 'oh. okay.'. Go wear a dress in public(and not in the gay district) with a big bushy beard if you don't believe me.

Not sure who you're talking to, but that isn't the modal "anti-trans" view, and I doubt anyone has that strawman view on this forum.

It applies to me. All transgenders are wrong about a very obvious and easily verifiable fact. That is, literally, the definition of transgender. They confront proof of this wrongness every time they take a shower or use the toilet- hopefully, multiple times a day. They are, in other words, delusional, and playing along for the sake of their mental health is not actually any sort of obligation, except perhaps occasionally for actual mental health professionals, and not for the sake of increasing their comfort with their delusion but only for that of getting at and treating the underlying issues.

Now there are many lumped into the category of transgender who believe themselves to be something other than male and female, who identify as 'queer' or 'nonbinary'. I don't know what these categories are because these categories are not real, and while these people are wrong they're wrong about metaphysics- claiming to be something that isn't real on nonexistent philosophical grounds isn't falsifiable, it can't be delusional. But these people are not transgenders proper.

This stance does not, incidentally, actually determine whether people should be banned from transition. Not least, transition is sufficiently difficult to define as to make that hard.

People believe all sorts of dumb things, and Americans in general believe a lot of dumb things about nutrition in particular. ‘Boys get better nutrition than girls’ is mostly false, but when the two sexes start to choose their eating patterns there is a difference, and a few female specific nutrient deficiencies(mostly iron) do hang on in the modern US(although no one is stopping women from eating steak).

And the literal police facilitating rape isn’t a failure of trust?

On the other hand, if you look at the literal best in the world players- overwhelmingly, the superstars are white or mostly white, Mbappe is the only counterexample I can think of. You just tend to see poor people overrepresented in athletics because for the borderline pro level talent, they have less opportunity cost in gambling on the lottery ticket. Same reason thé NFL is heavily black in the US- but the star players are not.

I mean, from a political perspective are you going to throw up a connected nonentity or someone with a promising career ahead of him to be a company man PM for an unpopular government?

No, a smart big brother would take the fight and then beat little bro himself. You don't leave him out to dry.

The slavs have a conspiracy theory about them doing this in Ukraine. Everyone has a conspiracy theory about the Jews building backup Israel on their land.

I mean, are you sure that pro-palestine opinion wasn't allowed in polite society in the immediate aftermath? Far left views- farther left than actual elected officials- do not effectively exclude individuals from polite society in the same way that merely right of center views sometimes do.

You're correct that the establishment loved Israel for about a month. But virtually no effort was taken to exclude far-left antisemites(yes, many of these people are antisemitic- in the same way they're anti-white) for the same reason virtually no effort was taken to exclude far leftists of many other varieties. We live in a society which has systematically dismantled its memetic immune system for lefty ideas, and 'anti-semitism' is a welcome correction- even if some of these people are nothing of the sort.

??? It's entirely possible to be concerned about your daughter and not the neighbor girl. This is extremely common, even.

Yes, male age at marriage reached a temporary minimum in between the two sexual revolutions. But we actually have male age at marriage data about as well as could ever be expected, and historical male ages at marriage tended to be late twenties or early thirties. Moralists just before the first sexual revolution recommended 25+, Romans talked about 30 as ideal and normative- and what data exists suggest these were, broadly, reflecting general norms.

Marriage rates declined with the second sexual revolution. That's bad. But the norms in between the two sexual revolutions were not durable or sustainable.

The majority of human beings that have ever lived have been peasant farmers, and this has heavily selected human cognition, dietary needs, appearance, etc. And we kinda know how peasant farmers lived- seeing naked members of the opposite sex, except perhaps immediate family, was not normal(the same sex on the other hand...). I would kinda expect moms getting upset at their son's porn use or whatever to be more about 'oh shit is he a threat to his sister' than anything about female solidarity.

Women pride themselves on their kids behaving well. That's what it is. Grandma lives longer and is happier when her kids are well behaved(filial piety very much included). Being a mom also tends to make women more socially conservative, especially about sex.

Cornyn lost hard because he's an old fucker who's been in congress too long and voted for gun control. Not the Trump endorsement(which wasn't offered to Paxton before it was a sure thing).

They're engagement farmers trying to use toxoplasmosis to get elonbucks. I thought that was consensus?

You are not going to die at 60 because your lungs were destroyed from inhaling dust at the factory.

Well, you might, although ~all of the people who do are also chainsmoking alcoholics who haven't eaten a vegetable since they were kids or run more than fifty feet since they were in high school. But you have options other than the coal mine.

You are wrong about the changes in the second sexual revolution; it began with protests by male college students against being banned from female dorms. Before the first sexual revolution young men's sexual opportunities were limited to prostitution or after marriage(at which point one would no longer be considered a 'young man'- and the average age for which was almost certainly older than you expect. Even when teen marriage happened, it was a girl thing). Between the two it came with the subclause that non-occult sexual acts required marriage. Young men wishing to sow their wild oats benefitted greatly.

I’m not sure what either side of the culture war would do that’s worse than an actual totalitarian state with no property rights and internal passports.

I always assumed young master was specifically for preadolescent boys- in my dialect (mostly rural/old)people would call a teenaged boy Mr smith in a formal context. An unmarried adult man might be Mr John instead of Mr smith, though.

Very large expansion in specifically male earnings coupled with selective weakening of sexual norms and strong social pressure to marry at all costs.

This is the highest tfr of any self supporting stratum in an industrial society, ever. Modern high fertility minorities are at about the same TFR.

There are kids at burning man? Like not in the teenagers sense, but actual kids?

And I’m kinda surprised it doesn’t have a rape problem.

I mean, nude beaches full of grannies baring it all don’t cause problems in Europe, but they are a very different thing from a ‘midnight naked pool party’ with a ‘designated sex tent’.

I don’t know what ‘vibecamp’ is. Someone will tell me, Im sûre, and perhaps that will be my monthly reminder of the true meaning of ‘blissful ignorance’. But without knowing the context, skinny dipping is really just skinny dipping. As recently at the seventies it was seen as wholesome. It’s problematic in mixed company, and a ‘midnight nude pool party’ sounds like it’s probably a sex thing and not a Norman Rockwell painting.

A designated sex tent at a child friendly event just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen- and the existence of it is kinda weird, why don’t these people use their own space(tents, hotels, etc)?