Dissecting Transsexuals

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


When discussing about transsexuals there is the argument of individuals being born in incorrect body and so fourth.

I say nature doesn't make any mistakes therefore such arguments are absurd.

I think transsexualism just like homosexuality is completely psychological in origin and another learned behavior trait having no real genetical basis when it concerns pre-dispositions that people are born with.

Just like homosexuality transsexualism is another pervasive reoccurring behavioral meme within human history.

How would we psychologically analyze transsexuals?

Why do transsexuals exist?

I think the argument can be made that individuals can't psychologically cope with the sexual roles, existence, and day to day activities of the sex assigned to them at birth where out of mental weakness or fragility they find alternative outlets to dwell onto as a sort of deranged psychological coping mechanism.

Now that we have entered the modern technological era plastic sexual reassignment surgery has become the ultimate psychological coping mechanism of this behavioral condition.

Not so.

Homosexuality is a product of hormonal imbalances, during the period of gestation, interacting with preexisting genetic predispositions.

It's dysfunction is not a judgment upon its "normality" but upon its fitness, in regards to why sex evolves at all.

In a world where feminine dispositions are preferred to masculine ones and where mutations that benefit, or are harmless, to systemic harmony are protected these mutations increase in frequency.

They are one of the most obvious symptoms of feminization.

Σατυρ wrote:

Not so.

Homosexuality is a product of hormonal imbalances, during the period of gestation, interacting with preexisting genetic predispositions.

It's dysfunction is not a judgment upon its "normality" but upon its fitness, in regards to why sex evolves at all.

In a world where feminine dispositions are preferred to masculine ones and where mutations that benefit, or are harmless, to systemic harmony are protected these mutations increase in frequency.

They are one of the most obvious symptoms of feminization.

Quote :

Not so.

Homosexuality is a product of hormonal imbalances, during the period of gestation, interacting with preexisting genetic predispositions.

There is no proof or evidence of this. There is no evidence of a homosexual mutation or different underlying genetical structure apart from heterosexual people.

This is why I reduce both homosexuality and transsexualism to be purely psychological or a mental state in origin.

Quote :

It's dysfunction is not a judgment upon its "normality" but upon its fitness,

Sure.

Quote :

in regards to why sex evolves at all.

How does sex evolve?

Quote :

In a world where feminine dispositions are preferred to masculine ones and where mutations that benefit, or are harmless, to systemic harmony are protected these mutations increase in frequency.

They are one of the most obvious symptoms of feminization.

Agreed.

TheJoker wrote:

There is no proof or evidence of this. There is no evidence of a homosexual mutation or different underlying genetical structure apart from heterosexual people.

Define "proof".

I give you a rational argument for a phenomenon, and you ask for what?
If homosexuality is learned, then all sex is learned, right?

TheJoker wrote:

How does sex evolve?

Not how, why?

Σατυρ wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

There is no proof or evidence of this. There is no evidence of a homosexual mutation or different underlying genetical structure apart from heterosexual people.

Define "proof".

I give you a rational argument for a phenomenon, and you ask for what?
If homosexuality is learned, then all sex is learned, right?

TheJoker wrote:

How does sex evolve?

Not how, why?

Quote :

Define "proof".

Homosexuals or homosexual advocates try to say there is a genetical propensity for all of homosexuality.

As of yet not a single shred of evidence has been supported showing any genetical divergence of homosexuals separate from heterosexuals.

There really is no defining characteristics showing a difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals which again leads me to believe that it is all psychological when it concerns a learned mental behavior.

The only divergence between homosexuals and heterosexuals is a mental one.

It's a behavioral reactionary mechanism.

Quote :

If homosexuality is learned, then all sex is learned, right?

The argument can be made that heterosexuality isn't a learned behavior because of the natural design of sexual intercourse between men and women when it concerns the physical organs involved.

Homosexuality is merely a behavioral deviation from that.

Homosexuality mimics heterosexuality but lacks everything mentally and physically designed or imposed by nature that heterosexuality has not to mention orchestrates.

Ok its 1:00 in the morning...But I have some stuff to say on this... (I don't think it is exactly genetic but rather that particular genetic tendencies relate to social interactions that lead to one being forced into the role...to a degree...that's not completely accurate as to my thoughts though...) Anyways I'm posting here so it is in my post box so i remember to get to it...maybe I'll get to it tomorrow...I'll have to take a look at the homosexual thread too...

Σατυρ wrote:

Not so.

Homosexuality is a product of hormonal imbalances, during the period of gestation, interacting with preexisting genetic predispositions.

It's dysfunction is not a judgment upon its "normality" but upon its fitness, in regards to why sex evolves at all.

In a world where feminine dispositions are preferred to masculine ones and where mutations that benefit, or are harmless, to systemic harmony are protected these mutations increase in frequency.

They are one of the most obvious symptoms of feminization.

Then what combination of hormonal imbalances and genes switched on or off would account for a man who fucks sheep or infants? The idea that sexual orientations like these are almost completely based on genes and hormones seems very questionable.

Like this guy:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

An individual attempting to find solace through escaping into a new identity.

If one mutilates ones body in pursuit of an idealized alternative the motivation can only be self-hatred.

apaosha wrote:

Like this guy:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

An individual attempting to find solace through escaping into a new identity.

If one mutilates ones body in pursuit of an idealized alternative the motivation can only be self-hatred.

Excellent illustration right there Apaosha.

That is the direction of this thread I was hoping for when it concerned the description of self hatred in transsexuals.

TheJoker wrote:

I say nature doesn't make any mistakes therefore such arguments are absurd.

You have much to learn, Joker. Nature is purposeless, without intent; wasteful and indiscriminate, without care; a chaos upon which structure must be imposed; a context, in a phrase: without-music.

Your claim that nature doesn't make any mistakes is not only beside the point, not only inapplicable to the topic, but also incoherent. For, ask yourself: what is the definition of a mistake? It is a blunder in choice. But, can't you see, nature has no capacity for choice. Perhaps your nature does, but then, we are speaking christian-inanities.

without-music wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

I say nature doesn't make any mistakes therefore such arguments are absurd.

You have much to learn, Joker. Nature is purposeless, without intent; wasteful and indiscriminate, without care; a chaos upon which structure must be imposed; a context, in a phrase: without-music.

Your claim that nature doesn't make any mistakes is not only beside the point, not only inapplicable to the topic, but also incoherent. For, ask yourself: what is the definition of a mistake? It is a blunder in choice. But, can't you see, nature has no capacity for choice. Perhaps your nature does, but then, we are speaking christian-inanities.

Nature doesn't need to have choice. In nature much like the larger part of the universe there are certain well known constants and determinations.

There is no purpose and intent of course but there are patterns and sequences along with a sort of rhythm to the universe.

Quote :

For, ask yourself: what is the definition of a mistake? It is a blunder in choice. But, can't you see, nature has no capacity for choice. Perhaps your nature does, but then, we are speaking christian-inanities.

Since the universe is absent of choice and freewill in that it isn't a conscious entity but rather merely a void or vacuum this only makes it also absent of any mistakes.

TheJoker wrote:

Nature doesn't need to have choice. In nature much like the larger part of the universe there are certain well known constants and determinations.

There is no purpose and intent of course but there are patterns and sequences along with a sort of rhythm to the universe.

And so what sense does it make that an empirical fact -- that is, that there are homosexuals -- ought to be a mistake of nature? It's literally a conceptual incoherency. There may be certain "constants", that is perceptuo-inductive constants, for we've all read Hume, but there is no ground off which you may leap from there to your claim that a particular sexual orientation is a mistake, a blunder of nature itself.

Quote :

Since the universe is absent of choice or freewill in that it isn't a conscious entity but rather merely a void or vacuum this only makes it also absent of any mistakes.

You've clearly missed my point, for you've done nothing but reiterate your thoughtless assertion a second time. This correspondence is closed if you refuse to read. Without choice, there can be no mistake; the two concepts stand or fall together.

without-music wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

Nature doesn't need to have choice. In nature much like the larger part of the universe there are certain well known constants and determinations.

There is no purpose and intent of course but there are patterns and sequences along with a sort of rhythm to the universe.

And so what sense does it make that an empirical fact -- that is, that there are homosexuals -- ought to be a mistake of nature? It's literally a conceptual incoherency. There may be certain "constants", that is perceptuo-inductive constants, for we've all read Hume, but there is no ground off which you may leap from there to your claim that a particular sexual orientation is a mistake, a blunder of nature itself.

Quote :

Since the universe is absent of choice or freewill in that it isn't a conscious entity but rather merely a void or vacuum this only makes it also absent of any mistakes.

You've clearly missed my point, for you've done nothing but reiterate your thoughtless assertion a second time. This correspondence is closed if you refuse to read. Without choice, there can be no mistake; the two concepts stand or fall together.

Quote :

And so what sense does it make that an empirical fact -- that is, that there are homosexuals -- ought to be a mistake of nature?

I said homosexuals are a deviation or reactionary element.

I've never called homosexuality a mistake.

Quote :

You've clearly missed my point, for you've done nothing but reiterate your thoughtless assertion a second time. This correspondence is closed if you refuse to read. Without choice, there can be no mistake; the two concepts stand or fall together.

I think your misreading my points being made entirely.

TheJoker wrote:

I said homosexuals are a deviation or reactionary element.

Yes, you've said that. And without evidence or substantiation. Along with the point that "nature can't make mistakes" -- implying a purposive will behind the veil of nature. Regardless, I have little interest in engaging you; I know not why I ignored my own advice and opened a correspondence between us.

without-music wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

I said homosexuals are a deviation or reactionary element.

Yes, you've said that. And without evidence or substantiation. Along with the point that "nature can't make mistakes" -- implying a purposive will behind the veil of nature. Regardless, I have little interest in engaging you; I know not why I ignored my own advice and opened a correspondence between us.

Is the universe determined? Yes or no?

Just because determinations exists doesn't mean that there are inherent purposes behind them.

Deviation doesn't imply mistake nor does describing somthing reactionary.

There are useful deviations and reactions to which homosexuality constantly shows as a repetitive meme in history.

Religion is a useful reaction for example in weak individuals that need a coping device for instance.

The same individuals through psychological weaknesses and so fourth use homosexuality as a mental coping mechanism as well.

Quote :

Regardless, I have little interest in engaging you; I know not why I ignored my own advice and opened a correspondence between us.

Go fuck yourself.

without-music wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

I say nature doesn't make any mistakes therefore such arguments are absurd.

You have much to learn, Joker. Nature is purposeless, without intent; wasteful and indiscriminate, without care; a chaos upon which structure must be imposed; a context, in a phrase: without-music.

Your claim that nature doesn't make any mistakes is not only beside the point, not only inapplicable to the topic, but also incoherent. For, ask yourself: what is the definition of a mistake? It is a blunder in choice. But, can't you see, nature has no capacity for choice. Perhaps your nature does, but then, we are speaking christian-inanities.

Some try to find reasons to distance themselves from what they are not... or perhaps secretly fear that they are.

Lilith wrote:

without-music wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

I say nature doesn't make any mistakes therefore such arguments are absurd.

You have much to learn, Joker. Nature is purposeless, without intent; wasteful and indiscriminate, without care; a chaos upon which structure must be imposed; a context, in a phrase: without-music.

Your claim that nature doesn't make any mistakes is not only beside the point, not only inapplicable to the topic, but also incoherent. For, ask yourself: what is the definition of a mistake? It is a blunder in choice. But, can't you see, nature has no capacity for choice. Perhaps your nature does, but then, we are speaking christian-inanities.

Some try to find reasons to distance themselves from what they are not... or perhaps secretly fear that they are.

Statements like this are so cliche in the PC crowd. Lame.