I wonder how much money the last two replying individuals make by mutilating people‘s bodies rather than helping them cope with the trauma that led to their dysmorphic disorders?
Forget this part:
Nope, you can’t.
Must be pretty lucrative.
If Homosexuality, Bisexuality, and Transsexuality are so “Natural” then why do they rise directly corresponding the “tolerance”, teaching, and propagating of it by Marxist institutions (beginning at the university level)? All the way up to today, where Leftists want “child time story hour” with drag queens and smut in grade school libraries?
That’s not “natural” at all, if it has to be explicitly encouraged by people who admittedly want to undermine and destroy Western Civilization (as vengeance against perceived historical wrongs and transgressions). Leftist logic goes: Since English colonialists setup shop in the 17th Century, killed a bunch of injuns who were scalping them, built a civilization …therefore anything goes in getting our revenge against Evil Whitey TODAY! This includes mind-raping the 5-year-old sons and daughters of EVIL WHITEY today.
If a few minorities get caught up in the crossfire, oh well, acceptable casualties.
The West is severely demoralized, and that expresses itself through sexual disfunctions (of all varieties, especially LGBTQ+). What’s next, Bestiality, aka “furry porn”??? How’s your tolerance level on that one Maxx???
Maxx: Jesus seems to be a-okay with it, since he didn’t directly address it. Good to go.
1 Like
Apparently Leftists need mommy and daddy to hold their hand through their entire lives otherwise they’ll give in to their insatiable urge to cut their reproductive parts off… WEIRD!
Mommy & daddy be encouraging it, more like. WEIRDER!
Y’know… chopping off body parts & grafting on new ones is about as gender-affirming as trafficking in organs & grafting scalps onto mice is family planning…
1 Like
My penis has given me nothing but trouble so I’ve decided to remove it and place it in the medicine cabinet
I don’t need to click on that cuz I already know it’s the detachable penis song.
1 Like
Seems your beef is mostly against the trans, am I allowed to humbly deduce gays and bis would be safe in your hands?
RU, I’ll not fall into the easy trap and insult your intelligence. I’ll just suggest that you shouldn’t insult mine either.
You don’t need the quotes, unless you can demonstrate why they are not natural. I doubt you can.
I’ll follow an alternative route to dialogue here and suggest you do three simple things:
a) define natural
b) define normal
c) define sexual dysfunction
I know you’ll [most probably] end up shaking hands with the same fundamentalist Christians you’re so eager to criticize, and only in this specific regard, for it serves you well to be a fundamentalist when it’s convenient for you, right?
I’ll wait your answers.
This is silly beyond belief and almost unworthy of attention on a philosophy forum.
It always goes like that: “What about pedophilia? Bestiality? Necrophilia?”
Simply put: can I prevent someone from indulging in bestiality? Nope, I can’t. Would I advise someone to do that, would I congratulate someone for doing that? Nope, I wouldn’t. If, I mean IF someone asked me, I’d say that we can or need to draw the line between what is made by adults, consenting adults and what’s made against either adult beings who say “no” or against animals, children, dead people, whatever, anyone who obviously can’t CONSENT.
When I talk about gays, bis, trans, I’m presumably talking about thinking, independent individuals who know what they are doing. If they choose to cut off parts of their bodies, it’s their business, not mine. Now, if a guy decides to touch my children, yes, THAT is a problem of mine. I’ll have to deal with that, there’s no consent involved, just as there’s no consent involved in abusing animals, prisoners of war, sleeping people, etc, etc.
Now, why am I even saying all that to you? You know all this quite well, I’d bet the LGBTQ+ are, in your mind, simply an easy target, little more. Everyone makes do with the scapegoat they have at hand.
They would all be safe in my hands. You know whose hands they wouldn’t be safe in? Those quack surgeons that want to remove perfectly good body parts.
…especially the surgeons that used to be salesmen. They can talk a dick off a heterosexual.
1 Like
Yes, it’s very simple. I’ll give you some money, you just let me cut off your dick.
I envy the comfort of simplistic thinking.
Beginning is a temporal category. If there is no time, where would the “beginning” come from?
Тьма - великое, неисчислимое множество. Например, тьма людей. Темнота - это отсутствие света.
Русский- сакрален. English is straightforward.
A good question is a big part of the answer. You don’t answer because you’re afraid to know.
The world is simple in essence, and complicated ( сложен- с ложью) itmainly in the unwillingness to know, the simple.
I’ve never heard anyone argue that murder is wrong because it’s unnatural, so of course no one bothers to point out that it is natural. But people frequently argue that various minority sexualities are wrong because they’re unnatural.
This is a good question, and worth thinking through and expanding on. The short answer is that in the case of anorexia, “you lack the necessary nutrients to survive”, while plastic surgery and hormones are just expensive and people might be mean to you about it.
A better answer, though, would be a general principle that we can apply consistently, and for that I think expanding to other cases helps. For example, plastic surgery and hormone treatments have been used as gender-affirming care for cis people for a long time and without controversy, including surgery and hormone treatments. Many of these could be dismissed as vanity, but they’re also used therapeutically, to ‘fix’ people’s bodies so they more clearly fit societal expectations of what a man/woman should look like (see e.g. treatments for gynecomastia).
So, when a boy grows breasts but believes that he shouldn’t have breasts because he’s a boy, is that body dysmorphia? Should we pathologize that feeling, and deny him treatment? Should we pathologize a desire to have less leg hair? larger breasts? to be taller?
This is a strawman.
You believe in a soul, right? Is your soul female?
Good point.
But that may be a futile endeavor on your part. Just saying.
Here’s the movie I mentioned in the OP:
The movie is amateurish, yes, but even so it does present a very interesting discussion on the topic of transgenderism, being way ahead of its time and surprisingly deep.
I continue to believe that most people are decent and intelligent enough to be reasoned with. And I know from experience that’s true of Ichthus: while we have different styles of thought, that is not the same as having incommensurable worldviews.
I know this topic has become team sports, but that’s why I think Ichthus’ approach is a good one: there is no political valance to anorexia or hair plugs, so it’s useful to test our ideas against them as we search for a neutral principle.
I’ve taken to heart the importance of ‘intersubjectivity’, the sum of individual beliefs that forms the basis of collective, social truth. Things like gender presentation and sexuality and morality aren’t only made in an individual’s mind, but in each mind in relation to similar ideas in everyone else’s mind.
And that collective understanding differs between collectives. What society is going through on these issues is a result of rapid integration of humanity, prompted by technological advances (e.g. our ability to have conversations like this) that have connected communities with very different collective understandings about gender and sexuality and morality.
It’s not just that people have different reactions to homosexuality, people have different understandings of what it means to be a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ – not biologically, but socially. A simple example might be the cliche of French or Italian men kissing each other on the cheek, a behavior that would still be seen as unmanly in much of the US, even though kissing on the cheek isn’t inherently sexual.
Murder does not merely fail to recognize, but ends, the personhood of someone, at least as far as they are a person in the physical universe. It self-destructs, because you are affirming your own personhood by continuing to exist. That is a kind of anti-nature or anti-reality, which is why it causes cognitive dissonance, which usually is not dealt/coped with in a healthy way (suicide being one of them).
Gender identity is just a part of personhood (and not an essential one), but many in our culture weight it all wobbly… bordering on murder of gender, similar to what some of us have attempted with race.
That’s the only drawback you can think of? Someone who is not happy with their healthy, functioning body is having an identity crisis. Rather than help them through that, you want them to affirm that they are something that they are not… and that is a healthy way of resolving an identity crisis?
You’re putting that into my frame when I never suggested that as a reason you should not embrace an identity. There are a lot of things we should do despite the fact that people might be mean to us about it.
No, it isn’t. As long as he’s actually a boy.
No. But if you want to turn into something else that you’re not, that is an identity crisis that cosmetic surgery cannot help you with.
Can my soul reproduce with a male soul? (I said can… not may.)