Oh come’on James, don’t be obtuse.
You were talking about how the media was trying to blur gender and make it not exist. Binary is the opposite of that, polarized and well defined binary. You know what binary code is, right?
And I agree the media promotes sexual behavoir (heterosexual) but what has that got to do with gay people.
So you meant “polarized”.
Compare what is seen today versus the 1940-50s. You don’t think that the feminist movement has had any effect at all on making women similar to men throughout society? Do you remember the 1060s wherein boys were to grow long hair, girls were to wear pants, boys were to cry and be tender? During the 70s, all manner of dress, outward appearances, were massaginated. People were to no longer dance in partners. It was taught to girls that they could beat up any man just as easily as anyone else (they learned different the hard way). During the 80’s women were to wear shoulder pads, raised shoes, suits, short hair, and learn to be mean and cut throat. In Hollywood, men were no longer allowed to “save the damsel in distress”. They would not merely save themselves, but half of the time also save the failing man. And line dancing programmed the mode of “everyone step in line”. From 2000 on, women are the superhero geniuses with multiple PhDs, vastly superior fighting skills and always accompanied by a larger black male to assist in defeating the evil white man. The racism issues get far more specific and detailed, but that is another subject even though connected to the homosexuality instigation subject.
If you deny that the media has been actively involved in those things, then you are merely denying what just about any mature adult knows.
As I stated, if you promote sexual behavior and also demote sexual polarization, you GUARANTEE homosexual behavior.
And realize that you not being able to see how you are being manipulated (usually as a child) is a very critical part of manipulating (hence Ahdam, the man-ager was not to be seen and thus mistaken for merely being a part of reality (aka “in the image of God/Reality”).
Again, this is all merely pointing out that such was being promoted. I am not saying that homosexuality is entirely caused by such promotion. More serious progress concerning both the homosexual issue and the race manipulation issue is accomplished through medical intervention (weakening one while strengthening the other).
Perhaps I should mention that Europe should expect all of these same things relating to homosexuality and Arab men fucking white women rather than Black men.
Psychobabble that doesn’t even make sense. Ahdam was merely a part of reality, so there was no mistake in saying he was a part of reality.
I wasn’t manipulated as a kid to like girly things, in fact the opposite, TV commercials said I should like more masculine things. And yet I still wanted girly things (but also masculine things too.)
Not sure if feminism is the cause, or masculine women causing feminism. Anyway this is old news and Tesla predicted this before the 50’s. I am not a feminist.
Also, in 80’s shows there are plenty of dudes saving women and being womanizers so Idk what you are talking about.
I don’t remember the 1060’s those are medieval times.
Furthermore, the media depicting women as being dainty (before the recent movement of strong super-hero-women) doesn’t reduce transsexualism, transsexuals will just fancy themselves as dainty women. If anything, the modern depiction of women like Nikki Minaj and those hipsters who have the sterile corporate hipster guitar commercials reduce transsexualism, because who wants to be those women.
In any case, you have been defeated, your original argument was that the medical industry had a transsexual conspiracy, but now you are just talking about the media, and nothing to do with the medical industry at all.
The medical industry had a transsexual conspiracy alright, up until 5 years ago transsexualism was considered a mental illness and it was a conspiracy against transgenders not for them.
No, it wasn’t, as I explained several times.
Because you asked about that.
So YOU are the “conspiracy theorist”.
You can’t defeat someone when you can’t even track the argument. There has been no defeat. As I said, you are merely too close to the issue to see it clearly and honestly.
All I know, is Im a transsexual and you’d be wishing you were transsexual if there was a magic button to turn you into a hot lesbian with a dick and balls.
Nothing hotter than that.
The problem with transsexualism is the fact of being trapped in a set of circumstances which are hellish (precisely, the male circumstances. Males, both transsexual and non-transsexual males, are all treated substandard by society.)
Transsexual means that one’s sex has been changed physiologically, anatomically, thus biologically.
This is how:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSFZMRq1Vso[/youtube]
Your presentation is very solid, realistic and true.
The critical factor here is the the mis-connection of neurons in the brain but our ‘Saint’ here refuse and deliberately ignore this critical fact and resort to braying all sorts of secondary factors.
You missed out ‘due to mis-wirings of neurons in the brain during fetal development that critically effected the mental aspect of the male or female sexuality’
The DNA factor could be an additional possibility but the link has not been conclusively proven yet.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001,
This article [from a transsexualism site] acknowledge ‘Transsexualism’ as a birth defect.
majickalproductions.biz/bekasite … gender.htm
Do you agree with such a claim?
I believe all human variables come in degrees, i.e. no such thing as 100% black or white.
It is not likely for a physical male to have a mis-connection to the extent of 99% female sexuality. Even not all females will have 99% female-sexuality as there are various degrees of lesbianism amongst all the lesbians.
Given that you still have some degree of masculinity as stated above, how would you rate your degrees of transsexuality in say from 1-low degree to 99-highest degree.
Bullshitter.
Prism, you missed the fact that you had already defeated yourself. Your entire argument has been that the fetus brain is so very delicate that even sound can disturb it. My argument is that such brains HAVE BEEN DISTURB.
The difference is that you claim that the god of Chaos was the only player in such disruption. My claim is the Man played(s) a bigger role. Ultra-sound is not a natural occurrence. The chemicals/drugs/nutrients and germs that pregnant mothers, fetuses, and infants get exposed to is NOT natural. Nature has little to do with it.
All you did was explain how easy it is to manipulate the fetus (“opportunity”), which was never in question - quite the opposite.
Please keep civil guys, and previous disputes out of new discussions.
I understand there are many medical cases of variation from norms [not transsexualism] where chemicals and other materials do affect the brain development of the fetus. Note the Zika virus. Many of such cases have been proven and traceable to modern chemicals and living.
However it has been highlighted to you transsexualism has existed long before chemicals and modern living has an impact.
I suggest you do research on the history of transsexualism.
Note this;
majickalproductions.biz/bekasite … gender.htm
plus do additional research on the history of this subject.
I have given you many other evidences of how it is possible for transsexualism to happen naturally.
Btw, have you began to educate yourself on the brain and the neurosciences that is relevant to this issue?
Point is even if you eliminate all the secondary factors, transsexualism will still occur. Prove me wrong on this.
Why my theory is stronger is the following;
There are two possibilities for transsexualism, i.e.
In the above case we have to give possibility of Nature a higher weightage, I believe 80% and 20% for modern chemicals, etc.
For ‘Nature’ I don’t have to prove each specific case of transsexualism as I can rely on the Principle of mis-connections based on empirical evidences from History to the present.
If any one insist it is due to modern chemicals, modern etc. then the onus is on the claimant to provide conclusive evidence of the link to that specific case and case by case for all. You just cannot shout from the top of any building and insist you are right and ignoring the stronger ‘natural’ mis-connection factor.
Why the straw man “easy to manipulate”?
The fact is that mis-connections of the very fine neurons happen in nature that results in all sort of empirical evident cases of variation from norms of the majority.
Who is talking about manipulation as if there is some agent doing the manipulation.
That is your entire case. And you have no actual evidence of that whatsoever. Someone’s personal supporters blog and anecdotal stories really don’t count.
Your plausible deniability excuse is that you don’t have actual evidence because of the conspiracy to cover it all up.
Did you read the additional point?
“plus do additional research on the history of this subject.”
Btw, I am not a transsexual [thus no personal interest] but I am a truth-seeker and presenting what is objective.
Note the following research findings on link between gene and transsexualism.
As I had mentioned somewhere, there is a possibility between gene and transsexualism but at this stage I would take it with a pinch of salt until more evidence are available.
Most of the existing views on the critical cause of transsexualism are focused on fetal development and the brain structure.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality
ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TScauses.html
There are many articles and research findings along the above thoughts.
As for pyschological factors, here it is strongly refuted;
As for James S Saint insistence on the ‘modern-Chemical use and abuses theory,’ I have not found any articles or research findings to support this claim. Unless there are clear evidence, this claim is likely be … “the experiments behind it are poorly controlled and/or contradicted by other data.”
To my knowledge, it is not possible to change someone’s sex biologically functionally, at least not yet. A transsexual refers to the mental desire to be a woman, nothing more.
Just as gay refers to the mental desire to have sex with only men. The opposite word, “straight”, must exist by necessity, just as the opposite word, “cis”, must exist by necessity. It must exist because without it, all would group themselves and include themselves as having homosexual as well as transsexual tendencies.
The sucking of the cock is a chore, as well as the chore of the factory. The thought of doing random dudes is rather denigrating. Is it worse than a factory we must explore. My conclusion is that cock-sucking is more vomit inducing, less suicide inducing, because there is more mental stimulation. So, factory work is more suicidal, less vomit inducing, cock-sucking is less suicidal but more vomit/insanity inducing. It is insanity inducing because it requires excessive (more than 100% feminity), total shut down of all discriminating compartments of the mind. This in turn, excess energies, sets up the mind for a rubberband, a temporary depletion of ALL feminine energies and bounce back into to the violent animal mind.