How Transsexualism occurs

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.

  1. Nature - fetal development variations as proven by empirical evidences
  2. Modern chemicals - pollution and abuses, ultra-sound, Mcdonald, KFC, etc.

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.

I don’t view it as a birth-defect but a mutation or curse. The cursed are often more powerful than the ordinary. Transsexuals tend to be highly intelligent for some reason. There are some good things about it, the spiritual desire to be a woman is quite magnificent. However I label it as a curse, because it is always a case of failed dreams.

“It is better for someone to imagine lesbians than nothingness, but it is also a curse for them to imagine lesbians, but never reach any substance other than their own imaginations.” - Trixie

I did not miss out anything. I was referring to the meaning of the word. But words are something you ignore. So you are the one who missed out almost everything, namely semantics - again, as usual.

And if you are admitting that it (the “link”) is not proven, one can only wonder why you are nevertheless saying the opoositein a subjunctive mood (“the DNA factor could be an additional possibility”), although in . You ignore the meaning / importance of words. You miss out semantics, thus you also miss out science and philosophy, because without semantics each of all statements is like nothing.

As long as something is not proven or disproven in a different semantical directions this something does not change its meaning / importance, its semantics.

In other words: The meaning of the word “transsexual” remains the same as long as we do not know better what it means.

With or without referring also to the sexual act?

And the so-called “lady-boys” are merely gays. But sometimes these “lady-boys” are also called “transsexuals”, although that is not correct, bercause they are just homsexuals.

Words and their dictionary meanings [semantics] are important but it merely reflect common and popular usage but do not necessary reflect the truth. I am in interested in the truth and whatever that take one nearer to the truth.

Note this is a ‘Psychology and Mind’ within the main ‘Philosophy Forum’ so the focus should be on the philosophical [focus on truth] rather than the semantics [common usage].

What? note my mentioned of ‘neurons and their wirings’ ‘DNA’ is Science and note semantics is not critical to all of Science. Mathematics is very critical to many Sciences.

Philosophy is also useless without semantics. As I said: Semantics is needed everywhere. And the fact that mathematics is very critical to many sciences is very good. We have enough mainstream scientists.

That is your problem with too much focus on semantics that you missed out on the finer truths.

The truth is variations from the norm occur in degrees.
In the case of gender [example male] variations from the norm we have the following variables in degrees;

  1. The male physical/mental attributes
  2. The female physical/mental attributes
  3. The male sexuality - sexual attraction to females
  4. The female sexuality sexual attraction to males

A 100% homosexual would be

  1. The male physical/mental attributes -100%
  2. The male sexuality - sexual attraction to females-100%

The above perfection is not likely to exists so we have homosexuals with various combinations of the above.

In the case of a transsexual, we may have for example the following combinations;

  1. The male physical/mental attributes - 80%
  2. The female physical/mental attributes -10%
  3. The male sexuality - sexual attraction to females-10%
  4. The female sexuality sexual attraction to males -90%

Thus in the case of transsexualism the critical variables are 1 and 4 [say >60%] in various relevant degrees and combination.

As for “lady-boys” which is a general term, they can be either transsexuals [with high 4] or homosexuals with a lower 1 and some degrees of 2 and 4.

To rely [as primary] on semantics to seek the truth is like a neurosurgeon using a chopper to perform fine neural surgery in the brain.
To seek the closer truth what we need is philosophy, analytical thinking, other relevant knowledge with semantics in the background as a secondary tool.

I disagree.

To rely on semantics is very helpful, whereas to completely ignore semantics is like living without a brain.

In the said posts I just wanted to remind you of the importance of semantics. I did not say that semantic rules over this and that. I merely said that semantics is needed everywhere.

Note my correction above.

Why?
Do you dispute [other than the error] the variables I introduced, the degrees involved and their combination?

As an improvement to my earlier variable, I would present the improved versions, i.e.

  1. The male physical attributes
  2. The female physical attributes
  3. The male mental attributes
  4. The female mental attributes
  5. The male sexuality - sexual attraction to females
  6. The female sexuality sexual attraction to males

The above are represented by semi-independent modular networks in the brain.
The degrees of the above and the degrees of connections will result in either a male, female, transsexual, homosexual, lesbian, lady-boys, hermoprodites, or etc.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about. Ladyboys are not the same as gays. Gays don’t get breast implants or hormones… because they are gay - men who like men. They don’t want to be like a woman who likes men.

I don’t think homosexuals have the female sexuality. I don’t think there is a such thing as the female sexuality, actually. I think males and females have the same sexuality, females just have a muted version if it, where they enjoy being the role of female, whereas the male enjoys perceiving the female as an “other”. Gay males either have an excessive amount of testosterone causing them to lust after males, or have low testosterone where they act as more like females, clowns and transsexuals than gays, such as Chris Crocker. As for medium testosterone gays, those are a mystery to me. I don’t know why those are gay, unless they turned gay from loneliness or something.

Okay, so at least you finally told us your views, after waiting for the conversation to drag on to the 3rd page.

So your theory is that ultra sound and various chemicals nutrients and germs the mother eats causes transsexual babies. Now it’s time to provide evidence.

See my post above concerning female sexuality. I don’t believe there is a such thing, I think males and females have the same sexuality, its just males like perceiving the female as other and females like perceiving the female as themselves.
The only exception are certain true male homosexuals. But most modern male “homosexuals” are not true homosexuals, I’ve interviewed a lot of these gays and come to find out that most so-called “homosexuals” are really just bisexuals, or guys who think women are pretty but don’t like vagina, or lonely guys that decided to turn gay.

I am in a state of flux. Sometimes I am 110% feminine, sometimes I am 110% masculine. An analogy would be, say you are having a bad day. Your friend won’t forgive you for some minor thing you did, your boss is lying about you, and generally you want to die. As the bad day grows worser and worser, your face grows uglier and uglier. You can’t help it, you don’t want to be in the bad day, and yet there you are, like Bill Murray trapped inside Groundhog day. That is like transsexuals, they are trapped in it, sometimes they feel masculine and can’t help it, just like sometimes you have a bad, rotten day, feel your face growing uglier and uglier, and can’t help it. But you never wanted the set of circumstances to ever lead up to that point to begin with.