How Transsexualism occurs

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.

That is obviously your self-description, because it seems that you really do not know what you “sexually” are, what your “sexuality” is.

This so-called “ladyboys” also like men. Of course. (Do I have to post videos here?) Google it! Gays like men, and this men are either real men or men who want to be sexually treated like woman (they want to sexually play the so-called “passive role”, the “female role”). Duh. And „ladyboys“ („ladymen“, „shemales“) also want to be sexually treated like woman (they want to sexually play the so-called “passive role”, the “female role”). Of course.

English isnt your first language I don’t think.
Bisexuals are not gays, liking men doesn’t make someone gay. ><

English is my third language. But that does not matter much, because I did not say that bisexuals were gays. Bisexuals are sometimes like homosexuals and sometimes like heterosexuals. Therefore the prefix “bi” (=> “two”), namely for (1.) homosexuals and (2.) heterosexuals. But we were not talking about bisexuals but about homosexuals and “transsexuals”.

You said ladyboys are gays, when they are closer to bis and transsexuals than gays.

Point is all humans has the same sexual drives but this sexual drive is manifested in a duality of male and female gender in terms of different physical and mental [sexual and others] attributes.

The average male will have the same fundamental sexual drive as all humans.
The algorithm of the average male is such that he is stimulated and activated by certain set of female features, e.g. physical [body form, shapes, genitals, breasts, behaviors etc.] and not those of the males. Let’s call this neural set, Male-Sex-Set
This is where advertisers exploit such fundamental drives with the right female shaped bottles to attract males subliminally.

The average female will have the same fundamental sexual drive as all humans.
However the average female is stimulated and activated in the brain and elsewhere with a different set of of stimuli that is in many ways distinctively different from those of the average male. Let’s call this neural set, female-Sex-Set. Here advertisers will use phallic shaped bottles to contain their products to attract females at the unconscious level.

The homosexual lack [due to various reasons] the algorithm of the average male and as such his brain is indifferent to all the stimuli that will activate and stimulate the normal male. Thus the female-sex-set is not connected and active in the brain of the male homosexual.
Rather for various reasons, in the homosexual’s brain, his sexual drive neural mechanism is NOT connected thus not stimulated by female sex-set. Rather the homosexual’s sex drive mechanism is mis-connect to the female-sex-set, i.e. that is stimulated by male features and the urge to have sex with males.

Thus a homosexual can be the most macho man with the highest level of testosterone in his system with the highest level of sex drive. However his sex drive neural mechanism was misconnected to the female-sex-set, thus his sexual drive is directed at the male in instead of the females.

Therefore my point;
A 100% homosexual would be

  1. The male physical/mental attributes -100%
  2. The female sex-set - sexual attraction to males-100%

So it is not a question of the level of testosterone as a factor to determine homosexuality.
The critical factor is how the neural mechanisms of the sex drive are connected to which set of sex-set, i.e. male or female.

Thus the most macho male if misconnected with the female-sex-set, he will be a homosexual with his sexual impulse triggered by the male.
Now if the most sissy male is not connected with the female-sex-set, he is not likely to be a homosexual [male]. Then he is likely to be attracted to females more as a lesbian.

No ur not understanding. Females and males have the exact same sexual mechanics.

It is only true homosexual males that have different mechanics, and true homosexuals are rarer than a bird’s breath. Most of the gays you see today are either bis, straights who decided to be gay, or clowns/dragqueens/transsexuals.

Females have the same sex mechanics as males, its just they are used to seeing the female body as “themselves”. The attraction to themselves never really blossomed since there was no shock value, they had the same body for years as it gradually morphed. Thus their attraction other females is muted due to their bodily similarities, there is no “suprise” value its old hat to them. There is still a little bit of it and you can tell by the way they dress that they still have a small element of self-lust. The self-lust is amplified while in heat.

Males have a small element of self-appreciation, that is why they body build. They find their own muscles and body attractive. What males see is exactly the same as females. They can tell when another male is hot, the difference is, they don’t see themselves as female, they see female as “other”, so there’s no desire there. It’s not their role.

I have interviewed many straight males. If they were possessed into female bodies you bet they would have sex with males. Human mating mechanics is a roleplay game, one group plays as females the other plays as males, its the same sexuality.

Homosexual males are the only humans that have a different sexuality, they are comfortable with male on male sex.
Typically, females prefer heterosexual sex or lesbian sex. Or they prefer a feminized male with a masculine male or a fem male with a fem male. Only true homosexuals prefer two masculine males together.

Heterosexual females dont like sleeping with men when they feel ugly, and they would most certainly not enjoy being possessed into a masculine male body sleeping with another masculine man. Heterosexual females desire at most a penis, that is as far as they go, they don’t wish to be manly and bony looking.

You missed my point. I am not too sure what you meant by sexual mechanics.

All humans has the potential to be male and females, it just a matter of which potentials are activated and realized during fetal developments or later through nurture conditions.

I’ll try with another example.

  1. All human have the same generic hunger drive to enable survival.
  2. There are meat eaters and vegans [do not eat meat at all].

As with the above,
Males and females have the same fundamental generic sexual drive as driven by the same set of neural activities. This drives the sexual urges in all humans regardless of whether male or female. This is the same fundamental sexual drives [force] that compel all sexual living things to copulate sexually with the opposite gender to produce the next generation.

Males and females are biologically and genetically different thus their sexual machinery [genitals, body shape, sex-mental] in terms of the activated neural set are different. In this case the activated mental elements and approach to sex are different between males and females.

Thus in my case, if you use the term ‘sexual mechanics’ then there are two levels of sexual mechanics, i.e.

  1. The mechanics [neural] of the generic sexual drive in both males and females
  2. The mechanics [neural] which are specific to each gender.

In other words, there are two set of mechanics or neural sets within the brain.

Thus for;

Male, there is

  1. The mechanic of the generic sexual drive
  2. The mechanics of the male sexual set [activated]

Female, there is
3. The mechanic of the generic sexual drive
4. The mechanics of the female sexual set. [activated]

What happened with a homosexual -100% is the mis-connection and activation of the following

  1. The mechanics of the generic sexual drive
  2. The mechanics of the female sexual set. [activated]

In this case the mechanics of the generic sexual drive within the man [1] is mis-connected to the 4. The mechanics of the female sexual set. This is why the homosexual male is stimulated by the male sexual features and not by female sexual features.

I agree 100% true homosexuals are rare, in practice the combination of 1 and 4 above varies in degrees.

No your still not following. Females are more stimulated by female features except when they are ovulating. True male homosexuals are something different than females.

To rewrite your things would be

Male, there is

  1. The mechanic of the generic sexual drive
  2. The mechanics of the male sexual set [extroverted]

Female, there is
3. The mechanic of the generic sexual drive
4. The mechanics of the male sexual set. [introverted]

Maletofemale transsexual
5. The mechanic of the generic sexual drive
6. The mechanics of the male sexual set. [introverted]

Lesbian

  1. The mechanic of the generic sexual drive
  2. The mechanics of the male sexual set [extroverted]

Fake male homosexual (such as a Lion)
3. The mechanic of the generic sexual drive
4. The mechanics of the male sexual set. [introverted]

True male homosexual (rare)
3. The mechanic of the generic sexual drive
4. The mechanics of the homosexual male sexual set. [unique]