Posted this on /his/ and got ignored

Posted this on /his/ and got ignored
Someone could please explain me or point me to a book about what is the metaphysical and ontological position the trans ideology has? I just can't wrap my head around it and I need to since they have already won, at least in my country, and it'll be good to actually understand what sounds to me as nonsensical lunacy.

Attached: genderunicornexample.jpg (2000x1545, 664K)

Its just based on boilerplate postmodernism.

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

what's boilerplate postmodernism?

Basically that anyone's truth is equal to anyone else's. Thus scientific facts nor morality enter into it. It just means feels are better than reals but with a lot of obscurantism to make it sound less stupid.

Attached: calvin-writing-1.png (320x400, 37K)

waiting for the lgbt suicide chart pepe poster

But trans ideology is fundamentally essentialist,is it not? Essentialism doesn't really seem compatible with any postmodern thinkers I'm aware of.
Also, labelling and grouping identities seems more structuralist in nature rather poststructuralist/postmodern.

does my gender identity/presentation have to sum to 100%?

the essence is subjective so they aren't actually making any claims
> labelling and grouping identities seems more structuralist in nature rather poststructuralist/postmodern
that's just them being faggots.

Assuming transgenderism has anything close to a coherent "metaphysical and ontological position" is overestimating the intelligence of its adherents. There's probably some top-down theorizing out there along the lines of , but I can tell you from first-hand experience that most trannies barely think about it beyond "it feels good and the doctor says it's okay."

Meh, I'm not convinced. I don't see how trans ideology came from postmodernism. Unless you're using some bullshit Beterson definition of postmodern neomarxism. Second wave french feminists and postmodern feminists are all massive TERFs now, they fuckin hate trannies.

Most trannies have NPD or autism and dumb "liberals" accept them in order to seem progressive and woke. Oversexualization of children and acceptance of degenerate fetishes into the public sphere is to blame.

It can add up to whatever you want it to, sweaty

Attached: 9c0.jpg (426x341, 31K)

It's existentialist as fuck.

Essentialism would mean in that case that the true essence of a male individual is male, and that he should assume the role given by Nature/God/the Cosmos.

Existentialism, however, simply considers any individual as more or less a white sheet ready to get written on by society or/and himself.

When I say trans ideology is essentialist, what I mean is that accepting a binary (trans means nothing otherwise) is accepting that there are essential differences between male and female, otherwise it wouldn't matter which body you were born into and you would have no desire to transition. I'm a bit old for all this shit so Im only talking about "classic" Male->Female and Female->Male trannies. Seems there's a bunch of other flavors on the table these days.

Another poster said we're giving them too much credit and I have to agree. Start to question a tranny for more than a few minutes and their "ideology" reveals itself as pure narcissistical fetishism.

It's a projection of subjective existence on to objective essence (my gender identity is feminine because I feel like it, which makes me a Real Woman) it's literally feels > reals

who's talking about marxism?

i'm not a philosopher or the calvinposter but the way i use 'postmodernist' is someone who rejects the idea of external truth not in some solipsistic acknowledgement of uncertainty (which is fine but doesn't imply anything about how you should act) but rather as more of an imperative for the sake of equality and destruction of hierarchies. i would say trannies are usually that kind of faggot in the sense that they're mostly substituting "things they want to think" for "claims about external reality" and trying to discredit the idea that they can be wrong so no one can drag them out of their world.

in particular they would never try to define the words in their "beliefs" because meaning is not relevant to their feelings, only the way words impact how they are treated by others is relevant. in fact meaning things instead of playing connotative games until they're satisfied with the results holds the risk of getting them proven wrong or giving someone else a chance to notice that changes in language don't imply anything about changes in the underlying concepts they care about

Itslitterallyjustafetish

Nice meme
Trans ideology isn't necessarily essentialist. Many trans people attribute gender dysphoria to internalized sexism and argue that in a society where gender norms are more flexible, or gender has been abolished altogether, they wouldn't feel what they feel. Those people, however, may have difficulty expressing their experiences and will by default use the explanation normies find most digestible: "I'm an x gender soul trapped in an y sex body"
People are slaves to their circumstances. I'd disagree in more than I'd agree if I had to talk to a Sufragette.

Most people don't give a shit about philosophy and don't give a shit if their morals are consistent or not. You're holding trans people to a higher standard than the rest of normies.

Oh OK. I get what your saying, but that's a bit of a disservice to postmoderism/poststructuralism. No ones talking about Marxism, but you're using a definition of postmodernism that lines up pretty similarly with Jordan B Petersons (demonstrably wrong) notion of 'Postmodern Neomarxism'. Don't even bother looking into it, it's pure cringe.

I can definitely think of many more poststucturalists who would denounce ( or have denounced ) identity politics than vice versa.

literally my second paragraph you weapon

Thanks, that's actually some good insight. I still can't personally align poststructuralism with identity politics/trans ideology though.

You don't understand your own point, so you need to hear it from someone else. Unfounded ideas from people who don't care about philosophy, thrown out of context have no value, and finding narcissism in them only shows how loaded your dice is. Engage with someone who wants to educate you or shut the fuck up.

I mean, you seem to have lost the thread and you seen very angry as a result.

- someone said trans ideology came from postmodernism
- i said i dont see how it can come from postmodernism because of x
- someone else said trans have no real ideology
- i agreed and still continue to hold the opinion that trans ideology/idpol couldnt be in line with po-mo even if it existed

is there a better word? i assume the original postmodernists were basically skeptics pointing out "hey guys we're making some assumptions here just be sure you're keeping an eye on that" and it all went to shit when moralfags decided strategically applied uncertainty could be useful

i dislike normalfags for uncritically accepting assumptions and i dislike trannies more for cutting all the meaning away from those assumptions so they can rearrange them in whatever direction they want

My statistical psychology professor showed a picture of a "Gender Bread Man" on the first day of class and I walked out and never came back. Did I do the right thing, lads? I'm still not sure

>Chromosomes
>Mental illness
>Chromosomes
>Test/estrogen
>Dopamine

Only you can notice your absence. Fucking nobody cares

If maleness and femaleness are two seperate continuums, what gender is other? The first two take up the whole of the possibilities. Even if you know in your heart you are truly an attack helicopter, that's still not a gender. It's some other thing, like your ontological identity.

I think it was just in comparison to an hero.

>gender is a social construct
>you can be born the wrong gender
I just dont get how these two things can both be true

>I'm treated like a boy because I'm an asian girl(18 years old, virgin)

Attached: 2_19719125373-miketysonmysteries_408_dup-20190605.jpg (1920x1081, 227K)

Nothing to do with what they thought faggot. Should I let politics get in the way of "education"

I think they say gender is a social construct but you can be born the wrong sex which is biological. Transgender makes no sense to me though because I thought it was just disposition and identity. This shit is more complicated to me than calculus

I recommend you to read Authority and American Usage. Maybe you want to learn only apolitical facts so you could base your opinion unbiased, but that's not possible because whether deliberately or not nobody would let you do so.

Imagine you are opposed to schizophrenia because you can't understand(or less aggressively, symphathize) schizophrenic indivisuals' opinion.

This one is my favorite

Attached: 1547498212574.jpg (1139x536, 245K)

fucking kek

You can't, there is no mechanism by which one becomes aware of their gender identity. Similarly, you are not aware of your own identity as a male in any essential form beyond your own sexuality.

And this is why Blanchard's typology is perfectly accurate - the only two types of trannies that exist are both sexually motivated, albeit in different ways. That's all there is to it.

Are we what our skull shaped like? What about the things inside that skull?

>i am defined by my psychosis

its just autism

>everybody is defined by my phrenology

sex has gotten more muttled. we got cucks, incels, ponies, gang bangers, orgy goers, swapping wifes and shit. this is just another step to degeneracy. burn the heathens

>Hello little girls, I'm here to take a bath with you. Don't be afraid, I'm a little girl too

Attached: 1549339478522.jpg (640x615, 135K)

Hey bro eunuchs serve their purpose too. Zeng He was a god among eunuchs.

Based great khali working the little marks into a shoot

>b-but what about muh metaphysics
I don't think it matters to the materialists.
The contents of your mind are both figuratively and literally immaterial.

why would anyone want to take public bath with others?

If your arguement is that trannys are actual the wrong half of the soul put in the wrong body then the solution is absolutely suicide and awaiting rebirth so trannys are doing the right thing

Hot springs exist

I did one with my gf in colorado in a ski resort but we had swimsuits.

We should have invent a mandatory national penis inspection day to prevent this. Or the male only conscription with no exception.

Nonsense liberalism and pomo shit.
The ontological position is subjectivity or relativity. Same as feminist shit, just piggybacking pomo

Conscription is a wonderful idea if it weren't for the avaristic greedpigs running things

Yes, but wrong to whom?

The body and the soul each simultaneously.

I dunno, but there seems to be a conflict and modern medicine isn't really resolving it.
It's worth a stab at spiritual solutions but like 99.9% of trannies are probably atheists due to resentment and the rejection of religious institutions for their lifestyle choices. Paradoxically, any religious institution that embraces transsexuality as an acceptable mode of living is probably already long bankrupt of metaphysical legitimacy.

If you've already lost your identity, and your dick, what else you got to lose by finding God again?

avaricious

Thanks, figured it would be the same suffix as atavistic since they're one consonant apart.

Was the Alas, poor Yorick! monolouge implies Yorick was a tranny?

Trans isn’t an ideology. A small section of the population is born with some central nervous system chimera (probably caused by all the progesterone and shit pregnant women are being given to induce healthy birth) and they end up feeling like they were born the wrong sex so they transition in order to live better lives. It’s not rocket science. Your perception of “trans ideology” is probably from all the retarded lefties that highjack a medical condition to promote and impose their own retarded world views on others. Trans people want to be either male or female. That’s it. Any other route isn’t trans

My questions stem from the pragmatic difference between "transgender" and "transsexual." And how some men are just naturally feminine while being very heterosexual and are comfortable as men. And how some may try to convince them at a young age that they may be trans when they aren't

Looking at it metaphysically has widened my worldview and made me feel more sympathetic to their tragic existance if the entire thing were in fact a glitch in the splitting from the all and into one for this life.

However, what complicates the matter is that the MAJORITY of trans people suffered childhood sexual trauma whoch makes the psychosis diagnosis of the issue much more weighted than if it were a more spontanious phenomenon. I work in mental health and there is tons of trans thoughts in the abused adolescents. Imagine being fucked as a small child then having the entire "but I'm really a girl" thing as some kind of coping mechanism. Maybe an early anima takes over if you buy Jung's stuff.

I don't really follow Peterson but from what I've seen, I don't see how his definition is necessarily wrong. Postmodern as in subjectivity and neomarxism as in sociocultural Marxism instead of economic. I'm legitimately wondering where he's wrong, as I usually don't see anyone detail this.

He's not he's just annoying because he parrots everything Campbell and Jung have already said 40+ years ago.

Yeah there is no good way to distinguish those who are suffering Fromm genuine condition and those who are just being faggots.

So he's not wrong, just annoying? If that's true, then I guess he's bringing the ideas to a wider audience

it's not really a thought, the way to understand it is to read about gender from their perspective. for example, "Armature" by Thomas Page McBree is about the journey of a trans man (female to male) and his journey to finding out what masculinity meant to him.

sounds interesting
does it include weight lifting or enlisting?

it includes boxing

No one expects me to agree with schizos

He is wrong though. He has lectures where he completely misunderstand/misrepresents Foucault and Derrida, painfully so. He doesn't engage in the literature and it's very obvious to anyone who has. Same goes for his laughable reading of Heidegger.

He basically says that Marxism became uncool so a cabal of academics conspired to continue the tradition in a subversive way and this is cultural Marxism/postmodern neo marxism. It's historically, philosophically and just about every other type of glaringly incorrect.

That sounds very nice, but it really doesn't make any sense. Marxism is a modern and materialist historical theory. Postmodernism is none of those things and on top of that rejects metanarratives. Why does subjective = postmodern? What is sociocultural Marxism? Are we just throwing together loosely defined things that sound plausibly connected?

By the way some of the biggest contemporary critics of Marxism are postmodernists.

No I agree, I see trans people as having suffered (and are suffering) serious trauma. My concern is the complacency of the psychological field in treating this individuals; primarily under cultural/political lines. To harm and/or kill oneself isn't an insincere action; especially when the numbers are so staging. But to pin this on a systemic sociological problem while offering superficial medical treatment is down right unethical.

The problem is that we can't be earnest about the root causes of gender dysphoria, transexuality, and to a greater extent, sexual orientation preferences. It clearly seems like a psychological developmental issue but apparently our "progressive" and hyper-liberalistic institutional values prevent us from taking a look at it pathologically; rather it's merely labeled as perfectly acceptable lifestyle choices (and it is society that is in the wrong). Politically, I think there is a irrational phobia of what what the Left thinks of Conservative types who view these kinds of people; as if they take delight in their suffering and/or want them liquidated. The majority of people on the Right rightfully acknowledge this as a pathology that needs to be treated for the sake of the patient and find offense to modern sensibilities of cheering on a person's illness for extrinsic goals (morality, political, cultural, etc.).

My point is that if the materialists aren't going to treat this seriously, then at least the metaphysicians should. Suffering is their strong suit, so they might have better luck in helping these people out with their lives. Though like I said, there's historic problems between the two. But if modern religion wants to be reliant, they have to show that they can heal people's souls again rather than just collect tithes for reading the bible.

>I see trans people as having suffered (and are suffering) serious trauma
And what happens when this is not the case (more often than not)? I see it as the same pretext people use against homosexuality.

>the Conservative is fighting for their good!
But it seems they never try to put themselves in the shoes of the victim. In the other hand, it's the same shit that happened with homosexuality decades ago: we think is wrong so we are going to force you to do X; don't worry, is for your own good. What makes it worse is that transgenderism is not a burden for society, but many people make it seem like it is. And apparently, engaging in discriminatory acts and pejoratively call them ill (which honestly, whether or not you agree it's still up to debate) seems good and "for their own good", something that seems contradictory.
It seems as if you were forcing your worldview into someone else.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Homosexuals didn't have the level of suicide rates that transsexuals have, if we are objectifying suffering as a metric.
Though homosexuals did, and still do, suffer from other problems related to their lifestyle choices; primarily epidemiological ones.
>It seems as if you were forcing your worldview into someone else.
I could say the same for you as well.
If schizophrenia or bipolar disorder had inherent sexual proclivities that were considered oppressed by progressive historiography, then I wouldn't be amazed if those conditions were culturally normalized as well. Forgive me then for having the audacity to push back against a normalization that I find ethical fault with.

Come on, people.

>Homosexuals didn't have the level of suicide rates that transsexuals have, if we are objectifying suffering as a metric.
But what are the causes of this?, depending on what you come up with, you can be either in favor or against. One can argue that it is caused by the social isolation that they suffer, or their inability to become accepted as their opposite gender.

>If schizophrenia or bipolar disorder had inherent sexual proclivities that were considered oppressed by progressive historiography, then I wouldn't be amazed if those conditions were culturally normalized as well. Forgive me then for having the audacity to push back against a normalization that I find ethical fault with.
Contrary to schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, transgenderism is not dangerous for society as a whole, nor creates negative behavior. I'd rather understand why you seem to think that is ethical to pathologize trans (which isolates them in the process) but accept them is not.