![Ludicrous [827x551 - 184KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/7iP4y2.jpg){kind=link}
then why does a man who believes he is a woman need to have his penis chopped off? Moreover, why does he need to get breasts, long flowing hair, and wear dresses?
If they were smart they would have countered "because she lives in a gendered society." Of course then you'd need to address the root of why he feels such distress due to conforming with male social norms in the first place, which inevitably leads back to "because almost every human has an innate and binary sense of gender."
"So you mean to tell me that the only way for you to feel actualized as a woman is according to the very social constructs you're arguing don't define authentic gender? Forget how society may or may not establish gender. How do you know that what you feel like is what a woman feels like? Put another way, what about the way you feel is feminine?"
Their own attempts to define the binary will establish the stereotypes they're trying to destroy, or at least that other parts of liberal society are trying to destroy. You almost never see these internal contradictions discussed in their ranks, however. That one group of feminists is actively trying to expand and tear down the walls that define femininity, while a bunch of mentally ill dudes are putting on dresses and completely reinforcing the problematic stereotypes the feminists would slit your throat for (had you been a straight white male affirming them). But there they all go, cheering each other on, haha.
"So you mean to tell me that the only way for you to feel actualized as a woman is according to the very social constructs you're arguing don't define authentic gender? Forget how society may or may not establish gender. How do you know that what you feel like is what a woman feels like? Put another way, what about the way you feel is feminine?"
That's still easy to counter with the first point though: "Because we live in a gendered society." Even if gender is a social construct, we're still raised with that social construct and people's knowledge of gender and comfort comes from that.
Asking why someone raised in that environment would feel distress due to conforming to what they are taught forces them to acknowledge gender is an innate instinct, not a cultural meme, and then they've lost.
But there they all go, cheering each other on, haha.
Yeah, it's a sea of doublethink. I don't envy them.
Yes, I think you're right. I guess the point I am trying to stress, and perhaps you seem to be as well, is that if gender is some kind of sociocultural architecture, then on what basis could a person feel like the opposite sex without confirming that very blueprint? It's like some kind of cannibalistic revolution. You aren't revolutionizing the categories themselves, you're only asserting that a person can jump between them at will without any real philosophical justification for what these abstract categories are, in any way that really detaches them from biology.
It's just senseless.
Any legitimate revolution would have to explode the binary altogether, and we've seen examples of such attempts. As soon as one attempts this, they immediately discover that gender could not be an arbitrary construct. The innate need to be sexed according to the nature of your species is unavoidable, because the one thing these people cannot rid themselves of, regardless of whether they fancy themselves a fairy or a werewolf, is the desire to be sexually desired.
It seems that sexuality is universally dimorphic, where it matters anyway - maybe we'd say sex is dimorphic essentially. You'll see terms like trimorphic applied to certain plants and animals, but they aren't essentially trimorphic. In plants, you just get different combinations of pistols and stamen of various sizes. Still, at the end of the day you have the gynoecium and androecium. In animals, trimorphism usually refers to sexual strategies and the different adaptations males demonstrate to sexual competition.
What seems impossible is to ever naturally escape what we are really referring to by andro-, gyno-, and androgynous. There are two essences, and the in-between. Everything in-between can only be defined on the basis of the relative similarity of its parts to the two archetypes.
Fine fellas, go ahead and chop your cocks off. I'd actually agree with you and say that these aren't what make you men. But you aren't escaping your essence, even without the dicks. Go ahead. Put the dress on. Act like a woman. You still can't escape that what you're ultimately confirming is a desire to be sexed, and to be desired by the sex that attracts you most. I think what we're seeing is a certain morbid kind of psychological maladaptation to homosexuality. For probably a multitude of reasons, the homosexual urge has some kind of interiorization as a need to reconcile the gender identity to fit the sexual orientation.
The whole thing lays bare the absence of essentialism in today's worldview. We have to go back.
It’s glorious.
Dyed in the wool gender progressives should be diametrically opposed to all things trans as they completely undermine the movement by enforcing normative gender identities.
(post is archived)