A summary of the "Trans" problem - in which we contemplate the cosmic troon horror

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

I just see an enormous waste of money and resources that could be better used elsewhere. That alone makes me think the trans nonsense should be banned or at least heavily restricted.

 

[JULAY]

Am I missing anything?

Yes. They aren't people, they're subhumans, and should be exterminated.

 

[Preacher ✝]

I get what you're saying, but because we have things like cleft palletes and cancer in babies I wouldn't lead with this one; it's low hanging fruit.

I understand your point but I have an answer for it.

Please refer to the Book of John chapter 9, specifically verse 3 but I'll include the entire first section for context.

When someone was born with a malignity like blindness it was believed to be the result of sin. However in this instance Christ explains that neither the blind man nor his parents have sinned, rather he is blind so that the works of God might be manifest in him. To be specific he was blind so that Christ could restore his sight as a miracle.

Applying this to your example, children born with things like cleft pallets or suffering from cancer are either that way as the result of the sins of mankind (for example a child suffering from cancer due to growing up near a toxic waste dump) or so that a greater good might be worked. In a way this duality can be applied to much of human suffering in general.

 

[We Are The Witches]

Why? You still need a medical diagnosis before getting greenlit for surgery or endocrine intervention. You would have to re-frame it all as elective cosmetic treatment, then. Which would still make it aviable, even easier, to attain for let's say 16 or 18 year olds. Maybe safe for the money to pay for it. Considering someone as and adult at 21 is also still kinda weak when it comes to protecting young people whose brains haven't fully developed and set. The doctors would also lose their footing on practicing "life saving" medicine, if it was reframed like that. Which also closes off the insurance $$$ many are after.
If you go soft in this issue, you allow for the "concept" to linger which is exactly what it's spectre did before. You have to stamp out the idea of "transsexualism" (and good luck with that) or ban these procedured for everyone.

Because I believe one should be free to do this if they wish (which is just a body modification on yourself), assuming they can pay the cost and hurt no one else in the process, so forbidding it takes away that liberty for no reason.

There could be some issues like the one you mentioned, "should a 16 year old be able to request this?", but then you should try to come with a solution that has common sense criteria, protects the vulnerable while interferes the least with the liberty of one who is mentally capable.

Maybe you could impose rules that limit the age to request this procedure without banning it altogether, or maybe a diagnosis on their mental state/maturity, maybe a mix of those, maybe something else.

So I see no reason why (for example) some 30 year old, who is mentally and financially capable, decides to go for a transgender procedure (whichever it may be) and they're denied, just like I see no reason why someone should be forbidden from getting a rhinoplasty (another example, could be something else, like a liposuction; you know, granted that they're eligible/healthy for this type of operation).

 

[Dr. Eldon Tyrell]

so forbidding it takes away that liberty for no reason.

So, you are also in favor of MAID, I take it?

There could be some issues like the one you mentioned, "should a 16 year old be able to request this?", but then you should try to come with a solution that has common sense criteria, protects the vulnerable while interferes the least with the liberty of one who is mentally capable.

Yeah, try telling them off when you believe everyone should be allowed to do anything to his body. Good luck. There are no common sense criteria to find for "i'm born in the wrong body, please cut mit dick and balls off" You need to tell these kids in question, that the idea is wrong and harmful which you can't if you can only resort to "well, when you're 21, you can get them cut off" This is what lead to "But I wont be like a girl then, I want to be treated NOW!" People didn't fight the idea because they thought like you.

Maybe you could impose rules that limit the age to request this procedure without banning it altogether, or maybe a diagnosis on their mental state/maturity, maybe a mix of those, maybe something else.

They literally DO that, they just have more people asking for it now. And they, arguably did away with age barriers to some degree, but there really never were any solid ones outside of recommendations, if you really look into it, they just didn't touch kids, except for "intersex" cases. Because, I suspect, some knew there would be more pushback then. They also didn't foresee transsexualism spreading like a contagion via social media, they ignored the social roots of it in favor of the "born this way" bullshit because back then, the communities were small and didn't spread information about themselves neither were the surgery disasters easily memed. The problem is, if you think people are free to troon, you also think it's the right choice for some of them, which in turn means, you would want the best outcomes with that, which is transition as early as possible. It's a medical condition, after all. That's why this extremist american liberalism, you seem to believe in, is a retarded ideal from the start. There actually IS some wrongthink. Cue basically all self destructive mental illnesses.

 

[Deep Noise]

My open disdain towards tranny culture won't stop until the enshittification of the Internet ends. From there it will only be disgust.

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/liz-fong-jones-elliot-william-fong-lizthegrey.128419/

 

[We Are The Witches]

So, you are also in favor of MAID, I take it?

Under the right circumstances, which need to be thought very well.

I've had a relative practically euthanised, don't ask me more, so I know how a "critical condition" looks like, and how miserable and irreversible a life can get under certain situations.

Yeah, try telling them off when you believe everyone should be allowed to do anything to his body. Good luck. There are no common sense criteria to find for "i'm born in the wrong body, please cut mit dick and balls off" You need to tell these kids in question, that the idea is wrong and harmful which you can't if you can only resort to "well, when you're 21, you can get them cut off" This is what lead to "But I wont like a girl then, I want to be treated NOW!"

Everyone who passes the criteria established can request certain types of body modifications, if they are eligible, which in this case could include these types of surgeries.

What that criteria should be needs to be examined.

If they pass the criteria and all other examinations, such as a health check to see if this would be of great risk, then they can do so. If they can't, and they say "I want to be treated NOW!", then they are escorted to the exit by the security guard.

 

[Billy Bob Dick]

Maybe you could impose rules that limit the age to request this procedure without banning it altogether, or maybe a diagnosis on their mental state/maturity, maybe a mix of those, maybe something else.

The problem with this approach is this is exactly how it worked up until the last decade, when the troon lobby managed to beat down and eliminate every last safeguard preventing children from being medically transitioned.

So fuck "trans" adults. If their fetish needs to be forcibly curtailed in order to establish precedent and protect vulnerable children, so be it. They brought this on themselves.

 

[Dr. Eldon Tyrell]

If they pass the criteria and all other examinations, such as a health check to see if this would be of great risk, then they can do so. If they can't, and they say "I want to be treated NOW!", then they are escorted to the exit by the security guard.

But they would be right to demand treatment asap for the whole trans thing to work. Aside form that, these mysterious "criteria" aren't square with any adult is free to do as they please, save for the "mental soundness" one which shouldn't be even consider for someone wanting to be castrated. By that logic adult women with anorexia, could get gastric bypasses, too. They surely wouldn't starve to death when they were assessed as responsible, self sufficient adults, no?
I mean sure, I think I see your idea: Telling them off on the basis of age and allowing it only when they would be turbo hons anyhow, so most wouldn't do it and muh freedom is intact. But again, that WAS the state of affairs and it evolved and grew, like a cancerous tumor we now have to deal with, after it ruined so many lifes, that we couldn't ignore it anymore.

 

[We Are The Witches]

The problem with this approach is this is exactly how it worked up until the last decade, when the troon lobby managed to beat down and eliminate every last safeguard preventing children from being medically transitioned.

Then by what you're saying the problem is that those safeguards were taken down, so then my approach would be to bring them back, maybe in a different way or improved, so that they cover better those cases you're talking about.

If you have a system that works, and then someone comes up and disrupts it by changing the rules, then that's the problem.

But they would be right to demand treatment asap for the whole trans thing to work. Aside form that, these mysterious "criteria" aren't square with any adult is free to do as they please, save for the "mental soundness" one which shouldn't be even consider for someone wanting to be castrated. By that logic adult women with anorexia, could get gastric bypasses, too. They surely wouldn't starve to death when they were assessed as responsible, self sufficient adults, no?
I mean sure, I think I see your idea: Telling them off on the basis of age and allowing it only when they would be turbo hons anyhow, so most wouldn't do it and muh freedom is intact. But again, that WAS the state of affairs and it evolved and grew, like a cancerous tumor we now have to deal with, after it ruined so many lifes, that we couldn't ignore it anymore.

No they wouldn't. You would not be able to get that type of surgery "ASAP" because we determined that minors (for example), or people who are not mentally developed, are not capable of taking this decision with a good understanding of the consequences, just like society does for other things.

Once you are capable, you are free to request it. It's a leap of judgement that you posted earlier, that my reasoning would lead to them getting this as early as possible, or that is "right" or "wrong". It's neither, like other procedures, you're either eligible or not, and if you are, then you're free to request this.

Also the "by that logic..." on the anorexic woman, no. In that scenario, that woman would most likely not meet the standard for the health check to get that surgery.

I don't believe in "extremist american liberalism", so you're also wrong on that, pretty sure I'm fairly moderate.

 

[The Connected Nose]

Leftists are pushing the trans cult because they're using it as a Trojan horse to decriminalise sex with minors. They're also pushing for womanhood to be redefined in order to facilitate paedophiles LARPing as female entering spaces where women safeguard children.

And this is the heart of it all, right here. Their ultimate endgame is, has been, and always will be making it legal for them to fuck children. Yes, because it's something they like to do, but also for a much deeper and even more sinister reason (as if kid-fucking wasn't sinister enough).

They hate innocence and want it destroyed. The destruction of innocence signifies the complete and utter destruction of a people. After all, if they allow such things to happen to their children, there's nothing a people won't allow.

They want to fuck your kids so that you know you are completely and totally beaten. The most effective solution to this problem will always be medication administered at a minimum of 1,100 feet per second.

 

[Dr. Eldon Tyrell]

No they wouldn't. You would not be able to get that type of surgery "ASAP" because we determined that minors (for example), or people who are not mentally developed, are not capable of taking this decision with a good understanding of the consequences, just like society does for other things.

Funnily enough, in the end of day, at court, doctors decide who's mentally "developed" enough to make such a call but I don't agree that anyone thinking castration and grotesque frankentstein surgery turn them into another gender/sex/whatever, are actually thinking straight in the first place. I don't need a doctor to see that, it's very much the same thing as someone being suicidal, just that the state hates that because it takes one precious worker drone from them. Whereas, with troonery, as long as the numbers don't threaten overall reproduction, it's meh.

Once you are capable, you are free to request it. It's a leap of judgement that you posted earlier, that my reasoning would lead to them getting this as early as possible, or that is "right" or "wrong". It's neither, like other procedures, you're either eligible or not, and if you are, then you're free to request this.

That's just a rhetorical trick, no offense. Being eligible for surgery is still a right and wrong question. You are either the "right" canditate, meaning you "have", amongst other things, gender dysphoria or you are the "wrong" candidate for surgery. But the idea of cutting people up because they think they can't hack it in their birth sex is an evil ideal, it's is wrong to even get there. Which is what I was saying.

Also the "by that logic..." on the anorexic woman, no. In that scenario, that woman would most likely not meet the standard for the health check to get that surgery.

Well, my thought experiment hinged upon her clearing that pre surgery. But I digress on that.
So what you are saying is, that she can't get that surgery because being skelly disqualifies her from it because of the immediate danger to her life? how about she gains before surgery or isn't THAT underweight from the start? Is she then disqualified because of a "history of anorexia"? That's, again, a right and wrong decision you just put in the hand of doctors. It's still a moral question and I think it's high time we stop letting quacks have the last word on it.

 

[We Are The Witches]

I don't agree that anyone thinking castration and grotesque frankentstein surgery turn them into another gender/sex/whatever, are actually thinking straight in the first place.

Well, we can say this for a lot of other things as well, but I believe you can be mentally developed and want this to be performed on you, even if you consider it gross/etc.

We can go to the "bad plastic surgery" thread for some amusement.

That's just a rhetorical trick, no offense. Being eligible for surgery is still a right and wrong question. You are either the "right" canditate, meaning you "have", amongst other things, gender dysphoria or you are the "wrong" candidate for surgery. But the idea of cutting people up because they think they can't hack it in their birth sex is an evil ideal, it's is wrong to even get there. Which is what I was saying.

We're getting caught up in word games with this, one of the things you mentioned earlier was the idea of this being "cosmetic surgery", if that's the case, the "right" and "wrong" simply means if they're qualified to undergo this surgery (such as, it's not a great threat to their life, or that they understand what this is about, they are physically able to handle the procedure, etc). Just like if someone wants to get a liposuction for example, and if it's not simple "cosmetic", then those who do have this desire and dysphoria, would qualify for it.

I don't agree with your idea of "evil", but whatever.

how about she gains before surgery or isn't THAT underweight from the start? (...) That's, again, a right and wrong decision you just put in the hand of doctors. It's still a moral question

If she isn't "that underweight" from the start, she doesn't even qualify for a gastric bypass in the first place.

Yeah, in that case because that woman clearly cannot undergo the surgery. Again, some adult that's mentally and physically capable, that can handle the operation, should be able to request this and get it, if the doctors verify that everything is in order. And if everything is in order, I don't see anything immoral with it.

 

[Private Tag Reporter]

Any line of thinking that considers only the act itself, and not its second-order effects or immediate context is not just short-sighted, but as blind as that dude in John 9. This goes for any sort of high-minded liberal question of "what's so wrong about X?", not just troonery, but any vice or mental derangement. They belong, at best, in the closet, and at worst should be eradicated from public and private life altogether.

There are no mentally healthy transexuals. Gender Dysphoria is made up as a convenient blanket symptom, but is really an excuse for how sick these people really are. Whether it's because they're autistic or gay or depressed or sex-addicted or whatever, transexuals are looking for an easy out to whatever hard problem they have in their life, and staring down the bottom of a bottle or the barrel of a shotgun is too passe for these societal rejects.

So from the outset, the 'live and let live' argument falls on its face, because what these people deserve is compassion: the compassion to say NO. NO, you are not a pretty woman or a handsome man, you're a mentally ill loser who needs psychiatric help before you become a harm to yourself, and more than likely a harm to others - and these people do harm others, passively, by their mere existence. There is no amount of troonery which doesn't violate the non-aggression principle: the mere act of these faggots going outside is an assault on the senses. There is no scenario in which interacting with a transexual isn't uncomfortable for the other party, and this is includes before it was a popular issue with the full force of the state holding a gun to your head if you accidentally call "she" a "he".

The existence of every transexual is an imposition on society to carry the burden of the mentally sick.

That's without touching on the knock-on effects. We can point fingers all day about the negative effects of transgender ideology on almost every vulnerable demographic: women, kids, gays, autistics, and circle around the issue without ever talking about the root problem: that is that many people who would be otherwise mentally healthy if given treatment are fast tracked onto a conveyor belt of self-alienation, shutting out friends and family members, untested mind-altering cocktail drugs, and body auto-mutilation.

Liberal society has enshrined the literal worst practices imaginable for dealing with the mentally ill into a new-age religion called "transgender rights", and I'm sick of it.

There are no happy, healthy transexuals - they would be living happy, healthy lives.

 

[Dr. Eldon Tyrell]

Well, we can say this for a lot of other things as well, but I believe you can be mentally developed and want this to be performed on you, even if you consider it gross/etc.

What kind of retarded standard is mentally developed then, in the first place? It's nothing personal but I have a vague idea about your internal axioms now and I don't share them at all. Not even insinuating you're a bad person or anything and I enjoyed the exchange, this is an entirely new, though nested, topic, which is philosophically intriguing but this will get really, really long and exhaustive. What are you trying to protect exactly even? This "developed" mind which needs to be afforded this vague and somewhat reckless right of "freedom" doesn't really exist as a category for me because I'm way less individualism and way more collective conscious pilled than you, I assume.
I will leave it at that.

I don't agree with your idea of "evil", but whatever.

Yeah, that's another fundamental issue.

 

[Dr. Eldon Tyrell]

If she isn't "that underweight" from the start, she doesn't even qualify for a gastric bypass in the first place.

But why are you trampling on her freedom to choose here, all of a sudden?

it's not a great threat to their life and they understand what this is about, they are physically able to handle the procedure, etc

I cold lift and transpose those points and say:
It's not a great threat to her life
she understands what this is about : even less eating for me, yay!
and she's physically able to handle it

A lot of your argument always loops back to avoiding the actual moral judgement and deferring it to the doctors.
But, as hinted above, I'll agree to disagree and shut it.

 

[We Are The Witches]

But why are you trampling on her freedom to choose here, all of a sudden?

Because she doesn't qualify for gastric bypass, on any level.

What are you trying to protect exactly even? This "developed" mind which needs to be afforded this vague and somewhat reckless right of "freedom" doesn't really exist as a category for me because I'm way less individualism and way more collective conscious pilled than you, I assume.

The freedom for someone to live their life how they want, as long as they don't hurt someone else in the process, and while having effective criteria to prevent vulnerable people (such as minors) to be damaged in the process.

Again, that person I reference earlier, they can live their life however they're most comfortable as, while not trampling on other people's freedoms, which they aren't doing here.

I will leave it at that.

Sure, we'll leave it, was fun talking to you, even if we disagree on a lot.

 

[Dr. Eldon Tyrell]

The freedom for someone to live their life how they want, as long as they don't hurt someone else in the process, and while having effective criteria to prevent vulnerable people (such as minors) to be damaged in the process.

Ahhh, why did you force me to respond. WHY?
Please, you must realize that statement, tho, we're probably both somewhat exhausted, is pure and uncut double think. If the troons live life how they want and don't hurt anyone in the process so does the child, except if you view the procedures as harmful. But if they're harmful it's like that gastric bypass for anorexics, they shouldn't be performed. But I don't want to pin you on that one, last statement, since we were already going in peace. Maybe just let that one sit. I know, I know degrees of harmful in everything, weighing the pros and cons and all that.