Off-Topic Random Trans Thoughts, Musings, and Questions - For all your armchair psych and general sperging

[Wallace]

I swear in the early 2010s the Q stood for "questioning", the A also stood for "allies" not "asexuals/aromantics/allosexuals/whatever else it is these days". That has just been straight up memory holed. It's incredible.

I remember that too. Back when "queer" was a slur and gay people wanted allies instead of props.

EDIT: And "GSA" stood for Gay-Straight Alliance instead of Gender and Sexuality Alliance.

 

[Lil Yappy]

I've always hated the representation argument. People should not rely on fictional characters to supply self esteem/self worth/self respect. You cannot be truly fulfilled by latching onto some commercialized mass media product. Healthy minds are fostered by real world people and events. Not fake and fictional "role models" supplied by Disney. Humans have always had storytelling but only in the last ten or so years has everyone needed to be "represented".

 

[AMHOLIO]

Where does the "Q" in "LGBTQ" come from?

Q anon


I think you're pretty thoughtful, but as no group is a monolith and many LBG people realizs they're homo without even touching a college organization, I still feel that the radically queer is a bait and switch more by the inner circles of queer groups and college campus radical type gays. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if a number of them were just straight and either degens or ass licking lackeys. The casual homosexual is likely as unaware as the person next to them is. A whole gay or lesbian bar would maybe have 10% know about this, most came to either hang with their friends or bang each other.

 

[Bumbling Idiot]

Has there ever been any record of a child killing himself or herself because they didn't see themselves reflected in cartoons?

Maybe kids should be given other reasons to have self-worth that isn't based on a media franchise designed to make someone money.

My childhood cartoons involved Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig and Sylvester

Somehow I coped, despite not everything in the universe being about me

 

[Tragi-Chan]

Queer Nation's manifesto called for "a moratorium on straight marriage, on babies, on public displays of affection among the opposite sex."

God I love it when small minorities post these unenforceable power fantasies. Like, what are you going to do if I refuse? The troon ones are the funniest, because they contribute nothing to society, so they have no power of any kind.

Nobody seems to agree on what "queer" is.

It means “I want to be part of an oppressed minority, but I don’t want to risk actually being oppressed.”

 

[Nader Shah]

I've noticed there's actually an analogy to made for lesbians and the greater "Queer"/trans community with the dynamic between Arab Christians and Arab Muslims. Hear me out. You get minorities of TERFs/radfems who say TTD, and Maronites or overseas Arab Christians who say TMD. Then you have a plurality who quietly accept the girl-dick/Mohammed-dick with some ambivalence. Then you get the brown nosers, the assimilationists, who think that if they suck up hard enough it won't be so bad. Here I'm thinking of the many Christian Arab Nationalists, be it in the Ba'ath or other parties, who were basically supporting sectarian nutjobs, and the many lesbian Queer activists who will die for the almighty T, probably because they still haven't met enough AGPs IRL and think they're all tortured homosexuals. Similar enough dynamic I'd say. Food for thought.

 

[Aunt Carol]

I swear in the early 2010s the Q stood for "questioning", the A also stood for "allies" not "asexuals/aromantics/allosexuals/whatever else it is these days". That has just been straight up memory holed. It's incredible.

A timeline with woke-approved citations would be an amazing peaking tool. So much of this relies on the death of history.

Remember when you had to say "trans*" with the asterisk, or "trans*women" the same way you say veg*an to cover vegetarians and vegans? And then overnight the asterisk was a slur. And then "transwomen" became a slur because it has to be "trans women" with the space.

Just being able to point out the dates that the euphemism treadmill advanced a step forward would be helpful.

 

[Wallace]

God I love it when small minorities post these unenforceable power fantasies. Like, what are you going to do if I refuse? The troon ones are the funniest, because they contribute nothing to society, so they have no power of any kind.

Every utopian fantasy has to find a way to deal with those who either can't or refuse to exist in the utopia. The answer is the same each time: the offenders must be removed. Best case scenario, the utopians erect a giant wall and throw the offenders out into the wastelands. Far more likely, they resort to eugenics and mass executions instead.

Troonery/woke is no different. Anything that is an obstacle to the utopian fantasy must be destroyed. Gender crit family members, human nature, biology, you and me. All must be destroyed by any means necessary so they can bask in the splendor of their fantasy.

Look under the surface of any utopia and you'll find tyranny and mass murder. But its okay, because the tyrant is oh so benevolent and the people who are getting murdered deserved it because they are bad.

Also see here.

Bonus: What do you call it when you think that you should be able to reshape the world and compel others to act solely because you demand it? Pride.

 

[FATTESTCUNT 2.0]

I hate the bullshit "it's not a pie" argument I've seen popping up on X/Twitter recently.

The premise is that giving equal rights to one group does not, and can not, take away rights from any other group, i.e. if I eat a slice of pie, it doesn't mean someone else has to go hungry.

It's obviously bullshit and there are so many examples of why when it comes to troonery, but it seems that just chanting a slogan over and over again is a perfectly acceptable replacement to actually having something to back up your argument with in troon/leftist world.

 

[Polexia Aphrodisia]

The premise is that giving equal rights to one group does not, and can not, take away rights from any other group, i.e. if I eat a slice of pie, it doesn't mean someone else has to go hungry.

Giving troons equal rights as women takes away my right as a woman to have spaces I can go without males being there.

I don't want to go to the pool and go to the locker room and see a man with greasy long hair walking around with his dick out, but it's totally ok because he's going to put on a woman's swimsuit and he calls himself Charlotte.

 

[Vandyke Clown]

It just occurred to me to share a story.

I remember being a shitbag teen browsing porn on stile project, when I came across a video of a man nailing his bollocks to a table. Not just through a bit of loose scrotal sac, it was nails right through the meaty centre of each bollock. An obviously one-way ticket.

At first I thought it must be a movie special effect, but what kind of movie has a scene like that? Then I thought maybe it was some kind of mafia punishment, but there didn’t seem to be anyone else involved.

With hindsight it’s obvious: it must have been an early troon - at the time, we would have said transsexual - who had worked himself up into such a psychotic frenzy that insane self-harm was looking to him like a good idea. His own testicles had become pubic enemy #1, and he was just dealing out righteous vengeance against the imagined source of his own hated masculinity.

I do wonder if he ever had some kind of post-nut (literally) clarity.

Did he think to himself “Yes! I’ve destroyed the wee buggers! Now I’ll finally be a real woman!”

One imagines him standing there, naked and triumphant - and firmly attached to the table for the rest of his miserable nutless life (which probably wasn’t long judging by the blood loss).

Nowadays of course, in our more civilised times, troons don’t need the DIY option - they can get a respectable doctor to do it for them. We call it “care”, and “affirmation” and “life-saving”, and it’s all about being your true inner self, and not at all about being a demented lunatic obsessing over your own genitals.

 

[Peaches Carpenter]

A podcast/channel I follow, Cults to Consciousness, is hosted by an ex-Mormon who interviews other survivors of cults or "high-control groups." None of the usual annoyances, appropriate tone, promotion only of themselves and the guests' work. Most interviewees have had to work hard to truly build their own lives from nothing, and seem to be thriving.

What I've heard so far skews a bit average-leftish, but not often heavy on politics or gendershit, other than for cultural context. Their scope has included sketchy non-religious orgs, gurus, and abuse in mainstream religions, while recognizing the distinctions versus cults. I've just started a May episode about the U.S. military.

I covet an episode about the gender fandom. Not because it's a megapopular channel (it's not) or because other internet talking heads haven't tackled this (they have). C2C seem like they could handle it approachably, with tact and without politicizing.

There's also potential for very good insight. Many guests have discussed the phenomenon of leaving one abusive, high-control situation only to fall victim to another. There are almost certainly people whose gender issues were enmeshed with a difficult religious upbringing; there must be detransitioners or self-aware transsexuals at that intersection who'd make excellent guests.

Given the range of topics already covered, and the impression I get from the host(s), it almost almost seems they'd be open to this type of episode. All they have to do is what they already do: give survivors a platform to reveal their experiences, even if C2C don't necessarily agree with all they say. Unfortunately that's a career-suicide gamble until the US reaches critical mass or abruptly peaks. The seal's being heavily tampered with, but it's not broken.

 

[TruffleSpark]

Spoiler: text

Hate the identity craze

Your aesthetic is not your identity. Movies you watch are not your identity. Your URL is not your identity. Your pronouns are not your identity.
Stuff you arrange in order to get external validation by tricking people into perceiving you as "cool and weird" is not your identity. If it was you wouldn't need to shove it into everyone's face like it's your only personality trait. Your frog earrings and and desire to rewatch Hannah Montana for the third time this year are not who you are. You want to be unique by imitating cool trends or making up generic quirks and lose everything that could possibly be unique about you. "Weird" people don't try to be weird. In fact, they don't give a fuck what others think of them. That's the opposite of you

The very concept of having an identity is insane. It's a self-referential death spiral of trying to cling to things and ideas that you associate with yourself, in order to get others to associate "you" with what you perceive yourself as being.
In reality, who someone "is" is entirely defined by how others see them, so by trying to force people to see you in a specific way, you are that "identity" in the same way an actor is their role; you've turned your entire life into a performance of trying to maintain the illusion. And if "who you are" requires effort to maintain, guess what, it's not really who you are.
I think the problem was saying "Be yourself", to people who don't understand the concept of the self, when the actual point that was being made was "Don't put on a facade in order to fit in". Instead they've taken "Be yourself" to mean "You decide what labels apply to you, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise", and started making up new things to "identify as" in order to feel like they're part of something, and the rest of us are all forced to play along and miserable because of it.

This is something I think about. Since gender is a "social construct", does it still exist if you are not part of a society? If you are only a man or woman because society says so are you still a man or woman if you get marooned on a desert island and have no other people to interact with?

 

[Jacques1194]

I hate the bullshit "it's not a pie" argument I've seen popping up on X/Twitter recently.

The premise is that giving equal rights to one group does not, and can not, take away rights from any other group, i.e. if I eat a slice of pie, it doesn't mean someone else has to go hungry.

It's obviously bullshit and there are so many examples of why when it comes to troonery, but it seems that just chanting a slogan over and over again is a perfectly acceptable replacement to actually having something to back up your argument with in troon/leftist world.

The problem I have with it is that you'll never get full equality because one group will always get screwed over by another group. We see this bullshit when TRAs tell teenage girls to shut up if the majority of them fell uncomfortable showering with a boy who thinks hes a girl. At that point it isn't equality but "minority privilege". (aka he deserves a piece of the pie more than you do) Why does one person's dysphoria over being in the boys bathroom matter more than the girl's comfort? Another example I've seen is that whenever a black person doesn't get a job they can just cry racism and get the ACLU to launch a full scale investigation into it. However, if a white person doesn't get the position (Especially if it was taken by a diversity hire) then they are told to stop being a "sore loser" and work harder. Personally, a lot of leftist seem to believe that minorities deserve special rights over the majority because they truly believe minorities can never succeed if we were really treated equally.

 

[WTBOnlineFather]

Here's something that's been bugging me for a while.
I have a tranny coworker. I haven't met him, he lives in another country and we only communicate via zoom and messaging. I have never seen him, either, as he never turns on his camera for obvious reasons. He's been out as a tranny since before I began working with him.
This guy, barring his obviously cringy tranny persona, is a pretty good coworker. He knows his shit, he's always available to help, he's friendly. You can tell he likes to hear himself talk a bit too much but it's not too bad.

Now, I have heard him speak. He's a man. He will always be a man and sound like a man. He has an extremely masculine voice and sounds like he's in his late 40s at least. When I hear others refer to him as "she" it hurts my brain a bit because the moment you hear him speak the illusion is instantly and totally shattered. The company we work at is somewhat woke and any kind of "transphobia" would land us in shit so everyone is playing along, including people who I imagine have no patience for tranny bullshit.

Here's the conundrum: I have a morbid curiosity about researching who this guy is. As any tranny I am 100% sure he is terminally online, probably has a twitter account where he spergs out about dumb shit, posts L's and engages in degeneracy. I think it'd also be really funny to put a face to the voice and see what kind of ultrahon he is.

On the other side there is value in remaining blissfully ignorant as it makes it easier for me to overlook the whole tranny thing. If the man really is as comically disgusting as I believe he is I don't know if I'll ever be able to talk to him with a straight face again lol.

Have you ever been in a similar situation dear kiwis?

 

[Amber the Hedgehog]

Here's something that's been bugging me for a while.
I have a tranny coworker. I haven't met him, he lives in another country and we only communicate via zoom and messaging. I have never seen him, either, as he never turns on his camera for obvious reasons. He's been out as a tranny since before I began working with him.
This guy, barring his obviously cringy tranny persona, is a pretty good coworker. He knows his shit, he's always available to help, he's friendly. You can tell he likes to hear himself talk a bit too much but it's not too bad.

Now, I have heard him speak. He's a man. He will always be a man and sound like a man. He has an extremely masculine voice and sounds like he's in his late 40s at least. When I hear others refer to him as "she" it hurts my brain a bit because the moment you hear him speak the illusion is instantly and totally shattered. The company we work at is somewhat woke and any kind of "transphobia" would land us in shit so everyone is playing along, including people who I imagine have no patience for tranny bullshit.

Here's the conundrum: I have a morbid curiosity about researching who this guy is. As any tranny I am 100% sure he is terminally online, probably has a twitter account where he spergs out about dumb shit, posts L's and engages in degeneracy. I think it'd also be really funny to put a face to the voice and see what kind of ultrahon he is.

On the other side there is value in remaining blissfully ignorant as it makes it easier for me to overlook the whole tranny thing. If the man really is as comically disgusting as I believe he is I don't know if I'll ever be able to talk to him with a straight face again lol.

Have you ever been in a similar situation dear kiwis?

Ignorance is a bliss and you can't get it back. You will always have coworkers that have something disgusting going on the side. If they are professional enough to keep it clean during work hours, let them. It makes your life easier. Don't bother to find out unless you are already on your way out.

That to be said, feel free to report here if you come across something fun.

 

[doodoocaca]

https://x.com/somethingmoder/status/1799452798767317221

Viral vector. Totally safe.

 

[Wallace]

https://x.com/somethingmoder/status/1799452798767317221

View attachment 6070957

Viral vector. Totally safe.

It's not like those are exactly hard to make. I could probably make one in an afternoon if I wanted.

Even if CRISPR works in humans, which it does not, that gene only matters during very early development. Like, in the zygote stage. Injecting something like that into a person probably wouldn't do anything except maybe give them cancer.

 

[doodoocaca]

It's not like those are exactly hard to make. I could probably make one in an afternoon if I wanted.

Even if CRISPR works in humans, which it does not, that gene only matters during very early development. Like, in the zygote stage. Injecting something like that into a person probably wouldn't do anything except maybe give them cancer.

So my not-a-geneticist-ass was worried for nothing and the troon did nothing but inject his balls to larp?

That's a massive relief.

 

[Susanna]

Even if CRISPR works in humans, which it does not

It does work, it's just not legal.
You can have designer babies crispred to be immune to HIV or a number of other diseases. People have already done so. It's just that the diseases we have gene tweaks for are often easily treated (modern HIV treatments are so effective you'd struggle to spread it even through direct blood contact, not that you should try), and the gene tweaks themselves come with drawbacks. Aforementioned HIV immunity comes at the cost of increased vulnerability to influenza, so it's hardly worth it when you could just choose not to engage in sodomy or needle sharing instead.

So my not-a-geneticist-ass was worried for nothing and the troon did nothing but inject his balls to larp?

That's a massive relief.

If he did do this, he would have disabled a set of genes that tell his body to produce testicles. As he already had testicles, the effect would be minimal. I suppose over time, he might produce less testosterone because any new cells will be malformed? But presumably he's already destroying his testicles with estrogen anyway, so I don't think it would make a big difference. If you did it on a fetus, I suppose you might make it intersex? It wouldn't form testicles, but the Y-chromosome and endocrine testosterone is still there so I think the result would be more like Klinefelters' (XXY males, tiny testicles and very soft masculine to borderline feminine appearance) than the CAIS syndrome the troons are fantasising about (XY males genetically, but completely immune to testosterone which results in a female appearance).
I wonder how they imagine they would have put this to use. I know "Woe is me, I should have transitioned at 14 instead of at 25, I'm too masculine to ever pass!" is a thing they do, but will it now be "Woe is me, I should have told my parents to transition me while I was still in the womb, now I'll never have wide hips!"?