all 18 comments

[–]ClassroomPast6178 10 insightful - 6 fun10 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

All I know is that you need to get your genderfluid changed every 15,000 miles or you run the risk of having your big end give out and then you’ll need a full tranny replacement and possibly have to have your cylinder rebored.

[–]BioEssentialism 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

My vote is for orientation, because whenever I dare to bring up what used to be the old Leftist belief that homosexuality is biological and innate, and that you are in fact “born that way” and cannot “pray the gay away,” I got called a bigot Nazi TERF and banned from several woke Discords servers.

Apparently horseshoe theory rings correct and the far left have managed to circle itself back into the far right with their beliefs on sexual orientation.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This all stems from the problem that trans are incompatible with lesbian and gays. Lesbians don't want "girldick," and gays don't want "manvag." The only way the trannies get to be their pretend gender is if things are more fluid than that.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think this was unfortunately a natural development of the discourse. The old leftist belief that homosexuality is biological and innate itself was never fully established because we've never been able to point out with certainly what the biological and innate causes are. And leftist circles enjoyed similar ideological intolerance in the past towards anyone pointing this out as bigoted as well and would conflate it with the right wing talking points and other straw man arguments. This created the culture where the established narrative is not to be questioned and all who do so are to be treated as if they have I'll intent we enjoy now. So it is not surprising that slowly the lowder and more emotional arguments slowly become the standardly accepted ones.

One cannot reason with irate children. The internet merely gives them a mask so they aren't dismissed outright.

Naturally the right wing arguments at the time were equally dubious and held several easily disproved arguments like it was a conscious choice one made. But these arguments were common in religious circles because they see sexual orientation more as a form of temptation to be denied in both heterosexual and homosexual contexts. So when they said, it's a choice, many were saying , you choose rather to have sex or not. Rather than "you choose who you are attracted too."

The argument really began to get into the weeds with tautologies like "love is love" and what not since it basically wasn't an argument so much as a distillation of the entire debate into two ideologically irreconcilable positions of merely good vs evil and fails to identify that both sides are made up of differing opinions. After years of this anyone with an opinion or novel thought to share on either side quickly would learn it's best to say nothing and that merely cedes the floor to the most idiotic and extreme voices, which ultimately will come down to a battle between the pedophiles and the hardline sexual prudish which we are beginning to see form now with trends towards total demonization of normal heterosexual sexual fraternization in public spheres which finds supporters on both the far left as it's seen as deconstruction of the patriarchy and the far religious right where any sexual expression outside the act of procreation itself is suppressed. Since the prudish voices share the largest intersectional share from both political orientations their ideologies will slowly coalesce until another 60's free love style movement begins and the cycles reverse themselves.

Orwell surprisingly got this kind of thing right in 1984 as his descriptions of the Junior Anti Sex League from the party very well capture the kind of prudish attitudes one would think are limited to religious bodies but instead are being implemented by a supposedly progressive and atheist state. However of course the party itself could be easily described as a religious movement. What with Big Brother being the messianic figure, and the two-minutes hate being the holy eucharist.

How interesting it would have been had Orwell been able to forsee the development of technology and the internet. Alas his insight was only into human organizational trends and he sorely lacked imagination on technological advancements.

[–]BioEssentialism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

which we are beginning to see form now with trends towards total demonization of normal heterosexual sexual fraternization in public spheres which finds supporters on both the far left as it's seen as deconstruction of the patriarchy and the far religious right where any sexual expression outside the act of procreation itself is suppressed. Since the prudish voices share the largest intersectional share from both political orientations their ideologies will slowly coalesce until another 60's free love style movement begins and the cycles reverse themselves.

Is this why we’re beginning to see calls for censorship in even fandom circles against ships that are deemed “problematic?” (i.e. typically used to refer to incest and pedo ships, even in it’s most unproblematic forms such as same-sex or adopted sibling incest or age gaps between two adults or a 2 year gap between minors). It’s all “consenting adults who don’t hurt anyone else can do whatever they want with each other” and “love is love” with the Left unless that love happens to go against their total equality agenda and has some type of power dynamic/inequality at play, even consensual power dynamic play-acting kinks like BDSM or DDLG.

It’s important to realize that while similar in their prudishness, the far left and far right both hate certain displays of sexuality for different reasons.

The far right because they typically tend to be either religious or conformist, so for them sex itself is an earthly sin/temptation that humans should rise above and resist and only do it within the sanctity of marriage for the sole purpose of procreation. (Some religions like Judaism take an extreme pro-life stance on the subject and consider any type of male masturbation or sex outside of vaginal intercourse as murder, because even sperm has the sanctity of “a potential life.) And for non-religious far righters, they’re simply against any sex acts that could be perceived to be “degenerate” or “against the norm” such as homosexuality or what-not.

Meanwhile far leftists hardly put any sacred value on sex at all and couldn’t care less about the sexual expression itself, but like everything else in life they view it as yet another attempt at a power play, so any sexual/romantic dynamic that seems to promote inequality or has a built-in power dynamic personally offends them. They’re fine with free & liberated sexuality but that better only be under their perfect equality, non-heterormative, non-racist, same-age terms! Because even personal relationships or simple hobbies such as shipping somehow have to make a statement furthering their Communist agenda to these fucking fanatics. Being allowed to simply enjoy yourself? That goes against the strict Communist Manifesto Comrade, and promotes oppressive power structures that seek to exploit, which must make you an oppressor! /s 🙄

After years of this anyone with an opinion or novel thought to share on either side quickly would learn it's best to say nothing and that merely cedes the floor to the most idiotic and extreme voices, which ultimately will come down to a battle between the pedophiles and the hardline sexual prudish

With the pedophile thing, from my experience I’d say the far left tends to fall under two camps:

Camp 1 - Anarchists/Hyperlibertarians: These tend to be the “only be intolerant to intolerance or else you’re a bigot” types. They have a poor sense of boundaries and have no idea on where the draw the line, morally speaking. To them morality itself is a social construct as they’re firm believers in the whole “cultural relativism” bs doctrine. They tend to be a double-edged sword because on the one hand while they’re not as annoying as the second type of Leftist what with their huge chip on their shoulder and REEING over everything problematic/unequal they can find, these are the types that tend to be legit pedophiles and take their laissez-faire “anything goes” attitude too far as they unironically believe that children can consent and being against pedophiles is just “another form of bigotry.” The category that coined the term “MAP,” because wouldn’t you know it, calling a pedo a pedo wasn’t politically correct enough for these autistic snowflake freaks. Lots of creepy old AGP “transbians,” furries/zoophiles, and other degenerate autists tend to be this type of leftist and they’re most likely the type who are responsible for pushing pedophilia as “just another orientation.” The only good thing about them is that they’re slightly less annoying than the woketard Leftists because their ideology is one solely based on individual liberty, rather than Communsitic revenge/resentment, they just happened to take the whole “tolerance & acceptance” mantra a tad bit too far. Less annoying but ultimately more dangerous to society in the long run if their pedophilia and zoophilia actually manage to get normalized in the mainstream like homosexuality and transgenderism has, that being said that still doesn’t exempt them from being complete and total lolcows.

Camp 2 - Communist Wokesters: Don’t worry, you won’t ever have to worry about this type pushing pedophilia because they hate pedophiles even more than conservative Qtards do. Not because they particularly care about children or anything but because to them pedophilia is the ultimate power play, because children are perhaps the weakest members of society in general so to woketards they view as a choice on the pedophile’s part that they make to exploit and dominate someone weaker than them because they’re incapable of having an equal relationship (which to the woketard is the equivalent of murder or saying the Lord’s name in vein like it would be for devout Christians). See also my explanation above in my first quote of yours why they even vilify Daddy Dom/Little Girl BDSM dynamics despite those only occurring between consenting adults.

Ultimately both categories of Leftists have the entirely wrong idea about the subject matter. Camp 1 believes it’s a legit non-harmful, natural orientation that shouldn’t be “shamed” and society just needs to to be more tolerant of, while Camp 2 believes pedophilia is simply another manifestation of the bourgeois and their narcissistic need to exploit power over those weaker than them. Both fail to see pedophilia for what it really is - a severe Mental Illness.

[–]OuroborosTheory 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

hence my username

[–]LyingSpirit472 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whatever gives the person complaining their way at that specific moment.

[–]clownworlddropout 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Officially they see sex as fixed but socially secondary to gender, which they see as a costume you wear in society. In their worldview orientation is based on these costumes, and not biological sex.

Unofficially they don't believe in bodies at all, they think we're all some kind of divine consciousness piloting meat machines, a homunculus living in our skulls, pulling levers, pushing buttons, and monitoring our biometrics. The goal of life is pleasure and appeasing the homunculus.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Reality is that sex is fixed, orientation becomes fixed through epigenetics. Gender is the social construct but the definition TRAs use is incorrect. It's supposed to represent the sex based caste system defined by culture.

They act like gender is an innate brainsex like a spirit or soul that lives in your head.

From that some of them now try to claim that gender is innate. Orientation is supposed to be innate as well but it's claimed to be based on gender not sex, as if you can see the magic soul they have. This ends up being the big conflict they have with the other 99.9% of humans. They expect that by "identifying as" a sex means everyone is supposed to magically be attracted to them.

The worst part is they are now claiming that sex is a social construct.

[–]Newzok 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mission creep, I guess. I shouldn't be surprised. But what world do people live in to think people's orientation is tied to gender expression? That shit won't fly in the straight world and certainly not in the gay world.

I feel like drag has been co-opted as some way of getting the foot in the door, but that stuff was always about the fuckery of obviously being a man in a dress.

[–]bopomofodojo 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Here is the easiest way to make it not confusing.

The current TRA/enby/TQ++ zeitgeist is basically a mix between a notion of a pseudo-religious "soul", and the philosophically idealist notion that reality is shaped by the mind, not vice versa. Note that below I'll just call this philosophical position "idealist" but this doesn't mean what that word normally means (i.e. "optimistic", read the link), and as an aside, this is why they aren't "Marxists" regardless of what they say they believe or what right-wingers say they believe, but that's a whole different discussion (the tl;dr is orthodox Marxism is materialist, not idealist, where reality > ideas/mind; but we all got silenced pretty early, even before the "TERFs").

Here are the key axioms of this belief structure:

  • There is an immutable "soul", whatever you want to call it, inside each person.
  • This soul has a "gender".
  • "Gender", in the context of the soul, is a vague notion based entirely on performative social gender roles and conceptions of what a particular gender "feels like" to them.
  • This "gender feeling" is entirely internal, and cannot be justified to anyone else; it must be taken as absolute truth by others on demand. It is also thus completely malleable.
  • Depending on the person's biological sex, this "gender feeling" either manifests as MtF, FtM, or "I hate both stereotypes so NB".
  • Because of the idealist philosophical bent, this "gender feeling" of the immutable "soul" inside the person is paramount and dominant over reality.
  • Because of the dominance of the "soul's gender feeling" over reality, biological sex is irrelevant; thanks to "modern medical advancements", they can "alter" this (or so they believe vehemently). Thus they "are" the "sex" and/or "gender" their "soul" claims to be.
  • Because, in their conception, this "soul's gender feeling" is paramount over biological sex, therefore all attraction to them must be rooted in this "soul's gender feeling" and not the objective, biological reality of their sex.
  • Due to this subservience of attraction to the "soul's gender feeling" over sex, sexual orientation is defined entirely in terms of the "soul's gender feeling".

Thus, following this progression of axioms, you can see where most of their ideas come from. A MtF attracted to men is "straight", and the male partner is "straight", even if both are biological men. Vice versa for FtM and women. MtF attracted to women is "lesbian" and FtM attracted to men is "gay" and those communities must bend their definitions of sexual orientation to the "soul's gender feeling" definition, or they're denying this philosophical justification and are thus "transphobic" (i.e. not completely and totally acquiescing to whatever the trans person says is correct vis-a-vis their "soul's gender feeling"). "[Biological] sex is a social construct" and "biological X is a TERF talking point" because they literally believe their "soul" is right, not their chromosomes or genitals. And so one and so on.

So, if we have to strictly rank this, it goes like this:

  1. Gender.
  2. Orientation.
  3. Sex.

But in reality it's far more nuanced than a simple ranking. These 3 things both complement and contradict each other at various points in the tree of axioms, and thus "ranking" them doesn't make a whole lot of sense in practice, since you're never going to trip up this construct with an "aha gotchu" moment. The axioms - even when believers refuse to acknowledge that they are axioms - must be attacked instead.

And another aside: this is why the thought-terminating cliches are so prevalent, why "TERFs" (i.e. radfems or less-rad fems that see through some of these axioms as bullshit) and orthodox materialist leftists must be silenced, etc.: because anyone seriously challenging the axioms will cause the entire chain of logic to fall apart. It's also why I think going strictly after "badly behaving" TRAs (i.e. focusing too much on the fetish aspect) also hurts, because that doesn't attack the axioms and question them, and the narrative doesn't change (attacker is dismissed as a "TERF", the "allies" repeat the cliches, the public yawns, etc.). Only by defeating some of the axioms can the house of cards crumble.

[–]BioEssentialism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Note that below I'll just call this philosophical position "idealist" but this doesn't mean what that word normally means (i.e. "optimistic", read the link), and as an aside, this is why they aren't "Marxists" regardless of what they say they believe or what right-wingers say they believe, but that's a whole different discussion (the tl;dr is orthodox Marxism is materialist, not idealist, where reality > ideas/mind; but we all got silenced pretty early, even before the "TERFs").

It may be Nu-Marxism, (Some unholy Frankenstein creation combining traditional Marxism with Postmodernism and neo-liberal Western values) but it’s still following the Marxist template to a Tee.

Marxism is Q-anon conspiratorial type shit that divides the world into two types of classes, the oppressors (“Bourgeois”) and the oppressed (“Proletariat.)” with absolutely no room for nuance or complexity between these two types. Except the original Marxism was solely focused on the Oppressor/Oppressed dichotomy as applied to Economic Class and Wealth distribution only, meanwhile Nu-Marxists have taken that original Bourgeois/Proletariat template and have applied it to literally fucking everything! Race, Sexuality, Sex Gender, Interpersonal relationships, you name it Nu-Marxism can turn just about anything into the “The Eternal Struggle” as long as there’s some sort of power dynamic/inequality to be had. Because just like the original Marxists, Nu-Marxists have a black & white view on the world and can’t look at people as individuals, they can only see the world through an Oppressor/Victim lens.

Remember, Marxism was the original wokeism. “Woke” as in to “wake up” to the forces around you that seek to oppress and exploit you. It is no coincidence that Nu-Marxists continue to be as atheistic and religion hating as their forebears of old (that is at least when they’re not touting the benefits of so-called deemed “POC religions” like Islam and Hinduism because otherwise “dat’s RAcIsT!”) Traditional religions promote an ideology founded on the beliefs of redemption, salvation and man’s ultimate goodness whereas Marxism/Nu-Marxism is fundamentally cynical, pessimistic, and founded on hate, anger and resentment. Marxists take a dismal view on human nature and see it as an eternal power struggle that they must attempt to squash at every turn in order to keep up their fake notion of “equality,” even if they ironically end up becoming the Oppressors themselves. (Animal Farm actually perfectly illustrates this escalation)

Marxism/Nu-Marxism basically is a religion minus the concept of God/a Higher Power (Their main belief system is a belief in an uncomplicated neat and balanced “Oppressor/Victim dynamic” with their ultimate goal/Heaven being that of “true equality,” and and if you dare profess to see the holes in this system or express doubt in viewing the entire world in this way, you are deemed as one of the “privileged,” aka their religions version of a “Heretic.”) in all but name, and is trying to replace the traditional faith systems of old. But at least the latter offered some path to redemption and weren’t ideologies centered solely around the notion of revenge & toxic victimhood. According to traditional Marxism the only way for a heretic to be “saved” is if you gave up all your life savings, and now with this Nu-Marxism it’s to “identify” as a trans lesbian. (Because god forbid you happen to be born a cis white straight male, the very devil category itself!)

[–]Adventurous_Ad6212 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You have it all wrong. I need to properly orientate myself before my I can shoot out buckets of my gender fluid during sex.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Reality

[–]FlyingKangaroo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At this point everything can be fluid to them.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

TRA can't even get the particularities of what these terms mean nailed down so any sort of discussion on fluidity is pointless.

I'd argue that, since gender isn't actually real and is just mostly made up, it's pretty fluid, especially if we start making up random xenogenders that basically like just reflect like the vibe and stuff. Some days I identify as sleepy-gendered and some days I identify as need-to-go-for-a-pint gendered. It's all nonsense for describing how one feels. And since how one feels is different from day to day and person to person it's meaningless to everyone except the person in question. So is it fluid? I guess, but I'd argue more so the concept is stupid.

Orientation I don't think is fluid in the sense that people can purposely change it. But you will find people's expression of their orientation change over time so I suspect there is some degree of long term fluidity there. This is likely very much driven by someone's hormonal state. I have a hard time accepting asexuality as a valid sexual orientation for this reason rather than simply a lack of libido. I suspect the ultimate causes for homosexuality (or heterosexuality as well) to be a complex mix of psychological and hormonal factors that can change subtlety over time. Naturally this kind of thinking is not in vogue as it implies that there is potentially a scientific basis for trying to "fix" someone's sexuality which is a taboo topic. I don't ascribe to any kind of treatment for these sorts of things bring necessary for anyone especially if they are happy with themselves. Better to leave well enough alone.

Sex is clearly genetically derived and apart from occasional mutations that occur is fully binary and is fixed from the point of conception. It cannot be changed in humans by any natural or known artificial means.

There are examples in the animal kingdom of sex being fluid. Clownfish are a notable example. But non-human sexual reproduction methods don't have much bearing on human reproduction. One cannot simply identify as an amoeba and reproduce via mitosis despite that form of reproduction being extremely common in nature.

Gender is a fully human concept and has no bearing on anything in nature. Sexual orientation can be argued to exist in nature as the behavior of same-sex mating behavior has been observed. But it again is separate from the idea of gender and falls into the basic classes of Heterosexual and Homosexual activity or some mix of the two.

The other kinds of sexual orientation and genders beyond this seem to be referring more to fetishes and other mating preferences than anything that could be described as an orientation. We do not say for example someone who is primarily attracted to black people would be a negrosexual and the very concept is not socially recognized despite clearly being a real thing. Neither do we refer to those who only are interested in redheads or christians as separate sexual orientations l rather than mating preferences and fetishes despite there being very clear indications of such preferences not merely being a conscious choice on the part of the individuals involved and having some biologically driven component to them.

I'd maintain that sex and orientation are biologically derived and sex is not fluid, orientation can be but is not intentionally fluid. Gender in the modern parlance exists only in the sense that it's part of the larger human social fabric surrounding mating rituals and is not much different than the kind of dances birds do to attract a mate. The key point we are seeing here is the female of the human species is generally the one whom decides on the attraction of their mate and they've decided that traditionally masculine expressions of "gender" are no longer in vogue so the males of the species are adapting to various non-masculine expressions of dress and behavior in order to woo the females and copulate successfully.

[–]BioEssentialism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I suspect the ultimate causes for homosexuality (or heterosexuality as well) to be a complex mix of psychological and hormonal factors that can change subtlety over time.

It’s nature’s way of preventing overpopulation and maintaining an ecologically sound population stability, simple as. This is the reason why homosexuality can be observed in nearly all mammalian sexually reproducing species, while I’m sure fluctuating hormones play a factor in the major of the population who might be somewhat more on the bisexual spectrum than strict heterosexuality - there does exist a small portion of the population for whom homosexuality is entirely hardwired and cannot be changed. Usually these tend to be men with a surplus of older brothers according to studies, unlike the heterosexual troons you can tell these homosexuals are legit and it’s not a choice for them because they exist in every race, culture, and region in the world even despite how violently homophobic said society would be. Ironically enough, these are the types who tend to be actual transsexuals as they frequently transition in the 3-world parts of the world because they are utterly incapable of living their lives as a normative member of their biological sex and cannot change their orientation. (And yes they’ve tried conversion therapy with these actual homosexuals through the use of hormonal balancing, it didn’t work.)

Gender in the modern parlance exists only in the sense that it's part of the larger human social fabric surrounding mating rituals and is not much different than the kind of dances birds do to attract a mate. The key point we are seeing here is the female of the human species is generally the one whom decides on the attraction of their mate and they've decided that traditionally masculine expressions of "gender" are no longer in vogue so the males of the species are adapting to various non-masculine expressions of dress and behavior in order to woo the females and copulate successfully.

And this is why the modern trans slogan that orientation and gender identity are completely separate and therefore “gay transmen” and “trans lesbians” can exist is complete and utter bullshit! Sexual orientation and Gender (as we understand it to be a synonym for biological sex, not the way the troons use it to mean gender roles) are inexplicably linked, otherwise we wouldn’t be a two sex, dimorphic, sexually reproducing species and would be single-sex, asexual amoebas instead. This is why the whole “heterosexual trans” phenomena is something that is only occurring in the White & privileged West whereas you’ll never once see a straight tranny out in the 3rd-World, they’re all HSTS over there. Find me an old AGP hon trans lesbian out in like Africa or the Middle East and I’ll show you a unicorn, they just don’t exist. This more than anything else is proof that sexual orientation and gender are directly linked and all the heterosexual Western troons are just cosplaying.

[–]Totoro 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is most fluid according to TRA science: orientation, gender or sex?

Whatever they feel they need to fluidly change at the moment to command their will.