ive engaged with so many points raised. I cant do everything all at once there's a ton of stuff said. and it's like 5 people constantly barking personalised insults and hyperemotional responses.Sorry to give you the wrong impression - Im not willing to engage with some who poses question after question but refuses to answer direct questions put to them or engage substantively with well sourced evidence, and accuses others of being motivated by internalised transphobia whilst whinging about 'emotive personalisation. Your debating style is like a textbook example of a bad faith argument.
the blanket policy of affirming a teen self-identifying as trans is effectively questioning their sexual orientation. because where that person may just be, say, a gender-nonconforming lesbian girl struggling with their identity, they are now taken to be a heterosexual boy with no scrutiny. which isn't what's necessarily best for them in the long run. I'm not saying therapists should be telling anyone 'you're not trans' - that's not how any good therapy works. but just asking them how they feel about it and what's led them to that point isn't conversion therapy. but this is what activists are attempting to ban.
yeah its very weird. what's a technology of dispute?it is weird how this topic drives everyone mad, everywhere on the internet, it has specific countours that have provoked the same discussion that we're having in this thread on every medium. not to minimise the reality coz its not academic. but one of the things that's going on with the discussion i think is that its a technology of dispute
i just made it up. it's a thing that's been developed that you can use to cause arguments, disagreements. for whatever reason you might want to do that, including political communications etc. but also to fulfil emotional needs.yeah its very weird. what's a technology of dispute?
it is weird how this topic drives everyone mad, everywhere on the internet, it has specific countours that have provoked the same discussion that we're having in this thread on every medium. not to minimise the reality coz its not academic. but one of the things that's going on with the discussion i think is that its a technology of dispute
i just made it up. it's a thing that's been developed that you can use to cause arguments, disagreements. for whatever reason you might want to do that, including political communications etc. but also to fulfil emotional needs.
i'm not saying that's the only thing that's going on when people talk about this stuff. coz the reality is real and important. but that is one part of the mix. the discussion is a multiplicity if that means anything to you, that's the angle i'm coming at this form
Or turkeys feeling uncomfortable around ChristmasIf, as I suspect, it comes down mainly to cis women feeling "uncomfortable" around trans women, then the question that almost asks itself is why that should be considered any more reasonable than homophobes feeling "uncomfortable" around gay people, or racists feeling "uncomfortable" around people who look different from themselves.
You can still have kids after rhinoplastyAnd ofc, this is an exceptionally low rate. 10% of parents regret having kids. 65% of cosmetic surgery recipients regret their procedures with 83% saying they would never have plastic surgery again. The regret rate for knee surgery is 6-30%.
If regret rate for irreversible surgery is the main factor of concern then why aren't there campaigns to ban rhinoplasty, the most common surgery in teens, particularly teenage girls with about 30,000 patients between 13-19 receiving nose jobs each year in the US?
Well done, they are both badJust imagine, 30,000 innocent teens subjected to appalling disfigurement every year in an effort to indulge some passing fantasy about their identity and self-image. This rampant nosing of our kids must be stopped and the doctors who participate in these atrocities jailed.
Some of the actions stemming from it might be subject to choice but much desire is itself unchosen, not least because most of our thinking is unconscious.
That sort of thing is presumably to haul some intrinsically well-formed and once amenable thing from the murky depths but it's not only repressed thoughts that may influence desire but also drives, instincts, urges etc. Sex drive is pretty fundamental; maybe only hunger drive more so...the more fundamental the less it can be manipulated by one's will.as a magikal i.q psychoanalyst it is your duty to bring the unconscious into consciousness.
I'm referring to idealism/materialism...materialism merely concerns the subjectively predictably intractable bits of the fundamentally idealist existence.they are, religion is a holistic theory of the world. modern secularism is not, it is only a theory of a part of the world.
Or to be more exact, it downplays mental states as being determined by matter in motion.