Transhumanism Revolution: Oppression Disguised as Liberation


Let’s keep this simple.

Parents marching their Children to the mutilation chambers moved on by the trumpets of social progression pomp and ceremony.

It’s all about final outcomes.


Since we’re discussing gender I’d assumed you meant gender. I had understood that you regarded gender as being determined by X-X/X-Y

But my point is that the gender role is established in essentially all interactions by social interaction: how someone presents themselves.

This is going in a circle. I already referred to this. You took issue with it and said it wasn’t relevant. I responded to that point, and then you come back looking for me to outline again.

Gender is expressed/lived differently in different cultures. When babies are moved from one culture to another, they generally express/live gender and other roles as per the culture they grow up in/adapt to, rather than the one of their genetic parents.

The logical conclusion is that there’s a social/cultural element. There may indeed be a genetic component (and in my opinion, it’s very likely/probable/near-inevitable that there is), but it’s harder to identify/quantify.

“c’mon” :unamused:
You argued for biological determinism, then said you didn’t, and now try to dodge the whole thing by saying…

You argued that people are biologically programmed “to detect fakery”.

I’m really not clear on how the note above relates to basic discussion. There’s certainly a lot of chaff and flares in the air at this stage.

Also, segregation of races is not even akin to keeping slaves. There are many historical examples of racial segregation without slave-ownership, and slave-ownership without racial segregation (e.g. ancient Rome).
In any case, I stand by my point.

This is name calling and using mental health as a basis for insult. What does “no offence” mean to you in this case? It is the typical prelude to the next part of your statement (so sounds entirely idiomatic), but presumably it’s a short form of “no offence intended”, which really highlights that the following comment (given it is not an argument but just name-calling) is clearly anticipated (or hoped) to be offence causing.

Anyway, to reassure you, I’m not offended, but I am a little disappointed. Perhaps that is what was intended…

But I’ve never said anything like that, nor have I heard anyone else bring it up.
Why do you bring it up?

What I find frustrating is when people adhere to “traditional norms” as a rationale for not re-examining how things are or being open to changing things. It’s not because of the word “traditional”. “Traditional norms” is just a subset of “it’s how things are/that’s how we do things around here/etc.,”


These are local genders for local people. :wink:


With respect, it appears to me to be the case that those who tend to advocate in favour of many of these progressive causes rarely, if ever accept the responsibility that attaches to their beliefs when things go wrong. In the example referenced, a sexual predator who subsequently identified as female was placed in a female prison as a result of the broader ideology that underpins the trans movement being accepted by (I think it can be assumed) authorities who were fearful of an activist-fueled public relations backlash if they refused. The result was the sexual assault and rape of a number of women. Rather than accept that the ideology itself may be flawed (ie the notion that a convicted rapist with a penis might not actually be a woman), they chose, as you have done, to focus instead on perceived failings within the system as it stands rather than on the obvious (ie that a convicted rapist with a penis is a man who shouldn’t be placed there in the first place). But that of course would require a degree of introspection or indeed selflessness on the part of the activists invested in the topic, traits that appear quaint in today’s world.

Indeed that much of the focus of the broader movement appears to be on seeking to ensure that a degree of ease attaches to the facilitation of confused juveniles who may get a notion to ‘transition’ is perhaps the most troubling aspect of this particular brand of activism.

. … e37711831/

The old quote from RD Laing that references ‘violence masquerading as love’ seems appropriate to this entire debate whereby vulnerable people, many little more than confused children, are being used to further a political agenda whose ultimate aim appears to be some form of social deconstruction. I would say that the likelihood of Clerical child abuse scandal-type backlash from
the victims of this movement is highly likely in the not too distant future.


you’re conflating a whole bunch of things. This single hard case is a poor way to argue for anything. The issue is anyway really one of someone with a known history of sexual assault against women being put in extended contact with women.

These things can be managed. I know of a current case in the Irish penal system where a natal-male is identifying as a female. Psychological assessment is that the individual is not genuinely trans-gender, should not be put in a female unit, shouldn’t be addressed as female but should be allowed to dress/express as he wishes. The individual wants to be in the female unit, has a history of sexual assault, and is being kept in the male unit on the basis of psych assessment/recommendation and risk management.

This is real, and is being managed quite well I would say. Interestingly, the individual, dressed etc., as a female but among males, is not getting abuse.

So putting aside the case of minors, are we agreeing it’s for the 10-40% remaining people to decide for themselves what do and what gender they are?


I actually think that the world has ended in 2013 and we’re all now living in an Episode of Let’s Pretend

This bit actually deserves a medal because when asked to provide evidence that gender is a social construct…

You just assert that gender is a social construct is an easy case. But biological gender is, like, hard to “quantify”. :stuck_out_tongue:


Well ever since the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment Ive been under the impression that all that is required to be successful in presenting any such argument around social issues was to identify a couple of hard case examples and bang on about them incessantly whilst ignoring any other aspect of the issue at hand. It’s a proven formula for success :wink:

Your anecdote does however offer some hope that sense may preval


I used to drink regularly in the International Bar in Dublin during the Celtic tiger years. One of the regulars was an old school tranny who wore floral dresses and a hand bag whilst sitting at the bar. We all indulged his fantasy and referred to him in the feminine (as demanded by him and his cronies) because we were all of the live and let live school of thought. However that was before the current trend toward Puritanism and the policing of language (and now apparently even 40 year old thoughts) by activists of various hues. As a result, today I think the more likely attitude from the same group would be to tell the same character to kop on to himself.




You’re reading wrong. Biological references were to how much of gender expression is biological and whether “detection of [gender] fakery” was an evolved feature.

In very many cases, this is all that is needed.

I’m not sure if you’d have that correct if you’re thinking of people today who are 20 years younger than yourself, rather than the exact same group today. Incidentally: I’m maybe similar age to you: drank in bars during the Celtic Tiger at least. But I don’t know people in my social circles who have problems with trans-groups/trans-issues.

Is the difference about “being told to do something”. Like being happy to extend to someone the gender-pronouns they ask for, but not wanting to be told that you have to? and being told that at a sort of societal level.

I can certainly sympathise with people not wanting to lose that autonomy, and it’s generally a demotivating approach, whether implemented via nagging or via sanctions. The flip side is that the minority group/individual doesn’t want to feel their position is entirely at the whim of others. They’ll feel better if people extend them recognition genuinely (rather than just because of a rule), but also reassured that they’ve support of institutions/governments if there are some rules there.

If we take an extreme example like murder: I assume mostly people haven’t murdered me because they don’t want to or can’t be bothered (i.e. even if it wasn’t illegal I’d still be alive). That thought (true or not!) is more reassuring than imagining it’s just the law and fear of sanction that’s saved my life: the minute someone thinks they won’t get caught I’ll be dead. But even in that frame, I’m glad the law against murder is there, and the existence of the law makes it easier for me to identify with the culture in which I live.


I’d say the difference is an unworkable level of confusion when some people want to be called one thing, and some another, and some threaten to beat seven shades of shit out of you 'cos you didn’t guess right. You yourself even referred to a psychological test for whether someone is “really” transgender or just pretending.


You can not build a society on unknowable social trip wires, let along linguistic ones.

If you do, you externalise the internals psychological and spiritual schism of one across the many.
It can get pretty ugly fast as the above video illustrates.

Society is built on social trust.

Think for a moment, America is the future glimpsed now (close too than it use to be) - *does the shit emanating from the US seems nice and stable? Does it look stable? Does it feel stable? *I think most would say no to any of those questions if not all. I think many are beginning to realise it is not anecdotally speaking or anywhere else it might appear, especially when cast in tyrannical terms.

All these “useful idiot” sub-groups (It’s like legislating for Trekkies… I want to be called “Captain” I want to be called “Number One”) that have been elevated through a magical crucible of social media (but don’t forget it’s been gently building via the older platforms, TV such as Eurotrash in the 90’s and the likes of Sky myriad of programming touching on these many subject but originally adult world only) and radicalising centres aka universities (+ what’s funding all this) on unsuspecting populations and their children for an undeclared agenda. Then supported in enemy territory by boots-on-the-ground NGO’s bypassing the political and democratic checks and balances.

Why is this trans-this-trans-that an important issue, it’s important not because of the issue per se but the outcome of the issue and what’s it’s taking everyone to - if you don’t have a ratio of Social trust then a tipping point is reached and it begins to destroy Children.

If you destroy Children you destroy Society.

Game over.

It’s an important issue because you would not wish gender dysphoria on your enemy, or would you? :nin

To cut to the chase of why this is even more utterly important than many might suspect.

The final taboo (you thought surgically assisted state paid infanticide was… Ha! WRONG!) is the normalisation of pedophiliia, leveraged using the concept of children having consent equivalent to adults in sexual relations. Bodily autonomy.

Go search for the new re-branding of pedophila as an orientation - MAPS, in case you are like you know tonally unaware of this thing, it’s a thing you know…

A community no less! All these “rights” roads are leading to the breaking of the final taboo. I don’t think taboo is strong enough or exactly the right word in this instance because it infers that it could be broken (like previous taboos, no big deal) but I can’t think of a better phrase right now.

Final point, all these insidious attacks and moves to control start with the re-engineering of our language using a process of normalisation.

It seems a majority of people at once, under the right conditions, using the right techniques can be convinced of anything or to do anything, even if it’s against their best interests or the interests of their children and families well being and bu virtue greater population. To a point that leads to abuse, mutilation even death.

New Minister for Children - Shortest Ministerial career in history or the "new normal"?

The best explanation I’ve seen that accounts for what is going on in the issues seen in the Transhumanism, Migration and Witch Hunt threads is to be found in a book called The Road to Character. Near the end of the book the author summarizes that it all comes down to, which is** Realists vs Romanticists.** If you have a large drop of Realism in you (whether through how you were raised, or what you learned in adulthood), you really feel that Romantics are stone mad. And that the world is turning stone mad - through ever greater narcissism and the war on In-Group thinking. In-group thinking has served us well since the Stone Age. It’s already frowned upon, But it will soon be total illegal. Until Out-Group thinking destroys society.

It continues on and talks about Norman Vincent Peale, Carl Rogers, the Self-Esteem movement, and is very good on Charles Taylor’s concept that we’re living in a society that is focused on “the culture of authenticity”. Being authentic to yourself is a core thing in Transhumanism, for instance. At least I now understand why when someone uses the term ‘authentic self’ I feel like reaching for my revolver !


More slippery slope stuff. You might think that it could never become illegal to merely believe Google’s dictionary definition of woman as an “adult human female”. In Canada it’s already a hate crime to refer to a man who believes he’s a woman as other than a woman. The Thought Police may not have gotten the same legal foothold on this side of the pond yet, but all the same a UK feminist campaign has been labelled a “transphobic hate group” and had a billboard poster taken down (Mail Online article, radio discussion).

In all the looking I’ve done at this, I haven’t come across anyone, anywhere, who thinks gender dysphoric people should not be allowed to assert that they are women. But it seems that in commerce, and quite possibly soon in law, nobody else will be allowed to dissent.That’s a whole different kettle of fish.


I hear of a pension manager facing their own kettle of fish because it’s planning to ask new members of the scheme who assert their gender as other than male/female to confirm their birth gender. The company factors life expectancy projections into its planning - eg, longer life expectancy for females. I see a protest brewing, if not a legal case.


Soon? SOON?

Already there… :neutral_face:


Warning :exclamation: : Do not click if easily offended.]


An explanation of the Progressive savior complex. … r-complex/

…An interesting perspective on the possible motives of some of those involved in popular progressive politics.

Progressivism: support for or advocacy of social reform.


Four natal females talking about “detransitioning”. Some interesting insights in the video and comments.


I don’t know, does it, I mean its kind of strange, but just look at the video below

I know that correlation does not always imply causation, but I can’t help but wonder does obesity cause feminism and artificial hair dye cause transgenderism


You really have to wonder how did it ever get to this level of insanity…

(So much for the so-called “LGBT+ community”. They have little in common it seems.) … spartanntp
*The former Wimbledon champion Martina Navratilova has been criticised for “disturbing, upsetting, and deeply transphobic” comments after she argued that allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sporting tournaments was “insane and cheating”.

The tennis player and gay rights campaigner first drew criticism from equalities activists and trans athletes when she tweeted in December: “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards, and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.”

Writing in the Sunday Times, Navratilova said she had subsequently promised to keep quiet on the subject until she had done some research on it. “Well, I’ve now done that and, if anything, my views have strengthened,” she wrote.*