LordsFire
Internet Wizard
The delusion isn't that a person is attracted, the delusion is that it's healthy and moral.
LGBT and the US Conservative Movement
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
The delusion isn't that a person is attracted, the delusion is that it's healthy and moral.
I agree with most of this, except that the surgery solves anything for trannies.
The surgery doesn't solve anything, it just puts money in the pockets of the people who use the trans shit to make bank on procedures and meds.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Well, it’s not “normal” in that it’s atypical, but not being normal isn’t necessarily bad. Saints are abnormally moral, geniuses are abnormally intelligent, someone 7 feet tall is abnormally tall.
As for being unhealthy or not, that is the topic of discussion and cannot be assumed. Homosexuality isn’t unhealthy because it’s a delusion because it isn’t one.
Last edited:
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Or it was an overreaction to overzealous Christians electrocuting them. In fact, a lot of the original stuff is about "please leave me alone" and not much else because they were criminally persecuted for something they didn't have much control over.
...so it's their fault for dying from HIV and AIDS is it? A pair of diseases not well understood in their time, and if anything seem to have been mostly unleashed by the "free love" of the 1960s.
Right.
And the religious right remain utterly shocked as to why no one takes them seriously anymore...
Whitestrake Pelinal
Like a dream without a dreamer
You're still operating within their rhetorical frame, the bogus idea that opposition to sodomites comes from their identity, rather than their disgusting actions. Also, "please leave me alone" was always a stepping-stone to "please give me more rights", then to "give me more privileges, bigot", then to "bake the cake, bigot", then to "give me access to your children, bigot".
Right, it was their fault. Their fault for fucking their way into a disease that was utterly predictable with even the most basic knowledge of germ theory. The communities they formed were Petri dishes guaranteed to incubate some sort of plague that would not have been viable for mass-transmission without said promiscuity.
Blood and/or semen borne diseases are normally highly limited within a healthy human society by cultural limitations on blood and semen transfers; sodomites rejected those. Lethal diseases are normally limited in how much they can be transmitted by their own lethality, by the death of the infected human and thus an end to their ability to transmit said disease. Sodomites bypassed this limitation through aggressive and highly-celebrated promiscuity, so that even a man who would die in a year could still infect dozens before he passed.
Whitestrake Pelinal
Like a dream without a dreamer
That will be a mighty challenging task now that it has been spread to tens of millions of people, particularly those in Africa. We can't even wipe it out in the United States, with our vast wealth and infrastructure; I have grave doubts that we will eradicate it in places where people think raping virgins can cure diseases.
The hard lesson is that it is very, very bad for humanity when we permit communities that incubate and spread blood-borne diseases. So long as we permit them, we can expect more of the same -- new diseases we must fight, and old diseases made resistant to our best medicines.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
...Leading to procreation is, itself, a naturalism bias. Assuming the biological function is the be-all, end-all of a behavior is a pretty damn common form of naturalism bias, because it's obsessing over the "function" of the behavior in natural terms. Pointing to nature and categorical behavior patterns is actually very useful for determining whether or not something is an illness in need of treatment or simply an unusual quality.
The way actual humans behave does not support homosexuality as a mental illness like you initially declared. Because, again, it isn't just enormous swaths of other mammals showing "sexual frustration" is a nigh-unstoppable force leading to "any hole's a goal", we see such strong patterns of it in humans to end up with specific carveouts in law because a blanket ban proved to be incapable of useful enforcement.
Also, common correlation does not render a thing an illness, unless it can be proven intrinsically causal. And again, to enforce any kind of policy against "toxic" relationships you need a staggeringly totalitarian state. As in East Germany, with a massive fraction of the population being payed informants, would be an amateurish starting point. You have to go beyond 1984's hopeless dystopia.
Because relationship toxicity is a private interpersonal matter. You have to intrude into people's private lives to take note of it. Go ahead and look at the measures taken to enforce sodomy laws in the past, and note that trying to stop in on months-long voyages was considered such a hopeless endeavor as to become an exception to them.
Actually no! Sexual transmission is a bit of an outlier condition for disease and when you're in the massive hedonistic swirl of the club "community" it gets extremely hard to trace cause and effect. Germ theory is typically explained in terms of mucous droplets from coughing and sneezing, with sexual transmission's commonplace awareness being specifically because of the HIV epidemic.
Whitestrake Pelinal
Like a dream without a dreamer
Here's some WW2 era propaganda regarding sexually transmitted diseases.
Some of the sexually transmitted diseases in circulation today have been around for centuries. That whores are a source of disease has been known for centuries. Sodomites knew, and did not care; they wanted to rut like animals for the mere pleasure of it. They paid a steep price for it, and now a bunch of people who had nothing to do with them pay their toll as well.
Doomsought
Well-known member
Pragmatism is wrong. What is true has literally nothing to do with enforcement and practicality. Secondly, we are establishing that something is wrong is only the first step in decidign what to do about it, and for something like this public shaming is a perfectly acceptable solution.
That hints at one very interesting topic that illustrates well what issues the general society may have with the alphabet soup people. A disturbing amount of them don't just "have a sexuality" in the same way normal people have, as one of many parts of their lives. For a lot of people the alphabet soup is much more than that, it is a subculture, a way of life, and a surprisingly major part of their personal identity revolves around it, overshadowing most others.
This kind of behavior is rare among heterosexuals, and when it does happen, it definitely is not celebrated, encouraged, excused or welcomed by the "cis-heterosexual community", in fact as far as such a thing exists, it has quite a bunch of rather negative terms for this. The last term in itself is an example of things we don't hear usually regarding the non-LGBT sexuality, we hear a lot about the "LGBT community".
This reach of "LGBT community" well into socio-cultural areas not directly related to sexuality is also reflected in any political polls, which show its members to have political opinions considerably different from a random selection of the general population.
Last edited:
Doomsought
Well-known member
I think this in and of itself should be stigmatized as a mental disorder. Having your rutting define you as a person is inherently demeaning to the human condition and cannot be healthy.
It fixes the mental issue in the sense that the issue is "My fundamental self image of my body is female, but I look into the mirror and don't see that'. The problem exists between what your body physically is and what you know it should be. I've met a Trans man who absolutely hated his boobs, and couldn't wait to get rid of them, for example. Given the limitations on what psychology can do, removing the breasts is actually doable, and then there is no dysphoria, as your body image matches your actual image.
So yes, it is a solution to what Dysphoria is. It isn't a solution to the related comorbidities like depression, which still do need psychological work.
Except a lot of post-op trannies end up killing themselves anyway, so think the surgery actually does much to help is buying a huge Big Pharma lie.
Because as a I said, the surgery doesn't solve anything related to the mental root of the issue, it just feels money into a particularly predatory part of Big Pharma and the medical establishment.
Last edited:
Did you just not read the part about comorbidities? It was right there. Basically, transition solves 1 problem, but you still have years of hating your body in your past to work through in therapy, alongside other problems.
You still need to solve the problem of hating your body now before you can solve other problems. Hence the transition. A lot of Trans people also think transitioning will solve all their problems, which it won't. They're still broke from paying for it, possible exiled from prior friends and family, etc. They just fixed one problem.
They're still the gender that they were born as, so the dysphoria is not actually cured or anything.
If you're a girl who believes you're a man, and you cut off your breasts and take hormones, you are still a woman. You still have gender dysphoria. You've just made modifications to your body.
It's more like managing symptoms. If that makes you happy, fine, I don't care. Adults can do what they want.
But it's not a cure of anything. You can't actually change your gender.
King Arts
Well-known member
You know I make it a point to always pounce on people who justify sodomy with "We can't control it!"
That's a filthy lie almost as disgusting as the sodomy itself. Humans can control their desires, if a gay man was stuck on an island with another man who is straight, are you saying the gay man would try to have sex with or rape the straight man because the gay can't help but have gay sex? Is it a biological need just like food, where you will die if you don't do it? If that is true then homosexuals truly ARE subhuman. Because here is the thing straight men can be around women for years and not have sex with them, because even if a straight man sees a woman as attractive and wants to be with her, he can refrain from doing it if it is not appropriate for whatever reason.
So no homosexuality is a choice you don't have to stick your dick in another man's ass, or let another man stick his dick in your ass. It's not the equivalent of stealing a loaf of bread because you are starving, people have been celibate for millennia.
You mean they cannot change their biological sex.
Conflating biological sex and sexual orientation into 'gender' is part of why a lot of things are fucked when it comes to T issues; they've muddied the waters between biological sex and sexual orientation into the catch all 'gender' and that is completely inaccurate, and even pointing this out often gets you called a bigot by T's.
No, gender dysphoria the condition has nothing to do with how you or I define gender. What matters is how the person with dysphoria sees their body matching up with how their body actually looks.
Basically, if you had someone who delusionally thought they had red hair, a cure would be dying it. It doesn't matter afterwards if the hair is actually blonde, as long as the do the proper dye routine, their self image will match the image they see in the mirror.
AKA we humor their delusion, and then they get to demand that we change bathroom laws and everything else to conform to a T/non-binary bullshit narrative.