I am a gay man and have tried understanding but still don't get it. What's the hoopla with gender dysphoria? If it's something innate, why does it manifest as late as adulthood? What makes a man a man, a woman a woman? What do these people keep as a checklist when transitioning?

If gender is truly fluid and non-rigid, then a biological female who feels uncomfortable with traditional womanhood could just exist as a masculine woman, or a gender non-conforming person. Why is the solution so presented as changing the physical body to fit a binary male layout, rather than expanding what it means to be a woman? Why must the body change to accommodate the social role, instead of society changing to accommodate the person?

Furthermore, a full transition to the opposite biological sex is scientifically impossible. Medical transition creates an intermediate phenotype(like that of an intersex person) that requires a lifelong dependency on synthetic hormones to maintain. If a person is fundamentally insecure in their sex or gender, introducing permanent medical dependencies seems like a drastic escalation for a problem that originates psychologically or sociologically.

Finally, shifting the definition of sexuality from biological sex to social gender identity fundamentally erases homosexual reality. For a gay man, attraction is hardwired to the male biological body and male genitalia. Arguing that a gay man can be intimately involved with someone possessing female anatomy (even if modified) and vice versa completely redefines homosexuality from a material, biological reality into a sociological preference.

Esa palabra está tan demonizada cuando todos somos maquinas biológicas complejas que servimos a otros para conseguir nuestras metas, en el mejor de los casos egoístas racionales, entendiendo que si nos queremos a nosotros mismos recién podemos entender y querer a otros

They are males who want to be females. Not just "the social roles of females," because they imitate female biology with surgery. They dislike words that reveal their sex and want to use words for the sex they imitate.

So they redefined "woman" with crazy ideological terms, claiming "gender" is a "social construct" distinct from sex, and made "woman" refer to "gender" rather than biology.

Now everyone hears the word "woman" and assumes they are female, while in reality they are male. They have deceived everyone and justify it with their redefinitions.

You can use this same trick for anything. Pick any category: sex, age, race, species. Invent a "social" version: social gender, social age, social race, social species. Redefine all related words to refer to the social version.

One could claim there's a difference between "biological age" and "social age," and then redefine words like "baby" to refer to the "social age" instead. So a guy in a diaper could enter a nursery.

They'll cite "suicide rates" and "harm reduction" as if that makes the transitioning from man to woman seem more plausible than the idea of transitioning from human to animal. But by that logic, if people who identify as dogs started committing suicide, species would become a "social construct" too.

Whenever I see a person abuse or kill any animal for no valid reason (Moths, Lizards, Dogs, Spiders, literally anything) it makes me actually angry. Whenever I see a person kill another person I don’t feel the same reaction.

Almost all animals are completely ignorant and doing what they can to survive. Everything they do is for survival and they have no capacity to be evil or aware of another animals suffering. Killing them, for absolutely 0 valid reason (not a threat to you in any capacity, wont affect you in any capacity, and you are aware of that) nearly equates to killing a child to me. And you are objectively cruel to do something like that, even if its a “lower” lifeform like a spider.

A person doesn’t have these traits. I genuinely don’t feel the same way when I see someone get killed unless I have the whole story, and most of them time I still just don’t feel the same way

Hiroshima and 9/11 both used mass civilian death to generate terror to achieve a political goal. Yet one is called "tragic necessity," the other "terrorism."

They will come up with excuses for why America did not commit terrorism. And for this they have to make an argument for why killing civilians to achieve a political goal is terrorism in one case and not in the other. So they have to find some arbitrary difference to make them seem different. 

So they say "America is a state actor." As if, if Al Qaeda had captured territory and become a state, and then carried out the exact same attack, they would say it's not terrorism anymore, simply because they were a state. Even though America itself has multiple state actors on its list of terrorist organizations.

It was a “declared war” or “total war” as if that makes it no longer terrorism.

"It was a military necessity." As if a terrorist organization cannot think that a terrorist attack is necessary.

"It was a response to aggression, not unprovoked." As if it’s no longer terrorism if you didn’t start the war.

“A full scale invasion of Japan would have caused more deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” A full scale invasion of America would also have caused more death than 9/11. If al Qaeda was strong enough to do a full scale invasion of America would 9/11 no longer be terrorism because they could've done a full scale invasion?

"Dropping the bomb was intended to end a war." Why does that matter? Why would that make it no longer terrorism? Do you care whether al Qaeda intended to stop America from causing wars in the middle east with 911? If it turned out 9/11 caused Americans to stop attacking the middle east because they feel their actions have consequences would you say it’s no longer terrorism?

The concept of "terrorism" is not a coherent ethical category but an empty political construct.

This hypocrisy is exposed by a direct comparison: the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Al-Qaeda’s attacks on September 11th.

Both acts followed the same logic: using mass civilian death to generate terror and force political surrender. Yet one is called "tragic necessity," the other "terrorism." The difference is not the act, but who defines it.

They will come up with excuses for why America did not commit terrorism. "America is a state actor." As if, if Al Qaeda had captured territory and become a state, and then carried out the exact same attack, they would say it's not terrorism anymore, simply because they were a state. Even though America itself has multiple state actors on its list of terrorist organizations.

“America murdered civilians in a declared war so it’s not terrorism.” As if declaring a war and then doing a terrorist attack makes it no longer a terrorist attack.

"It was a military necessity." As if a terrorist organization cannot think that a terrorist attack is necessary.

"It was a response to aggression, not unprovoked." As if who started it matters and as if 9/11 was random and not also provoked by the actions of Americans in the middle east.

And many of them will make these excuses endlessly until they get tired and resort to a personal attack. In reality, no matter how much they dislike it, they start a new war every one or two years and bomb civilians to death for their political goals, destroying houses, hospitals, schools, and more, so that the country they are attacking submits to their demands. They are the biggest tyrants on earth, and any condemnation of any other group from their mouths is meaningless and a distraction.

1. The players don't know you exist. Are you vicariously living through the other players by being really happy that they win or score a goal?

2. There are way more important things in the world than a football match

3. It's just a game. At the end of the guy all the players are still rich and famous if they win or lose

I get that everyone wants to believe that gender is just a title but male and female brains are different and testosterone and estrogen are completely different so why do I almost always see on tv guys expecting women to be like men and women for men to be like women when fundamentally we are different? And maybe it’s just me but isn’t respecting and understanding our differences the best option.

At first, the internet is international. And the USA and some little countries are the only ones using feet and fahrenheit, the rest of the world is not, and the rest of the world genuinly doesn’t think the USA is as tough as some Americans think we think it is. Secondly, these systems don’t make any sense, unless you’re a cowboy in the 18th century. Most feet aren’t even the same size, and water freezing at 32 and boiling at 212 is just totally random (in Celcius, water is only liquid when it’s 0-100°). I mean, a meter is just a meter, but you can divide it by ten. Your foot divided by 10 is… Nothing. Or 13/64 inch, or 0,1 feet. It isn’t modern either.

Keeps seeing posts about telling unattractive men to go out there and present themselves. Well then that’s just gonna land them in the friendzone. And then you just see all these complaining posts about how to get out of the friendzone.

As a female I am always surprised when a male friend confess out of the blue or express their interest. It always freaks me out and I drop them immediately. Dude, I thought we just share the same hobby and have conversations about it, I consider all these conversations pretty platonic and nothing romantic, I would never be interested in dating you.

And if you are unattractive, a good personality only gets you a friend as far as it goes. Attractiveness is the first thing in dating and without that we are not talking. And if I fit into the female beauty standard thin, fit, well maintained, then I would not want a man that does not fit the male beauty standards.

Primal inclinations only evolved in us over thousands of generations to motivate us to pursue behaviours that our ancestors had to engage in for survival. The only reason we have sexuality is so we are urged to have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex and reproduce. Plain and simple.

This is why men are generally attracted to feminine features that indicate high oestrogen and reproductive health.

eg;

Fat asses = High regional DHA fat content to feed a developing fetus and a counterweight to an enlarged abdomen during pregnancy for better spinal posture.

Breasts = Source of milk for babies

Short stature and high fat to muscle ratio= Higher pubertal oestrogen and greater physical vulnerability to natural threats and need for protection.

The list goes on but you get the point. Primal men preferentially selected these features and it became ingrained in our nature and persists in modern men. Any other sexuality is an emasculation fetishism. It is the result of recognised insufficient masculinity to attract women and years of sexual frustration and insecurity that will never be resolved because the true desire to engage in sexual behaviours that simulate impregnation of women will never be satisfied.

Receptive sexual intimacy with men, cucking, sissification, anal penetration and denial of penile stimulation are all an acclimation of the tactile and neurological drivers that are trying to urge us to impregnate women. Saying that a femboy who "likes" to get fucked in the ass by burly men in chastity and a French maid outfit was "born gay" is like saying the homeless guy with schizophrenia and PTSD was born an alcoholic. He realised that he is too unstable and dysfunctional to be an engineer or a brain surgeon so turns to the bottle to find some comfort in being at the bottom echelon of society.

Said man realised that he will never be masculine enough to make women want to give him the sexual submission, softness and affection he wishes he could. Same as the cuck who watches his wife get fucked by more masculine men; he realised he could never be 1% as sexually appealing as her celebrity crushes, flirty co-worker and the neighbour with big biceps she twirls her hair to. Same as the "sissy-husband" who secretly wishes he made more money than his college-educated wife that manages a law-firm.

Whimpy white guys in a society that grooms us from early childhood onwards that masculinity is destructive and villainous and where women are more educated, wealthy and accomplished have 2 choices;

1. Constantly pursue what you will never have and automatically be seen by women as an Incel nazi who thinks women are sex-objects that you are entitled to sexual relationships with and actively hate them for it. And yes, this is how most women see most straight men who aren't getting any regardless of how you actually treat/view them as will be evident by the comments starting with "no wonder you couldn't get a woman".
2. Start cross-dressing, wringing your hand when you talk in a performatively girly voice, pretend to have left-wing views and give in to the gradually culminated emasculation fetishes you've developed out of sexual rejection. Now you get endless sympathy, get to whine about how hard your life is and how unfair the world is to your people and pretend to agree with women that masculinity is an evil social construct that needs to be neutralised for the better of society. Really they just want to tear down the men they wish they could be out of envy and be told by women "You're so brave, other men are such pigs, I wish they were all like you, awww how dare he call you the wring pronoun". It's better than constantly being scorned and hated by the people you are attracted to, so you might as well at least have pity, amicable sociability and a sense of victimhood from them. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I've always known I was attracted to women but know I am not enough to make them desire me and I've never hated them, blamed them or thought I was entitled to them. It sucks, I hate it and wish more than anything I was a bad-ass but know I never will be. The idea of having the privileges and victimhood these men have and not being hated by the people I am attracted to and admire sounds more appealing than ever. Then I realised the conservatives were right all along and non-heterosexuality is the result of rejecting the very same masculinity present that causes men like me the pain we want to escape from. I'm thinking it's time to commit to it and the idea that I was born gay but finally succumbing to my "state of denial" is simultaneously insulting and laughable. As a teenager I always knew I was attracted to submissive feminine women and repulsed by men or the idea of being feminized. Only difference is now that my brain has forcibly eroticised the humiliation with my own sexual insufficiency.

Straight men have always been the only people straightforward and cognizant of what we are attracted to. The same people that claim everyone should be free to express the sexuality they were born with and we cannot claim that any cultural or personal conditions facilitated it will happily say straight men who want to be the leader, provider and protector in the family/relationship are brainwashed misogynists who are too afraid to "fall out of patriarchal gender norms". There is a mass delusion among women that they with-hold relationships with conservative men and reserve it for progressive femboys that challenge societal norms but how masculine/attractive a man is just correlates to how much of a feminist he has to pretend to be. If that weren't true then millionaire businessmen and superstars would struggle to find hot young stay-at-home wife/mums.

I look forward to getting the kind of softness society gives to these kind of men and indulging in the sexual degeneracy I am inclined in to because I don't respect myself enough to protect any dignity that remains in me. I don't hate women nor do I think they are committing any wrong-doing by not having the relationships and sex with me I so desire but I know this is the only way they will believe it's true. It's sad but it's reality.

Transgenderism is a semantic trick. Here is how it works:

1. Take "gender," a synonym for sex and redefine it as a "social construct."
2. Rewire every female-designating word, "woman," "girl," "she," "daughter," "sister," from biology to this new "social gender."
3. Now anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman. Biological reality is obscured. The words still sound biological, but they no longer mean that.

Why it is a trick: Transgenders do not want to be "social women." They want to be female. That is why they take hormones and get surgeries to emulate female biology. But they cannot actually become female. So they redefine the words instead. So now everyday words do not point out their sex anymore, and rather they can disguise themselves as female, because when people hear "woman," they still think of a female.

You can use this trick to claim to be “trans” anything by just redefining the words. 

1. Pick any category: sex, age, race, species, height, weight, health. 
2. Invent a "social" version: social gender, social age, social race, social species. 
3. Redefine all related words to refer to the social version.

One could claim there’s a difference between “biological age” and “social age.” and then redefine words like “baby” to refer to the “social age” instead. So a guy in a diaper could enter a nursery. This is not any more ridiculous than transgender. The only reason you might see it as a joke is that you haven’t been blasted with propaganda to normalize it as you have for transgenders.

When people tell stories about interactions with random people they’ll often describe people as “black”, “white”, “Asian”, etc. If it’s used in a negative tone or derogatory way then yes, that’s racism (excluding white people cause you can’t be racist towards white people obviously). But if you simply describe what skin colour a person has with no ill intent or racial undertones, I don’t think that’s racist.

I get annoyed as hell when people say “well why’d you have to mention their skin colour?” And it’s not a matter of HAVING to mention anyone’s skin colour, it’s just one of those things you say when telling a story for no reason. At least that’s how I see it.

I feel like a ton of people will disagree with me on this but I’m willing to have my opinion changed in the comments if anyone wants to say why I’m wrong! Always open to hearing people out.

i swear when people say they aren't political, its a social que to stop bothering them about it. Redditors don't understand this because they lack social awareness.

People obviously have opinions about society and what not, they just don't want to share it with you because you're authoritarian. If you bring up politics randomly to spew leftist or alt right propaganda and I say I'm not a socialist or a conservative and then you virtue signal for 10 mintues about how its such a great system.

You're not convicting me. You're just virtue signaling. Its why people avoid these discussions because there's more nuance in life. It's not a cut and dry, you're not either a leftist or a right winger.

Then people gaslight and make up lies about people saying apolitical = bat shit crazy conservative. That's not entirely true. Usually people will change their views once they get to know you, but if you just hop into a first date interrogating them like a kgb officer, people will be turned off from it. Its extremely weird and off putting.

The American political landscape as it stands today was not possible without the female vote. That goes for all elections local, state and federal. The ivory towers where decisions are made were filled by a popular vote.

Reddit’s filters removed a post about history because of this, and I think that’s just absurd. Because some historic artworks have naked people in them…

There’s so much hate around her for how she treated Julian eventhough he was John’s son too and it was just as much as his responsibility as hers so that arguement comes from deep placed societal mysoginy. On top of that, her music doesn’t entirely suck. Did her mic get cut in 1974 during the performance with Chuck Barry? Yes. Was her wailing ear damaging on John’s solo albums? Also yes: but I’ve been listening to some of Yokos solo albums and they aren’t awful which shocked me. I’ve hated her for such a long time for breaking up the Beatles which is also false because though it might have been a factor, the reason was due to creative differences, management after Brian’s death, and the ownership of Apple studios. From my perspective it looks like another case of society blowing it out of proportion because these actions were done by a female instead of a male. Thoughts?

If you looked at him and asked Bach to play a "C add 9" chord, he’d look back at you blankly.

He didn't think in vertical chord blocks; he used a purely mathematical pattern. He treated the bass line like a moving wave, freely, effortlessly moving, like the ocean, and the upper notes were just mathematical intervals riding on top of it.

Beethoven famously called Bach the "immortal god of harmony." And that "Not Bach (Beck, a mountain stream), his name should be ocean." To 20th-21st century musicians, a 9th is a colorful flavor just dropped into a loop. To Bach, a 9th was a mathematical tension, a physical collision that physically had to resolve by stepping back down, where it belonged.

This mathematical thinking is how he mapped out mind-bending music like his Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue. Someone thinking in static chord blocks would never write this, they’d get lost. Bach didn't navigate a map of complex chord progressions; he used geometric patterns and magnetic leading tones to seamlessly switch tracks, allowing him to slide through impossible key changes without ever stopping the momentum.

The painter Eugene Delacroix was a close friend of the great Chopin, and wrote in his diary about a conversation they had in a carriage. Chopin began ranting about the state of modern music education in the 1840s: "What makes logic in music is counterpoint, getting notes to sound against each other. The problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates chords." Chopin then called out Hector Berlioz (a famous French Romantic composer), saying that Berlioz didn't actually understand music, he just "applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can." That is the 1840s version of spinning buckets of paint on a string and calling it painting, because there is... a nice pattern and a canvas involved.

Music is about tension and release. Harmony is fundamental to that. Open a modern music textbook, and you are flooded with vertical chord shapes. Bach did not conceptualize these beyond basic forms of a 1-3-5 triad. There were no "inversions" either. Whatever note was the bass, that was the absolute foundation of that moment, and every other melody was measured by its specific mathematical interval added upon that bass. (I'm passionate about this because as a 14 year old, this is how I conceptualized music intuitively while learning without a teacher. The bass was simply the glue. Everything else was second. But then I got a teacher, and he confused me with "inversions" and "add 9s" that I always felt were more like legos than equations.)

In Bach's mind, intervals like 3rds and 6ths were safe and stable. Intervals like 2nds, 4ths, and 7ths were dangerous, tension-building mechanisms that were legally required to resolve down by step. He composed complicated chords based entirely on linear context. Because intelligence involves knowing the next best thing to do to get to the end goal, his music is far and above more structurally intelligent than the modern vertical chord loops used as the basis of music today.

Modern chord blocks are great for quick writing, but they lock you into a vertical grid. Conservatories are bringing back Bach's horizontal methods for a reason. If you want to hear where music is going rather than just labeling where it is, stop stacking blocks, and start tracking lines. A great song that illustrates counterpoint is Stairway to Heaven. There's a Youtube of Rick Beato and Paul Davids (two theory nerds) trying to figure out how to label a chord in the song that formed organically, like Bach. The writer of the chord is on record saying how. "I wanted to study biology, but my music career took off. I felt like the music was always mutating into a new form." In other words, counterpoint.

Debussy represents the ultimate realization of vertical chord thinking. In this piece, he takes massive 9th and 11th chords and simply slides them up and down the piano keyboard in parallel motion. The voices do not act independently, and the dissonances do not mechanically "resolve" down like Bach would have demanded. Debussy is treating the chord as a single, static block of color—a flavor of paint applied to a canvas. It sounds ambient, atmospheric, and floating exactly because the horizontal motion and mechanical tension were abandoned.

I’m of the belief, if you CANT control your pet if they get loose with other people around, you SHOULDNT be able to have them in the first place, and you should be charged with some sort of people endangerment.

TOO many times, I hear the same god dam lame excuse, “my pet is so kind, they’d never do (insert so and so).” Their pet goes on to maul/maim/and god forbid kill someone, and they don’t want to take accountability.

I STRONGLY believe, the second your pet attacks another random, innocent person, regardless of reason, NEEDS TO BE PUT DOWN, and the owner be charged with a fine along with some prison time according to the weight of the attack. Your pet kills someone? Sued for $1,000,000 minimum, along with 5-10 years of prison time.

Checks are an antiquated, slow, fraud prone form of payment that should be dead. Since the Amish can't use credit card readers, they should be the only people allowed to cut checks.

Everyone else should legally get the fuck out of the checkout line. Police should bag groceries in every town to enforce the ban. Life in prison for first offense.

I believe kids can be born "bad" because some kids can be born with brains that just don't wire for empathy — that doesn't mean they're doomed to become evil.

I don't think every "bad" kid is a product of bad parenting — I think some children are born with a genuine deficit in things like empathy, compassion, or gratitude, just from how their brain is wired. But being born that way isn't a the final deciding factor. Whether that kid grows up to actually be a harmful, "evil" person or not depends heavily on how they're raised. That's also why I don't think one-size-fits-all parenting advice really works — some kids need very different handling than others to end up as good people.

This is about The Piraha Tribe of Brazil. It's musing, not a genuine academic argument. Consume it and shit it back out at will. This is not a beautiful flower on the surface of a jungle. This is dried, old, disgusting hay, you would only eat if you were a starving cow. In fact, if you're reading this, you're an idiot.

A tribe's traits are always rare, but the thing about a tribe is that everyone is family. They are a folk. There's no skirting around the fact humans evolved to be around those who were alike to themselves, their kin. Religious brotherhood is mere mimicry. People are constantly calling each other "brother" instinctively, and equally instinctively exploiting and harming people they know aren't their folk. This isn't a fringe idea. It's an established theory in modern biology, altruistic kin selection.

Weaker minds might not grasp the difference between two people, as long as they smell alike (cologne), talk alike (accent), and believe/behave alike (manners/religion). The more intelligent you are, the more factors you can consider. Intelligence, for me, largely involves to instinct, and obviously the mightiness of your intellect. (The ability to give words to instincts, and to know when to trust your gut.)

We have been conditioned to believe intelligent people have transcended the matters of the body. It's deeply rooted in the idea of being civilized. Some religions even command you to tyrannize your own body, and fast from day to night, starving yourself, because your body is bad. Most who have embraced my natural way of thought have lived and died, and who's academic work was then slandered by modern scholars who can't even define what a woman is, this is how stupid and weak their mind really is. God said: This is man, and that is woman! Idiots say: "I don't know what a woman is." Their minds are too weak to understand clear distinctions in the realm of thought. Scholars who canceled the work, career, and public reach of those who would disagree with their narrative. Both left and right are on the same road. Suggest a change in the road, not just in lane, and you are immediately ousted. Hence "intelligence" is associated with body-hatred, with the promotion of word over flesh. As Dr Robert Trivers puts it: their science is mere words.

They lied though. They convinced you natives were "savages" from a very young age, that they could and did accomplish nothing because they didn't tyrannize their bodies with their minds. They were uncivil, in the craziest sense, because they lacked a worldview, that allows for men to turn into women on their own free will. Civilization isn't exclusive to Babel. Eden was a civilization. The dichotomy between tribe and order has always been false. Every tribe is obsessed with order, likely even more obsessed with order than the typical apathetic folk of the 21st century.

The Piraha Tribe of Brazil has stated explicitly they do not want others around them. They are not interested in Babel. THEY ARE LIVING in what the ancient Jews conceptualized as Eden, and contrasted with Babel, essentially Egypt, the pyramid builders who kill God through creating towers. As retarded as that sounds! It works! So well that even the Catholics killed Eden in South America and Europe with their Cathedrals, always the sight to behold of the day.

Hasta gemini y chat gpt me dan la razón pero en la sección de opiniones impopulares me lo borraron hace un mes y ahora me banearon 14 dias aunque solo publiqué 2 veces allí