Israfil

You should watch the video.

Yes, made with AI

Yes. Sorry. It was almost 1 AM after 3 hours of music rehearsal. My head was gellyfied. I don't see this as a necessity. As we both stated, there are people that simply identify themselves with a different gender and people that feel a need to change themselves in order to match what they ideally would like to see in their bodies or behavior. correction: Another one in the 3 hours of rehearsal bill. Sorry.

I agree. And the argument I posed didn't say that identification requires necessarily physical qualities, you can identify with the whole spectrum of stereotypes of either gender. I stated that if mere identification wasn't enough, there wouldn't be any trans people that changed themselves to feel that they're being authentic. I wouldn't say that identification necessarily entails the display and performance of those stereotypes, but the correlation is high. People that don't change anything in themselves when gender identification occurs, already see themselves displaying or having the characteristics they perceive as part of that gender. If you conceptually that such and such should be a part of your gender identity but you don't have that characteristic, you would either defy this norm or comply with it, assuming no further revision in your perception of this concept.

Can't make an omelettenghtment with breaking your eggo

You are misguided.

It's one of the strongest strains out there. Weed strain names are not coincidence hahahahaha

I was just kidding, man. I knew what you meant and you were right.

Different men, different needs. Don't be so quick to judge, pal.

My point is that people that identify with something are equating their own self-perception with some set of characteristics that the thing that they identify with has. Even in the case you mention, there is a connection between self-perception and those certain attributes that lead to this whole phenomenon. Even if I say I am a "feminine man" I am still stating the connection between my self-perception as a male, and therefore a bearer of male attributes, and my self-perception as feminine, as in displaying feminine attributes. If man or woman refers to "someone who identifies as such", I would simply kick this pebble down the road. I would identify as someone who identifies as something. And that something would be "someone who identifies as man/woman". So the only way "identifying as man" has any meaning is if man has a set of characteristics that can be identified with in the first place. My point is not the inability of identifying with a stereotype, but the necessity of positing what is that you're identifying with before identification can even occur, therefore, a concept of womanhood or manhood is required for you to compare yourself to, and therefore identify (to see identity, to see equivalence, to see "equalness") with.

Does it include the need for obsession and disregard for balance itself?

That's the summary of the Ken Wilber video I shared.

Death is the fuel of life. It is the reorganization process that nature is always doing. We transform solar radiation into vitamin D, plants transform it into glucose. This process of reorganization is integral to all life and the universe in general.

The male/female distinction is a gross oversimplification of the biological reality. It doesn't serve the purpose of defining biological sex in its entirety. And the argument of identification with gender being the same as being such gender is a circular argument in disguise. If a woman is defined as anyone who identifies as such, what is that they're identifying with? If gender is a declaration of identity, what is it that you're identifying with? By definition, an identity is a dichotomy between two objects that share similar characteristics. This definition of "anyone who identifies as such" simply states that there is an abstract woman stereotype that people are identifying with, and therefore "woman" must describe a summary of characteristics that people perceive in themselves and equates those with the summary "woman". You can talk about expanding the perception of a woman to include people who transition, i.e. identify with the set of "womanly" characteristics and seek physical and behavior changes to externally reflect those characteristics, but you cannot say that the mere identification turns that person into a woman. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any trans people. They would simply identify as a woman and that feeling would be enough. The whole point of transition is the presentation to self and to others of the archetypical gender characteristics that are perceived as man and woman by the individual in question and society in general.

You don't understand Green Stage properly. The kind of integration you say the lack is the exact reason they're not Yellow yet. This is to be expected. In this interview, Ken Wilber explains this dynamic as concisely as one can. I really hope you watch it and understand the mischaracterization you are falling into. Your critique is valid, you just lack the perspective to understand that this societal pressure is what's required to move on to stage Yellow.

I don't see how this is bigoted at all. I have pondered deeply about my sexual and gender expression and also found that developing a healthy sense of masculinity is the best for me and society in general. I don't think that this position stops anyone from expressing different identities or excludes them from society.

I've had a very weird experience with Amnesia. I shared a single mid-sized joint with two friends and had very strong tactile effects. I would put my hands in my pocket and wouldn't be able to figure out where my hand ended and my pocket started. Literally melting into my experiences. I really enjoyed it, although it was weird as fuck.

If you do it in a safe environment, there's nothing to be afraid of. Maybe it is a nice way to confront anxiety if it emerges.

I agree. From a high-level perspective your identity is not important. From a low-level one, it is. That is an issue strictly for stage green. I wouldn't deny a trans person being called some pronouns that they choose, but I don't really see how pronouns are that relevant. In many perspectives, they're simply a language structure that simplifies discourse. Today they've become an important aspect of some people's identities, and I respect this as part of their personal development. I just don't care enough about it to push that change to the larger public. The people that still don't understand this are in their own developmental staircase, and shouldn't be trampled over too. Every change like this is gradual and society will figure this with time and open discussion.

I don't see the point of this argument. Every animal causes impact every other lifeform in some way or another, and they die, returning to the system for eternity everything they took from it. I will cause 80 years of pain to almost everything that is alive and will suffer 80 years of pain caused by everything that is alive. Isn't this just life?

The word pronoun comes from the Latin "pronomen", "that which takes the place/function of the name". We literally use them because they're handier than referring to things by name all the time.

Fun fact: In Portuguese, the last letter usually indicates gender. "A" is usually for females, "o" is usually for males. aluna = female student aluno = male student There is a very strong movement to substitute the gender-defining letter to a neutral one, in order to include women, men, and people that identify with other genders. Romantic languages usually used the male version + plural to define a collection of individuals from multiple genders. A group of 4 male students and 3 female students would "alunos", the male version of the word + plural. There are naturally gender-neutral words in romantic languages, so you don't need to change the whole article and the gender-defining part of the language to refer to gender-diverse people in most cases. In the above example, I could use "estudantes" (also student) to refer to that group, a word that doesn't change regardless of what gender it is referring to. I don't mind calling a specific person a specific pronoun, but I don't think we should change the everyday language to cater for 1% of it.

What do you define as the economy?

Have you watched the video? We should completely halt any alignment efforts.