dualnon

There is a lot we still don't understand about gender and its relation to transgender issues. As a society, we can't even agree if gender is a social construct or not. I think a lot of the rigorous scientific work and ethical contemplation gets lost amongst all the political activism. So it's tricky. But the fact remains that if there are trans adults, there are trans kids. The question then is, do trans kids benefit from adolescent hormonal intervention and do the benefits outweigh the risks? While in some cases it's clear that trans kids do benefit, in others it's clear that they don't. Take Jazz Jennings as an example, the hormones she was on prevented her genitals from developing enough for vaginoplasty. I often find these kinds of conversations are quite pointless, because they often boil down to moral arguments, which end up being subjective and the outcomes have such varied results that its impossible to say something is true in all instances. In some sense there's a lot of similarity to the debates that surround the topic of abortion. And similar to the abortion debate, I think there is a way to resolve these things if you look at things from a slightly elevated perspective. The current solution to most trans problems is surgical and hormonal intervention. For a lot of trans people this is an adequate and good solution. But it doesn't provide much insight into exactly why it is a good solution, except for the fact that it seems to lower instances of gender dysphoria in trans people. But what causes dysphoria anyway? What causes someone to be trans? What is gender? An alternative solution could be for us to look more deeply at the social structures that cause one to feel their body does not align with how they feel. To address the pain point for trans people, which more than anything is social cohesion. Right now, the major limiting factor for social cohesion amongst trans people is that their gender identity (a set of typically expected behaviours associated with their biological sex) conflicts with their socially perceived self, the biological body. Perhaps it would be helpful to recognise that the current solution for trans people is not an absolute solution, and is actually one that arises out of a need that is determined by the current social environment. In countries like Iran for example, gay men are sometimes forced to transition for the sake of social cohesion, as it is culturally unacceptable to be gay, so instead they can live their lives as a woman. So perhaps, if the social environment were to change and gender was recognised as a socially constructed set of typically expected behaviours associated with ones biological sex, and biological sex seen as something categorically distinct from gender, there might come a time where it is recognised that gender non conformity is not an issue of a person not displaying the "right" characteristics and behaviours of their sex. But instead the socially constructed boxes we put people in not being able to account for that individuals naturally expressed characteristics and behaviours. If that time comes perhaps the instances of gender dysphoria would decrease substantially to where hormonal and surgical intervention is a very rare thing. Because the expectation of how one should be is not as rigid as "boy/Man girl/Woman" but it is accepted that one can be as they are, no matter their biology. But this could only happen if we are willing to seriously address the concerns and experience of trans people. And also not treat it simply (and ignorantly) as a medical issue. But a response to the growing need for social integration amongst gender non conforming individuals.

Can you elaborate on this a little?

Can you describe your baseline non dual state? What's your moment to moment experience?

Hey guys! I'm curious to hear if any of you have had entity experiences on psychedelics. So please share, I'd love to read them Please note, I am not looking for stories about experiences that are typical on psychedelics. I'm looking for experiences that are out of the ordinary (So please save your Machine Elves stories for another time ). Mostly I'm interested to see if anybody has had personal experiences that are atypical or not widely experienced or reported. So please don't include stories about DMT or Ayahuasca entities, as these are a dime a dozen and don't help me much with my inquiry. The reason I ask is because I had an experience a few years ago on a combination of LSD and Cannabis. I decided to go for a walk in the middle of the night, It was pitch black and my adrenaline was pumping. Soon, a group of oval-eyed entities that appeared to be made out of light/the surrounding environment came to me and "telepathically communicated" with me. They beamed images into my head of myself commanding an army of people. And they told me (although, not in words. It was a kind of thought transfer) that I could have power/fame/wealth if I just worshipped them for the rest of my life. It was very strange, and I have not been able to stop thinking about the experience since. I'm curious if anybody else has similar stories on other substances. Whether or not you've been able to replicate the experience etc. I'm attempting to compile these stories to gain a better understanding of what exactly these entities are. Also, if you know of any other projects that have attempted to make sense of these kinds of experiences please share! My working theory is currently: These entities are figments conjured from deep in the brain, projected onto the visual field... that's as far as I've gotten lol. I'm curious to know if this experience is similar to one any of you may have had!

um... yeah, we're agreeing. I'm just attempting to point to how this community might benefit from taking a broader perspective, not just that they can.

Yeah, exactly! Although, I don't think the process of evolution/extinction has run its full cycle yet. Tates philosophy IS still functional. But it's fighting an uphill battle.

Sure. But the broader point I'm trying to make is that there's room for higher order analysis of Tates worldview outside the confines of the morality framework. Instead of gossiping and tribalistically arguing about if Tate is or isn't a bad guy, a community like this should be able to map his worldview precisely and integrate it into the bigger picture. To do that you can't just be stuck on the level of "change my mind, because I actually like Andrew Tate". It should be able to say, "here's some insight I've gleamed into Tates worldview, and here's where and how I think it fits into the larger model of society" and we should be able to discuss and improve on that model to come to an accurate understanding. Not a judgement, just plain old understanding.

There's not much point trying to change your mind if your point is that "I like him". Ok, you like him, great. People like all sorts of people and they don't have to be good or bad to be liked. People can like things and still see problems. Personally I also "like" Tate. I find him very charismatic and enjoyable to listen to. But I also consider his worldview to be quite self centred and limited. It is functional within certain parameters, but it is not something I'd subscribe to whole cloth. There's a lot of back and forth debate on this forum about Tates character as seen through the lens of morality and ethics. But there's not an awful lot of just looking at it and seeing it for what it is. Does Andrew Tate have a place, does he serve a purpose, does he meet a need arising in society? Of course he does! But what is BEYOND Andrew Tate. What worldview supersedes the limitations of Tates? That's where this community should be looking. Considering Tates worldview, understanding it without placing it in a good or bad box, and gaining a meta perspective and big picture view that can integrate that perspective and then discover that which transcend it and steps out of it's limitations.

Interestingggg...... I've been toying round with the idea that the Andrew Tate philosophy actually IS functional, given certain societal conditions. And something that Andrew Says in this video leads me to believe there is something to that idea. And the implications of it are kind of mental. Take the following with a grain of salt. Just an idea I've been contemplating. If you take, for instance, the idea that structural hierarchy and gender roles throughout history are founded on two things. 1 Access to resources, 2 Need for resources, you'll arrive at a worldview that necessitates traditional gender roles in the sense that the biggest and strongest biological entity is the one with all the control over the resources and who gets them. This makes sense in a tribal society. Also, take the idea that societal progress doesn't just happen. It is spurred on by technological progress. Why do other animals not develop societal systems as complex and atomised as Humans have done? Because they don't know how to use technology, and they don't have minds sophisticated enough to apply that technology to novel problems. And so, there is biological evolution, but no societal and cultural evolution. Now, one thing that technological progress achieves is a kind of egalitarianism that most people would attribute to legislative change and alterations to the justice system. Where there were once tribe leaders who controlled all the resources, and then kings and queens who passed down access to resources to those below them, soon capitalism allowed any man or woman to become a king or queen to themselves. And as this process continues, it becomes evident that the gender roles that were emergent from the conditions of the early tribal society are not necessary anymore. Tate says: "your goal is to inspire a girl to make money and then give it all to you" "At the beginning she will need you, but then she won't need you, but you have to keep that fallacy, keep that dream alive". A criticism of Tate I hear often on the left is that Andrew Tate teaches young men who want to protect their position of power in the social hierarchy exactly how to do that by oppressing women. The key question here is. Why would the woman not need you anymore? The answer: because she can get resources for herself. So Tate has to keep himself in a position that he controls the resources, through dominance (both physical and mental), intimidation, and coercion. And to do that he has to know what drives women at the most primal level. And of course, it does actually work given you can preserve the environmental conditions by convincing the woman that her access to these resources is limited. I think there's something to be said here about how Andrew Tate could be seen as a microcosm of the capitalist system as a whole. And how if you know the rules of the game, you can "win". Andrew knows the rules. And young men flock to him to learn them so they can also win. Something the left doesn't teach people how to do because it doesn't value the same things the right does. Also an interesting insight into how capitalism seeks to maintain artificial scarcity to secure its dominance. Even though there is abundance available through the application of technology in the right way. I don't have a conclusion to any of this. lol. Just thoughts I don't know what to do with

This article is from 2011. It would be really interesting to see if there's any follow up information about the kids who went to that pre-school.

Following from the idea that Socialism would be the evolutionary result of overcoming the limits of capitalism just as capitalism evolved out of feudalism. Is there much value to the idea that progressivism will eventually result in a kind of socialist-esque society? So long as we keep pushing forward and addressing oppressive systemic issues? Or is that just wishful thinking?