Gender Identity Is Total Nonsense

[Hatfort]

11 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

You are proving the point though. Why would someone call a wife by partner? For what reason? What are you trying to gain?

Would you call your doctor "donkey"?

This is why people are tired of all this nonsense. It's almost like these identity freaks are fanning the flames just to piss people off.

Absolutely. How are you going to live after this? I can't even imagine what you are going through. They asked you if you had a partner, for god's sake! That's too much, man.

[Twentyfirst]

31 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Absolutely. How are you going to live after this? I can't even imagine what you are going through. They asked you if you had a partner, for god's sake! That's too much, man.

It's too much for me. So I have to live in a way that I don't want to because trans people went to jail for being trans like 100 years ago? Not my problem.

A lot of this stuff is for indoctrinating the youth. It's not designed for me to accept it. This identity stuff has been going on for a decade now and I still don't want to adjust to it. They are just waiting for the older people to die out and soft young minds to grow up, it's a long game.

[Meeksauce]

12 hours ago, Elliott said:

Because it's not proven, arbitrary means on a whim. Believing something(genders) that's not proven(actually proven wrong), is arbitrary. Not believing in something because you haven't been proven that it's true, is not arbitrary, it's called critical thinking actually.

The owness to prove something(gender) is on the claimants, otherwise it's an arbitrary belief. Not acknowledging a made up belief(gender), is not arbitrary.

 

If I say a flying sphagetti monster is God, and you say I don't believe that, your claim in your post is the same as saying people that don't believe in the monster are just being arbitrary because they haven't proven the monster doesn't exist. If a 5 year old says they don't understand what you mean by gender, that means they're being arbitrary?

 

 

I realized after I wrote this that arbitrariness is considered one the main ideas of gender, so yeah I would consider that point correct. I think however, that if you completely ignore your birth given sex and just say "chromosomes and genitalia are arbitrary" you are denying some very basic facts about biology. There are studies showing men and women naturally have different personalities, and of course the classic counter to that is "but those differences are due to societal structure!" To which I would say yes, that is partially true, but I would argue there are also inherent personality traits that form before society can get its' grip on you - this is also scientifically backed. But Leo, scientifically backed doesn't mean anything! Did evolution not happen? Does the body you were given, functioning autonomously with an insane degree of intelligence, just appear out of nowhere? Maybe this is a hot take, but I think men and women evolved to live in harmony which results in the greatest survival likelihood rate. But Leo, that's just survival! Yes, the whole point of my argument is that biological and sociological factors play in. The natural difference between males and females may not be huge, but it certainly is there before conditioning.

[Hatfort]

12 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

It's too much for me. So I have to live in a way that I don't want to because trans people went to jail for being trans like 100 years ago? Not my problem.

A lot of this stuff is for indoctrinating the youth. It's not designed for me to accept it. This identity stuff has been going on for a decade now and I still don't want to adjust to it. They are just waiting for the older people to die out and soft young minds to grow up, it's a long game.

You don't need to live in a way you don't want, you decide how that is, just do it.

The word partner isn't exclusive to business, it can be many other things like in games, in work, and, in the case of relationships, it's referred to as a partner in life. This use probably became more popular for homosexual relationships when they started to be more visible in society, it was perhaps a more comfortable term not only for them, but their families and social circles, maybe on the older side, in times of transition from being taboo to accepted, and out of legality too. In any case, it was something organic, not some kind of imposition. It also happens to be quite a neutral word, so valid for heterosexual relationships too, more so when someone who doesn't know the other person can use it to ask their relationship status. Emphasis in can, you don't have to use it, you just can. 

So quit crying, being such a snowflake, and word policing. Live your life as you want, and let others do so as well. I know you won't, you are beyond reason, and even ridiculous, but still there it is. 

Edited Sunday at 02:26 PM by Hatfort

[Twentyfirst]

4 hours ago, Hatfort said:

You don't need to live in a way you don't want, you decide how that is, just do it.

The word partner isn't exclusive to business, it can be many other things like in games, in work, and, in the case of relationships, it's referred to as a partner in life. This use probably became more popular for homosexual relationships when they started to be more visible in society, it was perhaps a more comfortable term not only for them, but their families and social circles, maybe on the older side, in times of transition from being taboo to accepted, and out of legality too. In any case, it was something organic, not some kind of imposition. It also happens to be quite a neutral word, so valid for heterosexual relationships too, more so when someone who doesn't know the other person can use it to ask their relationship status. Emphasis in can, you don't have to use it, you just can. 

So quit crying, being such a snowflake, and word policing. Live your life as you want, and let others do so as well. I know you won't, you are beyond reason, and even ridiculous, but still there it is. 

Exactly. Why is my relationship being regarded to as with homosexual relationship language.

Telling me to quit crying and being a snowflake is just a low way to shame me to accept living in a way I don't want to.

Don't worry about me. I'm not in the minority. Worry about the minorities you care about so much and help them.

[Hatfort]

13 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Exactly. Why is my relationship being regarded to as with homosexual relationship language.

Telling me to quit crying and being a snowflake is just a low way to shame me to accept living in a way I don't want to.

Don't worry about me. I'm not in the minority. Worry about the minorities you care about so much and help them.

Exactly not. Partner is not homosexual nor heterosexual, it's a neutral word valid in any case. Someone who doesn't know what kind of relationship you have can perfectly ask you if you have a partner, there's nothing beyond that. 

You are a snowflake if you are troubled when someone who doesn't know you asks if you have a partner. How about answering: Yeah, I'm married, I have a wife. Or: No, I'm single, I'm looking for a girlfriend. Or whatever. You are such a snowflake.

I worry about whoever I want.

[Yimpa]

 

[AtmanIsBrahman]

God has no gender.

That means you have no gender either if you introspect deeply enough. Conservative bashing of trans people is attachment to the gender roles that are taken for granted, whereas trans people are a little bit more creative.

 

Edited Monday at 02:02 AM by AtmanIsBrahman

[Adrian colby]

Wow.

Philosophy without love becomes violence.

Spirituality without embodiment becomes cruelty.

What I am witnessing in this thread is not serious ontology, but abstraction divorced from lived reality.

I am not arguing about this topic from theory. I am the lived, embodied phenomenon being discussed here.

Not one person in this thread appears to be speaking from direct experience of the condition under debate, from participation in clinical or biological study, or from an ontological investigation that includes embodiment. And yet an entire category of human beings is being flattened into a conceptual dispute, with little awareness of the consequences of doing so.

I do not need to prove my existence.

I am that.

My body already contains both male and female biological components which is not surprising if one understands that the human body is sexually dimorphic, and that male and female structures are not mutually exclusive absolutes. They differentiate from the same initial structures, the same source/species blueprint, just as multiplicity unfolds from the One in the universe itself.

If my existence feels chaotic or distressing to someone, that does not indicate a problem with reality, It indicates a problem with the map being used to interpret it.

Should I erase myself because my existence does not fit a simplified model?

I didn’t lose something tonight. I briefly stepped into a colder layer of the world. one in which parts of the whole have forgotten what they are, and respond to complexity by fighting existence rather than acknowledging, allowing, and loving it.

As consciousness expands, people develop more nuanced and complex maps of reality  not because they become absolutely right, but because they grow capable of perceiving and holding more of infinity. This process is ongoing.

When people begin to see the limits imposed by social and conceptual constructs, those constructs loosen. Understanding may be partial or more complete, but deeper understanding necessarily opens one to the genuine complexity of the human body, rather than retreating into reductive binaries.

If this forum is truly concerned with truth, ontology, unity, and awareness, then lived reality cannot be excluded in favour of abstraction.

Truth is not threatened by complexity. Only fragile maps are.

At an absolute level, everything can be dismissed as illusion: form, identity, even physicality itself. But when one reforms back into lived reality, dismissing everything becomes a way of blocking oneself from acknowledging existence in its totality, its unity, and its diversity ( the infinity of form.)

When people describe things as social constructs, they are not denying reality. They are seeing through conceptual maps rather than mistaking them for the thing itself. Loosening those maps does not erase what exists; it can allow reality to be understood more clearly.

Some people take this too far and dismiss lived experience altogether, which is a mistake. Others loosen definitions without denying reality, and in doing so gain a deeper understanding of it. The backlash against this often comes from identity being threatened when familiar definitions begin to fall apart  not from careful ontological inquiry.

At the absolute, I am not male or female. I am awareness: indefinable, intangible, infinite.

But when distinctions arise, I understand their formation. I no longer feel compelled to justify them or fight them. I accept them and step fully into the embodiment of lived experience, because everything that appears, appears as life. Everything simply is.

I have analysed my own psyche and biology to oblivion. None of it disappears or magically changes when I return from the absolute. What changed was not my body, but my relationship to identification. My body still persists in what I can best describe as an intersexed state, whether I like it or not, and I have taken every effort to align it with my neurology so it functions as efficiently as possible within my own expression and in how I relate to others according to the era and culture I find myself in.

if this were another time and place with no support,  I would most certainly be dead. 

I no longer cling to labels like “trans,” not out of denial, but because they are not always morphologically precise and as it turns out, not only do I have a genetic mutation only found in male controls and ftm transgender/sexuals, that is known to be a part of neuroendocrine pathway development, I also have a DSD ( gonadal dysgenesis) where I was initially forced to take female hormones in my teens that left me in a completely dysfunctional state wanting to die. I dissolved enough certainty to question what I truly knew — and in doing so, I discovered not only the nature of the body I am experiencing, but also a deeper understanding of what sex actually is.

I have no problem with traditional constructs. I participate in them fully and respectfully and understand their purpose. In this life, as a human, I am a man and I love women. Am I traditionally conditioned? No. I dissolved that. And when I resolved again and aligned with what I experience as my authentic self informed by my biology and neurology, it falls within the typical, though neurodivergent, male range.

I have a loose enough identity that I could choose something else  but it would not be authentic to me.

At the same time, I do not judge or dismiss those who do not biologically or conceptually fall within traditional parameters and therefore require expanded language to articulate their own unique variation.

When a greater range of contrasting experiences and perspectives is allowed, acknowledged, and learned from, reality gains higher definition — more resolution with which to know itself.

Unity is not threatened by diversity.

It is revealed through it.

 

[Salvijus]

5 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

God has no gender.

That means you have no gender either if you introspect deeply enough. Conservative bashing of trans people is attachment to the gender roles that are taken for granted, whereas trans people are a little bit more creative.
 

God is also not human and neither are you. With liberal identity thinking you can get so creative that you put a tree costume and identify as a tree and then demand tree rights for yourself. Ggwp. We need more of that 👍

Edited Monday at 07:09 AM by Salvijus

[dddddddddd33]

On 1/14/2026 at 3:12 PM, Twentyfirst said:

There was a study that showed that 40% of Netflix content has LGBTQ narratives. It should be reflective of the population. So if 1% of people are LGBTQ only 1% of content should be about that.

   There is zero integrity in this argument. The framing is so wildly dishonest.
    1% of people is inaccurate it’s more like 10% and that doesn’t even address the fact that the actual numbers are obviously higher due to stigma. Nearly 25% of Gen Z (who new media is largely geared towards) identify as LQBTQ. Not to mention the fact that you don’t give a justification for why there should be a 1:1 ratio of representation in media vs population. Societal context and social factors should obviously play into what shows up in media depicting society. Especially when there has been such growth in the number of people coming to terms with their sexuality. The progression of acceptance for LGBTQ people is a hallmark of the 21st century so far and there is much more to be done so of course it’s prominent in media.

[dddddddddd33]

@Adrian colby Yes! To call Transgenderism “valueless” just shows that someone has not put themselves into the position of the people they are criticizing and truly understood their lived experience.

[Twentyfirst]

5 hours ago, dddddddddd33 said:

   There is zero integrity in this argument. The framing is so wildly dishonest.
    1% of people is inaccurate it’s more like 10% and that doesn’t even address the fact that the actual numbers are obviously higher due to stigma. Nearly 25% of Gen Z (who new media is largely geared towards) identify as LQBTQ. Not to mention the fact that you don’t give a justification for why there should be a 1:1 ratio of representation in media vs population. Societal context and social factors should obviously play into what shows up in media depicting society. Especially when there has been such growth in the number of people coming to terms with their sexuality. The progression of acceptance for LGBTQ people is a hallmark of the 21st century so far and there is much more to be done so of course it’s prominent in media.

10-25% of people are not LGBTQ. 

What stigma? LGBTQ people are favored in society over hetero now. If they are still in the closet that's on them.

You make it seem like without stigma everyone just takes off their clothes and reverts to nature and that nature is for the most part LGBTQ. Everyone is living how they want to live, if people wanted to be nude and have sex with anything in sight, they would. You just want to artificially jack up the numbers. What you are seeing isn't societal expectations but just the choices based on natural desires. 

The stigma argument could be said in reverse. The reason the numbers are growing is because people are being pressured and exposed into it. It's all just back n forth nonsense. I said 1% because that's my real life experience. If more people that I met were LGBTQ then I would know it.

Why is LGBTQ a hallmark of the 21st century? Don't you think the smartphone may be up there? Or anything else?

What more is there to be done?

I'm not hating. I didn't even strongly say that there should be a 1 to 1 ratio. But why 40%? Do Black Americans have 40% of the content due to being freed of slavery? This is just so weird. Have sex, nobody cares, and you aren't special. This over correction is gonna bite real LGBTQ people in the ass.

What can you say about my argument that there could be a specific genre for that type of content instead of injecting it into every show I watch?

[Ramasta9]

Its an attempt to create more confusion in consciousness, as simple as that. Its a shadow play.