💬 Off-Topic Tranny Biology - HRT Is Magic

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Even if the brain is out of the body, it's still built with male or female chromosomes in it, grown with a male or female hormonal profile, and its structure is going to be heavily affected by both of those. A liver taken from a woman is still a female liver, and a kidney taken from a man is still a male kidney, and will have a higher risk of rejection if transplanted into a body of the opposite sex. Nobody can truly escape their biological blueprint.
This take is the most accurate. Whether your brain is male or female isn't determined by how it appears on a scan or whether your body has benis or vegana; it's determined by your DNA. If your brain gets blown to pieces and all that's left is sludge, they'll still be able to identify if you were male or female by scraping it off the wall and doing DNA analysis on the goop.

The hypothetical scenario proposed in the screenshot is just a way to get the reader to accept Cartesian dualism, or the idea that mind and body are distinct and separable. The "brain in a jar" thought experiment is a sci-fi re-framing of the dualist premise on which gender ideology rests. If they said "your consciousness" or "your soul" instead of "your brain" it would be pretty transparent that the whole thing is based on wishful thinking rather than science.

As for the other two hypotheticals, I'm struggling to understand the point of number two. It seems like they're proposing that the person's body is still phenotypically male/female, while the sex chromosomes are the opposite of their phenotypic sex. We've already agreed on a definition of sex that is based on gonads rather than chromosomes, so you'd still be the sex you started out as. Not sure what the point would be of having XX testicles rather than XY testicles, but I guess it's no more pointless than inverting your penis.

Re: question number three, full-body transplants are the stuff of nightmares and should never ever exist. I don't care if you're transplanting my brain into Sam Hyde's body or Sydney Sweeney's; just unplug me.
 
2. You'd be the sex of whatever body you'd be put into. As for whether I'd be comfortable with it, you're asking a question that doesn't pertain to trans people at all. This is because we're naturally going to be uncomfortable with what we're unfamiliar with. Trans people are not in a situation where they got transplanted into a different body or got transformed into some other creature by an evil enchanter/enchantress/whatever as in the fairy tales. They're people who have always had their own body, they just don't like it. Just like most people on Earth who complain about their bodies.
I asked this question before to TRAs and never got a response. If transgenderism (man trapped inside woman's body and vice versa) was a real thing then it honestly begs the question. Is it possible that people can be born in the wrong body if they were uncomfortable with any other part of their body that had nothing to do with their sex? What if some white kid hated being white and thought he should have been born black or vice versa? Obviously, TRAs dont like the concept of transrace but even still, shouldn't scientists be asking the question of "Is it possible that maybe some people are born in the wrong body?" Why is only when someone feels alienated from their sex that is the only time someone is born wrong but not any other time someone feels alienated with another part of their body?
 
I asked this question before to TRAs and never got a response. If transgenderism (man trapped inside woman's body and vice versa) was a real thing then it honestly begs the question. Is it possible that people can be born in the wrong body if they were uncomfortable with any other part of their body that had nothing to do with their sex? What if some white kid hated being white and thought he should have been born black or vice versa? Obviously, TRAs dont like the concept of transrace but even still, shouldn't scientists be asking the question of "Is it possible that maybe some people are born in the wrong body?" Why is only when someone feels alienated from their sex that is the only time someone is born wrong but not any other time someone feels alienated with another part of their body?
If you feel you should have been born blind and want to throw acid in your eyes: that's nuts, we need to give you some therapy and medication combo that suppresses these urges.
If the part you want to get rid of is your dick: you're completely correct, let's get that done for you.
 
Much simpler answer is this: Don't accept the premise of assholes. They are not asking out of a desire to discover truth, but out of a desire to frame any discussion in terms favourable to their position: that there is a distinction between body and mind and that "female brain in a male body" is a valid premise on which to found an argument.
As much as I like the various answers being given and have given my own at times this is actually correct because they're just pulling a bad rhetorical move they hope you aren't noticing. You can actually "expose" it by accepting all their premises in the three examples. At no point can we get from their premises being hypothetically possible to the "truth" that trans beliefs are actually true in reality. They'd still have to show they've changed the biological sex of their cells and they can't do this. They have to attack the connection between gender and sex because it's the only way to divorce things from the material reality of now. That's their goal, but there's no intermediate step to get there from an irrelevant hypothetical.

Additionally, that thing makes another common troon error:
1739871913769.png

Except you can't. This also skips a step of logic by asserting that if you experience something you can change that experience as a premise. But one can easily realize this doesn't apply to everything. The race discussion above actually illustrates this because most of them would argue the problem with transracialism is that you can't experience being another race. They're trying to argue that by changing their appearance they can change what gender they're experiencing but this assumes you can both know and control what gender other people are treating you as. The real problem isn't that you can't control this, it's that you can't know this. Just like with race you have no frame of reference for experiencing how any other gender is treated so can tell that you're being treated as it. Your "gender" is held entirely in the mind of the other person. For all you know they could be treating you as a potted plant or as the color blue. You can't truly know anything they're experiencing or thinking or whatever, that's what makes them an entirely different being from you. This is a something they pretty much just dismiss, everyone thinks like them all the time which is why they're so quick to project or explain what someone else "really" thinks.

If you peel away the gender/sex nonsense you can see that their real belief is that they believe that simply changing something cosmetic about themselves will fundamentally alter how everyone will treat them as a person. This is a fairly common low level belief, maybe you exercise and lose weight so people won't call you a fat slob anymore, but they make it the essentially the only thing. Then they reify it under a belief that this will change material reality somehow*. The gender thing is essentially just their own hangups about gender that they then project onto "society" since society itself is nothing but outputs from their inputs. The reason so many troons don't change anything about the personality or hygiene habits or anything else is because they fundamentally feel the problem is everyone else, if they could just be manipulated into seeing them "correctly" everything would change. Their body being wrong is just easier to accept than that their personality is responsible because it means they aren't doing anything wrong, it's just circumstances beyond their control. (Hence the need to assert that gender must be something under their personal control.)

*I would argue this is because it means nothing is truly ever outside their control, they just need to figure out how to manipulate it.
 
Last edited:
If you feel you should have been born blind and want to throw acid in your eyes: that's nuts, we need to give you some therapy and medication combo that suppresses these urges.
If the part you want to get rid of is your dick: you're completely correct, let's get that done for you.
See, I dont get how TRAs can claim transrace is ridiculous when race is argued to be both a social construct like gender is but also has some biological factors to it as well. Also, speaking of transrace, TRA tries to desperately claim the two aren't the same. c75bb806-c767-503d-b3a1-ec2f244675b2.jpg
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but is this guy's argument that because one day racism may no longer exist that transrace can't exist, but physical features and stereotypes of the sexes will continue to exist which means transgenderism is valid?
 
"Race is an arbitrary categorization" yeah okay troon, tell that to your doctor then because ethnic background is statistically relevant to your chances of having certain genetic disorders. As is your sex.
 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but is this guy's argument that because one day racism may no longer exist that transrace can't exist, but physical features and stereotypes of the sexes will continue to exist which means transgenderism is valid?
I think they are arguing that transrace boils down a race into stereotypes and physical features (like Afro=black) and they can't get rid of racism at a societal level if people are categorizing themselves via racial characteristics.

Which is OF COURSE totally different from people boiling down gender into stereotypes and physical features (like breasts=female) because it's not like we can get rid of gender differences at a societal level

So they are simultaneously claiming race isn't real so we can overcome racial differences (since there "aren't any") but gender is so engrained in our society that we can never overcome it and therefore we should allow people to change themselves. Total logical inconsistency, pants on head retarded.
 
I think what they mean about race is that ethnicity isn't black and white, if you'll excuse the pun. There are many different ethnic groups that American racial dynamics categorise as one big black group. There is more to genetics than skin colour, which is what most people (apart from actual geneticists or similar medical experts or KiwiFarms users) use to define and categorise race. So it's still true that transracialism makes no sense. Buuuut there are two sexes. I kind of have more respect for people who just admit they don't want to abolish gender despite the supposed grief it brings them over people who knock every alternate suggestion for solutions as utopian nonsense. Unhindered access to cosmetic treatments and improvements to said treatments so that you do totally become the other sex is also pretty pie in the sky but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from wishful thinking. I would bet that redditor wouldn't call that utopian.
 
See, I dont get how TRAs can claim transrace is ridiculous when race is argued to be both a social construct like gender is but also has some biological factors to it as well. Also, speaking of transrace, TRA tries to desperately claim the two aren't the same. View attachment 6997380
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but is this guy's argument that because one day racism may no longer exist that transrace can't exist, but physical features and stereotypes of the sexes will continue to exist which means transgenderism is valid?
He's not using a consistent definition of gender* but he is using a consistent definition of race. You can see it when he says gender is a "material phenomena" and describes it earlier as a "set of norms and behaviors that have developed thorough evolution as a result of intra-sex competition for a mate." His definition will fool you to think he's saying gender is a social construct, but he's actually not, he's saying it's tied to evolution and would mean things like breasts, longer hair, provocative hips, etc. It's essentially the transmedicalist position, which therefore eliminates 99% of the transgender population from being transgender and returns the trans population to how it was maybe 20 years ago or so versus its current explosion in population.

He is in fact right about race but attacks GCs for being "utopian" despite his race position being equally utopian.

It's also a misunderstanding of the GC position, the GC position is typically only about abolishing gender in its social form, his definition of gender is basically what GCs want it to be. They'd be quibbling about the details of what's due to evolution or not, not the overall position. He's effectively said that women are adult human females BUT that a man with enough manipulation could approximate it. GCs would obviously oppose this but I imagine it would be an acceptable compromise they might take. It's the modern trans community that would refuse.

*Okay, so actually, he's using a somewhat unclear definition of evolution. He's waving in social/cultural evolution along with biological evolution. Even though most people wouldn't think of both when you say "evolution" despite his signaling it through "norms and behaviors" in the same sentence. There are norms and behaviors in both senses, but he's either too stupid or being manipulative about how we can demarcate these. It wouldn't actually "solve" anything about gender, just ignite a debate about what's social and what's not, something you already get with the different types of evolution that he collapsed together. And something that GCs and feminists in general have argued about for decades if not centuries.
 
Last edited:
Funnily enough stupidpol just had the "transrace" struggle session:
radlibexplanation1.png
Richard Dawkins, Adolph Reed and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie are three people who used to be respected on the left who got cancelled for asking this exact question.
radlibexplanation2.png
radlibexplanation3.png
radlibexplanation4.png
I seriously don't know how this sub hasn't been shutdown by the autogynephiles who moderate reddit. I guess it's mostly men who post on stupidpol so that may have bought them some leeway. The best explanation for how they are different seems to be that transgender is innate somehow, but transrace isn't. Which completely contradicts the idea that gender is a social construct. I always think of this tumblr post when troons talk about how gender identities are innate:

haircut.png

links:


 
Posting a lot in this thread because its really interesting seeing the bizarre pseudoscience TIPs believe in. This time around, TIM claims trans women are a result of evolution because...women being oppressed for thousands of years created a difference in the brain development of male babies to shift the balance of power in their favor? Thus trans women were made to save women?
c4d26648-5a32-5a59-b3a3-15e7dbc1160a.jpg
 
All of this shit is unrealistic fetish play but some of these are true in terms of sexual development. HRT gives you powerful full-body orgasms comparable to those that females have and better than the usual male prostate orgasm, which is why most coomers end up transitioning
 
HRT gives you powerful full-body orgasms
So it is a drug addiction! I've heard the same argument said about cocaine and meth, that it makes sex better and more intense and euphoric and people can't imagine having sex without it. In the case of meth I've also read queers saying they don't feel normal (aka feminine and bottom-addicted) without meth. It legitimately changes who they (feel like they) are.

If niggas can be psychologically addicted to weed it's not a stretch to think queers are addicted to HRT.
 
Gene processes are the instructions. The hormones are not the instructions. These disturbed humans are outright liars with absolutely no advanced knowledge of contemporary human biological science.
A great example is fat—hormones will change the distribution of fat in the body. They will not change the structure of the fat. Chromosomes do not change because of hormones.

images(2).jpg

I know science education in the US is bad, but the fact that an entire generation seems to understand genetics so little that they were taken in by the phoney explanations of perverts grasping at legitimacy for their perversions, is very disheartening.
 
Posting a lot in this thread because its really interesting seeing the bizarre pseudoscience TIPs believe in. This time around, TIM claims trans women are a result of evolution because...women being oppressed for thousands of years created a difference in the brain development of male babies to shift the balance of power in their favor? Thus trans women were made to save women?
c4d26648-5a32-5a59-b3a3-15e7dbc1160a.jpg
No, my dear Advanced Biologist, this is not how evolution works.

Evolution does not play the long game. An organism doesn't think, "Gee, what if I started making male babies that is more female-brained, so that 100 generations later we have dickgirls that will speak on behalf of women?". No, evolution only operates on the here and now. If the female-brained boys from your accursed ova cannot outcompete the normal boys of normal moms -- and how are they supposed to compete when they are busy 41% themselves? -- your genes are forfeit.
 
An organism doesn't think, "Gee, what if I started making male babies that is more female-brained, so that 100 generations later we have dickgirls that will speak on behalf of women?".
The amazing implication that proto-troon ancestors were bene gesserit and could just close their eyes and focus real hard on creating a femboy is glorious Tranny Biology.
 
Evolution does not play the long game. An organism doesn't think, "Gee, what if I started making male babies that is more female-brained, so that 100 generations later we have dickgirls that will speak on behalf of women?". No, evolution only operates on the here and now. If the female-brained boys from your accursed ova cannot outcompete the normal boys of normal moms -- and how are they supposed to compete when they are busy 41% themselves? -- your genes are forfeit.
If his bizarre pseudo science was even correct then wouldn't women back then want to think that women should be stronger than men and thus women over 100 generations later became stronger than men? Why would psychologically oppressed women think "In order to stick it to males, we'll create males with female brains to prove that women are stronger than men!" Also, considering that TIMs have been threatening women and these men are scared to go into men's spaces then I guess evolution's point that he thinks its making failed because it would still prove that men are stronger than women if a guy with a lady brain is scared of men.
 
Back
Top Bottom