Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
Your mental illness is worse than ever Kermit.
💬 Off-Topic Tranny Biology - HRT Is Magic
- Thread starter SouthernBitchBob
- Start date
-
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
Athena Save Us!
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2024
No kidding. Just one more piece of evidence to throw on the pile that troonism is a regressive ideology.
Not Dr. Evil
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2022
ACLU pooner Kate Strangio
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2024
It still baffles me that Brianna Wu appears to be the most sane troon. That's a really low bar to clear, but it's interesting to see that even people on the same side of ideology are getting tired of the post-modern "literally everything is subjective" philosophy because they realize that's an untenable position to actually do anything, let alone get normies to accept it.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2021
They're working with a different definition of sex.
In cases of intersex people (DSDs) there can be a mismatch of various traits, which is why you'll see reference to "chromosomal sex", "gonadal sex", "genital sex", "hormonal sex" etc. This in itself is not actually that controversial - for example, with Corbett v Corbett, determining if someone should be legally classed as a woman considered the three different factors of chromosomes, gonads and genitals. A CAIS woman has male chromosomes and (non functional) testes, but she's got the anatomical structure of a woman and so within that context would legally be classed as a woman, despite being a biological male (because it makes no sense to call her a man in that context). But this differentiation is made within that context.
The very smarmy "I can change my sex" crowd use that to argue that, for example, they've changed their hormonal, phenotypic, genital and gonadal sex to female, and so only their chromosomes are male. This is obviously a dumb argument. They've not changed their gonadal sex (they don't now have ovaries), they've merely had their gonads removed. They haven't grown a vulva, they've just had their male genitals reshaped into a crude approximation of a vulva. They have 200 pg/ml serum estradiol levels, which does lie far outside of the typical male range - but that's because they're taking exogenous hormones, and "200 pg/ml" is only "female hormonal sex" in as much that just before ovulation that's roughly where a woman's serum estradiol level is, but it obviously varies massively throughout the cycle and pre-puberty and post-menopause (which is a gotcha they like to use about sex cells). Phenotypic sex typically was another way of saying genital sex but then there's arguments about secondary sex characteristics, although again I wouldn't really class "getting breast implants" as changing "phenotypic sex".
So if you're already approaching sex as being a large assortment of different traits, rather than the state of belonging to the sex that would (all things being equal) either produce large immotile gametes or small motile gametes, you can start confusing that with sexually dimorphic traits.
Men are stronger and taller than women. However some men are short and weak, and some women are tall and very strong. These traits are bimodally distributed. However there is no such thing as "height sex", a tall woman does not have a male height, she is just a tall woman. Additionally these traits all cluster together so just because someone's height or strength sticks out, these are all influenced by sex related factors.
Technically you can argue that phenotypic sex/genital sex can exist in an intermediary state (ambiguous genitalia, doctors struggling to work out "what" someone is). Gonadal sex can very, very rarely be in an intermediary state (ovotestesticular syndrome as a result of gonadal dysgenesis) but that is not a state that results in producing both sets of sex cells or some sort of intermediate sex cell and it's usually the result of mosaic chimerism (i.e. two foetuses merged into one). Chromosomal disorders are not bimodal because there's far more possible permutations (XXY, XXX, X0, XYY, XXYY, XX-male etc) that wouldn't fall into an "intermediate", they're just something that goes wrong during sex cell production.
The clearest counterpoint to this argument is that the variable facets of sex are fundamentally immutable. A woman who has had a mastectomy due to breast cancer has not changed her phenotypic sex to male. A man who has lost his testicles to testicular cancer had not changed his gonadal sex to female. A woman who has a vaginectomy has not changed her genital sex. A man who suffers mosaic Y loss from somatic cells as a result of senesence has not changed his chromosomal sex.
They like to argue "if you treated me like a biological male, then I'd get the wrong treatment!". But they're a biological male who just has a relevant case history for many conditions, and treating them like biological women would also result in incorrect treatment (which admittedly can have amusing results in the SRS thread where a hapless gynaecologist goes "oh my god WHAT HAPPENED? Did you get mangled in a car crash?").
The idea that they're pushing - that everyone exists on a spectrum of sex - dates back to Magnus Hirschfeld's theory of sexual intermediaries, where he defined thousands of things as facets of sex (like "woman with narrow hips", "man with girly handwriting", "woman with a deep voice" or "man who likes doing housework") and argued therefore everyone is in someway intermediate and nobody is "really" male or female. The reason it's pushed now is the same reason it was pushed then; to push to change how people were legally classified and what they were allowed to do.
- Joined
- May 24, 2023
Cool bird facts, but also one of the most bizarre and retarded analogies I have ever seen. I don't know what they think they are accomplishing by making these comparisons to non-human animals. Given that humans are not these animals, so there is no reason why non-human animal logic should apply to humans. But even on face value it makes no sense, as they seem to think this is some sort of parallel to transgenderism, and I have no idea why. There's a claim that a certain bird has four sexes, but they haven't proven that at all, they have just redefined sex to mean "mating behavior" rather than "phenotype* associated with gamete production." As far as I can tell, all these birds still only produce two gametes. So we are witnessing the usual troon debate tactic of arbitrarily redefining words and then pretending that the concept that the original definition described no longer exists because the word used to describe it means something else now.
*not genotype, don't correct me, it's about gene activation not just what genes are present
Whenever they bring up these distinctions, one thing to note is it only potentially validates trans people being a separate gender, not a man or a woman. Different cultures do have different ways of conceptualising gender, but sex is always a component in that gender categorisation. These terms in cultures that make a multitude of gender distinctions are meant to delineate both sex and cultural role (specific divisions of labour for example) in those cases, and there's probably some evolutionary reason why some males in particular might be more naturally prone to take on feminine social duties (in the same way as a man with a lot of older brothers is more likely to be homosexual to lessen male sexual competition), but no culture that's acknowledged nor made space for it has ever accepted them as being the same as women or transmen as being the same as men. These male sandpipers being described aren't "wrong" and ascribing that "wrongness" that trans people feel to this subset of male sandpipers serving an important function in facilitating the reproductive success of their species actually shows just how backwards this type of thinking is.
If someone wants to adopt a different appearance or social role, who cares, really? But if that's the case, one should be arguing for their right to self-expression and bodily autonomy rather than forcing compelled speech or incoherent changes in semantic concepts. If one has a better internal locus of control, life or death doesn't hinge on a simple descriptor, anyhow.
If someone wants to adopt a different appearance or social role, who cares, really? But if that's the case, one should be arguing for their right to self-expression and bodily autonomy rather than forcing compelled speech or incoherent changes in semantic concepts. If one has a better internal locus of control, life or death doesn't hinge on a simple descriptor, anyhow.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 31, 2020
If that were the case indeed. Though the patterns of behavior lead me to believe that, in the case of fetish-induced troonery, the fantasy they're troonsforming into the real true opposite hot sexy sex is a key component. Not going along with it breaks the extended gooning session.
woc_krava
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 15, 2025
There this video of a tranny, whose wife claims that he lost 3 inches.
This is the short:
They have a long version, that I can't honestly listen through:
My question is - is it possible that oestrogen makes somebody lose that much height or is it less and some part of the reality-bending tranny attempts?
Besides the biology question, this channel is super creepy. Their kids are in almost every video.
This is the short:
They have a long version, that I can't honestly listen through:
My question is - is it possible that oestrogen makes somebody lose that much height or is it less and some part of the reality-bending tranny attempts?
Besides the biology question, this channel is super creepy. Their kids are in almost every video.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2024
There is some reality to people changing after getting castrated, where their muscles (which require testosterone to be properly strong) atrophy in their back and they get a "eunuch hump" because they can't hold themselves upright any longer. So you could lose some height to slouching tranny posture.
Women also have more issues with osteoporosis as they get older, so I could potentially see bone weakening being on the table.
My actual thoughts on the situation - most likely the troon learned to "stand like a woman" to appear shorter. I see lots of pictures of troons with lordosis, where they stick their butt out so much that their pelvis tilts forward. That could lower apparent height a bit. If this dude did get his balls removed, the lordosis could be a result of the muscle loss I mentioned above. Losing muscle strength so your lower back curves forward means your upper back muscles have to be stronger to not also have your upper back curve as well.
- Joined
- May 24, 2023
It might be a bit of both. Cross sex hormones fuck your bones up which can mess with your spine. That could cause you to get a bit shorter. But trannies do like to just make shit up, or at least exaggerate stuff. So it's hard to say.
- Joined
- May 31, 2020
It can't be much. Bones don't shrink, and if they lost nearly as much height as they fantasize it'd involve grinding their discs together, which is a hospital thing, not a tylenol thing. Hey, maybe that's the "period pain" AGPs are chasing!
Jacques1194
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2023
Its because if being a woman is something that's subjective to the person's mind then how can woman be defined? The argument I hear from TRAs is that gender is a social construct. Such as girls liking pink but that doesn't define what being a woman is. Hence why they say that's a social construct. But if liking feminine things doesn't define what being a woman is, why do TRAs insist certain people and characters are trans if they like things that aren't associated with their gender? Too many times I've seen these people claim female character is "trans male coded" because she wears baggy clothing and has short hair. But wait? These same people claim that liking certain things doesn't define what being a man/woman is. Again, the entire ideology is contradicting and it baffles me how allowed it is because if this was any other movement, leftists would have called out said ideology.
Speaking of crazy, this user on Vexxed shared this Bluesky post where she was arguing with a TIM about what being a woman is.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2024
Jacques1194
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2023
Kinda late comment but was looking through this thread and thought about this. Really, what exactly would even be the evolutionary advantage to having a "gender identity" different from your sex? I know TRAs argue that not every TIM gets their balls chopped off and can still have biological kids but even still, its like a few people including me said before. If a male bird (Rooster) thought he was a female bird (hen) what would be the advantage of him thinking that he can lay eggs that he can't make? If TRAs were to argue that gender identity only exists in humans because we are a more evolved species then still, what would be the point of gender identity and why it should matter more than sex when it comes to humans? Even setting aside TIMs who dont get the chop and with how bad their mental health is, troons in general are a big turn off for most people, even to their allies that I don't see any evolutionary reason for why it should even exist.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2022
I can't answer your question; it's probably rhetorical (yes, yes,
, that's fair); but your question does have a biological trivium tangent to it, and that's that IN BIRDS, FEMALES (I.E. THE BIG GAMETE HAVERS) ARE XY, WHILE MALES (I.E. THE SMALL GAMETE HAVERS) ARE XX.Isn't that curious? We call the chromosomes ZZ and ZW to avoid the obvious confusion this might cause, but they're the same thing under a microscope. The Z chromosome is the X chromosome, and the W chromosome is the Y chromosome. We can argue that this trivium is on topic, right? HEY TRANNIES, HERE'S SOME BIOLOGY FOR YOU TO PERVERT TOWARDS YOUR MOTIVATED REASONING!
Also curious is that the ZZ's (i.e the XX's) are the pretty ones too, just like in humans.
Aaaanyways, yeah probably no evolutionary advantage at all, whatsoever, to believe you're the opposite sex. Maaaybe, being hypothetical here, feel free to disprove it, the advantage in the human species is that you've got a shaman-type, staying at home with the women, drawing magic spells in charcoal on the cave walls instead of being out on the hunt with the men, and these shaman types can IT'S MA'AM all over any attackers while the men are gone? I probably don't understand genetic evolution though; this hypothesis sounds a whole lot like the "gay uncle gene" hypothesis, which is wholly ignorant of the Selfish Gene Principle.
Yes, because as everyone knows twins don't have identical environments and aren't extraordinarily close to one another socially.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 31, 2020
Evolution spits out weird shit sometimes, doesn't really need a reason for things to stick around; things showing up and staying for reasons is more of a general trend than a hard rule. I'm personally more swayed by the idea that there is no real evidence for "gender identity". It's effectively a woo-woo secular bastardization of the concept of a soul. We correctly identify the idea that someone is "truly Asian on the inside" as either a maladaptive take on a set of personality traits or mental illness, not a "racial identity". If a pooner's brain were truly a man trapped in a woman's body, chromosomes be damned, why did her tits sprout and her vagina start cycling during puberty? Barring rare known genetic anomalies that troons (who don't have them) like to hide behind. Every part of her female brain works more or less as one would expect it to, save the part that houses her belief that she's a man. Psychology has seriously failed these people. It's as if the mental health industry collectively decided to come up with ever more elaborate fantastical reasons why the murderous clowns in a schizophrenic's hallucinations are "true"; the rest of us just need to catch up and understand that invisible clowns really are everywhere.
If it were anything less fuzzy than psychology it'd be pretty cut and dried. You feel like your skin cells are really eye cells? Well, no. They're not eye cells, because they don't have any of the form or functions of eye cells. There is no ghostly ethereal force hovering around your skin cells that makes them "really" eye cells, you're just incorrect and possibly mentally ill.
The "gay uncle gene" is one of those rationalizations for something we just don't really understand. We have some twin study literature that shows (particularly male) homosexuality is probably more genetic than environmental, but why is as yet a question mark.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
If anything male animals of some species having XX with females having XY should be the perfect argument against hormone BS. They treat testosterone and estrogen like it's magic gender units and not bodily regulation shit. Anyone not aiming to warp shit to be about trans or gendershit stuff when presented with how humans and other species do stuff genetics wise and go and recognize this is all just bodily function shit that's kinda interesting and not some kinda "own" against whatever perceived enemy.I can't answer your question; it's probably rhetorical (yes, yes,
View attachment 7560556
Isn't that curious? We call the chromosomes ZZ and ZW to avoid the obvious confusion this might cause, but they're the same thing under a microscope. The Z chromosome is the X chromosome, and the W chromosome is the Y chromosome. We can argue that this trivium is on topic, right? HEY TRANNIES, HERE'S SOME BIOLOGY FOR YOU TO PERVERT TOWARDS YOUR MOTIVATED REASONING!
Also curious is that the ZZ's (i.e the XX's) are the pretty ones too, just like in humans.
Aaaanyways, yeah probably no evolutionary advantage at all, whatsoever, to believe you're the opposite sex. Maaaybe, being hypothetical here, feel free to disprove it, the advantage in the human species is that you've got a shaman-type, staying at home with the women, drawing magic spells in charcoal on the cave walls instead of being out on the hunt with the men, and these shaman types can IT'S MA'AM all over any attackers while the men are gone? I probably don't understand genetic evolution though; this hypothesis sounds a whole lot like the "gay uncle gene" hypothesis, which is wholly ignorant of the Selfish Gene Principle.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2016
To be fair, the same could be said for severe mental illness or developmental disability - those are near absolute barriers to reproduction but some combination of latent genetic predisposition + environmental factors + incredible coincidence mean they are still present in humans hundreds-thousands of years after they were first documented.
Does this mean troonery is innate? Of course not. For conditions that functionally remove someone from the gene pool like schizophrenia there is documentation from a wide variety of cultures + time periods with reasonably consistent symptoms which points to it being innate on some level. But troonery? That's a completely contemporary phenomenon, once you subtract out wo/men looking for a socially acceptable way to do things normally reserved for the opposite sex (not necessarily a perv thing, think women hunters/warriors) the historical record is close to nil.