/lgbt/ - LGBT

before i knew HRT was an option i daydreamed about all the expensive "sex change" surgeries
the only reason i pursued a career was being able to afford these as my dysphoria made me more and more doomer about any future in my assigned gender

This sounds like cope, like you've convinced yourself that you'd be 100% "normal" if it hadn't been for your wealth bracket, when there's several well off trans people, such as at least 5 of Elon Musk's kids, or the many trans people that do have families to support.

Also trans people were just as abundant in whatever before-times you're idolizing, just less well documented.

>>8297
Yeah nah. transhumanists have been around forever but the technology has just gotten better and they are less persecuted so they are more visible these days it seems

>>8297
>the bulk of new trans people are trans women
this isn't even true lol
they're just the ones the media focuses on because it's harder to demonize AFABs

I think to be trans you already need to be kind of well off, otherwise where are you getting money for surgeries?
But then, even if you are rich, transitioning is still worthwhile, because nobody likes men. If you're a rich man, yes, you can buy women, but they will not really like you, so you have to either transition or lookmax as a man - two processes that are way more similar than society would like to acknowledge.

>>8722
Edit: Transitioning when you are poor can, however, work if you have a good starting point. That is why, for example, so many ladyboys are in Thailand, which is a very poor country, because Thai people are very androgynous by nature. By the way, Thailand is actually the prime example for OPs point - you don't see a lot of FTMs in Thailand, I don't think I have ever seen or heard about one, but MTFs are so common, they're one of the first things people think about.

By the way, what I said earlier that your starting point affects your chances of getting out of poverty by transitioning - shows that feminity itself is a very valuable resource, you cannot really be poor if you are feminine, not in the same sense and to the same extent as a poor man.
Bringing this up usually make a certain demographic absolutely lose it and foam at the mouth, so I'm not sure how long this post will stay here.

>would you be trans if you had a good job making 120k a year? if you had the ability to support a family?
It would follow that there are no rich trans people, an easily contradicted implication.

>>8722
>I think to be trans you already need to be kind of well off
Civilized countries cover the cost of trans healthcare.

This is a popular urban myth tats promoted by right wingers.
Also most women donot have as much economic prosperity under feminism as you think.
The only successful women in the era are the lucky few who found jobs and wages relative to thet degree

>>8803
An onlyfans girl can make several times more than a professional wage worker.
Women get offered a professional worker's monthly wage for a night with some rich guy.

A dominatrix can easily charge $1000/hour. To be clear basically no software engineer at google or whatever gets paid $1000 an hour. People with PhDs, very senior positions, researches, scientists etc, are overwhelmingly valued less than a woman who can dress in latex an spank a man.

I am not sure why women bother to wageslave at all. I mean I understand if a woman likes her work and just does it because she enjoys the work itself, not for the money. But women definitely cannot be wage slaves, they are NOT in the same boat as me when it comes to employment as a phenomenon. I have to participate in this circus because I cannot survive otherwise. I imagine they can participate in it only if they enjoy the process for some reason.

>>9379
> An onlyfans girl can make several times more than a professional wage worker.
Women get offered a professional worker's monthly wage for a night with some rich guy.

Those are the top one percent of Only Fans.

> A dominatrix can easily charge $1000/hour. To be clear basically no software engineer at google or whatever gets paid $1000 an hour. People with PhDs, very senior positions, researches, scientists etc, are overwhelmingly valued less than a woman who can dress in latex an spank a man.

Again, those are outliers. Also, dominatrixes aren’t valued as much as you think. They have a short time window.
They can be rejected for losing their beauty or nuance. Those sex clubs that seemingly glorify women? Those women get Pennie’s


> I am not sure why women bother to wageslave at all. I mean I understand if a woman likes her work and just does it because she enjoys the work itself, not for the money. But women definitely cannot be wage slaves, they are NOT in the same boat as me when it comes to employment as a phenomenon. I have to participate in this circus because I cannot survive otherwise. I imagine they can participate in it only if they enjoy the process for some reason.

Anon, have you ever looked and the average woman? Most of them aren’t as pretty as you think they are. Their beauty comes from makeup.
And eve then, most women don’t want to be mere meatbags for cishet male sexual gratification.

>>8297
> this only accounts for a small but noticable percentage of trans people, and does not imply that all trans people come from this logic, only that this logic does to some degree create trans people, and if economic opportunities were better, there would surely be less trans people. This is also why the bulk of new trans people are trans women. Women don't really need to transition to a man to access the economics that womanhood innately brings. The inability to perform the role of man, which is fundmentally an economic role, leads to men transitioning.

This is so retarded.

First off, trans men aren’t given any media attention at all. Only trans women because they’re worried about “rape”
Also, the amount of men who wanna transition for social value are way smaller than you think.
Plus most trans women aren’t all that gorgeous.

Also the economic value of women is limited only to their looks or expertise.

>>8297
nah, although your theory's implications would proxy my own "forbidden" theory. it is not that women make more money, or that men do not wish to be breadwinners, but that maleness is an entirely hollow and negative role nowadays. there is no real "Positive masculinity" as such because all positive traits are merely neutral, leaving behind only the traits nobody wants. As such, a man really has a limited set of options: to just kind of ignore this in a charming neurotypical way (where the sheer force of individual personality overcomes gender distinction), to just kind of ignore this in an autistic way. (where the sheer force of their special interests overcomes this distinction), to accept incidentally holding a purely negative role as part of their identity either in a depressive way or in an asshole way, to become non-binary but not really get any credit for it, or to transition.

the problem with any economic theory is that it implies trans women are retarded. now, this isn't unique to trans typology (what is blanchardism but the distinction between the intelligent pervert and the retarded homosexual?) but it's still a big barrier to overcome. even if cis women made more money with less responsibilities, it wouldn't follow that trans women have the same privilege. economic reality is that trans women mostly skew poorer, which is truly remarkable given the prominence of STEM-transwomen in well paid jobs.

now you could draw from this that the reason there are more trans-women is because masculine women experience less dysphoria as a baseline. you can be a tomboy, that is an actual recognized social category of womanhood, but being a sissy isn't really a thing outside fetishism and being a "tom-girl" is a coinage unique to chris chan. as a result, feminine AMABs are much more restricted in how they can express femininity without transitioning.
personally, however, i'm uncool and subscribe to the biological theory: because all foetuses start as female, some kind of hormonal fuckup in the womb triggers the "become masculine physically" flag without the "tell the baby it's a boy" flag, and that's why you get more mtfs than ftms.

>>8707
oh, this is also true.
(although a big chunk of women are what a politically incorrect type would call "theyfabs")

>>8722
HRT is reasonably cheap and surgery is more of a nice to have. a lot of transgender people are just kind of stuck in the "visibly transgender" phase.

>>9379
you're looking at the long-tail of a miserable, lopsided distribution. for every onlyfans girl or dominatrix making $1000/hour you'll find some desperate sap selling her nudes for $1 or desperately trying to be a dominatrix on twitter and totally flopping with like 20 followers.

this is like going "elon musk earns $3.6 million to $29 million per hour" to demonstrate the economic superiority of men. yes, he really does! but he is a very, very improbable man and the average man makes (get this) basically the average wage.

>>9390
> personally, however, i'm uncool and subscribe to the biological theory: because all foetuses start as female, some kind of hormonal fuckup in the womb triggers the "become masculine physically" flag without the "tell the baby it's a boy" flag, and that's why you get more mtfs than ftms.

Nope. It’s more that male individuality isn’t respected as much.
Also fetuses don’t really start out as “female”

You’re using the typical pop sci of crypto autogynophilia

>>9390
> but that maleness is an entirely hollow and negative role nowadays. there is no real "Positive masculinity" as such because all positive traits are merely neutral, leaving behind only the traits nobody wants. As such, a man really has a limited set of options: to just kind of ignore this in a charming neurotypical way (where the sheer force of individual personality overcomes gender distinction), to just kind of ignore this in an autistic way. (where the sheer force of their special interests overcomes this distinction), to accept incidentally holding a purely negative role as part of their identity either in a depressive way or in an asshole way, to become non-binary but not really get any credit for it, or to transition

That’s because being a cishet male is seen as an acceptable target for mocking and demonizing now.

> oh, this is also true.
(although a big chunk of women are what a politically incorrect type would call "theyfabs")

Most popular representation/proclamation of gender queerdom is just women using alternative aesthetics

>>8722
By your logic, no one really likes women either. Whenever society acknowledges women, they mainly focus on prime age women. Older women are treated as second class citizens. They’re only seen as maternal figures, meant to be some sort of sentient plush teddy bear to appeal to peoples feelings.

>>8722
> you're a rich man, yes, you can buy women, but they will not really like you, so you have to either transition or lookmax as a man - two processes that are way more similar than society would like to acknowledge.

Not true. A lot of men who transition don’t really look as good as they’d hope and often suffer from hormonal side effects
Looks maxing can be done without transitioning and much cheaper and less dramatic

>>9390
> now you could draw from this that the reason there are more trans-women is because masculine women experience less dysphoria as a baseline. you can be a tomboy, that is an actual recognized social category of womanhood, but being a sissy isn't really a thing outside fetishism and being a "tom-girl" is a coinage unique to chris chan. as a result, feminine AMABs are much more restricted in how they can express femininity without transitioning.

Have you considered that maybe trans men are just as plentiful but they’re ignored and that pre-op trans men are often shuffled into the tomboy category?
Not all masculine women are tomboys. Not all FtM are into sports or whatever.

The FtM experience is often overlooked and undersympathised compared to its counterpart.

>>9392
on the contrary i would say male individuality is basically the only thing that can salvage being a man. (this is what i was getting at by "sheer force of personality" and "sheer force of special interests"

pop sci has advantages for explaining concepts quickly and glibly (which is obviously my approach here), the details don't matter so much as the directionality. so long as the cause is something in the womb (and don't be too hasty discrediting that in favour of social constructivism, look at the well documented birth order effect influence on male homosexuality and the way that this does not happen to adoptees.) the details aren't too important.

>>9393
even if men weren't an acceptable target for mocking and demonizing, masculinity would still be hollow. it's (basically) acceptable to make fun of the irish, italians, etc, but those identities have some positive content (even if like all nationalism it's a bit of a LARP, the irish are generally seen as friendly and funny people, italians by good food and art and so on.)

>>9396
to be overlooked and undersympathised is the gender affirming way to treat a contemporary man.
as far as i know, trans men are more plentiful, but they rub against social norms much less. they can't really be spun as a threat in the way that transwomen can. (hence why most anti-trans grift portrays FtM people as victims rather than as potential predators.)

>>9397
>on the contrary i would say male individuality is basically the only thing that can salvage being a man. (this is what i was getting at by "sheer force of personality" and "sheer force of special interests"

Individuality is the only thing that can salvage any demographic regardless of race, gender, or age.

>pop sci has advantages for explaining concepts quickly and glibly (which is obviously my approach here), the details don't matter so much as the directionality. so long as the cause is something in the womb (and don't be too hasty discrediting that in favour of social constructivism, look at the well documented birth order effect influence on male homosexuality and the way that this does not happen to adoptees.) the details aren't too important.

You’re just rationalizing woo woo right now. No different from urban myths about “coal burners” or natural disasters are divine punishment.

>even if men weren't an acceptable target for mocking and demonizing, masculinity would still be hollow. it's (basically) acceptable to make fun of the irish, italians, etc, but those identities have some positive content (even if like all nationalism it's a bit of a LARP, the irish are generally seen as friendly and funny people, italians by good food and art and so on.)


It seems to me you have a problem with masculinity. But ok, if masculinity is hollow then so is femininity.

> to be overlooked and undersympathised is the gender affirming way to treat a contemporary man.
as far as i know, trans men are more plentiful, but they rub against social norms much less. they can't really be spun as a threat in the way that transwomen can. (hence why most anti-trans grift portrays FtM people as victims rather than as potential predators.)

So I guess treating women as invisible after their thirties is the gender affirming way to treat them.

Again your rationale seems to have willful contempt for cishet males which is a common thing I find in “leftist” spaces, especially in gender discussions

The glorification of femininity as some omnipresent essence while treating masculinity as a defect or total spook.

>>9397
> the details don't matter so much as the directionality. so long as the cause is something in the womb

There isn’t.
Transgenderism and homosexuality aren’t genetic although they are bio psychological

Would you apply this same logic for trans men and tomboys?

>>9397
> even if men weren't an acceptable target for mocking and demonizing, masculinity would still be hollow. it's (basically) acceptable to make fun of the irish, italians, etc, but those identities have some positive content (even if like all nationalism it's a bit of a LARP, the irish are generally seen as friendly and funny people, italians by good food and art and so on.)

Most of which are because of men.
If you view masculinity as hollow, then you have to admit that femininity is also hollow especially since it focuses on youthful beauty and docility far too much.

I will admit that masculinity is wrongfully gatekept and mystified but so is femininity.

Btw this all is exaggerated even more in poorer countries. I live in the outskirts of eastern europe and a dominatrix will still charge $200 as the bare minimum, and I've seen them charging close to $1000 too. That's one thing when it happens in the west, although even there that's absurdly much, but here it's even more absurdly much - like come on, $300-400 is already someone's monthly wage, so an unfortunate man legit wakes up every date at 8am, goes to his wagecage, gets humuliated by management, phyiscally tired and emotionally drained, gets back home after 6pm, and this all month long only to get $300-400 for a month of this soul-draining slavery, less than a woman gets an hour or two at worst for having her feet licked or smth like that. So a month of a man's life is worth less than an hour of woman's. Just how dehumanizing is that?


>>9384
>Again, those are outliers.
Oh really? Try to find one chargin under $200 an hour at least, and even that will probably be an "online session" lmao.
> Also, dominatrixes aren’t valued as much as you think.
Right, there's a more highly paid category - GFE.
>They have a short time window.
>They can be rejected for losing their beauty or nuance.
No they don't, there are 50yo+ dominatrixes charging barely less. And let's be honest, if at these income levels she doesn't have enough to not have to "work" anymore ever she must borderline mentally retarded, I think those that do it at that age just enjoy it.
And on beauty: any ugly woman is valued infinitely more than the average male (who is not valued at all) and can charge just as much. I've seen escort profiles where it's basically the female version of Chud and she charges $400 an hour (again, it's someone's monthly wage here). Sis, if you were male with these looks, you'd never get to touch a woman, you'd be bullied at school, you'd likely hang yourself by the age of 20-25 due to loneliness. Yet here you are, blessed with a vagina.

>>9384
> And eve then, most women don’t want to be mere meatbags for cishet male sexual gratification.
Yeah only for RICH OR MEGA PRETTY cishet male sexual gratification. They would genuinely prefer to work for pennies than to have to interact with a sub5 in any way, I know.
Btw note how you write "cishet male sexual gratification" as if it's a bad thing and whoever delivers it is a "meatbag", because it is - males are lower caste, therefore being with a man is automatically seen as below a woman, humiliating, unless he can seriously compensate, with money or better with looks.

>>9390
>HRT is reasonably cheap and surgery is more of a nice to have. a lot of transgender people are just kind of stuck in the "visibly transgender" phase.
It's not HRT price per se that's expensive, it's not candy you can just chew on, you need professional oversight over your health with periodic blood tests etc, switching your body to the opposite sex's hormone set is not joke.
> surgery is more of a nice to have.
Depends on how lucky you are with your genetics mostly, also on your age.

>this is like going "elon musk earns $3.6 million to $29 million per hour" to demonstrate the economic superiority of men. yes, he really does! but he is a very, very improbable man and the average man makes (get this) basically the average wage.
I couldn't even start earning $400/hour out of nowhere. Any woman can, it's basically zero effort.
Take a party yacht: men who end up there either had to have generational wealth or build their own business, taking risks and luck in the process. Women on that same yacht are just typical girls from poor families in Ukraine or some place like that who didn't have to do a goddamn thing to end up there, nor have any generational wealth. Very different requirements for men and women to end up in the same boat, literal or proverbial.

Piece of shit admin blocked tor again, surprised it let me post through i2p and didn't annoy me with captcha.

>>8297
>would you be trans if you had a good job making 120k a year? if you had the ability to support a family?
Yes? Retard.