/siberia/ - Off-topic

Actually lol'd

>>827339
>So according to rightoids working hard in order to become a billionaire is more doable than becoming a woman.
So which one do you want to be?

one has a 0.00000000001% chance of happening while the other one is physically impossible with current technology

There's an anime where one of the characters wins a tournament and earns a wish for their empire.

They wish to be a woman.

>>827344
A billionaire that buys all the women.

>>827390
Best isekai

kek

>>827368
/Thread.

>>827368
With our current technologies, it is possible to alter most of one's sexual characteristics (Epsteinites push the definition that sex = chromosomes/what you are born with – but in reality, it is a combination of sexual characteristics).

>>827455
>With our current technologies, it is possible to alter most of one's sexual characteristics (Epsteinites push the definition that sex = chromosomes/what you are born with – but in reality, it is a combination of sexual characteristics).
Do you have that screenshot of that epstein email? The one with the trans stuff about transhumanism and new genders?

>>827455
How?

>>827458
<Epsteinite
It was an autocorrection for k-word. Anyway.

>>827459
Retarded question. HRT + operations.

>>827459
It's not the only thing we can do to people. We can do a lot of cool shit. Have you heard of a donut?

>>827343
>>827368
>>827455
kys reactionaries

Siiiiiiiiiigh why are leftoids the ones that make more sense in these regards

>>827455
how is a belief in sex epstein

but anyways this will be just like the other thread about trans people in sports where anons unironically tried to argue that biological differences in sexes literally dont exist and that men and women should compete in the same categories

>>827663
>i'm just huff well i'm just concerned about womens sports is all!
go back to /pol/

>>827651
Psyop. Sex is changeable, and gender is an ephemeral term to invalidate transhumanists. At least talk about inner sex/gender identity.
>>827655
And you call a post where I say that trans women are female "reactionary"? So much for (((allies))).
>>827663
You don't believe in it. You believe in Ben Shapiro's nonsense about chromosomes.

>>827663
>how is a belief in sex epstein
sex is real, I think the confusion comes from gender vs. sex. some people assert sex and gender are the same thing while others recognize that gender is a cultural construct while sex is biological. for example. biological boys in the "west" used to wear dresses until age 3 in a process called "breaching" that is a gendered practice that is more "traditional" than what we do now but most people are confused upon first learning about it. it has been phased out. pink also used to be considered a masculine color in the "west"

>but anyways this will be just like the other thread about trans people in sports where anons unironically tried to argue that biological differences in sexes literally dont exist and that men and women should compete in the same categories
I think trans men and trans women should both have their own sports leagues and bathrooms where they can be free from abuse by cis people. we already segregate sports by age (kids never play against adults), ability (special olympics), and sex (men and women have separate leagues) but we should also segregate by gender. The mistake we have made in the "west" is to assume that desegregation is always the solution. That was the solution for race and religion but is not necessarily the solution for sex and gender. Trans are a very small and very vulnerable minority so they need their own spaces.

>but muh safe spaces muh micro aggressions
yes. people deserve to be safe from death by 1000 cuts

In any long drawn out argument it does seem like leftoids win especially morally, because life isn't fair or equal and so it makes them look better if they support leveling out society, but the practicalities of materializing this exactly as they want are next to non-existent

>>827676
>Psyop. Sex is changeable, and gender is an ephemeral term to invalidate transhumanists. At least talk about inner sex/gender identity.
incorrect. you have it backwards. trans people are transgender. changing sex is not possible because we cannot change the chromosomes of every cell or the biological past of what we were born as. with current tech we can only change secondary characteristics on a cosmetic level. what people are really asking for is to identify as whatever gender they feel that they are subjectively. and that is fine. people should be able to do that without humilitation or discrimination.

>>827679
> because life isn't fair or equal and so it makes them look better if they support leveling out society,

marx actually contradicts this "leveling out" as "crude":

<A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls. An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital. Rapid growth of productive capital calls forth just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and social pleasures. Therefore, although the pleasures of the labourer have increased, the social gratification which they afford has fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the stage of development of society in general. Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.

- Karl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital (1847), Chapter 6

Basically he is saying that being well-off isn't just about what you have, it's also about what everyone else has. If your income goes up but rich people's wealth increases much faster, you may actually feel poorer compared with them. Humans naturally compare themselves with other people, so our idea of what we need depends partly on the society we live in.

<The thoughts of every piece of private property as such are at least turned against richer private property in the form of envy and the desire to level everything down; hence these feelings in fact constitute the essence of competition. The crude communist is merely the culmination of this envy and desire to level down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited measure. How little this abolition of private property is a true appropriation is shown by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilization, and the return to the unnatural simplicity of the poor, unrefined man who has no needs and who has not yet even reached the stage of private property, let alone gone beyond it. (For crude communism) the community is simply a community of labor and equality of wages, which are paid out by the communal capital, the community as universal capitalist. Both sides of the relation are raised to an unimaginary universality – labor as the condition in which everyone is placed and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community. […] The first positive abolition of private property – crude communism – is therefore only a manifestation of the vileness of private property trying to establish itself as the positive community. […] By reducing the worker's needs to the paltriest minimum necessary to maintain his physical existence and by reducing his activity to the most abstract mechanical movement. In so doing, the political economist declares that man has no other needs, either in the sphere of activity or in that of consumption. For even this life he calls human life and human existence. By taking as his standard – his universal standard, in the sense that it applies to the mass of men – the worst possible state of privation which life (existence) can know. He turns the worker into a being with neither needs nor senses and turn the worker's activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. Hence any luxury that the worker might enjoy is reprehensible, and anything that goes beyond the most abstract need – either in the form of passive enjoyment or active expression – appears to him as a luxury.

- Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Third Manuscript, Private Property and Labor (1844)

Marx is pointing out that making everyone equally poor isn't real freedom. If you eliminate private property as an institution of class society, but give everyone only the bare minimum, you've solved inequality by making everyone live with less. Human beings need more than food and shelter, they also need culture, enjoyment, creativity, education, and opportunities to develop themselves.

>>827677
>You don't understand! transhumanists are merely changing their "gender," biologically, they are still vile degenerate moids who need to be segregated from normal people (it's for their own good!)
>>827680
>u r man, but wokely
You need to die. You are literally a subhuman who only validates transphobes and agrees with them on everything. Shut your fucking mouth and don't speak on a subject you know nothing about – especially when the people you're defending want you dead because of your saboteur acts.

>>827684
your strawman says transsexuality but i never said transsexuality. i said transgender. you seem to be trolling.

>>827684
can someone decipher the point this anon is trying to make. they seem to be saying there is no difference between sex and gender and actually it's hecking transphobic to recognize a material basis of biological sex while recognizing gender identity is subjective and cultural.

>>827683
Well it's just interesting that, in any domestic policy argument, if drawn out for long enough the leftoids will appear to win

I remember my father arguing with my aunt about Social Security or something of that nature, and he supported getting rid of it while she was opposed to getting rid of it. But if one has to be very honest about this, there would be tons of boomers without a comfortable living if they didn't have this social net of a backup. If you get rid of it you would have to rely on your own accumulated savings and this in itself would be hazardous because you don't know when anything gravely wrong is going to happen in the future. And so, such a social net would be a sort of insurance to make sure you're not "left in the dark" by society.

>>827687
"Biological sex" is already ideology
It's kinda like the Copenhagen interpretation
You gain the so called "matetial" "biological" sex when a doctor looks at your genitals and writes it down

>>827688
to me i think the "long arc of history" (if there even is one) is trading positive freedom for negative freedom. positive freedom is the freedom to do what you want, even if it has negative consequences for yourself and others. negative freedom is the freedom from inheriting unfavorable circumstances and having bad things happen to you. those are mutually exclusive types of freedom. the founding fathers in the USA cared more about positive freedom and they called negative freedom "security" and extolled everyone to never trade freedom for "security." this is why trad guys see socialism as dangerous because they see it as trading freedom for "security" but really the progressive see that we are trading the "freedom" to exploit others and be a tyrannical asshole) for the freedom from being exploited and from having to deal with tyrannical assholes.

So freedom is fundamentally paradoxical and I am always suspicious of any conversation that does not specify what kind of so called freedom is being discussed

maybe the ancients were right and we just have a cycle of oscillation between oligarchy, tyranny, democracy, and only the mode of production and level of technological development creates the illusion of "progress" over this more cyclical process.

>>827686
Do I need to create different images because of the differences in the woke/nazi dialect?
>>827687
You don't understand the material basis of sex, and your autism score is too low for you to argue with me.

>>827690
I disagree. sex is not just your genitals, but the chromosomes billions of cells in your body. It is the secondary sex characteristics. Hormones. Pheremones. Hair. With our currently level of technology (limited by the productive forces and the mode of production) we can change "gender" but not "sex". Gender is more subjective and cultural. A person who has a penis and is very hairy can wear a dress and ask to be called she/her. I am more than happy to oblige this request and do not see it as weird or bad to do so. What I take issue with is pretending that the underlying material conditions she was born with have changed. Unfortunately for her, it has not. I wish for increased capabilities in that department so she can have what she wants. Same for trans men. Make sense?

>>827692
Yeah you're trolling or just very confused as to what I'm actually saying.

>>827693
You sound exactly like Ben Shapiro. Sex isn't just about chromosomes – chromosomes don't actually determine that much; HRT changes your gene expression, so the Y or second X chromosome no longer has any real effect. Besides, there are women who are intersex with an XY karyotype from birth. Would you call them males just because they have an XY karyotype?

>>827694
Is trolling just speaking the truth?

>>827691
Right, I'm not sure if there's a correct answer on this. For me I think keeping it simple enough so you don't have to approach this would be good enough.

>>827693
There also people with XXY, XYY, XXX, X0, fragile X syndrome, etc. chromosomes and so on.. Can these people be regarded as "male" and "female"?

>>827698
>You sound exactly like Ben Shapiro.
ben shapiro doesn't agree with me at all actually. ben shapiro much like you refuses to acknowledge any difference between biological sex and gender. the trick of the reactionaries is to reduce the cultural phenomenon of gender to sex. but if sex and gender were identical than nonbinary wouldn't even be a category outside of intersex people. No gender is what people identify as. A woman is whoever identifies as one. But not all women are female. If what I were saying were untrue we wouldn't even distinguish between cis people and trans people in the first place. You are introducing confusion into this conversation.

>>827701
No and I never said or implied they could. I was starting with the basics (sex vs. gender) not talking about very rare conditions which actually prove my point. A person with XXY, XYY, etc. would be whatever gender they identify as. But their sex is exactly what you listed. There are more than two sexes just like there are more than two genders, but that does not make sex and gender the same thing. Sex is the biological (XX, XY, and more rarely XXY, XYY, X0 etc.) while gender is whatever they want to be treated as in human society, which is subjective. Just like we divide value into use value (subjective) and exchange value (material) we divide sex-gender into gender (subjective) and sex (material).

>>827704
> No gender is what people identify as.
I forgot a comma after "No" here. I meant to say:

<No, gender is what people identify as.

>>827706
Whenever "trads" bring this up I just find it dishonest that they would call a trisomy X person, an actual female

Of course they look like it, that doesn't mean they are an XX

You're right, it is kind of subjective

But regularoids would never go this far in the conversation, just like they would never go far in much conversation that doesn't appeal to their Overton window

>>827709
>But regularoids would never go this far in the conversation
you have to have these conversations 1 on 1 with people. it basically becomes impossible if you try having it in a group setting because everyone keeps resetting the conversation by getting hung up on 1 detail or changing the subject entirely.

>>827684
It seems that I reinvented a wheel

>>827717
this is a very bad bit you're doing. nobody says "transexuals" everyone says "transgender" The difference between sex (biological) and gender (cultural) is well established. you're trying to turn back the clock on this issue. read the discussion which immediately followed the post you are replying to since it is not worth re-iterating.

>>827680
we used to say transsexual, the move from transsexual to transgender owes as much to people not liking to say sex as it does to anything else. (see also gay/lesbian vs homosexual)
nobody actually cares about chromosomes until they start causing down syndrome.

>>827693
you're not following your own line of thinking consistently and are falling victim to lazy binary thinking as a result. if sex is hormones and body hair, then we can certainly play around with them. at the very least consistency would demand you recognise transgender people on HRT as operating in some kind of intersex state, rather than as their birth sex. that is how you would generally classify someone who had an abnormal chromosomal makeup for their hormonal makeup.

>>827704
there is no meaningful distinction between "woman" and "female"
we distinguish between scots and english despite there being basically no difference at the border.

>>827943
the very fact the clock can be turned one way or the other is an argument for some kind of social construction of the whole apparatus of the discussion.
in reality the clock is fucky: TERFism is a very modern phenomenon utterly distinct from both the trans-exclusionary radical feminism of decades past and the casual homo/transphobia of the same period. i will not be so pretentious as to say you should think dialectically, but you must at least think chronologically: we had a rigid sex distinction and no serious concept of gender, with the knowledge of transsexuals, who were a sort of dalit joke category but also, in an unthinking sort of way, seen as being their acquired sex (but "not really" in an insecure masculine homophobic sort of way.)
then we got the genderbread man and the casual liberalism of the 2010s, with the nice sex/gender distinction between what's in your head and what's between your legs
then we got TERFism and the trans-derangement of the right-wing (which are basically integrated phenomena) which is a negative reaction to the liberalism of the 2010s.
and now we've got this anon. well, actually, we've got all of the last three smudged together. dispatches from normal countries would suggest the drift is still towards greater liberalism.

the rise of modern transgenderism/transsexualism is fundamentally rooted in causes that reactionaries are unable to control, most obviously the internet. not because the internet makes you transgender with woke nonsense, but because the internet lowers the IRL switching costs (even if all your friends ditch you for being trans, you can just make new friends), lowers the difficulty in getting HRT when the medical system fails you, and lowers the barrier to knowledge substantially. short of shutting down the internet, that genie isn't going back in the bottle.

so too is the rise of the modern right and TERFism, but setting out why would mean a lot of boring stuff abour girard that nobody has ever cared for the other 90 times i've posted it.

>>827966
> nobody is transing their sex
What do you think HRT does

>>827943
>>827966
Degenerates like you ought to die in concentration camps.

>>827975
i will not apologize for basic materialism
>>827968
helps people transition their gender.

>>827966
> it is not transphobic to acknowledge the technological and physical limitations of transitioning
only by acknowledging these things can we even begin to overcome them btw but some anons want to stay stuck where we're at

>>827976
>materialism
You’re literally more idealistic than Evola. Stop LARPing as a commie and kill yourself, libtard.

>>827979
if a trans person could change every chromosome in their body they would. your'e saying nobody cares about that. i'm saying there's technolgoical limitations on it. your'e saying i'm an idealist and a fascist for acknowledging that material reality of current limitations which are stopping trans people from achieving everything they want. i am saying that we should overcome those limitations so trans people can transition even better. you're saying i'm le bad. get a grip.

>>827979
you have no args you're just getting mad. i've been very patient with you.

>>827984
>You
Who you? I am not that anon.
>ACKnowledge
I see your hooked nose.

>>827987
so you're not going to answer the question?
>I see your hooked nose.
explain what you mean by this.
>Who you? I am not that anon.
How lucky that must be.

>>827976
True, tits grow by culture. Nothing to do with biology.

>>827992
so is a cis man with man boobs a woman? does he have mammary glands? can he produce milk? does his chromosomes change to XX? Stop playing dumb about this. Trans people transition their gender. A trans man is a man but he is not a cis man. A trans woman is a woman but she is not a cis woman. Stop trying to make trans people look anti-materialist.

anon is literally pretending that saying

>a trans woman is a woman but not a cis woman

is "transphobic"

on the same level as saying

>YWNBAW even if you are a gigapassoid with SRS and docs, kill yourself now 41%er

this is absolutely trolling

>>827676
>pic
the author's barely disguised fetish
>Sex is changeable, and gender is an ephemeral term to invalidate transhumanists
yeah, trolling

>>827994
Trans women are not cis men with boobs.

>does he have mammary glands? can he produce milk?
Everyone has mammary glands, and lactation can be induced in almost anyone. With proper medical support, trans women are known to be able to breastfeed.
> does his chromosomes change to XX?
No, but it does not need to. Chromosomes do not determine one's sex.

I am not saying that cis women and trans women are the same. But saying that trans women are biologically male, because of their "sex", is transphobic nonsense. Biology is not set in stone at the time of birth.

>>828008
>Trans women are not cis men with boobs.
I didn't say they were. you clearly cannot read.

>>828008
>I am not saying that cis women and trans women are the same.
But in the next sentence
But saying that trans women are biologically male, because of their "sex", is transphobic nonsense.
What is the difference between a cis woman and a trans woman? Describe the difference.
>Biology is not set in stone at the time of birth.
Correct. But there are technological limitations on transition that we have yet to overcome. It is not transphobic to acknowledge that.
>Chromosomes do not determine one's sex.
They quite literally do and it is not transphobic to acknowledge this.

>>828024
Science quite literally disagree with you on that one:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lies-and-deception/202511/how-much-do-your-sex-chromosomes-really-determine

>>828036
holy debate addict

>>828033
ok thanks for the article anon. I'll give it a read.

>>828033
That was interesting. Thanks. Sorry I said chromosomes "determine" sex it's more of a correlation.

>>827966

1. thank you for using bullet points rather than the insufferable line-by-line reply style of other retards. i hope this catches on and praise you for your innovation in the field of low effort replies.
   
   

in order

• wrong. why did we used to say transsexual? why do some people still call themselves transsexuals? are you really going to say they're wrong and you know their identity better than they do?
  
• meaningless filler. the sort of thing someone would tweet to see the number go up.
  
• obviously wrong. "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, gender came into use as a synonym for sex during the twentieth century, initially as a euphemism, as sex was undergoing its own usage shift toward referring to sexual intercourse rather than male/female categories"
  
• people say it all the time, but they prefer polite euphemisms. you have not engaged at all with the examples: homosexual, transsexual, and now sex-vs-gender. (with gender clearly preferred even before transgenderism/transsexuality were major public issues.)
  
• you have not engaged at all with the point that if we alter those biological traits, the resulting person is at least intersex even under your own schema
  
• filler
  
• it'd be pretty shoddy trolling if i wrote one of the longest posts in the thread (excluding quote filler) just to get one (you)
  
• i have not actually advanced any particular definition. all i have done is point out the flaws in your definition.
  
• it is, however, transphobic to go "well the technical limitations can't change your sex from male to female, so your sex is still male thanks to being AMAB, even though anyone else with this combination of traits would be identified as intersex"
  
• i have never said otherwise. are you ignoring my points because you haven't actually read the post?
  
  

>>827976
>changing some of your biological and physiological traits, something on the 'sex' side of the spectrum, is changing your gender
your image does not help your point!!

>>827984
we should overcome those limitations, but based on what we can currently change someone who takes HRT is clearly altering their physical traits from those of their birth sex to an intersex position.

>>827994
a "cis man" with female levels of estrogen and testosterone production but male chromosomes etc would be recognised as having an intersex condition.
it is both anti-materialist and irrational to deny this.

>>827995
because you are not saying the words "cis woman", you are saying the word "female", spouting a TERF linguistic shibboleth via the distinction.
(it's not even actually necessary for the sex/gender distinction. most of the time it is natural to describe your gender as male/female. the cis/trans distinction is a better way of articulating any physical differences.)
this is autism at best and bad faith at worst.

>>828194
i've seen such baffling ideologies on here lately. in addition to your mindset i am also seeing pro-third-reich "anti-imperialist" memes. I think this place is getting pretty poltarded.