I think most normies and sometimes even gender dysphorics who use the word "trans" as sort of a nod to just being decent to the different, they just mean it as a shorthand for "those with gender distress". I don't think most people take it to mean that there is literally an empirical fact about someone of having a gendered soul or whatever. Like when a Christian says "I have a personal relationship with Jesus" I don't think many of them, if you push them, literally think the amorphous feelings they get when they think about Jesus are a literal spirit talking to them or something like channeling. Catholics I don't think really believe a piece of bread is literally Christ's actual body when they think of transubstantiation - like if I throw up later and tested the remains it would have DNA or something. A handful of fundamentalists maybe think these things, but the pew potatoes, both in religion and trans religion, don't mean anything as empirical and propositional as all that. The pushback to gender identity theory is important, but I think the key is not to argue with the weird ideologues but instead to convince normie liberals that trans isn't the new gay and you can be nice to people without surgeries (and the opportunity cost of bad therapy when good therapy is needed), wrecking women's spaces, etc.
There is no such thing as "trans." The word "gender" has no application to humans because it's a linguistics term for words only, and John Money knew that.
As such, there is no such thing as "gender identity" or "transgender" or "gender dysphoria" or "gender incongruence," whatever tf that's supposed to mean now. It appears it just means personality. Then say personality.
"Trans" does not exist. The whole thing is a fraud. All of it.
That is the only logical conclusion that can be reached.
There is no special category for humans who refuse to accept the reality of their sexed bodies. Read Jennifer Bilek's extensive work.
A man who "feels like" he's a woman is delusional. A male cannot feel like a female--no one can "feel like" he has DNA that he does not have. That is a symptom of a deeper problem, usually autogynephilia, porn addiction, or schizophrenia. It's not a state of being or a reality. He needs to be told no, just like apotemnophiliacs are told no.
I expand upon all of this in multiple posts on my substack. The only solution to this nonsense is a complete and total rejection of it. Playing word games, trying to be "kind," "affirming" this bullshit--it all leads nowhere. The whole thing must be ended.
I'd go even further and say a woman doesn't know "what it feels like" to be a woman either. Or a man "what it feels like" to be a man. They can know what they feel like, and can make some superficial assumptions that some of their feelings are common to all other women. But even that seems to present a standpoint problem.
I think most normies and sometimes even gender dysphorics who use the word "trans" as sort of a nod to just being decent to the different, they just mean it as a shorthand for "those with gender distress". I don't think most people take it to mean that there is literally an empirical fact about someone of having a gendered soul or whatever. Like when a Christian says "I have a personal relationship with Jesus" I don't think many of them, if you push them, literally think the amorphous feelings they get when they think about Jesus are a literal spirit talking to them or something like channeling. Catholics I don't think really believe a piece of bread is literally Christ's actual body when they think of transubstantiation - like if I throw up later and tested the remains it would have DNA or something. A handful of fundamentalists maybe think these things, but the pew potatoes, both in religion and trans religion, don't mean anything as empirical and propositional as all that. The pushback to gender identity theory is important, but I think the key is not to argue with the weird ideologues but instead to convince normie liberals that trans isn't the new gay and you can be nice to people without surgeries (and the opportunity cost of bad therapy when good therapy is needed), wrecking women's spaces, etc.
There is no such thing as "trans." The word "gender" has no application to humans because it's a linguistics term for words only, and John Money knew that.
As such, there is no such thing as "gender identity" or "transgender" or "gender dysphoria" or "gender incongruence," whatever tf that's supposed to mean now. It appears it just means personality. Then say personality.
"Trans" does not exist. The whole thing is a fraud. All of it.
That is the only logical conclusion that can be reached.
There is no special category for humans who refuse to accept the reality of their sexed bodies. Read Jennifer Bilek's extensive work.
A man who "feels like" he's a woman is delusional. A male cannot feel like a female--no one can "feel like" he has DNA that he does not have. That is a symptom of a deeper problem, usually autogynephilia, porn addiction, or schizophrenia. It's not a state of being or a reality. He needs to be told no, just like apotemnophiliacs are told no.
I expand upon all of this in multiple posts on my substack. The only solution to this nonsense is a complete and total rejection of it. Playing word games, trying to be "kind," "affirming" this bullshit--it all leads nowhere. The whole thing must be ended.
I'd go even further and say a woman doesn't know "what it feels like" to be a woman either. Or a man "what it feels like" to be a man. They can know what they feel like, and can make some superficial assumptions that some of their feelings are common to all other women. But even that seems to present a standpoint problem.