Has Peat Written About Trans-genderism ?

[Morgan]

Trannies are not miswired by xenoestrogens or something like that. They have a paraphilia mental disorder rooted in extreme narcissism. They get off on the vision of *themselves* as a woman. It's not about becoming attractive to men. It's not at all about having a "gender identity" in the wrong body. It's a solipsistic form of insanity that can only develop in a hyper-individualistic society.

It seems apparent to me that you have never talked to someone that is transgender? Of all that I've known or have been friends with.. none exhibited that behavior, and they were just like anyone else, only with a higher predisposition to loneliness.. due to being different, due to people like you.

As for narcissism, well, that seems to be quite common in just about every demographic. It's why we are all supposedly lonelier than ever, and some of these behaviors are even encouraged amongst some people; you can even kinda see this in this difference in the amount of personal products used between genders.. you know, to uphold some impractical standard of beauty.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Ray is more like... everyone's spirit animal

 

[michael94]

I wonder what Ray thinks about posting on internet forums

 

[Such_Saturation]

I wonder what Ray thinks about posting on internet forums

It's easy to think ill of it when Mexican/Oregonian internet precludes you from partaking in it...

 

[Morgan]

Wow, Oregonian is such a fun word to say. Oregoooooonian

 

[Such_Saturation]

Wow, Oregonian is such a fun word to say. Oregoooooonian

You're writing it, though

 

[mangoes]

The vast majority of posts were on the issue of environmental factors as one potential cause of the increase in non-hetero identities. Saying that “this forum.. is full of people” who are repressed or dogmatic when they propose an alternative viewpoint doesn’t foster an open discussion. What dogma are we following exactly? The only dogma I know regarding this is the LGBT communities’ insistence that “we are born this way” and that any alternative is not allowed to be discussed.

For my part I should not have used the word delusional and I apologize for that. But I felt that your original claim that there hasn’t been a rise in the number of openly non-hetero people was a bit disingenuous. Whether it’s due to increased acceptance, cultural changes or other factors is another issue.

I don’t think bringing RP into this really helps your argument. Ray is a scientist above all and relies primarily on scientific research to formulate his theories. Not all science is politically motivated and to think that here, especially when you don’t like the results, is what truly shows “no objectivity.”

You last argument is just a straw-man. I never claimed that homosexuality is something new or that the change in cultural climate hasn’t played an important role in the increased numbers of openly non-heteros. What I am saying is that there are other factors involved and that we should be free to discuss them. Maybe you don’t feel this way but it's obvious that this is a taboo subject in the LGBT community and my only point is that it shouldn’t be.

To be fair, about my own subjectivity to the study, you're probably right, I actually thought of the same thing myself before I read your response. I'm not perfect or infallible, I'm still young, I'm learning and growing and as I do my ideas will evolve and change. I am still of the belief that I stated earlier however, that LGBTQ+ people have been just as common throughout the ages.

But come on, if my last argument is strawman then so is that:

If anything the political climate has been pro-gay and pro-transgender for a long time and probably explains why I have never heard of this study before now.

That's like saying black people in America are treated equally and not victimised by police. Isn't there a massive argument about transgender public toilet rights in the US right now?

Edit: I didn't even read Peat's quote properly.

My problem isn't with healthy discussion about controversial topics. Perhaps making a point about a trend I've noticed in transphobic men wasn't the best way to foster a discussion (although it could be argued that it worked), but I don't think bringing a transphobic and dehumanising dogma to a discussion about transgenderism is a ways of garnering good discussion, either. You can deny the transphobic tone of this thread till you're blue in the face, and I'm not calling anyone out in particular, but it was and is still there. And that was my problem.

I'm not against making light of situations, or the type of person to be super politically correct, but I had a point to make.

 

[paka]

It puts the lotion in the basket or else it gets the hose again.

I don't get it.

I just asked that you look at your own mind and why you posted that because you may have mental problems worse than theirs. They are a complete non-issue and in your posts vented about them like they're terrible people when none of their disorders are that bad. You clearly just FELT like insulting people and acted on it, to me that's a much worse mental issue but I could say this about a lot of people with strong opinions.

I only tried to help you see something about you, but I understand here people may really see trannies and effeminate males that way for being hormonally "inferior" or "unhealthy'", as if giving ""facts"" as excuses to tear them apart. You're a worse victim of realer issues if you can't control how you think of others.

 

[mujuro]

Intersex occurred historically but at what rates? It's not as if there didn't exist xenobiotics in the pre-industrial era. Resveratrol comes to mind. As x-ray said, I'm not interested in discrediting my own ponderings about hormones, fetal development and intersex. I'm interested in finding if there's any credible evidence in this line of thinking. Bipolar disorder also has historical backing, and I think few could deny it's increased occurrence in the modern age. In both instances I'd like to see if there's a solid biological/environmental link for both of these conditions that would explain their etiology. If the evidence is weak, then you tweak the hypothesis or formulate a new one. Isn't that the basis of scientific inquiry? Neither condition makes life easier than it would be without them, and I would hope to spare future lives from that kind of suffering.

 

[x-ray peat]

To be fair, about my own subjectivity to the study, you're probably right, I actually thought of the same thing myself before I read your response. I'm not perfect or infallible, I'm still young, I'm learning and growing and as I do my ideas will evolve and change. I am still of the belief that I stated earlier however, that LGBTQ+ people have been just as common throughout the ages.

But come on, if my last argument is strawman then so is that:


That's like saying black people in America are treated equally and not victimised by police. Isn't there a massive argument about transgender public toilet rights in the US right now?

Edit: I didn't even read Peat's quote properly.

My problem isn't with healthy discussion about controversial topics. Perhaps making a point about a trend I've noticed in transphobic men wasn't the best way to foster a discussion (although it could be argued that it worked), but I don't think bringing a transphobic and dehumanising dogma to a discussion about transgenderism is a ways of garnering good discussion, either. You can deny the transphobic tone of this thread till you're blue in the face, and I'm not calling anyone out in particular, but it was and is still there. And that was my problem.

I'm not against making light of situations, or the type of person to be super politically correct, but I had a point to make.

Point taken. I realize that this is a very difficult subject and maybe I too was a bit insensitive when discussing it. I also agree that some of the posts particularly later on went a little too far. I think we tend to get a bit too clinical and detached when speaking about scientific issues here that we forget that for some, it is much more personal and we should respect that. This is a very tricky subject though because any assertion that the root cause is something other than a genetic lottery or natural hormonal status implies that there is something that went wrong. However as said above, we need to follow the truth no matter where it takes us. We ignore it at our own peril.

 

[AJC]

Just wanted to jump in with an observation here--about this situation in particular and others along this line as well. When talking about "social justice" or "human expression" issues there needs to be a distinction kept in mind between being for or against a particular person's way of choosing how they want to live and then being for or against a particular law designed to enable "social justice". Being against the passing of a particular "social justice-style" law does not mean for a second that that person is against that individual's right to live how they want to. There's a difference between being accepting of individuals and being accepting of any law that purports to support said individuals.

I think keeping this in mind will help make discussions about controversial issues clearer and less likely to degenerate into name calling.

 

[johnwester130]

What hormone makes a woman, a woman ?

 

[damngoodcoffee]

I wonder what Ray thinks about posting on internet forums

 

[BibleBeliever]

Giving your child hormones is child abuse. 8 out of 10 children that say they have transgender feelings grow out of it as they get older.

You're free to have any kinds of surgery you want and dress however you want. Chop it all off. Call yourself whatever you want. I couldn't care less. But if you attack and assault me because I called you a name you don't like then that's the problem, like what happened here to Ben Shapiro when he called this trans person "sir." He grabbed him by the back of his neck and threatened him on live TV:





.

Yeah they are all mentally ill and messed up in the head. No outrage about the things threat to Ben. If Ben did the same thing they all would be in hysteria calling him a transphobic bigot, trying to get him fired, etc.

I used to protest the gay parades due to my religious beliefs; the conclusion is most of them have lost their soul and conscience and given it all up to follow after hedonism; in the transgender's case the most mentally ill version of it. When you protest a parade, you can just stand there with a generic sign and they will attack you, threaten you and do everything imagible, even if you are stoic, but if say Christians did that to gays; it would be called a hate crime and the Christians would be jailed.

The gays and trannies can do pretty much anything they want and get away with it. Mr. Bruce Jenner; oh I accidentally ran some people over, but it's ok I'm a woman now. Leftist society: Agreed Caitlyn Jenner you are the real victim here, no in fact a hero.

Society is messed up.

 

[Namer]

Would it be possible that enough exposure to estrogens might alter your sex/roles/gender identification within your mindset? I've been thinking a lot about this, we live in a predominantly estrogenic society from PUFAs to actual estrogen residues in the water we drink. Are estrogens that much feminizing to men?

If you regard balding, wrinkles, aging, moobs, and a lack of lean muscle then, yes, I would say so. If estrogen is feminizing, then why does it make women look less feminine and infertile.

Estrogen is emasculating for men, yes, but that does not mean feminizing. By the same token, that which is responsible for androgyny is not emasculating.

 

[DaveFoster]

It's impressive that this page has only gotten to 6 pages.

 

[Namer]

somebody posted a satirical post on a made-up pro-hetero supplement, but in the thread
it had a real study from the 70s that showed a big difference in androgen/estrogen for straight vs gay people. Excuse me if this is unPC but I think the numbers of effeminate or gay males have been increasing like crazy. If you ever travel to the Philippines or Japan its out of control.

Asians are naturally more androgynous than Europeans, always have been. Asians are more neotenous than most other races.

What is your point of reference for the claim that gay men are increasing. What criteria are you using to define effeminate?

Acceptance of these things has not changed as much as people imagine. The behaviours of men in the early 20th century would largely be regarded as quite camp and effeminate by some of todays standards, didn't stop them fighting two ( completley unnecessary ) world wars. Maybe these 'effeminates' are just not insecure men who need to believe that masculinity is a costume, and that how you dress or talk actually affects anything to do with ones core characterstics or skill sets.

 

[Namer]

Look into digit ratio 2d:4d

The more androgen's a baby boy is exposed to in the womb the more masculine they become and have a low digit ratio.. tends to be heterosexual.

If the baby boy is exposed to low androgen's then he comes out with lower androgen's and higher ratio and more likely hood of being homosexual.

Be interesting to see conclusive study and evidence on this.

Females using the contraceptive pill are more attracted to feminine men and while ovulating women are more attracted to masculine men.

Actually, it's the opposite.
Progesterone is the hormone of youth, fertility and regeneration. Estrogen is a stress hormone and contributes to a woman's infertility when it outbalances progesterone.

Females reach peak fertility during their mid teens to early 20's, that is biologically speaking the optimal time for them to bear children. This is why men are most attracted to females who appear to be in that age group.

Take a look at the guys that females of that age group go bat-***t crazy over. ( When they were young...) Leonardo Di Caprio, Orlando Bloom, Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Justin Beiber, even Brad Pitt was kind of androgynous.

Think it's the media? Yeah, right, and the media is the reason that men like slim women with bf% in the low 20's...Lol no, that's for radical feminists...

When a man is in his late teens, early twenties, is reasonably fit, he looks, well, kind of androgynous by the moved-goalpost standard of ugly, craggy faced jocks.

Justin Beiber, Orlando Bloom, that's what healthy ( intelligent ) young men, are SUPPOSED to look like biologically. Why would females in their peak youth be attracted to anything other than males in their peak youth?

When women are older, and their fertility starts to fall, or their on the pill, and their bodies think the same thing...that's when they are attracted to beefier looking jock guys. Ask teenage girls what celebrity they fancy, now ask women in their thirties...

By that stage in evolutionary historical terms, females have already had children. Now they want a provider.

Yes, I'm afraid so, the beefy looking guy that a 30-some year old woman is attracted to? he's the real beta-provider, if you want to go by those terms ( which I don't btw )

The 'androgynous' ( peak health, high test AND prog... ) guy that they go nutso over in their peak fertile years? that's the guy most females really want to be the father of their children, whether they like it or not.

Guys like Connery were never a sex symbol for young women. He was a sex symbol for housewives and soccer-moms. Like Clooney in the mid 2000's Younger women liked James Dean or some other young dude, whose name is now forgotten.

Guys like Connery, Gable etc, they were mostly idolised by men.

The high end fashion models look like pre pubescent boys and the industry is run by gay men but heterosexual women look to these women as a sign of beauty but its not true.

Hmm... Now there I must agree with you to a large degree. I have nothing against gays, or fashion models, but yes, there is definitely a different criteria going on. If one looks at overt sexual media (harmless in my opinion ) for men containing women, one sees truly feminine females, and very few skinny ones. They are slim for sure, but a nice, solid, healthy weight, maybe even with a little extra, say 23%bf
I'm so sick of us being blamed for that one Lol!

Im interested in how oestrogen of the mother is effecting the biology and the offspring and looking at society with the feminisation of men and masculinisation of women.

I can't stand the men's fashion now with tight jeans and guys now wearing tights to the gym.

Guys did some of the most physically manly things historically while wearing tights, frilly clothes, makeup, powdered wigs and beauty spots, and hats stuffed with feathers worth of gay pimp. The clothes people wear don't define them. At least those guys are going to the gym. Maybe you hate that their in better shape than you?

How come men who actually achieve greatness especially physically, don't tend to suffer from this castration anxiety?
Maybe because they know it's all bull****.

 

[Namer]

Lol, so a guy in his 40's is in better shape than most men half his age.

Are you in better shape that Barack Obama?

Digit ratio is a response to testosterone, yes, that's why some women have a higher digit ratio.

I don't like Obama. At all. But the irony of a sentient blob of quivering, estrogenized hate-pudding like Alex Jones mocking his physicality is so, so cruel...

Lol, most of the guys who mock someone in Obama's shape are walking estrogen factories with the testosterone of a 12 year old girl.

 

[Namer]

Are you implying Michelle Obama is a man? I watched some videos in that vein. Not sure what to make of it but a lot of celebrities are definitely suspect. Regardless, most people we're exposed to on the television are lacking in proper sexual dimorphism... Subversive tactic for sure

Lol, Just. No...
The women are above average in sexiness, the guys are all above average in physical fitness.

Your. Just. Wrong ( Echoes down long corridor...)