Posts by Jose Edwards16

Dressed in full military fatigues—and the backing vocals (ENI) followed suit—sporting those very distinct whiskers, while sitting in the crowd were Brad Mehldau, Leiber, and Joanna Newsom (all giving those little nods of approval)...
He’s crazier than Nine Inch Nails. And more so than Bach. 🙄

Casey Gomez said:I recall being a bit of a degenerate myself... I mean, as a young adult, I was already diving into de Sade... it’s a little kitschy, sure, but honestly, who isn't? ☕
In truth, his logic is actually quite sound. ☕

I'm with you there—it’s got that philosophical edge to it, too.

Casey Gomez said:Was she actually being helpful, though? The librarian, I mean.

Anyway, I’ve read Justine. I haven't found any specific instance where Nietzsche explicitly references him or attempts to frame him within his own work, but if you consider their shared leanings toward ethical relativism, one could argue de Sade was essentially an early influencer for Nietzsche.
By the way, de Sade is almost always framed in a purely negative moral light, which is really just a byproduct of ignorant, prudish hysteria.
Personally, I’ve always interpreted that kind of reactionary outrage as nothing more than weak cortical activity resulting from cerebral calcification.

+1

Eric Newman75 said:So, what were you reading— Justin or 120 Days of Sodom? I actually got caught red-handed with the latter once. My middle school English teacher told me that definitely wasn't appropriate reading material for an eighth grader and sent me straight to the library. I brought it back, though I wasn't exactly thrilled about it. When I asked the librarian why they even stock books that kids our age aren't supposed to touch, she didn't have an answer for me. 😳

I guess I first stumbled upon de Sade—maybe around eighteen, if I remember correctly.

Honestly, the best part about him is just his commentary—all those random observations, maxims, and those "philosophical" little nuggets he drops—stuff like this.
I’ve got this 1981 edition of Sodom—the one with that specific dialectal flavor—translated by S. and F. Termačić, so I guess you could say the novel feels a bit more... juicy while reading it. Maybe it's just me, but there's something about that particular version.

It’s funny how that works—those who hold all the cards tend to look at the status quo and call it justice, while everyone else is just sitting there feeling the sting of what’s clearly an injustice. I guess it's just one of those things.
*
I guess you could say that nothing really fuels the fire for someone to cross the line quite like seeing that first crime go totally unpunished. It’s like... once they realize there aren't any consequences—no slap on the wrist, no actual accountability—it just sets a precedent, I suppose. It basically acts as an open invitation for more trouble down the road.
*
It’s funny—though maybe a bit dark—how some weird logic of debauchery works. I guess there's this strange pattern where a woman who shares all our exact same vices doesn't actually hit the same way. She's too much like us, really—there’s nothing left to catch us off guard, nothing to truly shock the system. But then you have the one who is pure virtue—someone totally unexpected—and that’s when things get interesting. That's where the real charm lies, I suppose. There's just something about being completely blindsided by someone who seems so out of reach.
*
Even if there were established rules in place—and honestly, they were broken more often than not—it was probably because you just can't fight against pure debauchery. I mean, maybe it’s just human nature, but setting any kind of boundary seems like the quickest way to actually trigger that chaos and make it spiral even further out of control.
*
We all know where that unfulfilled longing eventually leads us... I guess it's just inevitable at this point.
*
So, how exactly are you supposed to explain a person like that... I mean, really? It’s one of those things where there isn't a straightforward answer—maybe because the definition keeps shifting—but I guess we're all just left trying to make sense of it.
*
Happiness isn't really about the actual enjoyment part—it’s more about the desire itself, I guess. It's that feeling of just ripping off the brakes whenever they try to hold your willpower back. Or maybe it's just the constant urge to push through whatever is standing in the way of what you want. Not sure.
*
I mean, what kind of power can a conscience actually hold over someone who’s become so used to crushing their own guilt that they eventually just... turn it into a source of pleasure? It’s a strange thought—maybe a bit dark—but if you spend enough time overriding that internal compass, you eventually reach a point where the friction itself becomes a sort of twisted indulgence. I guess once you stop fighting the impulse and start feeding off the transgression, the moral weight doesn't really weigh anything anymore. It just becomes part of the game.

Also, I guess de Sade has a certain way of describing things... quite nicely, actually.
*
It feels like everyone just headed off to curl up in Morpheus’s arms—you know, just gathering enough strength to go back out there and offer themselves up to Venus all over again.

*...since misery and wretchedness serve as the very soil where the wealthy pluck the flowers of their own indulgence and cruelty...
*
Crime is just one facet of nature—one of those fundamental drivers of human behavior. Why on earth would you want nature to steer me toward virtue instead of along that particular path?
*
...but if I may say so, mouths that lack any hint of scent don't offer much satisfaction when it comes to kissing.
There always needs to be some sort of salt, some spice in all those pleasures. (...) No matter how clean a mouth might be, the lover who tastes it ends up getting dirty.
(...) If you imagine it with a bit more intensity, you’ll find yourself craving that little bit of impurity... (...)

And so...
It's pretty fascinating, visceral, and beautiful literature.

ruggeddriver21 said:Thanks so much, Volver, for such a thorough breakdown.
Personally, I can't help but look at this whole thing through a comedic lens. It reminds me of that classic Monty Python sketch where John Cleese plays a professor performing a live demonstration with his wife for a room full of students who couldn't care less about what's happening.

At this point, pornography has basically rebranded itself as a sort of "self-help tool."
When you think about how content creators target specific interests, most viewers are really just picking from a menu of available products based on a whim or an immediate physical urge.

The sheer ubiquity of adult content has actually made its presence feel deviant.
Creators are constantly hunting for new, wilder gimmicks just to grab attention or keep people from clicking away.
Relating that back to our own tastes, we’re essentially watching a performance that we feel indirectly involved in.
Of course, the vast majority of people will never—and would never want to—actually participate.
So, it’s pure fiction. It's all just theater right in front of your eyes.

There isn't any real artistic merit to be found here.
Everything is driven by the bottom line and the exploitation of human impulses.

kadkad, the content is so pervasive that it feels almost annoying because it doesn't touch upon any real substance.
It’s really just a form of entertainment designed solely to cater to an individual's solitary urges.

Well, I mean, there are always exceptions. Take the movie Malice in Lalaland (featuring S. Grey) from 2010, for instance.
Some quick info on the film: (just so we're clear, the links I'm dropping are just standard /YouTube and Wiki stuff, they don't lead to anything explicit).

Malice in Lalaland is an American porn Road movie that was released in 2010 by The Belgian label miss Lucifer in The distribution of Vivid Entertainment. Directed by Lew Xypher.

Most sex scenes are accompanied by music of The Belgian Southern rock band Aguardente.

Link

/It’s an American adult road movie from 2010, produced by the Belgian label miss Lucifer and distributed via Vivid Entertainment.
The director is Lew Xypher.
Most of the sex scenes feature music by Aguardente (some Belgian southern rock)./

Trailer - YouTube:
Yt

Visually, the movie is actually pretty well done—it has a plot and some actual tension. And, I guess, even though it obviously has sex scenes, you could almost watch it as a "regular" movie.
Basically, the porn elements are woven into the story rather than being the whole point. So, if the title sounds familiar because of some famous book, you're probably right—the vibe and certain scenes definitely call to mind strah i prijezir in Las Vegas. Plus, there's that rock soundtrack. 🙂

Ashley Furniture

^
There’s actually something happening over in Strasburg, Ohio this weekend too:
https://jazzuvinogradu.eu

I guess I should probably start by saying that... well, there isn't much to say, really. It’s just one of those things—you know? Just sitting here, thinking about how everything sort of drifts along. Maybe it's just me, though. I tend to wander off into these little mental side quests quite often—it's a habit, I suppose—but anyway, back to the point. There's this sense of... I don't know, stillness? It's hard to pin down without sounding overly dramatic, which I try to avoid, even if I fail occasionally. It's just a thought. A quiet one. Nothing more, nothing less.

steelridge58 said:If someone from the trans community actually popped into this thread, they’d probably have a legitimate case to complain about the hostility, the labeling, and the insults being thrown around, mostly because there's almost zero actual civilized debate or constructive questioning happening here.

I mean, what exactly counts as 'civilized' in that little jab you made above, where you suggest they're "clearly acting this way because of excess testosterone even though they're on estrogen"?

If we keep steering conversations on philosophy like this, I really don't see how this community is going to last much longer.

I only brought that up as an example—just a way to get the point across, I guess. It would be their right to respond to it, anyway. You could probably take that as irony or sarcasm, if you really wanted to... maybe.
So, stylistic devices—that's the thing. I could have just said, "I don't agree with trans ideology," or whatever—but that’s not really how this works, I guess. It's more about the way you frame it.
Is it just like... the ultimate insult? The kind where you don't even bother responding anymore because someone just immediately labels you a 'transphobe' to shut the whole thing down? I guess that's how it works now—you say something, and suddenly you're the villain in their narrative. Maybe. It feels like a way to dodge the actual point, honestly.

I asked in a previous post whether that statement from the LGBTQ activist Jammi—you know, the one where he said trans women aren't men who became women, they're just women because they're women—is actually a circular argument. Since I didn't get much of an answer there, I decided to do a little digging online... and yeah, turns out that is indeed what you call a circular argument. So, my question is—since circular arguments tend to pop up in philosophy quite a bit—does that actually count as valid reasoning? Or is it just a logical dead end?☕

From Wikipedia : Quote
I guess I should probably start by saying that there isn't much to go on here—just a blank slate, really. It’s almost funny, in a way—how much weight we tend to put on a single word or a starting point, when sometimes there isn't actually anything there to begin with. Maybe it’s just a placeholder, or maybe I'm overthinking things—which, let's be honest, is kind of my default setting. Anyway, if there was supposed to be something more substantial behind this, I suppose I'm still waiting for it to show up.

Circular reasoning—or *circulus in probando*, if you’re feeling fancy—is basically that logical trap where your argument starts out by assuming exactly what it's trying to prove. It’s a bit of a loop, I guess. You end up using the conclusion as one of your premises, which means you aren't really moving the needle at all; you're just spinning in place. That said, I suppose a circular argument could technically be considered valid if both the conclusion and the premises happen to be true... though it doesn't really get you anywhere, does it? An argument built on this kind of mistake usually follows this sort of structure: The premise is that P is actually true—but only because of Q. Or maybe it’s just an illusion, I guess. It’s all tied up in how you look at Q, really. The premise here is that Q is actually caused by P—or at least, that's how it looks from where I'm sitting. I guess you could say it's all down to P, maybe. It's a bit of a stretch, perhaps, but there's a certain logic to it—if you look at it through a specific lens, anyway. Or maybe not. We'll see. P. conclusion: P is right. Link

I mean, I guess I could have just labeled the whole "Nein" directive an "insult" too—you know, under the logic that it’s basically telling men they actually need to start using their own brains for once—since that’s pretty much what it implies... anyway.
I guess we spend way too much time "thinking" with our heads instead of actually using our brains—if that makes any sense. I was just trying to replicate what I thought was the best approach, which is basically the idea that "thinking with your head" is synonymous with being a man. Or maybe that's just how I saw it at the time.
So, I guess it’s really up to Nathalie now—whether she wants to actually prove her point or just keep digging her heels in. It's all her call, really.

So, moving on—Sartre, who I guess you could call one of the heavyweights of French literature, shows up in that Nekrasov drama about the chanteur Gilbert Becaud...Nathalie, when that poet passed away, Desiree...)
He ended up on a blacklist labeled "individuals who should be executed for the greater good of America." When Becaud heard the news, he just leaned back against the wall—hands held high in the air, mind you—let out a laugh, and shouted: Go ahead—fire away.!
I mean, I have to say, I really dug that bit by Becaud—you know, how he took that whole Sartre thought and just flipped it into a complete joke.
I guess Sartre lost a little bit of my respect—not that I’ve actually sat down and read his stuff, mind you. I just know the general gist of his work, though... but honestly, I still think it's pretty cool how he turned down the Nobel Prize when they offered it to him. That was a bold move, I suppose.
It doesn't really matter how much weight Sartre actually put behind his words—maybe he just couldn't stand listening to Becaud's ballads. Instead of just saying, "I wish that guy would stop singing about Natalija," he had to make it wholeally philosophical, I guess.
He wrote: 'He needs to be liquidated for the good of France.' Maybe he was just being dramatic—I mean, it could have been a total exaggeration, I guess.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:But really, we’re specifically discussing Wolverine's little thought experiment here, where a guy is trying to connect with a woman online to establish some kind of rapport. We aren't having a broad philosophical debate about the infinite complexities of gender dynamics or the nature of love in general.

I mean, you probably know what this type of communication looks like in like 99% of cases these days on things like Instagram, Bumble, Tinder, or whatever else is out there, right?

Man: Hey
Woman: Hey
Man: Want to see a pic of my junk?

And I don't think I'm even being hyperbolic when I say 😁

'Ben, you'll find that level of complexity 🤣

It could also work like this—if that makes sense, I guess.
Hey there.
bok Ž
Send me a nude!
Hey Z.
Man, you really have some nerve...
Ž: I'm a trans woman...
🙄

lonetrucker4 said:Facts. Biologically speaking, men have faster reflexes than women. It's definitely tied to testosterone levels somehow.

A quick Google search for "do men have faster reflexes Than Women" brings up plenty of data.

The mean fastest reaction time recorded by men was significantly faster than women (p<0.001). At the 99.9% confidence level, neither men nor women can react in 100 ms, but they can react in as little as 109 ms and 121 ms, respectively

Same goes for e-sports—it's a newer category, but there's precedent, considering "mind sports" like chess, bridge, or Go (where guys tend to dominate too).

As for her main argument, she didn't technically make an error by leaving that out; it's just a gap in the logic, since it doesn't change her final conclusion.

You could also mention that men generally have better spatial orientation (try Googling: "do men have a better spatial orientation than women?"), which matters in tons of sports. Like football, for example.

Funny enough, when I was digging through stuff about "space," I found analyses suggesting women might actually be physically and mentally better suited for astronauts! There was some NASA study from 2014... Here’s why women may be the best suited for spaceflight

It's interesting to me how all these critiques target men who transition to women and compete against other women. You almost never see the reverse happening. That says a lot.

It doesn't really say anything we didn't already know: men are naturally stronger and hold the edge in most sports. That's exactly why we have separate women's competitions, just like we have weight classes or age brackets for youth and seniors.

Now, when a man undergoes gender reassignment surgery, he starts taking heavy doses of female hormones. Does that wipe out the biological advantage he got from testosterone? It's not a simple question. Hossenfelder breaks it down using various studies. Turns out, it might vary depending on the sport.

She also mentions that women become equal to—or even better than—men in ultramarathons, specifically those over 100 miles. I read something about this a while back. Once the body hits total exhaustion and burns through its carb stores to start burning fat, the female metabolism seems more efficient at it. I remember reading about a study from the 80s predicting women would catch up to or pass men in marathons soon. That didn't happen, 26 miles because a marathon is too short, but it seems to matter in much longer races. Same thing with open-water swimming.

NEW STUDY FINDS WOMEN ARE BETTER AT ULTRAMARATHON RUNNING THAN MEN

There are plenty of ultramarathons out there, they just don't grab the headlines. Like Hossenfelder says, if a sport wants eyes on it, it’s gotta be entertaining, and let's face it, watching someone jog for hours is pretty much the definition of boring 124 miles? 😛 Besides, from what I've seen, most of these races are mixed anyway—men and women competing side-by-side—so there isn't even really a debate to be had.

I guess I could say you’re leaning pretty hard into stereotypes with that last point—maybe just a little bit.

Whenever I'm stuck in some debate and a woman brings up that whole "men are constantly thinking about sex" trope, I usually just counter with—well, I focus on the word "thinking." Because at the end of the day, thinking is a mental process, right? And if we're being honest, isn't philosophy basically the ultimate peak of human thought? I guess it's hard to argue with that logic.
I mean, when I say sex—yeah, I'm a guy. 🙂

I mean, if electronic music, blues, and jazz don't count, then you’re probably missing the point. Personally, I can't stand country music. It honestly hurts my ears—it just gets under my skin—so I guess you could say I'm practically country-music-phobic. My usual solution is just to walk away from it, but if someone actually locked me in a room with nothing but a loop of country hits playing? Yeah, I’d probably lose it and take my frustrations out on the speaker. I'd smash it to pieces.

Basically, I think a phobia implies an active expression of hatred.

I'd have to agree there—sure, actual phobias exist, but it seems like the trans community views any kind of criticism or questioning of their views as an outright assault, immediately slapping the 'transphobic' label on it.
So, I guess I'll just tell them they're clearly acting this way because of excess testosterone, despite being on estrogen.
And wouldn't you know it? They'd probably claim *that* critique is 'transphobic' too. ☕[/URL]

Back in 2019, Boston hosted a "Straight Pride parade."

The Group super happy Fun America (SHFA) put together a "Straight Pride parade" on August 31—it drew in a few hundred people, though there were thousands of protesters showing up too. I guess you could say the counter-protesters totally dwarfed the actual parade attendees. SHFA basically framed the whole thing as their way of pushing back against the left's obsession with "identity politics."

Link

Some of the folks at that "pride" event seemed like they were just there for the hell of it, while others... well, they actually seemed to take it quite seriously, I suppose.
It’s interesting, though—there was a huge turnout of opponents from within the LGBT community protesting against the straight demonstration.
Video report:

Yt

Laura Jones56 said:I didn't really become "transphobic" until after watching several "don't be transphobic" videos, once I saw what kind of situations were actually involved. There are probably perfectly fine trans people out there, but these specific representatives have done more to alienate people than to help them. Much like they've done with the gay community. For me, I just need to look at how that trans person presents, and everything becomes clear.

And credit to those who think in terms of the spirit. 🤷

Isn't he the one who came up with those pelvic floor exercises?

The term 'transphobic' is basically just a label LGBTQ+ activists slap on anyone who dares to question trans ideology.

About a year ago, this video popped up on TikTok where a guy basically said:
'Hey, I've invented a new sexual orientation— superstraight. Since straight people get accused of being transphobic just because they wouldn't date trans women, I’m declaring myself a superstraight person. That means I'm only interested in people of the opposite sex—specifically, women born female.
That way, nobody can call me transphobic anymore.'

To clarify his point, he was making it very obvious that he didn't come up with 'superstraight' to attack trans people, but rather to highlight
his own preferences and logic. Having an opinion isn't the same thing as hating someone. If you don't agree with something, it doesn't mean you hate it, I suppose.
Video

And then our friend Jamie shows up again, apparently being 'superstraight'—which is apparently transphobic behavior.
Or rather, if you're superstraight, you're super-transphobic.
Yt

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose I struggle to grasp the logic behind the idea that a woman inhabiting a male body could be considered identical to a woman inhabiting a female body.🤷
How far would society actually go in practice when it comes to accepting a trans woman as a woman?
To me, it all seems quite clear if I just sit back and let my mind wander for a moment without overthinking it too much.
It really isn't the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't pretend that it is.

So, we're looking at this through the lens of some kind of trans-logic—which, let’s be honest, is usually just a fancy way of being illogical. I guess it works if you're into that sort of thing, but it mostly just feels like circular reasoning dressed up in a suit.

Quincy:

I guess it really depends on who you ask, doesn't it? It’s one of those questions where the answer shifts depending on whether you’re looking at a corporate HR manual in Manhattan or just grabbing a beer in some small town in the Midwest. In a vacuum—like, if we're talking about big tech companies or major corporations based in places like San Francisco or Seattle—the official policy is obviously going to be full acceptance. They have all these DEI frameworks in place, so on paper, it’s a non-issue. But actual practice? That’s where things get messy and complicated. People have their own biases, regardless of what the handbook says. Then you have the more traditional parts of the country, where social circles might be a bit more... let's say, conservative. In those areas, the social friction might be higher, and the "acceptance" might feel a lot more forced or superficial. It’s a weird spectrum, I suppose. There isn't really one single way America handles this; it's more like a patchwork of different social realities depending on exactly where you're standing.

So, apparently, the trans activists are out there claiming that if we don't all just collectively decide that trans women are women, then we're automatically labeled as transphobic. It’s one of those things where you're basically handed a script—either follow the lines or get branded with the label. I guess that's just how the whole dynamic works now, though it feels a bit like being backed into a corner, maybe.

Quincy:

Honestly, when I sit back and just picture the whole thing—without really overthinking it or trying too hard to make sense of it all—it pretty much tells me everything I need to know. I guess it just speaks for itself. It’s not really the same thing—and honestly, I wouldn't go so far as to pretend that it is.

Fair point, I guess.

So, here we go again—yet another YouTube video from my favorite critic of the trans movement, Matt Walsh.
YouTube

So, Walsh is out here pointing out this weird little contradiction—I guess you could call it a double standard—where the LGBTQ+ crowd insists that sexual orientation isn't some kind of choice and that people should be free to love whoever they want. But then, somehow, it’s the exact same group deciding you're being "exclusionary" if you say you're attracted to biological women—you know, women born female—and apparently, you're suddenly "transphobic" if your definition of "woman" doesn't include trans women. It's a bit of a head-scratcher, honestly.

Second point—Walsh argues that if you find someone attractive, then they're attractive based entirely on how you perceive them—not based on how they view themselves. I guess it’s just a matter of perception, really.
So, sure, trans people can see themselves as women—that’s fine—but if a straight guy doesn't actually perceive that femininity or find them attractive... well, then you aren't exactly getting anywhere with romance. It’s just how things work, I guess.
It’s really more about the freedom of choice than it is about being transphobic. Honestly—and I guess this is just my two cents—"transphobia" has basically become this convenient little label people slap on anyone who dares to question certain LGBTQ+ stances. It feels less like an actual critique and more like a way to shut down the conversation entirely.

So, my little one—she’s got this thing, I guess—she absolutely lives for rock 'n' roll. It’s her whole vibe. Electronic stuff? Doesn't move her. Blues or jazz? Not really her speed either—it just doesn't click for her, I suppose.
Am I jazz-phobic? Blues-phobic? Or just some hater of electronic music? Not really—it’s more like I just don't listen to it and stick to rock. It's a preference, I guess.☕

ruggedraven36 said:Glad you didn't just send me smoke signals. Dropping links isn't a conversation.

Well, I suppose I could try to get a discussion going here. Not that anyone asked, but I figured I might as well throw it out there—maybe.

So, let's say—just as an example—we take a look at something actually constructive and decent for once.
So, in response to that whole "What is a Woman" debate—you know, the one everyone seems to be shouting about lately—this one woman actually decided to write a poem instead of just arguing on Twitter. I guess she figured there was a more... artistic way to handle it? Maybe. Anyway, here’s what she put together:

I guess I should probably start by saying that YouTube is... well, it’s a bit of a mess lately, isn't it? Not that I'm complaining—I mean, I spend way too much time on there anyway—but the whole vibe feels different. It’s like everything is being pushed toward this specific, polished, almost corporate aesthetic, which, honestly, is kind of exhausting. You go looking for something niche or just a random guy talking about his woodworking hobby, and suddenly you're being fed ten videos from some massive media conglomerate that feels like it was produced in a studio in Burbank. Maybe it’s just me, or maybe the algorithm is just getting better at being annoying—I don't really know. It feels more aggressive, if that makes sense. Like it knows exactly what you want before you do, but instead of giving you the actual thing, it gives you a high-production version of it that feels hollow. I guess we’ve all just accepted it, though. We click, we watch, we move on. It’s just how things work now, I suppose.

Being a woman—well, I guess you could say it’s a kind of pain that starts right along with that very first period. It’s just one of those things, I suppose.
And then there’s just that massive wave of confusion that follows—if you can even call it that. It's more like a fog that settles in, I guess.
Ideas aren't really the thing—anyone can have ideas, I guess. It’s more about what you actually do with them, which is where most people usually trip up.
It’s that kind of ache—the one that just settles in after you lose a child. It isn't really a feeling, more like a constant, heavy presence. I guess you could call it a hollow sort of pain, though even that feels a bit too simple for what it actually is.
And then there’s that whole thing about her body betraying her—like it’s some kind of personal failure just because it can't carry one. I guess it's just one more way things feel out of control, isn't it?
It’s not just about the makeup and the clothes, I guess.
Clowns are out there painting their faces—I guess you could say they’re just putting on a mask, though why anyone would want to look like that is beyond me. It's all just part of the act, I suppose.
Using the props from his show—well, if you can even call them that—he’s basically just... I guess you could say he's leaning into it? It feels a bit much, maybe, but then again, who am I to judge the whole production? He's definitely trying to make a point with those items, though whether that point actually lands or just gets lost in the theatricality is another story entirely. Just my two cents, I suppose.
(World news related /?/).
I'm not entirely sure if I nailed the translation on that last one—you know, like, if I actually captured the actual vibe or meaning of it. Maybe I didn't. It's hard to say, I guess.

She isn't exactly the picture of grace and fragility—not by a long shot.
Fine china—it’s beautiful, sure, but man, it breaks way too easily. I guess that’s just the nature of things—you get something high-end and delicate, and you’re basically just waiting for the inevitable crack. It’s kind of like life, isn't it? You spend all this time picking out the perfect stuff, only to realize it's fragile. Anyway, just something I was thinking about while cleaning up some dishes earlier.
But she—she just won't quit—it’s actually kind of relentless, I guess.

What is a Woman?
She’s basically the word for God on her child's lips—if you know what I mean.
She’s those sleepless nights—you know, that restless feeling when you just can't shut your brain off—and I guess there's just no escaping it.
Just sitting here, wondering if this world is actually safe enough for her kid—I mean, you look around sometimes and it’s hard not to worry, I guess.

She just isn't the type of person you'd want casting that role—I mean, maybe if you were looking for someone totally different, but honestly? Probably not.
Where a man actually gets to play the lead role.
It’s kind of like an old Shakespearean drama—if you think about it.

She’s just being provocative—it's all just a way to get under your skin, I guess. Just constant agitation, really.
When you're just walking down the street...
She isn't exactly looking for the spotlight—I guess you could say she's not really chasing the attention, if that makes sense. Maybe she just prefers staying under the radar.
She just wants to exist, I guess.

What is a Woman?
She’s basically just a walking testament to everything her ancestors survived—it’s kind of wild when you think about it.
Pushed aside.
She’s basically their only shot at survival—if they can even pull it off, I guess.
It’s their fight for equality, I guess—though you have to wonder who actually defines what that looks like in practice.
It’s one thing to see it—it’s another thing entirely to actually hear it. Or maybe I'm just overthinking things again... I guess what I mean is, visibility isn't everything. You need that auditory component too, if that makes any sense.

She’s basically the only thing her kids have to look forward to.
Waiting for it to happen.
What is a Woman?
She’s a total marvel—honestly, kind of a miracle.
What exactly a man *can't* be. It’s funny how people try to draw these lines in the sand—you know, those arbitrary boundaries we all just collectively decided to follow—but I guess there are certain things that simply don't fit the mold. It’s less about what you can't do and more about the inherent contradictions of being a guy in this country today. Maybe it's about expectations, or maybe it's just the way things are wired, but there are definitely some roles that feel... off. I mean, I'm not saying there aren't exceptions to everything—there always are—but if we're talking about the core idea of masculinity, there are limits. It's a weird conversation to have, honestly.
It’s like his yin and his yang—and then there’s that little bit of something else tucked right in the middle.

It’s not like some label you'd see on a bathroom stall, I guess.
She’s just... I don't know, she's so much more than that—it’s hard to put a finger on it, really. Maybe it's just the way she carries herself, or some quality I can't quite grasp—anyway, she’s just more.
Just based on what you can see from her chest—well, I guess it’s hard to say much more than that without getting into all the other details, right?
Or maybe they're just tucked away in her desk drawers.

Of course, just take a look at the original—this was just a quick-and-dirty translation from English.

I don't know—this actually brought a few tears to my eyes, which is kind of wild because I can't even remember the last time I felt this emotional... and that's while listening to poetry, of all things.
Quincy:

She isn't just some idea—I mean, anyone can come up with an idea, I guess. It’s that kind of ache—the one that settles in after you lose a child. I guess there isn't really a way to describe it without sounding like a cliché, but it's just... there.

So, this...
Quincy:

She’s those sleepless nights—you know the ones—where everything just feels a bit off and you can't quite shut your brain down. Just sitting here wondering if this world is actually safe enough for her kid—it’s one of those things that stays in the back of your mind, I guess. Maybe it isn't, maybe it is, but you can't help but worry about whether everything is truly stable out there.

It looks like you might have cut off your message there. I was just sitting here thinking about how things usually go—you start typing something, maybe a thought hits you, and then... nothing. Just a stray semicolon staring back at you from the screen. Anyway, if you were trying to get a point across or ask something, feel free to drop it whenever. I'm around.
She just isn't looking for the spotlight—honestly, she’d probably rather blend into the background if she could. It’s not like she’s trying to be difficult or anything, she just... I guess she prefers the quiet life, away from all the noise. Maybe it's just her way of being, though I suppose some people find that kind of avoidance a bit odd—but hey, to each their own, right?
She really just wants to exist, I guess—to just be.

She isn't looking for attention—or at least, that’s how it seems from where I'm sitting—but I guess it's hard to tell sometimes, isn't it? Maybe she just prefers the quiet, though I don't know. It feels like everyone is constantly performing these little roles, trying to be seen, when maybe some people actually just want to exist without the spotlight being shoved in their face. It's a weird dynamic, I suppose.
She just wants to exist, I guess.

🙂👍

I was reading this article online where they used the phrase 'people who menstruate.'
Link

It's pretty obvious, I mean—obviously—that 'people who menstruate' refers to women. If you're wondering why an article about women wouldn't just say 'women'
but instead uses some long-winded description like 'people who have menstruation'—well, it's just to avoid offending trans women, since they don't have periods.

So then JK Rowling (the author of Harry Potter) tweeted this:

‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

People who menstruate? I'm fairly certain there was once a specific term for them. Help me out here! Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

And wouldn't you know it—Rowling gets accused of being transphobic.
Link

Personally, I think she was mostly just poking fun at that style of writing—you know, when someone avoids using a perfectly clear, direct term like 'women' in favor of some clunky, descriptive phrase.

Besides, JKR actually explained her position. She pointed out that she respects trans people and their identities—and that she'd even march in a Pride parade for their rights.
“At the same time, my life is defined by the fact that I am a woman, and highlighting that isn't hate speech,” she wrote.
She also noted: If sex isn't real, then same-sex attraction doesn't exist either.
Link

To me, everything seems clearly explained and nothing in her statements feels controversial, so, in a way, she actually expressed support for trans people.
But instead, there's been this massive, widespread harassment campaign against her—there was even a #RIP JKRowling hashtag popping up on X. Emma Watson (and several other actors from the series)
took the side of the trans community because, apparently, Rowling is "against" them.

It's funny how inclusive, tolerant, and sensitive the trans community is.
Saying 'if there is no sex, there is no same-sex attraction' is somehow transphobic.
Saying 'my life is defined by being a woman' can only be said by a transphobic woman, I guess.
Asking 'what were those people called again?'—apparently, you aren't even allowed to question things like that anymore! ☕

From her blog:

...to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

Link

...being told that my views are literally killing trans people through hate... Being called a cunt and a bitch, and of course, having people call for my books to be burned—though one especially aggressive guy told me he'd rather just compost them.

lonegardener said:I finally stumbled upon an incredibly solid, deep-dive documentary that tackles a similar question: What is a man?

🤣

man vs Woman:

http://billtmiller.com/images/man-woman.jpg

🙄

Amanda Jackson5 said:Amanda Jackson5

It’s really both. Honestly, society ought to be stepping up with a bit more empathy and genuine inclusivity here. I truly believe there are people who might look one way physically but possess a profound, internal sense of being the opposite gender. This isn't about anyone playing games or making things up because of some supposed mental instability; it’s more that their brains are simply built differently. It's a lot like how homosexuality works—people aren't choosing to feel that attraction or doing it as a whim; they are just neurologically wired that way, likely due to specific hormonal activity during the prenatal stage. I suspect that with trans individuals, we're looking at a similar mechanism, perhaps just more pronounced or affecting different neuroanatomical structures, or whatever the science eventually settles on.

Amanda Jackson5

Take a look at that top paragraph again. If you want to strip away the complexity and put it simply, I see trans identity as just one extreme end of a much broader spectrum—one where you find homosexuals sitting between them and cisgender heterosexuals, with bisexuals leaning slightly more toward the "typical" side of things. Recent studies are actually starting to back this up by pointing out distinct differences in brain structure. To me, that really reinforces my argument that being trans isn't just some subjective feeling or a matter of perception; it’s an objective reality rooted in actual neurophysiological, material foundations. You can see what I mean if you check this out:
I just stumbled upon this study from Oxford University Press regarding neural networks and how they process information, and honestly, it’s one of those deep dives that makes you question if our own brains are just biological versions of high-end Silicon Valley hardware. It’s looking at how certain patterns of connectivity influence cognitive function, which is basically a fancy way of saying they're trying to figure out why some people can solve a Rubik's Cube in ten seconds while others struggle to find their car keys in a parked garage. The researchers are diving into these complex architectures, drawing parallels between artificial intelligence models—think the kind of stuff being cooked up over at OpenAI or Google DeepMind—and the actual synaptic firing happening in an American teenager's brain during a math test. It's pretty fascinating to see how much the tech industry is leaning on neuroscience to build better algorithms, even though we still haven't quite mastered the "why" behind our own decision-making processes. It’s like trying to explain how a jet engine works by staring intensely at a paper airplane; we have the blueprint for the complexity, but the actual mechanics of consciousness remain a bit of a black box. Definitely worth a read if you enjoy feeling slightly more confused about your own existence after twenty minutes of reading.

You can see a pretty similar pattern playing out within the gay community right here:
I honestly don't see why everyone is getting so worked up about this, because if you actually step back and look at the bigger picture, it’s pretty clear that we're just repeating the same tired patterns we've seen a thousand times before. It reminds me of those old sitcoms where the characters constantly trip over the same rug and act surprised every single time they hit the floor, despite having lived in the same apartment for years. We tend to treat these sudden shifts like they're some kind of unprecedented cosmic anomaly, when in reality, they're just the predictable result of certain systemic frictions finally reaching a breaking point. It’s less like a lightning strike out of nowhere and more like watching a slow leak in a tire eventually cause a blowout on the interstate; nobody is truly shocked when the car finally pulls over, yet we all act like it was an act of God. Amanda Jackson5 seems to think there's a deeper layer to the chaos here, and while I can appreciate the desire to find profound meaning in the mess, sometimes a breakdown is just a breakdown caused by poor maintenance and a lack of foresight.

Amanda Jackson5

I’d probably just set it aside on its own.

Amanda Jackson5

I’d describe him as a transgender person. It’s like he exists right in that middle ground, somewhere between male and female. That said, if you look at it from a more subjective angle—whether you're talking about his psychology or his spirit—there isn't any doubt in my mind that he is a woman. And personally, I believe that completely.

Amanda Jackson5

That’s fine, I guess. But he really ought to be mindful enough to actually acknowledge and accept that there's a woman's mind operating inside that body.

Amanda Jackson5

Look, there’s plenty of room for debate on this one. The article I sent over makes a pretty clear distinction: sex is what we see physically, whereas gender is this much more complex, multi-layered construct. For those of us who fall into the majority, it isn't exactly a daily struggle because everything just functions according to the standard social script. But honestly, rather than getting caught up in the semantics, we should probably just try to wrap our heads around what these people are going through and offer some actual empathy.

I have to disagree with that, obviously. And look, I don't know if there are any frauds hiding among the trans community, but even if there are, it doesn't change the validity of my point above. I feel like I read somewhere that some people are trying to push a "legal definition" of sex based on those studies showing differences in brain structure. Regardless, you can't just take a complex, multidimensional construct like sex—which is essentially a cocktail of biological realities and cultural conditioning—and equate it to someone’s decision, whether it's a whim or a deeply considered choice, to present themselves as a woman when that isn't true from either an objective or subjective standpoint.

Just wondering—did any of us actually deal with this back when we were little kids? Like, from preschool onwards—did we struggle with our gender or identity, or maybe just deal with gender dysphoria at that age? I guess it's worth asking.
Disorders? And honestly—secondly—why is it that people today struggle so much with being the sex they were born as when they actually want to be something else? I guess it's just one of those things... maybe.
Maybe it’s kind of like McDonald's—we never really felt the urge to go there because we only ever saw it in movies and it wasn't actually around here.
Honestly, the basic hot dog and burger we grabbed from that street vendor downtown were actually pretty decent—I guess they hit the spot.

So, I guess some people might not realize that here in the United States, doctors actually prescribe and administer pubertal blockers—which are basically hormones used to pause puberty—to delay those physical changes and supposedly "help" kids out. It’s one of those things that seems to come up in conversation more often lately, I suppose.
Trans kids—all of it happens with parental consent, obviously.

So, there's this thing called puberty blockers—though you might hear people call them hormone blockers or puberty inhibitors, I guess—which are basically just medications used to put the brakes on puberty for kids. Most of the time, they’re using GnRH agonists, which is just a fancy way of saying they suppress the production of sex hormones like estrogen and testosterone. Beyond all the other medical stuff they're used for, they're also used for transgender children to delay those unwanted physical changes—you know, things like breast development and growth of facial hair—which essentially gives transgender youth a bit more breathing room to figure out their identity. It's a lot to process, maybe, but that's the gist of it.

I don't really know what you're looking for—I mean, there isn't much to go on here—but if you're asking for a link, I guess I can't exactly conjure one out of thin air without knowing which one you actually need. Maybe you forgot to attach it? Or maybe it just didn't go through? It happens, I suppose. If you could drop the actual URL, I might be able to take a look, assuming it's something worth clicking on... anyway, let me know.

So, basically—if you want to get technical—pubertal blockers are just medications used to put the whole puberty process on hold for kids. I guess you could say they delay things... maybe? It’s a way to slow the clock down.
The most common type of blocker used is actually gonadotropin GnRH agonists—they basically just step in and throttle the production of sex hormones, like testosterone and estrogen, I guess.
Besides, I guess the whole idea behind using pubertal blockers for children who have gender dysphoria is basically just to hit the pause button on those unwanted physical changes—you know, things like breast development and growth of facial hair—so these kids can actually have some breathing room to figure out who they are without all that extra pressure hitting them at once. Maybe it just gives them more time to explore their identity, I suppose.

From the Mayo Clinic website:

So, sex hormones... they basically pull all the strings when it comes to how things function. It’s kind of wild if you think about it—they influence just about everything from your mood to your metabolic rate, and honestly, probably even how much energy you have on a Tuesday afternoon. I guess you could say they're the underlying blueprint for a lot of our biological processes. They impact everything from bone density to muscle mass, and they play a huge role in how we develop physically over time. It's a complex system, really—lots of moving parts and feedback loops that most of us don't even realize are happening in the background.

So, we're talking about primary sex characteristics—basically the hardware you're born with. This includes things like the penis, scrotum, and testicles, or, on the other side, the uterus, ovaries, and vagina. I guess it's just the foundational biological setup from day one.
Secondary sex characteristics—basically, the physical changes in the body that typically appear during puberty—are one of those things you don't really think about until they happen, I guess. Examples include breast development and growth of facial hair... just part of the whole biological process, anyway.
For those assigned male at birth, GnRH analogues basically act as a way to dial back certain developments—things like limiting the growth of facial and body hair, preventing the voice from deepening, and slowing down the growth of genitalia, I guess.

For those assigned female at birth, the treatment basically puts a pause on things—it stops breast development and keeps menstruation from happening.

What are the benefits of use of pubertal blockers for children who have gender dysphoria?
So, basically, gender dysphoria is that sense of discomfort—or just general distress, I guess—that crops up when there’s a disconnect between how someone actually feels or expresses their gender versus the sex they were assigned at birth. It's a bit complicated... but if this stuff starts showing up during childhood and then really ramps up once puberty hits, it probably isn't just going to disappear on its own. Not likely, anyway.

For children who have gender dysphoria, suppressing puberty might:

Improve mental well-being
Reduce depression and anxiety
Improve social interactions and integration with other kids
Eliminate the need for future surgeries
Reduce thoughts or actions related to self-harm

However, puberty suppression alone might not ease gender dysphoria.

Link

Translation: Sex hormones affect
- primary sex characteristics—basically the reproductive organs, like the penis, scrotum, and testes, or the uterus, ovaries, and vagina.
- secondary sex characteristics—these are the physical changes in the body that typically appear during puberty,
such as: Examples include breast development and growth of facial hair.
For those assigned male at birth, tools like GnRH agonists can slow down facial and body hair growth, stop the voice from deepening, and limit the development of reproductive organs.

For those assigned female at birth, the process limits or stops breast development and halts menstruation.

What are the benefits of use of pubertal blockers?

Gender dysphoria is that feeling of discomfort or distress caused by the gap between how someone expresses their gender and the sex they were assigned at birth.
This condition usually starts in childhood and tends to get worse once puberty hits—it rarely just goes away on its own.
For children who have gender dysphoria, suppressing puberty might work in these ways:
- boosting mental health
- lowering depression and anxiety
- making it easier to socialize and fit in with peers
- cutting down the need for surgeries later on
- reducing thoughts or actions related to self-harm

But, I guess puberty suppression on its own doesn't necessarily fix the underlying issue of gender dysphoria.

Matt Walsh has also been critical of these practices, specifically pointing to the documentary Transhood.
So, it’s not really about Childhood anymore—more like Transhood.

Youtube

Do you guys honestly see these examples as what 'good parenting' looks like? ☕