https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/01/otherkins...n-8787845/
Article 4 years old. Did the otherkins provide the impetus for the SJW and trans folks’ movements? Should trans-species be on the same level as transgenderism et al, like taught in school. Or do otherkins have psychological/mental issues? Is there a difference or do otherkins belong with the transgenders etc?
It's an age-old impulse, of course, to be chimeric -- like pagans painting and tattooing themselves as animals and various body mutilations.
In a sense, post-op transsexuals were actually the first pioneers to surgically realize their psychological orientations, whereas
postgenderism,
xenofeminism,
Otherkin and the rest are later about latching onto
transhumanism as a way to physiologically achieve their numerous goals (cyborgism and completely robotic bodies included amidst those diverse biological humanoids).
On one hand, everything intellectually descended from Marxism wants to achieve radical social equality by homogeneity -- making us all the same (abolishing class distinctions, sexual distinctions, racial distinctions, cultural distinctions, beauty/ugly, etc). But on its other hand, such seems to want to accomplish that by the very opposite -- engineering ourselves into as many exotic and diverse creatures as possible. But no one ever accused leftangelicals of consistency.
The incremental success of these movements is inevitable, since ironically it is opportunistic capitalists themselves who technologically facilitate the ambitions of anti-capitalists. At some point in the future, traditional or baseline humans will become as historically quaint, diminished, and marginalized a population group as
plain people. Like one of those
Twilight Zone episodes, maybe they'll place the original species in a special zoo, for the various kinds of posthumans to gawk at.
"
XF is like the Communist Manifesto for the 21st century. Really. That. Good." — Mark Fisher
Can one really identify as an animal? When you watch Matt Walsh he always ends/wins(?) the argument by asking if the transperson knows what it’s like to be whatever identity they’re transitioning to. No way anyone can really know what it’s like to be another species let alone gender. All you have is a stereotype to go on. Identifying as an inanimate object is probably easier because there’s no feelings attached, although people could imagine some I guess.
(Apr 21, 2023 04:28 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Can one really identify as an animal? When you watch Matt Walsh he always ends/wins(?) the argument by asking if the transperson knows what it’s like to be whatever identity they’re transitioning to. No way anyone can really know what it’s like to be another species let alone gender. All you have is a stereotype to go on. Identifying as an inanimate object is probably easier because there’s no feelings attached, although people could imagine some I guess.
It might actually help the public image of a transsexual if they did conform to a (positive) idealized stereotype. IOW, exhibited higher standards than born men and women. Anything less than that -- of behaving with the imperfections that "real" women and men are at liberty to have (are entitled to have?), is maybe one of the things that could contingently get them (unjustly?) slotted as "a guy pretending to be a woman" or "a woman pretending to be a man".
For instance, a male transsexual becoming a sex worker (prostitute, porn actor, etc) or burlesque-like performer is just what many people would reflexively expect a typical, horny guy to do if he got metamorphized into a woman. Granted, hundreds may have done _X_ to pay for the operations, or because companies were reluctant to hire them for "normal" jobs (especially in the past), but the consequence is nevertheless the generation of that kind of evaluation: "I told you so."
You may be on to something CC. Performing to a higher standard may mean greater acceptance but what that entails I couldn’t say. Do we think that way for handicapped people, expecting something more in order to try and normalize them?
One thing I think for certain is that science, specifically medical science, has helped the trans movement. It may even be essential, idk. From genitals to breasts, there’s no changes without science. I don’t really hear LGBTQ community ripping into science but maybe I’m not really listening for it.
(Apr 22, 2023 02:21 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ][...] One thing I think for certain is that science, specifically medical science, has helped the trans movement. It may even be essential, idk. From genitals to breasts, there’s no changes without science. I don’t really hear LGBTQ community ripping into science but maybe I’m not really listening for it.
Well, they may not be knocking technology and certain areas of applied science extensively because that's indeed essential to realizing the transhumanist-like aims of
antinaturalism, postgenderism, XF, political therianthropy (Otherkin), etc. But the policies spurred by left movements are administratively revising and challenging aspects of biology and the social sciences (though the latter was often in the past just a footstool of humanities scholars, anyway).
The Christian right likewise does its own thing in that respect, but mainstream science institutions and journals won't let them in the door (i.e., they have to construct their own parallel version of those -- like intelligent design think-tanks). The secular world has no problem patrolling for supernatural religious ideology, but the latter's rival is another matter.
Frame collectivist ideology and its varying aims in the swaddling clothes of social justice and systemic oppression conspiracies, and the brains of young scientists and their older administrators pretty much fall out from the emotional guilt overload. It's truly like the magic key long sought for that turns IQ and critical thinking into idiocy. But the "key" doesn't work for the other camp because Christianity is historically regarded as a facilitating tool of colonialism and various modes of Western cultural tyranny in general. Even Islam arguably garners
more sympathy from leftangelicals.
- - - - - - - -
Nature on “decolonizing” mathematics
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/02/0...thematics/
Berkeley to change biology courses into social-justice courses
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/01/1...e-courses/
Ideology stomps all over chemistry in a new paper
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/01/1...new-paper/
A once respected biology journal indicts evolutionary biology for ableism
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/12/2...r-ableism/
From sex to gender - the modern dismissal of biology
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/fro...f-biology/
Teaching UBC medical students that biological sex is a colonial imposition
https://quillette.com/blog/2023/02/14/te...mposition/
Why is the Society for American Archaeology promoting indigenous creationism? (beliefs of native peoples)
https://quillette.com/2021/06/13/why-is-...eationism/
From the armchair, no offence intended….
Do genetics play a part in same-sex behaviour? Internet chock full of articles supporting that view. Evolution would then play a role, so perhaps that aspect should be front and centre. Environment being a key factor for evolutionary change.
With that in mind I’m thinking about countries where same-sex is legal and those where it’s not. Each IMO may have become islands of isolation for our species with regard to same sex. What’s going to happen as generations pass? If as they say genetics are involved then some things could possibly change. However still need the two sexes in order to reproduce.
Does an island where same sex is prohibited force people to procreate in the conventional sense, no matter how much they prefer it? Not sure what it takes in those countries to make someone a same sex suspect but I’m thinking not getting married or being married without children could raise an eyebrow. So if genetics is involved then these countries would, I think, continue producing people with same sex attributes at a normal rate.
Will the same rate apply to a more liberal island where same sex is legal? Has anybody ever done a separate study on birth rates for same sex couples? I’d be curious to know if in fact there is a difference and why? Is it possible that legalized same sex behaviour actually spells the evolutionary demise of the genetics involved, whereas places where same sex is illegal will not?
(Apr 23, 2023 01:03 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]From the armchair, no offence intended….
Do genetics play a part in same-sex behaviour? Internet chock full of articles supporting that view. Evolution would then play a role, so perhaps that aspect should be front and centre. Environment being a key factor for evolutionary change.
With that in mind I’m thinking about countries where same-sex is legal and those where it’s not. Each IMO may have become islands of isolation for our species with regard to same sex. What’s going to happen as generations pass? If as they say genetics are involved then some things could possibly change. However still need the two sexes in order to reproduce.
Does an island where same sex is prohibited force people to procreate in the conventional sense, no matter how much they prefer it? Not sure what it takes in those countries to make someone a same sex suspect but I’m thinking not getting married or being married without children could raise an eyebrow. So if genetics is involved then these countries would, I think, continue producing people with same sex attributes at a normal rate.
Will the same rate apply to a more liberal island where same sex is legal? Has anybody ever done a separate study on birth rates for same sex couples? I’d be curious to know if in fact there is a difference and why? Is it possible that legalized same sex behaviour actually spells the evolutionary demise of the genetics involved, whereas places where same sex is illegal will not?
I recall one Latin American immigrant claiming he fled because unmarried or unattached men were intimidated and potentially beaten up in that widespread Catholic "paradise" (sans monks, etc). Doubtless helps the birth rate, though probably not as pervasive as he exaggeratedly(?) proclaimed.
Richard Hatch, the winner of the first season of "Survivor", never had children with his pretend wife of the late '80s. He donated to a sperm bank and years later met some of his kids that resulted from that.
Likewise, the "just for appearances" heterosexual unions of the 20th and earlier centuries may have often been barren.
Xenia Kashevaroff never had children with
John Cage (and anyone else), and the latter divorced her after ten years to be with
Merce Cunningham. Cage was apparently unconcerned with pretense after that, and that was back in the 1940s.
But unpredictable, chemical-dependent developments in the womb can be responsible -- I doubt it is wholly genetic, or always that. Though, regardless, one can still proclaim "being born with _X_ orientation". The science has always been compromised by propaganda.
In the old days, activists felt compelled to assert or leave hanging the impression that they were 100% gay or lesbian, in order to help push agenda through the barriers. Today, some of those seniors express envy that -- thanks to their earlier sacrifices -- millennials and zoomers can now more freely bounce around openly on a spectrum without being condemned as a "wannabe" or compromising the cause.