Defend this With love, /pol/

File: 1500765281887.png (725KB, 632x960px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 632x960px

>>8618641
>inducing gender dysphoria in prepubescent children in order to virtue signal how much of a progressive you are

What could possibly go wrong?

>>8618648
I would expect nothing less from a Jew

>>8618641
do gay parents trade their jr. twinks at pride parades?

File: 1495261023746.jpg (617KB, 982x848px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 982x848px

>>8618660
This is literally what it looks like to me. Not even memeing. The entire thing is just a plot to legalize fucking 8 year old twinks.

File: that guy from the strain really let himself go.jpg (9KB, 343x308px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 343x308px

Daddy approves

Why do people post shit like this and then just blatantly assume the child must be being forced into it? You're literally just making up an assumption to support your argument.

>>8618679

The father looks like he is high in both scenes.

>>8618689
yeah the kid totally wanted to go to the sex parade dressed like a fucking whore. His choice not mine.

File: 1500773340483.jpg (397KB, 1242x1659px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1242x1659px

>>8618689
Because if the child is not mentally capable of consenting to sex, the child is not mentally capable of choosing their gender identity. Also all of these children are prepubescent. They have no real concept of sexuality or gender. At least not a correct one. I'm """"cis"""", but I played with some barbie dolls when I was a kid. If my parents had been current year liberals I probably would be on hormones right now. Let children be children.

>You're literally just making up an assumption to support your argument.
And you're sticking your head in the sand because the truth to too much for you to bear. If you were to accept that this is not voluntary behavior on behalf of the children, but the result of our disgusting zeitgeist, your entire belief structure would disintegrate. And just FYI, I'm not anti lgbt. I'm anti child abuse. If you're an adult, do whatever you want. Turn yourself into a girl, even if you don't have dysphoria. I don't care. But leave the children alone. The fact that you defend this shit because it threatens your lgbt identity is absolutely hilarious. This isn't about you. This is about these children.

>>8618715
They're not choosing their gender identity though, not in any meaningful way, just choosing how to express themselves. If they're taking HRT or making some other kind of permanent or semi-permanent change that's one thing. But merely crossdressing? That has issues if they're being forced or coerced into it, but if not it's really a non-issue. And many trans people do report having some awareness of their gender identity long before puberty, and even as adults many people have a hard time believing that there IS an innate sense of one's own gender, simply because it's not something you tend to notice unless there's dysphoria, and it's often difficult to separate the innate and learned aspects of one's identity - except when they disagree.

>>8618641
>>8618648
These poor lil' dudes. Chances are, once they hit puberty they are going to be one of two things. Confused or Embarrassed. Confused as to what exactly they are and where they stand or Embarrassed should they decide to go the masculine route in their teen years and these pictures of them will follow them around for life, definite bully ammo.

>parents force a rigid gender identity onto their child and beat them if they don't like it
yes!
>parents allow their child to express itself how it wants
no!!! abuse!!!

>>8618743
No, they are just confused. Being a feminine boy or a masculine girl isn't an excuse to fucking crosdress. If anything, allowing them to just express themselves as the opposite gender will let them to believe that they are in fact trans. Do you really wish to impose gender dysphoria on children in the name of liberty? It's the duty of any parent to guide their children through life, and letting your 8 year old boy dress in slutty girl clothes is the opposite. Well, I don't really care. Enjoy your suicide wave in the next 10 to 20 years.

>>8618764
Opposite. These parents just enforce a rigid non-identity. Same shit, just in reverse. Wake up. Also, you can't just allow your children to do whatever they want. You're a parent, not their friend. It is your moral duty to choose what you believe to be the best for them, because they are incapable of making their own decisions. That's why childhood as a protected institution exists. Also >>8618763

Even if they are legit trans. You are making their lives worse. Literally kill yourself.

>>8618779
you're cranky, did you forget your hormones today?

File: 1500773247511.png (488KB, 1362x944px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 1362x944px

>b-but the children chose this for themselves...
>t-there is no way this could be the work of their shitty pare-

top kek.

>>8618641
what the flying fuck....?

>>8618792
>parents literally force government to allow their child to choose for themselves
>present this evidence of the complete opposite

>>8618807
remember /pol/ is always right

>>8618815
The fact that you are defending this makes my tolerance for lgbt converge towards zero. CHILDREN, DON'T HAVE LEGAL AGENCY, YOU FUCK.

If a kid walks into a mall, looks at a clothing article and it happens to be that of a girl, why not let them have it? I dont see anything wrong with this... if a kid wants to play with barbies instead of cars literally who cares...

Example;
My cousin showed signs of being trans since the age of like 6 okay, everyone was like ooo theres something off here because he wanted a barbie birthday party (or suzy) and no one would give it to him. He was shunned and shamed by his older brother and father and now theyre realizing at 13 because he is continuously bullied that maybe he isnt really a boy like we forced him to identify as.

This is abuse. Children grow up to have a life of their own, they arent able to make decisions and they dont even understand the notion of gender, but if they identify as the opposing sex theres nothing that you as a parent can do other than to support it and help them feel happy with who they are and love themselves. My cousin is going to transition either now or at 18, either way im happy her parents are finally realizing.

>>8618828
>The fact that you do not agree with my opninion makes me very mad! NOW I AM TYPING MY OPINION IN ALL CAPS RAAWWWRRR!!

this site is 18+
you clearly don't have the "legal agency" to argue your opinions like an adult.

>>8618831
If a 12 year old girl wants to have sex with me, why not let her? Because children are idiots.

>This is abuse. Children grow up to have a life of their own,
Exactly. Which is why dressing them or letting them dress up as twink fucktoys is child abuse.

>>8618841
You are letting children chose something that could impact their lives forever and yet don't understand. Also why do these children feel this way? Because they have been brainwashed to believe they could potentially be the other gender simply because they don't fit their gender roll completely (no one bloody does).

We don't know either of these situations, and it could be the child's choice. I'd be more concerned with it in a case where the child's parents are gay, since they may just be modeling themselves after the parent's interests. But you can't say someone needs to step in on the basis of a few fucking images. That's not enough information.

Also, that Quinn costume is fantastic. Who seriously believes that wearing one costume of a character he likes is necessarily going to falsely convince the kid he's trans? Are you nuts? My little cousins both wore full-out princess costumes at the same age and younger. They both turned out cishet, got married and have kids. Calm your tits, people.

>>8618715
>Because if the child is not mentally capable of consenting to sex, the child is not mentally capable of choosing their gender identity.
1) Nobody "chooses" their gender identity.
2) Absolute false equivalency between knowing your gender and being ready for sexual intimacy with another person.

>They have no real concept of sexuality or gender. At least not a correct one.
I absolutely knew I was an FtM as a pre-pubescent child, I started asking my parents for help transitioning in the 90s. I had an inkling I was bi at the time, too. I'll try not to project MY experience if you try not to project YOURS, how about that? Every case of a potentially trans kid should be addressed cautiously and with an eye to what is best for THAT CHILD, individually.

>>8618779
>Being a feminine boy or a masculine girl isn't an excuse to fucking crosdress.
Uh...why else does anyone crossdress? Unless it's a COSTUME for an event or Halloween, which the Quinn thing...kinda is.

>Even if they are legit trans. You are making their lives worse.

>even if they are actually trans, allowing them to express their actual gender identity is making their life worse

You're literally retarded.

>>8618858
Sex has nothing to do with their gender youre trying to stretch this so hard to fit your moral argument... its kind of cliché too, move on :)

>>8618858
the story you posted an image of was of a child not being forced to choose anything. you area also just conveniently glossing over and ignoring that what you are arguing against, ie "brainwashing a child to believe they are X" is something that happens to 99.9999999% of "normal" children.
I guess you were so deeply brainwashed with this belief that even the idea of a child NOT being brainwashed sends you into a rabid frothy lather.

>>8618863
t. leftist ideologue

> I'll try not to project MY experience if you try not to project YOURS, how about that?
muh subjective reality

>I absolutely knew I was an FtM as a pre-pubescent child, I started asking my parents for help transitioning in the 90s.
Good for you, but in the 90s there was no SJW propaganda in schools telling you that there are a million different genders. The world you grew up in is radically different from the present day. And not in a good way.

>which the Quinn thing...kinda is.
Except that Harley Quinn is a literal fap bait fan service character. Of all the things, why her? There is nothing like an 8 year old boy dressing like a slut. Look at these fishnet stockings, god dammit.

>>8618868
>sex has nothing to do with gender
Lmao. You do realize that the primary function of a gender dimorphism is sexual reproduction, right?

>>8618876
If the child in the OP webm is not brainwashed I will eat my dick and start taking hormones to become a qt grill.

Letting you kid explore his gender would be something like letting him wear a skirt, I know you trannies and faggots are stupid but I think it should be fucking obvious that, regardless if they wanted to, you shouldn't let your little "girl" dress like a whore, this is fucking pedoshit.

>>8618896
We weren't talking about the OP pic, we were talking about the pic you posted and implied backed up your argument, which it did not.
Be more careful next time so you wont have to backtrack and move goalposts.

>>8618899
This. I could understand defending some light crosdressing, but these kids look like child prostitutes. If you don't want the right to strawman you as degenerate pedos, maybe stop acting like dressing little boys like hookers is a positive thing.

>>8618905
But I am OP. The defense against the webm was that the child chose this for himself and the id card shit refutes that. Literally over 98% of all people identify as the gender they are born as. This is not some tabula rasa shit. You are not doing children any favor by raising them to be "genderless". Raise them according to the sex their are born as and you will have done the right thing 98% of the time. If the child actually shows sings of dysphoria despite all that, then you can still go the normal route of transitioning.

>>8618915
But I did not reply to the Opening Post.
I replied to the post where you included an image that did not back up what you were claiming in that post.
Now you are just pulling an argument out of your ass. There is no evidence that raising children as "genderless" harms them in any way.

>>8618915
>This. I could understand defending some light crosdressing, but these kids look like child prostitutes. If you don't want the right to strawman you as degenerate pedos, maybe stop acting like dressing little boys like hookers is a positive thing.
Why don't you go whine about child beauty pageants which are an actual institution than just one instance of whatever this video is without context.
God I hate moralfags. Go back to your repressed homolust hug box.

File: 1400691428911.jpg (355KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1280x960px

>>8618927
>But I did not reply to the Opening Post.
So you agree that the shit in the webm is indeed perhaps a bit suspect? wew lad

>There is no evidence that raising children as "genderless" harms them in any way.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH. Oh man. AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. See you in 10 years when all these confused children end up committing suicide or start turning to the far right to get back at their awful parents.

>>8618930
>Why don't you go whine about child beauty pageants which are an actual institution than just one instance of whatever this video is without context.
Those are degenerate pedobait, too. Obviously. I'm not complaining about them because I don't see them as an ever increasing trend.

>Go back to your repressed homolust hug box.
Nothing repressed here. I'd totally fuck a crosdressing twink, but I believe that sex without love is degenerate, because it reduces human beings to pieces of meat all the while promoting hedonism over long term responsibility. At least between men and women. Not sure how I feel about homosex since that doesn't entail reproduction.

>God I hate moralfags.
Not an argument. Also, like I said, let people do what ever they want. I would legalize meth and heroin in a heartbeat if I were in charge. I only care about not ruining children's lives with political ideology. You people are the new christian conservatives. Just as dogmatic, just as intolerant and just as damaging to the healthy development of children, all under the friendly mask of social progress.

>>8618779
>Being a feminine boy or a masculine girl isn't an excuse to fucking crosdress. If anything, allowing them to just express themselves as the opposite gender will let them to believe that they are in fact trans
Clothes should be non-gendered though. If a boy prefers wearing dresses, it should be treated no differently than someone preferring blue over green.

>>8618792
Wow, so you're getting triggered by a single letter on a piece of paper? And it doesn't even mean non-binary, could be intersex or they just don't want it to be public knowledge. "Gender" shouldn't even be on ID, they should just list chromosomes and information on hormone levels where such information is medically neccessary, and near the name list preferred form of address (Mr., Ms., Mx., Your Grace, etc) and pronouns.

>>8618828
>The fact that you are defending this makes my tolerance for lgbt converge towards zero. CHILDREN, DON'T HAVE LEGAL AGENCY, YOU FUCK.
They seem to be pointing out that leaving it "unspecified" makes it so that they can choose their own gender when they're old enough. If anything, choosing your child's gender for them is WORSE than just leaving it unspecified for now so they can decide later on without any pressure.

>>8618964
>Clothes should be non-gendered though.
lmao. Do you really believe there is no biological reason for women to prefer different things then men on average? Stupid relativist.

>"Gender" shouldn't even be on ID
It's not gender, it's supposed to be sex. Gender is something you people made up.

> could be intersex or they just don't want it to be public knowledge
Which is why the go to the press? Yeah, right. The odds for that are incredibly small.

>Wow, so you're getting triggered by a single letter on a piece of paper?
Oh dear. Now this is podracing. Not even going to respond to that strawman. You know exactly what my objection is.

> If anything, choosing your child's gender for them is WORSE than just leaving it unspecified for now so they can decide later on without any pressure.
98%. Assuming that their sex and gender are in sync will be correct 98% of the time, you fuck. You are willing to harm 98% of all children, because for those 2% it might be the right thing. Fuck off.

>>8618964
>Mx
>pronouns

Get the fuck out of 4chan. God, why does this tumblr board even exist? When did you come here, 2015?

>>8618858
>If a 12 year old girl wants to have sex with me, why not let her? Because children are idiots.
Because wearing clothes is not in any way comparable to having sex? This is like saying that your parents asking you what you want for lunch when you were seven is child abuse.

And a large part of raising children properly is teaching them to make their own decisions. Obviously sex is out of the question, but if you raise your children with the mentality that their parents always know better than them they'll never be successful adults. Letting them choose what clothes to wear won't scar them for life, if anything it will help them get used to making their own decisions and being aware of their own wants and needs.

>Because they have been brainwashed to believe they could potentially be the other gender simply because they don't fit their gender roll completely (no one bloody does).
Yet you insist on saying it's a bad thing for children to express themselves in a way more like the other gender. If we just stopped caring about gender so much the whole thing would become a non-issue, and people would only feel a reason to become trans if they actually experienced dysphoria. Treating gender nonconformity as some sort of crime against nature is what results in people thinking they have only two choices: become trans, or spend their life as a gender-conforming cis person.

>>8618896
>Lmao. You do realize that the primary function of a gender dimorphism is sexual reproduction, right?
Basically every part of the body has sexual reproduction as its "primary purpose", because sexual reproduction is pretty much the closest thing to purpose that exists in a biological reductionist interpretation. Basically every feature of our body exists because it is somehow beneficial for sexual reproduction. But regardless of "purpose", gender is something that affects people from a very young age.

>>8618915
>But I am OP. The defense against the webm was that the child chose this for himself and the id card shit refutes that.
That's nonsensical, because you're comparing two specific claims about two different events as if they can somehow contradict each other.

>Literally over 98% of all people identify as the gender they are born as.
That's still nearly 1 in 50 that doesn't identify as the gender they're born as. Even in a small town there's going to be like 40 of those people. They're not a minority small enough to ignore.

>Raise them according to the sex their are born as and you will have done the right thing 98% of the time.
2% is still risky. Would you fly on an airline that says "49 out of 50 flights will make it to their destination without crashing?" It's better to raise them in a truly gender-neutral way, meaning something that works regardless of what gender they end up being. That's really what gender neutral means, it doesn't mean rejecting all "gendered" traits and behaviors, it means "compatible" with all genders.

>>8618984
>lmao. Do you really believe there is no biological reason for women to prefer different things then men on average? Stupid relativist.
Preferring different clothes is one thing. I'm not saying that everyone should have to have the same preferences, just that there's no reason to freak out if a guy prefers to wear clothes meant for women or vice versa.

>It's not gender, it's supposed to be sex. Gender is something you people made up.
And as I said, sex would be broken down into sex chromosomes and hormone levels, where such information is relevant. "Sex" as some sort of unified idea is equally "made up" as gender is.

>Which is why the go to the press? Yeah, right. The odds for that are incredibly small.
If it was the parents that went to the press with the story, then yeah they probably didn't want to conceal any kind of information.

>>8618995
>If we just stopped caring about gender so much the whole thing would become a non-issue
We are a sexually dimorphic species. Men and women are fundamentally different, you fuck.

> Letting them choose what clothes to wear won't scar them for life, if anything it will help them get used to making their own decisions and being aware of their own wants and needs.
If my 14 year old son want's to be a crosdreesing twink slut, fine. At that age he is old enough to make terrible decisions against my best advice. But at age 8? No fucking way. Obviously the older the children get the more responsibility they have to take for themselves, but this thread is about PREPUBESCENTS, not teens.

>Treating gender nonconformity as some sort of crime against nature
Like I said. Being trans if fine for teenagers and adults. But not for children who haven't even hit puberty yet.

>and people would only feel a reason to become trans if they actually experienced dysphoria.
There is no consensus on what causes gender dysphoria. There is no reason to believe it couldn't be artificially induced by muddying the waters about gender. Don't tell your boy that he could be a girl if he wanted to. Let him develop on his own, which will lead to naturally masculine traits. If he then shows sings of gender nonconformity, then it is time to introduce the whole gender identity thing. But not sooner.

>Basically every feature of our body exists because it is somehow beneficial for sexual reproduction.
That's a child's level understanding of evolutionary biology. Are you fucking 16? You do realize that evolution produces useless byproducts, right? It's a perfect process. It converges at "good enough".

>>8618984
>98%. Assuming that their sex and gender are in sync will be correct 98% of the time, you fuck. You are willing to harm 98% of all children, because for those 2% it might be the right thing. Fuck off.
Except I'm saying we should do things that won't harm them regardless of whether they're in the 98% or the 2%. You seem to be assuming 1) that the 98% fraction is representative of the people who have a desire to crossdress in the first place and 2) that crossdressing will irrevocably harm you if you're a member of that 98%.

>>8618989
Do you not use pronouns? How would you advise referring to those not known to be male or female?

File: 1498818748133.png (233KB, 520x423px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 520x423px

>>8618641
Let kids figure shit on their own when their older, fucking virtue signalling faghags...

>>8619026
You have no idea what you're talking about. You fling around your half baked ideas about gender and think people should listen. Guess what? People actually study human sexuality and gender and you're wrong. So you should do more learning and less typing.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-21 at 6.15.40 PM.png (333KB, 551x500px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 551x500px

>>8618764
besides, genderfluid kids are sooo trendy right now

>>8619028
>How would you advise referring to those not known to be male or female?
Not my problem, since I don't know any and likely never will. I'll think about it when it actually becomes relevant to me personally. Also you only use pronouns if you talk about people in third person, aka, when that person is not present, so it's an entirely made up issue. I'll just use he or she depending on which characteristic is more dominant. If the person is present I use their name, because talking about people who are present in the third person is rude as fuck.

>>8619028
>>8619023
You're harming the 98% because you care more about the 2% because you treat them as your ingroup, you diptshits.

>>8619032
>Guess what? People actually study human sexuality and gender and you're wrong
You mean radical leftist ideologues in gender studies departments who's stated goals is to tear down the patriarchy aka western society as a whole and replace it with some sort of revolutionary feminist equality of outcome dogma? Yeah right, those people sure know what they are talking about. Also just because the consesus disagrees with me doesn't mean that I am wrong. That's a lame argumentum ad populum if I ever seen one.

>So you should do more learning and less typing.
>j-just get educated, b-bigot...
You people are like clockwork. Sociology is not a hard science, it's a bullshit science like economics. It doesn't hold a candle to biology. And biology disagrees with you.

>>8619026
>We are a sexually dimorphic species. Men and women are fundamentally different, you fuck.
There's far more in common than there is different though. And not all of gender roles even makes sense given what we know of sex differences. I'm not saying gender conformity should be a bad thing, as it is what the majority of people seem to want, but there's no reason to needlessly make life worse for those who aren't okay with gender roles.

>If my 14 year old son want's to be a crosdreesing twink slut, fine. At that age he is old enough to make terrible decisions against my best advice. But at age 8? No fucking way. Obviously the older the children get the more responsibility they have to take for themselves, but this thread is about PREPUBESCENTS, not teens.
Yeah I'm not even talking about "sexy" clothes though, I'm just saying that if something's okay for girls of a given age to wear, it should be okay for boys too if that's what they want, and vice versa. If that's not the case, that's a sign that there's something wrong with society on a much deeper level.

>>8618641

Meh, I don't give a fuck what people do with THEIR kids. Not my business.

File: e6a5c1c3cb1c9065f751877ef88c49aa.jpg (439KB, 797x1185px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 797x1185px

>>8619055
So can I fuck mine?

>>8619057

I dont care. I have my own life problems to deal with.

>>8619026
>There is no consensus on what causes gender dysphoria. There is no reason to believe it couldn't be artificially induced by muddying the waters about gender. Don't tell your boy that he could be a girl if he wanted to. Let him develop on his own, which will lead to naturally masculine traits. If he then shows sings of gender nonconformity, then it is time to introduce the whole gender identity thing. But not sooner.
The problem is that a lot of people aren't entirely cis or trans, they're somewhere in the middle (but not COMPLETELY in the middle). Like, there isn't a clear line to draw for gender dysphoria. Your way of thinking will either miss some trans people, or misclassify some cis people as trans. And even drawing such a line in the first place means that anyone who is uncomfortable with gender roles will end up being encouraged to live as trans, as if that's the only option. It's better to just recognize gender as one aspect of a person's expression and personality, and treat the medical side of transitioning as something separate.

>That's a child's level understanding of evolutionary biology. Are you fucking 16? You do realize that evolution produces useless byproducts, right? It's a perfect process. It converges at "good enough".
Obviously there is some randomness, that's why I said "basically". The point is that the one "purpose" of the evolutionary process is to produce organisms that are capable of reproducing.

>>8619048
>You're harming the 98% because you care more about the 2% because you treat them as your ingroup, you diptshits.
I explicitly stated that I intend to pursue actions that will harm no one.

>>8619052
>but there's no reason to needlessly make life worse for those who aren't okay with gender roles.
And there is also no reason to needlessly make life worse for those who ARE okay with gender roles, because it would make the lives better of those who don't. Which is exactly what I am observing.

>Yeah I'm not even talking about "sexy" clothes though
But I am. My entire reactionary argument is predicated on the pictures and webm I posed ITT. Harly Quinn is borderline, but the "girl" in the OP looks like a prostitute, you can't deny that.

File: z.png (772KB, 1200x669px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 1200x669px

>>8619048
buzzwords and victim complex. dropped.

>>8619055
Your parents should have beaten you, and if they actually did, they obviously should have done it harder.

>>8619063
>intend to pursue actions that will harm no one
But they will. And they do. Though luck. Good intentions don't change the outcome.

>The point is that the one "purpose" of the evolutionary process is to produce organisms that are capable of reproducing.
Wrong. Go read the selfish gene. Your knowledge of evolution is outdated by like 40 years.

>>8619067
YOU'RE the ones with the victim complex. I'm not pretending the be a victim. The only real victim here is there preteen slut in the OP. Also buzzword is itself a buzzword.

>>8619048
>You mean radical leftist ideologues in gender studies departments who's stated goals is to tear down the patriarchy aka western society as a whole and replace it with some sort of revolutionary feminist equality of outcome dogma? Yeah right, those people sure know what they are talking about. Also just because the consesus disagrees with me doesn't mean that I am wrong. That's a lame argumentum ad populum if I ever seen one.
>the scientific community is full of cucked SJW shills!
Not. An. Argument.

>You people are like clockwork. Sociology is not a hard science, it's a bullshit science like economics. It doesn't hold a candle to biology. And biology disagrees with you.
Biology was never intended to explain the entirety of human existence. Sociology, by its nature, can't easily conduct controlled experiments, but that doesn't mean it's wiser to ignore it and only look for answers from a completely different field of science. Recognize the limitations of sociological research, but don't think you can just throw out its conclusions without first putting a lot of effort into clearly analyzing what the different branches of science have to say. Using biology to explain gender identity (especially when you outright ignore the biological research that actually focuses on gender identity) is like trying to derive a system of ethics from the Pythagorean Theorem.

>>8619031
*they're
kek

>>8619079
>the scientific community is full of cucked SJW shills!
>Not. An. Argument.
Except it's actually true. But then again, gender studies, women's studies and ethnic studies are not scientific.

>Biology was never intended to explain the entirety of human existence.
Of course not. That#' where metaphysics and philosophy comes in.

>Using biology to explain gender identity (especially when you outright ignore the biological research that actually focuses on gender identity) is like trying to derive a system of ethics from the Pythagorean Theorem.
That's a good point, actually, but that still doesn't validate your point. Material reductionism is wrong, but sociology sees everything though the lens of some sort of class or identity struggle, which makes it intrinsically leftist. So not only is is a wobbly science, it's a wobbly science full of ideologies. It's nothing but shit. Just like macro economics, but that field is infested with crony capitalist shills instead

>>8619065
>And there is also no reason to needlessly make life worse for those who ARE okay with gender roles, because it would make the lives better of those who don't. Which is exactly what I am observing.
I haven't observed that in any significant way, whereas I have observed cisnormativity causing needless suffering for the minority that happens to be trans. And obviously, by needless I do mean suffering that could be prevented without harming the cis minority.

>But I am. My entire reactionary argument is predicated on the pictures and webm I posed ITT. Harly Quinn is borderline, but the "girl" in the OP looks like a prostitute, you can't deny that.
Fair enough, but I'd say the sexualization issue is mostly orthogonal to the gender issue.

>>8619073
>Wrong. Go read the selfish gene. Your knowledge of evolution is outdated by like 40 years.
Could you give me a summary of what you're trying to say here? Since reproduction is the main means of passing genes on, it seems absurd to say that isn't what evolution "optimizes" humans for. I'm well aware that there are "exceptions" (like kin selection, which could be an evolutionary justification for homosexuality), but as a general rule, evolution selects for organisms that are able to pass on their genes.

>>8619091
>Of course not. That#' where metaphysics and philosophy comes in.
Right, and the "soft sciences" are a middle ground.

>Material reductionism is wrong, but sociology sees everything though the lens of some sort of class or identity struggle, which makes it intrinsically leftist
Are you just interpreting any instance of "us and them" attitudes as a class struggle? Because that's not uniquely leftist at all, unless you're going to claim nearly all of politics that have ever existed is leftist.

>>8619092
>Could you give me a summary of what you're trying to say here?
Evolution benefits the genes first, not the species which they construct. It's not the genes that provide the most benefit or reproduction capabilities to the species that propagate the most, but the genes that have the highest likelihood of replicating themselves the most. Living organisms are just the vessel for genes to multiply. That's why they are referred to as "selfish".

>>8619095
>Are you just interpreting any instance of "us and them" attitudes as a class struggle?
Oh yes. You have just re-branded the working class as women, lgbt, minorities and "people of color" and the bourgeoisie as straight cishet white men.

>Because that's not uniquely leftist at all, unless you're going to claim nearly all of politics that have ever existed is leftist.
Most politics build around an "oppressor vs oppressed" victim narrative are indeed leftist. The only exception are the Nazis, but they just took socialism and replaced the capitalist oppressor with the Jews and injecting a good dose of jingoism and racism on top of it. Any collectivist ideology is cancer. There is no "us" and there is no "them". There is only individuals and the groups that they form by their own admission. The collective doesn't bleed. The collective is not real.

>>8619095
>Right, and the "soft sciences" are a middle ground.
In an ideal world where they aren't infest with resentful ideologues hellbent on destroying civilization perhaps.

>>8618641
I didn't read the thread and with the sound off I thought this was some pedosexual shit the way the guy was grinning at the kid lol

>>8619070

Stay mad loser. Mind your own fucking business.

>>8619157
t. pedophile

>>8618648
There's nothing actually wrong with this one. Wanting to be the best character in a franchise is fine.

File: 1487909504594.png (356KB, 599x510px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 599x510px

>>8618641
He fucked the little drag queen, didn't he?
Jesus christ.

Look, if the kid wants to be a flamer I'm totally fine with that, I'm a tranny so I can't judge.

What I can judge though is that creepy as fuck dude with that weird smile looking at the kid as some kind of piece of ass.
I was abused and it's pretty fucked up. I hope no one has done nasty shit to the kid.

Like for real, that guy has the super creepy pedo look someone lock him up x.x

>>8619166

Nope just a guy that doesn't really care about the Affairs of others especially when it doesn't involve me. If it's not my family or friends I don't give a fuck.

>>8618779
>Allowing a young boy to wear girls' clothing, even at his own behest, even during a comic convention LITERALLY induces gender dysphoria guys!
>Even if legit trans
>Literally expressing style is suicide inducing because children lack the self awareness to express themselves freely without a crisis
>I can't entirely describe why this makes me uncomfortable except that momentarily displaying femininity or feminine style must be inherently wrong
>But apparently not the other way around
>So literally just kill yourselves, everyone
>Wake up

Holy shit. I'll be honest. I wouldn't exactly put my prepubescent son in a dress or makeup just for shiggles, but your pearl clutching is unnecessary. Even if it were objectively disturbing, this thread is filled with examples of nothing more than dress-up–not gender identity coercion or sexualization. Do you think young girls wearing the same is sexualization? Or if they wear obviously boyish clothing, is that jarring to their fragile, developing psyches? No one is sitting them down like fucking weirdos saying, "You are to dress like a sex object...also, you were supposed to be born with girly parts. True story." Gross.

OP comes on here and demands a defense from us? Nope. I couldn't care less. First /pol/ needs to explain why the existential crisis over it is appropriate, if they feel like child developmental psychologists all of the sudden.

>>8618641
fuck off reddit

>>8619188
ah, autistic reddit spacer. never change.

>>8619170
A cum-dumpster who was only created to look sexy? Great thing to let little boys dress up as.

>>8619172
Finally a sane person in this thread. I knew you people weren't all fucked in the head. Why do you think so many people ITT defend shit like this? Because they can not accept that there are shitty people within their community and they somehow perceive criticism of their movement as an attack on their personality??

>>8619177
Fair point, but kinda edgy. I feel the same way, but children is where I draw the line.

>>Allowing a young boy to wear girls' clothing, even at his own behest, even during a comic convention LITERALLY induces gender dysphoria guys!
>Even if legit trans
No, but if he isn't trans it does.

>I can't entirely describe why this makes me uncomfortable except that momentarily displaying femininity or feminine style must be inherently wrong
I never said that. Boys can be feminine, but they are still boys. That's my entire argument. That feminine boys and tomboys are not fucking trans. Has leftism completely eroded your brain so that you are only capable of responding to criticism with strawmen and stereotypes, since anyone disagreeing with you throws you emotionally off balance?

>First /pol/ needs to explain why the existential crisis over it is appropriate, if they feel like child developmental psychologists all of the sudden.
We care about the family unit as the primary pillar of society to raise functiuoning members of the next generation. So naturally we care about children. Because most of us grew up in shitty broken dysfunctional homes.

>>8619188
I've been here since 2010.

>>8618641
are you asking us to defend the pedo smiling creep? because fuck no we don't defend that

>>8619194
I'll assume you were trying to respond to me in your green text. Learn to do it better.

>>8619180
>Do you think young girls wearing the same is sexualization
Obviously. I wouldn't let my 8 year old daughter walk around like that.

>>8619199
It's 6 fucking am.

>>8619194
>A cum-dumpster
So you're misogynist? Who would have ever known????

File: WRONG.jpg (44KB, 716x461px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 716x461px

>>8618896
>t. leftist ideologue
Pic related.

>muh subjective reality
And "I played with Barbies and somehow didn't know what gender I was until I hit puberty" isn't relating a subjective experience? You're not very bright, are you?

>Good for you, but in the 90s there was no SJW propaganda in schools telling you that there are a million different genders.
No, I just had LITERALLY EVERY PERSON IN MY ENTIRE LIFE insisting I was a girl and there was no other option.

I repeat, you're not very bright, are you?

>Except that Harley Quinn is a literal fap bait fan service character.
You expect a little kid to know that? Who is the one sexualizing children? He probably just thinks she's really cool.

>>8618899
>>8618915
Funny, I got bashed the hell and back in another thread for saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to dress up whorishly. That was a case of children who were literally wearing nothing but booty shorts and/or wearing outfits that exotic dancers wear.

In THIS thread, you have a child wearing an evening gown and a costume that largely consists of a jacket and shorts and are calling it "pedoshit."

Where the FUCK were you last week when people were defending the 7-year-olds in booty shorts, and how the FUCK is an evening gown "pedoshit"? Jesus christ.

>Raise them according to the sex their are born as and you will have done the right thing 98% of the time.
I wholly agree.

There is no evidence here that the parents aren't doing that. There is no evidence in JUST what has been posted that these kids aren't just cross-dressing.

>>8618927
>There is no evidence that raising children as "genderless" harms them in any way.
Being raised as the wrong gender is harmful, period.

That's not the problem with the thread. The problem is OP and similar haven't actually presented evidence these kids are being abused vs. being allowed to wear a costume.

>>8618648
>The couple's first son, Alexander Pete, was born in 2007. They call him Sasha
>Watts said that the pair would have a third child if they could be guaranteed a baby girl or twin baby girls.
weird

So I think gender is intrinsic and you can not force someone to be the gender they are not and you can not teach someone to be the gender they are not. There have been multiple cases of boys getting botched circumcisions so they decide to cut everything off and raise them as a girl, only to have the boy choose to be a man later in life. Likewise all the trans people on this board were forced to be the gender they were not but no amount of force stopped them form being trans. So if this kid is being forced to dress like a girl it will have no effect on his gender later on in life.

I was a "girl" until I was like 11 or 12. My parents were hippies and I had long blonde hair down past my ass crack and wore sarongs all the time. The only way people knew I was a boy was when my dick was flapping in the wind. But no amount of looking like or dressing like a girl made me a girl, I am completely cis and considered "masc." Dressing like a girl makes you a girl just as much as dressing like a superhero makes you a superhero.

File: l1a8wLaS[1].jpg (422KB, 1202x1800px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1202x1800px

>>8619215
Into the gas chamber with you, SJW scum. I never implied that all women are cum dumpsters. I deliberately chose that term to describe a oversexualized character. No 8 year old should dress up like her. Period.

>Where the FUCK were you last week when people were defending the 7-year-olds in booty shorts
On /pol/, complaining about modern architecture.

>>8619218
>There is no evidence in JUST what has been posted that these kids aren't just cross-dressing.
The webm literally gives off child prostitute vibes. It's like something out of Cambodia.

>There is no evidence here that the parents aren't doing that.
Oh boy. They are clearly doing it for attention and the sake virtue signaling. Otherwise they wouldn't whore out their children to the media for all the world to gawk at. That's straight up shitty parenting, all gender politics aside. If they actually cared for the children, they would try to keep their cross-dressing public exposure to a minimum. My parents always made sure the stupid videos I filmed with my friends in the early 2000s never made it to the internet and I am grateful for that.

> Dressing like a girl makes you a girl just as much as dressing like a superhero makes you a superhero.
They are not going to develop an identity crisis because they dress as the opposite gender, they are dressing as the opposite gender because they have an identity crisis. That's my point. And that identity crisis is artificially induced by lies and propaganda.

>>8619221
Nothing dodgy going on here. Clearly just the child independently LARPing as a capeshit cum-dumpster. Nothing to do with the parents what so ever :^)

>>8619208
Okay then. Fair.
But back to
>>8619194
>That's my entire argument. That feminine boys and tomboys are not fucking trans.

You more or less keep repeating this line over and over ITT, but no one is telling them they're fucking trans. Do any of these images headline with, "Liev Schreiber's new 'daughter' Dresses up as Harley Quinn"? Nope. So then your own arguments have been more like strawmen against what you think, and essentially said yourself, are examples of typical "leftism" degeneracy.
Tbh I'm far less emotionally invested in this than you seem to be, which is exactly why I mentioned this comes off as pearl clutching. I'm not the one who came here to complain about it anyway. But I can respect it enough to understand why you, OP, or if you are OP, arrived at these concerns.

>We care about the family unit as the primary pillar of society to raise functiuoning members of the next generation. So naturally we care about children. Because most of us grew up in shitty broken dysfunctional homes.

Won't argue with that at all. Everyone's doing what they feel is right from a combination of workable traditions and what they improved on from their shitty childhoods. I am sorry if yours was dysfunctional. Best of luck anon.

>>8618641
Dressing your boys as girls will do infinitely less harm than teaching your kids to be a racists, homophobics scumbags like you want to. Please never have children and kill yourself.

>>8619234
yea alan turing is a fantastic counterexample supporting gender dysphoria and transition, he was sentenced to chemical castration with estrogen and it drove him to suicide, and yet hrt helps trans people

>>8619254
>bh I'm far less emotionally invested in this than you seem to be, which is exactly why I mentioned this comes off as pearl clutching.
Sorry, but children are literally the only thing that can trigger my empathy. And I don't consider that to be a bad thing. Quite the opposite in fact.

>but no one is telling them they're fucking trans
I am afraid that they will simply start believing that they are trans based on all the false information they are being fed.

>>8619258
I want tumblr to leave. Seriously, why are all SJWs such subhumans? I literally never talked about race or homosexuality once in this thread. You have no idea what my views on race are.

>>8619267
>subhuman from /pol/
>"i-i'm not a racist i swear"
KEK

>>8618641
fuck off back to
>>>/pol/

>>8619274
for real, this is hella bait
/lgbt/ is "fuck off back to /pol/: the board"

>>8619261
you can't force people to be the gender they are not, so letting a little kid dress up will not turn him trans.

>>8619272
>everyone on /pol/ is the same person
Oh boy. You realize that /pol/ isn't just fascists, right? Or that even fascism doesn't necessarily entail racism? No, of course you don't, you literal fucking child. If you want my view on race: I consider race to be a spook. It's not real. It's an arbitrary and unhelpful category. Ethnicity however is very much real.

>>8619276
Ah yes, how nice it is to be against something rather than for something.

>>8619281
You are reversing cause and effect, m8. The dressing up is just the symptom. The cause is indoctrination and lies.

>>8619283
>The cause is indoctrination and lies.
The only trans cult is for cis women in college genderstudies when they say they are non-binary, but guess what, they are still cis and the life life as cis women when they finish school.

>>8619296
>The only trans cult is for cis women in college genderstudies when they say they are non-binary, but guess what, they are still cis and the life life as cis women when they finish school.
But what happens once they start having children? This is what this is about. Gender ideologues ruining the lives of children in the name of progress.

>>8619304
>think of the children!!!111!1
get real. nobody is forcing their kids to be trans. well, okay, I bet some people are encouraging it, because liberals be crazy. but that doesn't mean being trans is illegitimate, or that we should beat gender nonconformity out of kids, it means *liberals be crazy*.

>>8619304
>You can make a cis kid trans by letting them wear a dress.
>You cannot force a trans kid to be cis no matter how much you force them to wear the clothes of their assigned gender...and beat them.

I just doesn't work like that.

>>8619307
>I bet some people are encouraging it, because liberals be crazy.
That's exactly what my outrage is about.

>but that doesn't mean being trans is illegitimate
Never said that it was.

>it means *liberals be crazy*.
yes

>>8619312
You can fuck up a kid by telling them there is no biological basis for gender and that their gender can change on a day to day basis on their fucking whim. I have no proof that something like that actually does induce dysphoria, but I fear the worst. And even if it doesn't, it is still fucked up.