Topic: Gender dysphoria & ''Age dysphoria''? (Read 755 times)

Technically it is a collective narcissistic hysteria combined with normalization and enabling of each others behavior, largely with Postmodernist Critical Theory as the source. It is an attempt to give Marxist ideologies a superficial facade of science. Under cultural Marxism there is a victim class and a ruling class, and the victim class is therefore "justified" in victimizing the "ruling class" in order to bring about "equality". Really all this is, is a feedback loop of people victimizing each other while justifying it by pretending to protect them.

The same applies for race and other well defined words. What's the point of ''identifying'' as any race/gender/age you want? It's like saying I identify as a black truck driver because I ''feel'' like it. It's nonsense and borderline insanity.

That Dutch guy is obviously just trolling, but he's also making a good point about the ridiculous gender fluid people who claim to be different genders every other day. If they can identify as non-binary or whatever they want then why can't he identify as a younger person. Obviously it's silly but so is claiming to be something that you're not which seems to be the case in a lot instances where people claim to be something other than what they were assigned with at birth. And just to confirm, I'm not talking about genuine cases of gender dysphoria and trans people who do actually change their gender, but the other people who just want attention and something else to be offended about when you accidentally 'missgender' them.

That Dutch guy does look good for his age, though  .

And you don't speak for society. I do.

Nothing you said applies to the simple matter of how old someone is. In fact, it's mindless double talk.

No, we don't "stay in our lane" when people try to "make things better for all of us." That's someone trying to tell all other people what to do, explicitly, and that's exactly when ordinary people should object, because they are the object of the Perverted Liberal Authoritarian Controller.

"We" means society not each and every individual.  That is why we have specialization.  Not everyone is a philosopher, geneticist, psychologist.  There are also people who accept the world the way it is and operate within it and those who innovate with hopes of changing the world for the better.  Most people realize who they are and stay in their lane.  Thats perfectly fine but don't tell people not to try to make things better for all of us. 

Age discrimination largely created by government! Even Otto von Bismark, german chancellor who created state pension system admitted that knowing each person's age is necessary for it so they started to account the people. School system is the same - pupils are being divided to classes by age (which was not a rule before state schools).

...Truth dysphoria?

If people want to introduce new concepts, I'm all for it but for god's sake, stop trying to change established concepts/words. Gender/sex was already defined, everyone knows it's 2. Age is determined by years, we know what a year is, it's already defined just like age, if you want to introduce some new concept that revolves around age then go ahead but stop trying to change the definition of age or gender just because you ''feel like it''

Another name for that is a red herring, or a distraction from the Marxist origins of his ideology he claims is science based.

No we don't. Over and over, you seem dedicated to trying to tell people to waste their time on totally silly, unimportant things.

Yes, yes... you do your mental gymnastics after the fact and deconstruct your way out of it as usual. There was no good reason to even bring that up as it in no way supports any of your countless red herring arguments designed to distract from the Marxist origins of your Postmodernist ideology known as "Critical Theory".

At no point was telomere length presented as an indicator of psychological age.  Its as if you never read the below quote.

Oh I see! It is not that you are totally full of shit and I just called you on it, it is because I got confused! Thanks for clearing that up Professor Postmodern!

If it is a completely different thing unrelated to psychological maturation, why did you even present it as an example of Postmodernism being based in science? Could it be that you yourself have an extremely superficial knowledge of all these subjects and are simply a pretender using these topics as a veneer to give your ideology the appearance of the authority of real science? Nah.

All I am saying is people just like you making the same arguments you are to push censorship on pretty much every platform on the internet, as well as laws compelling speech in several countries including the USA. This is already happening. We are talking about it. Your argument in support of your premise is poor.

Good. We agree on all of this much.   All I am advocating for is TALKING about how we MIGHT be able to change the systems.  This discussion has to take place before research could be done to test whatever comes out of the discussion.  I never suggested changing anything now.
This is why I made clear in an earlier post that there were 4 different things (numbered 1,2a-c) we use age to measure and that they should be separated so that people don't get confused like you just did.  Telomere length would not be used for psychological maturation.  That is a completely different thing.   Telomere length tells us how much your body is aging and surprise surprise not every 65 year old has the same telomere length.  This means different individual bodies age at different rates.

 All I am saying is that we should consider these differing rates when coming up with a good system to measure aging and TRF does that in the context of physical decline. 

It's almost as if every totally lame argument needs the trappings of "science" before it is pushed on the public.

"Things it is supposed to determine", well that clears things up. You are making these conclusions based on one incomplete and self contradictory study?

This ENTIRE ARGUMENT is a red herring designed to distract from the fact all of your arguments are based on Marxist deconstructivist Postmodernist dogmas.






I am arguing on behalf of keeping the existing working systems in place until people like YOU who advocate something new CAN PROVE USING EMPIRICAL DATA that the changes will result in improvements. You can't do that, all you can do is make relativist arguments of a nature that simply questions everything until nothing is relevant while providing no substance of your own to stand on. I didn't say this should "never be changed" I said YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF to demonstrate positively with EMPIRICAL DATA that a change should even be attempted. Telomere length is a biological process and has nothing to do with the psychological maturation of humans. This is just a lame attempt again at giving your arguments a superficial facade of science.

If you don't stop speaking for me I am going to have to teach you a lesson. You are doing this nearly EVERY STATEMENT you make now. Speak for yourself, not for me.

Its not adequate for determining the things its supposed to determine.  If it only works for 80% of the population, then it is failing a lot of people. 

You are arguing on behalf of the current system of measuring age, which assumes everyone ages exactly the same rate.  Everyone turns 18 in exactly the same amount of time.  Everyone turns 35 in exactly the same amount of time.  If we are using those ages to determine when someone has reached, cognitive and psychological maturation, we are assuming everyone matures at exactly the same rate.

 By you being so absolute in your suggesting that this never be changed, it is not putting words in your mouth to say that you agree with the archaic system of exactly 18 or 35 laps around the sun representing maturation.  You are saying at 17 and 364 days everyone is a child then magically on their 18th birthday and no a minute sooner everyone instantaneously becomes an adult. 

Which argument did I skip?  I know you skipped mentioning telomere length as a measurement of aging.

All I am saying is there has to be a better method and that better method will be developed and implemented in the future. 

I am well aware everything you said is refutable. Adequate FOR WHAT? You specifically referenced the presidency, and suggested that 35 was an arbitrary age limit, so yes you did suggest we should be reexamining laws. You mean "start to think about" IE allow me to pre-indoctrinate you so that when people like you DO try to pass laws I will not resist?



Who said anything about the time needing to be exactly the same? I didn't. This is you again speaking for me. Don't speak for me.
Oh I absolutely know you and your source are just chocked full of generalizations. Tell me, exactly what is even the point of mentioning all this garbage other than to distract from the arguments I already made that you have no reply to? As far as the LAW is concerned a universal standard IS A REQUIREMENT, because that is just how the law works. The law doesn't do subjective no matter how much psychoanalytical woowoo you throw at it.

I didn't say anything was irrefutable or proof nor did I say we should be revamping laws.  Remember "start to think about"....

The article and graphs do show that our current system of measuring age is adequate by averages only and inadequate for many individuals.  The last graph shows % of each age group scoring at or above mean level for 25 to 30 year olds.  How is it adequate for the 20% of 10-21 year olds scoring at the 25-30 year old mean level?



Yes cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence develop differently and very important which is another reason I said they should be viewed separately.  I already outlined that in the previous post.   I completely agree with you that experience is acquired with passing of time and interacting with others.  I just strongly disagree with you on the notion that the specific time necessary is exactly the same for every individual.  Keep in mind that the source is speaking in generalizations not absolutes as demonstrated by the data in their graphs.  This debate really boils down to if we want to treat people as statistical generalizations or individuals. 

The study argued that this dilemma manifests itself when our system claims a young teen is capable of making  a cognitive decision like abortion but not capable of making a more psychologically complex decision like murder (to be tried as an adult). 

Again, you flood right into your Postmodernist deconstructivism. You take a couple charts from a single study and use them as a nice warm fuzzy cloak of "irrefutable science". You can't even form a defensible premise. None of your schlock above does anything to prove we should be revamping out laws to make room for "transagists", or that our current system of measuring age is even inadequate.

YOUR OWN SOURCE clearly states while cognitive abilities may be comparable they still lack social and emotional intelligence. That is quite an important caveat to that study is it not? This is the kind of experience one acquires WITH TIME. Real time. Not the concept of time. Not a drawing of time. Not the Postmodernist deconstructionism version of time. Actual time passing living and interacting with others.


Compelled speech is totalitarianism. It is as simple as that. You call me whatever you like as long as everyone else is just as free to speak about you. Reality is where the resistance is coming from. The world you live in exists only in your mind. You are attempting to deconstruct every common experience of society until everything we hold in common with each other as humans becomes irrelevant.

Your intent is irrelevant. The result is the same regardless if you act out of ignorance or are willfully disingenuous.