Modern Culture Is Not Just Revealing Transgenders, ‘It Is Creating Them’



Not just the description, but treating it like a victim, offering it incentives, privileges, and protections, promoting it in all the media as stunning and brave, relentlessly criticizing and disprivileging normalcy, etc.

Lurk for 2 years before posting.


How many years did it take to figure this out?

Have a video.

Holla Forums logic
make up your mind, Holla Forums


I can never keep it straight when one is operative or not

B-but muh social constructs


Retard alert. We got leftypol's finest attempt at an arguement here: the strawman.

That is not our argument. They are a fraction of the population, but are promoted in the media(by Jews).
There is an element of both genetic and learned behaviour(true of most mental illnesses).
We are currently seeing a second wave of people who claim to be trans, but probably aren't. Reason: social signalling and other mental illness.

>>>Holla Forums

Nobody believes this.

Genetics contribute to niggers' lack of ability to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps,' but obviously it's not the only factor at play as some niggers do manage that.

You're trying to point out cognitive dissonance that only exists in the most extreme right wing strawman.

Who said this? Blacks need to be around whites to be successful.The definition of parasite.
You don't think Jews view whites as a threat?
I don't know about all of them, but their hands aren't clean, no matter what they claim.
Because you are clearly living in your own fantasy. Best course of treatment: dick amputation!

Yeah, OKAY Shlomo

literally tries to say everything you are is genetic and denies any environmental factors whatsoever

you're totally missing the point of the post, but okay

just like with gender and everything else, there can be said to be a measure of central tendency, in this case a very, very strong one. Depending on the subject, the consensus of the board inside the thread changes. Now, there may be intelligent people who hold consistent positions, but NAxALT isn't an argument. The general tendency is to be duplicitous on the issue.

I'm sorry you don't understand science

As someone who really thought he was born in the wrong gender this is true.

In my youth there wasnt really any (((organizations)) or safe-spaces to escape with these thoughts and frankly even a retarded youngster like i was could see from simply looking at some tranny-porn as to how crappy the surgery, hormones and all that was back then that yeah nah fuck it.

I also think it's mostly sexual with most peoples,the whole wanting to be the other gender thing i mean, sure i really wanted to be a grill but it wasnt just because i wanted a pair of tits and a pretty face, i wanted a working fucking womb so i could actually become a mother, not the kind of abomination post-op trannies have!
Most trannies propably dont even really think about children, family, reproduction and such, it's likely mostly sexual and a fetish simply gone way too far for them.

Holy shit, this other person isn't me. Great catch.
Except I directly quote you, before explaining why you're wrong.
Well you clearly have a problem understanding this. No matter how many times it's explained.
Thanks for the wiki article
. All this still doesn't change the fact that transgenders are mentally ill and that their condition is made worse by enabling them to self harm.
It is both genetic and environmental. I don't care who else you debate.
This is (You):

This me:

This other person:

everything is MOSTLY genetic, meaning environment does play a role. Gas yourself you fucking kike
Holla Forums is not one person. To the kike boss reading this, consider hiring a new shill.

twin studies on IQ show its not 100% heritable therefore environment has an effect on a mostly genetic trait. Your fallacy is cherrypicking.
but you have no proof the general tendency is that environment plays no part in gene. in fact most people in this very thread are telling you that it does have an effect therefore by your own logic the voice of Holla Forums is the very opposite of your claim.

Absolute trash shilling, you're out of your fucking league here.

its doubt its creating them, look up the term "trans-trender". pretty self explanatory, you're doing it because its trendy. a good example was the whole "muh whole family is trans", no way its remotely true but theyre doing it to be trendy and gain sympathy points from the left. a friend of a friend actually was discriminated against by his group of leftists for being a white male so he remedied it up a few days later by becoming "gender non binary" and then trans a month or so later. theyre doing it to fit in after discrimination and leftist cult mentality promotes it. how do you cure the sin of being a straight white male or privileged white woman? become trans for instant victim status and to show everyone that you've repented.

Those weren't isolated points, though. So in attempting to "refute" each one separately, you indeed miss the point of the post. Furthermore, in attempting to "refute" the post at all, you're missing the point of the post - ie. that its not a philosophical or scientific argument, but rhetoric.

Are you the sort of person that replies to rhetorical questions? that question is rhetorical. please, for your own sake, do not reply

The rest of your post is pointless to respond to, since you're arguing against a phantom of your own creation.

So by castrating yourself.

You know a lot of trans are actually autistic, right? I'm guessing from this, you have the latter.
Yeah, no.
Even leftypol isn't this obtuse.
This is weakest attempt to weasel out of an argument, I've ever seen.

Genetics is only part of the puzzle. Abnormal hormonal conditions during fetal developmental, early childhood, puberty, and even adulthood may equally or more influential in brain regions that control sexual identity and behavior. I also would not call a tranny/fag culture a social construct, but rather a social disorder which may also have some hormonal roots and degenerated social conditions such as single motherhood subsidized and encouraged by the government or a lack of healthy male role models for children at school and on media. It's not a construct. It's a perversion of nature and traditional models of society that have proven to be best for civilization for the sake of (((parasitic ethnicities))) maintaining power and control over their hosts.


that's retarded pox gay language. I was not opposing rhetoric to dialectic. check out the greek trivium. educate yourself

the rest of your post is, again, autistic rambling that completely misses the point. kys

the whole article is, in fact, arguing that its a social construct. even if there are some genetics and hormones at play, something can still be socially constructed, at least to some extent. This is not a controversial statement; it amounts to saying "environment matters" or "everything in human society isn't hardcoded in the DNA"

Says the idiot who thinks 'social construct' just means environmental causes.

the social is an extremely important part of environment. humans aren't robots, they're social creatures. take your lolbergtardian jewish garbage elsewhere

God damn user, you are so disingenuous, you're got to be shitposting.

So disingenuous.

Gender isn't real, I'm sorry you don't understand science.
And unless you can support claim of central tendency, demonstrate a measure, you have no justification for such claim.
Its almostlike there isn't a concensus.
It is in this context - NAxALT isn't an argument when you're arguing that because 10% of the Black population demonstrates elevated cognitive patterns that the other 90% are not; however, you've not meaningfully been able to demonstrate that a minority of Holla Forums demonstrates the arguments you claim.

They do not need to be - if each part of the support for a claim can be shown to be faulty, the claim which derives from their summation can likewise be shown to be faulty.
The point of the post was a claim supported by several statements, which were each faulty, thus the claim itself is justifiably named faulty.
Its a rhetoric post that wasn't presented as such - it was an implied claim built upon explicit faulty claims parodying (and in the process, strawmanning) genuinely-presented philosophical and/or scientific arguments.
Yes, when someone presents a rhetorical statement disguised as an argument, it warrants response.

That's not an argument.
You were attempting to disguise rhetoric as dialectic.
That's the point. Educate yourself, you projecting faggot.

And that's likely incorrect - in all probability, there exists a genetically-linked series of traits which predispose one toward such behavior, and environmental/social factors exacerbate the condition.
The article addresses the social/environmental factors, likely because, in this case, environmental/social factors dictate the expression of such much more greatly than genetic factors, at least as far as evidence suggests - that is to say, the genetic factors may well exist, but without the social/environmental factors they will not be exacerbated as to be expressed widely.
Sure. However, there is a difference between the statements that, say, "gender is a social construct - and isn't real" and "race is a social construct - and isn't real", contextual at the very least, because gender ACTUALLY IS a nigh-purely social construct that appears to exhibit a primarily-social component in its widespread expression in a society, whereas race is NOT a purely social construct and does not appear to exhibit a primarily-social component in its widespread expression in society.
Nature vs Nurture, and in some contexts, one takes primacy over the other in terms of contextual relevance, even if the other does continue to offer some less-than-primary contribution.
Such commentary shouldn't be controversial at all… Yet it really is in many cases.
It is quite controversial, depending on the context, and its also disingenuous on your behalf, a strawman.
Environment DOES matter, not EVERYTHING in human society is PRIMARILY hardcoded in the DNA, and if someone DOES suggest that it such commentary does not suggest that such is the perspective of EVERYONE (nor even a majority) in a group to which that person belongs… However, environment does not always matter MOST, and much (granted not EVERYTHING) in human society IS primarily hardcoded in the DNA.

I've had this issue with the opinion some anons hold in regards to genetics vs self-determinism. I've come to conclusion that the points get muddled because Holla Forums isn't just a board where we can discuss ideas, it also subject to pushing certain cultural beliefs amongst the user base as protective measure against shills or degeneration. For example, I do not believe in self-determination in the slightest. However, I have come to accept that many anons need that belief to carry on. People don't need to suffer through the crisis of the ego when it serves no purpose. If they don't seek such a thing for themselves, then they shouldn't have it forced upon.

I believe this is what the CIA did to the general public in the 60's with it pushing of half baked versions of self obliterating, new age pscyhologies, religions and occultism. Giving people just enough rope to hang themselves with.

yes, yes… I made up retarded arguments yesterday knowing I'd have this conversation today because I'm apparently psychic.
this is how fucking stupid you are
this accusation is absolutely unfounded and shows you're not arguing at all in good faith. all you'd have to do is look at what that other user was saying and the style of writing to see it wasn't me. As such, there's no reason to read the rest of your post.

If you're this stupid, then I have no reason to read the rest of your post. kys

What drugs are you on? I've said nothing libertarian and you were just attacking Holla Forums for believing that "the jews are responsible for everything bad in society".
Filtered and reported for being a pro tranny broken bot.

Nice VPN. Really muddied the water.

Everything you mentioned fits your genetics you double nigger glow in the dark cia tranny communist kike degenerate


… contradictory statements at the same time. that's what you're not getting out of all of this

Creating them by law.

If there is ever a fight back it is going to being biblical, that is all I can say.

All pedos, fags and trannies are the result of child abuse and/or porn exposure. And reminder that all those jewish cartoons are promoting it, and are basically pornographic.

Sex/porn/masturbation is the worst drug there is. Why do anything else when it doesn't give as big of a dopamine hit?
All faggots, 'asexuals', trannies, pedophiles are completely controlled by porn. When 'normal' material no longer gives the same high they look for more extreme filth.
Unsurprisingly, the porn industry is completely jewish run.

Porn is (((psychological warfare))), the purpose of which is to get society addicted to deviancy, their instinct to reproduce rewired into degenerate lust. This means that they have an irrational attachment to defending abnormal behaviours because it's been associated with the dopamine hits they get from the porn they've see.

Every time you masturbate to pornography you are recieving a dopamine reward (because your brain thinks you're reproducing) that your brain then craves. If you continue to do this you will need more extreme material to get the same dopamine reward. This leads to further and further deviant fetishes over time

tl;dr: Sex is for the sole purpose of reproduction. Chasing after dopamine hits with (((porn))) leaves you a porn-addicted tranny/fag/cuck/pedophile.

Stop masturbating


dude! UPBOAT


muhomo'd the pedo goatfucker can you speak english or are you too inbred to even type a full fucking sentence?

Even worse, estrogen increases your libido and makes you want to jerk off more. You lose precious nutrients every time you jerk off too.

Where do you see yourself in this picture?

That video REALLY needs more of the last part. it's so satisfying after seeing the first part.
I know it goes for longer, so maybe someone can post it?

are mental illnesses
its pretty straightforward if you arent prone to writing up strawmen

For the retards and newfags who might read this faggot, consider:

This isn't that hard, and unless you really want to suck cock this bad, it should be obvious.

rescuing the christian ginger girl and impregnating her.

you kept strawmanning me and i kept denying your language that attempted at creating strawmen out of my fact based statements
I'm not going to go around repeating myself so I will link to some posts form that thread, since you want to see how wrong you are by public spectacle**

and that is definitely not what i said, but other user kept claiming i did

here check my posts**

Everything has a genetic component.
This is a fact.
And you are right that the other butthurt poster continues rewording my statements, creating strawmen, and otherwise arguing againgst things I havent said, then attributing them to me and saying I am stupid or "can't do science".

Twin studies show, that based on what we know of genes as of when the study was done that we can unwaveringly base some character traits entirely on genes and we know which ones.
Environment tells our cells which genes stay on and which stay off, upregulating or downregulating effects. How do our cells decide to regulate our genes (epigenetics)? Other genes that have created the system of sensory and control mechanisms. Fancy that, genetics.

You have human hormones. Not ones that are exclusive to chickens or to snails. These are made by genes. Your cells interpret them because of genes. Your mothers genes are indeed very influential on you, still genetics, from her womb.

Whether or not you take drugs or obey the teachers in the school system is entirely based on genetics.

You do not understand. Smoking was promoted in the past, so a lot of people became smokers. Now, it is said to be bad, so less people smoke. This applies to anything; just like a person with healthy genes will die if you feed it poison.

Lots of people that were prone to smoking smoked, now lots of people that are prone to smoking smoked.
Lots of people that use drugs to modify their behavior, continue doing so.
Anyway, your arguments are weak and implying things instead of saying them directly is just a cowardly way of not even trying. You know you will lose.

This is true but again I'm not arguing about traits being a result of genes, I'm stating only that even these genes that are responsible for trait X are environmentally influenced thus its expression is not solely due to the gene just being there. You won't upregulate genes to express more cytochrome p450 without consuming more drugs to require more CYP450 to detox them.
Which is exactly my point you idiot. Since genes are influenced by environment and their expression is then altered, genetics alone does not determine an outcome since different environments can express those genes differently. You can switch from a K type to an R type strategy for reproduction depending on the state of your environment, because genes alone do not determine it.
Intra and extracellular environment; this includes diet, drug consumption, presence of infection/autoimmune disorder, etc.
It's semantics over wording, im not arguing against genes being the code behind everything, i only say it's mostly genetic because environment is not genetic but influences expression of genes. You can go "oh its still muh genetics that does it" but if you cannot get the same expression without the environmental influence it cannot be 100% genetic.

This is a misrepresentation of that user's claim which basically states that the act of smoking (which does result in predisposition to smoke in offspring) does not always have this result due to a change in our environment which has become more hostile to smoking and as a result the total number of people expressing their genetic predisposition has decreased.
Lots of people that use drugs to modify their behavior, continue doing so. This is also good for the argument of self determination vs its all gene expression, since it flies in the face of "he has a predisposition therefore is likely to smoke or be an alcoholic".
He made an argument that is simplified but is not necessarily incorrect. You can test the efficacy of anti smoking campaigns and they are successful. If smokers are reproducing then there is no other explanation for the drop in new smokers if environment is irrelevant. If you have an explanation for this phenomenon I'd be interested in knowing about it.

This falls in line with a theory I've had for a while.

A relative of mine has a son in elementary school and they give him a bag lunch after school, but they don't want him taking that lunch home. I smell faggots in to school board trying to pump children but mostly little boys full of estrogen via school lunches in an attempt to turn them into little faggots by middle school and they don't want them taking the food home since it might incriminate the school if any foreign biological altering chemicals are found in it. So my question is this, does Holla Forums know of any way to test for these kinds of chemicals and/or do any of you know of any chemicals being found in public school food? We could save a ton of white children if this endeavor is fruitful.

Google "i want to be transgender"
Results: post after post from teenagers who want in on the pity parade/special treatment.
Official response:

How that environment affects genes and what is upregulated or downregulated is entirely based on other genes that provide the mechanism for being able to respond to the environment.
Thanks for saying "you idiot" that is very mature of you

Which means: Other genes that have created the system of sensory and control mechanisms. Fancy that, genetics.

It isn't semantics "over wording"
No living organism is in a vaccuum separate from the environment. It is only by reacting to the environment that an organism lives. And most living things also change the external environment by one way or another, sometimes this helps colonies of organisms interact or other times it makes it harder for predators.
There is no such thing as a living thing that isn't interacting with the environment.
There is no "genetic expression" without environment.
Environment is everything that isn't a literal gene in the nucleus. It could be the cell is starving and that environment in that very cell will send signals to the nucleus to activate both other mechanisms to acquire energy and to send out signals to other cells (in multicellular organisms) of various types from increasing immunological response to catabolizing some slower forms of energy to prevent that end result of starvation, which is death.

So what are we arguing?

The problem here, when said something is not 100% genetic, is that people who aren't versed in genetics assume you can be something that you have no genes to be. You can't become taller, faster, stronger, more intelligent, or more immune to disease just because you wish it. You have to have the genes to enable it, the genes to enable the mechanisms to enable it, and in the case of something like physical training, the genes for desire to improve yourself and the genes for withstanding physical pressure in search of a mentally desired goal.

Except that that is a misrepresentation of what I said to begin with. I never said there is a gene x that means you will pick up a cigarette and smoke it. Predisposition to smoking is made up of multiple factors. People predisposed to modifying their mind states continue using one drug or another, whether the current easiest drug is a (((pharmaceutical))) OTC drug or prescription, or something you can make yourself, or something you need to find a dealer for.
If people are predisposed to public spectacle, in the past they might have been travelling singers or preachers. Today they get on jewbook, twitter, reddit and get likes. Same drive. Same genes.
I already answered all your questions, you're welcome. Also try reading the linked posts here(where the ** is):

Home school.

Show up at school, say that you have the right to inspect what your child is eating, and take the food from the school. You can't be alarmist about it, or they'll be put into SHUT IT DOWN mode

Psychic? No. A shill? Yes.
Mmhmm. Sure thing m8.
Neither are you, so we're on equal footing.
Sure thing m8.
Hahahahahaha. Coward.
Thanks for admitting you don't have an argument.
Reported, and you take care faggot!

Can you do one with the Burger King kids klub?


It's programming, most of the trannies come from sexual affirmations via porn. Starts with looking at females, goes down the path of transformation-fantasies shemales and trannies as they develop a habit and an addiction to coming to that kind of stuff.

Along with no confidence (because let's face it, it's not Chad Thundercock that goes down that path), a shitty life they wishes to change and positive reinforcement they get from dumb-fuck teachers and the media they think this is a viable option to gain love.

The core reason though is that normal relationships between white men and women has become obsolete and it's a real problem, because it's leaving out tons of normal men out of the loop and a lot can't handle it. I don't really know what the official stats are anymore, but i doubt even 5/10 men between the ages of 20-30 have a family.

Most of these faggots just do it for "likes" and "subscriptions" or whatever kind of dopamine hit they can get from the attention.

Suicides among trannis will skyrocket.

to be 100% fair cosmo got completely mindfucked by a thot he was dating and developed some deep psychological problems that manifested as trannyism. he's not doing it for likes he's doing it because he's mentally ill.

please elaborate, i have never heard about this before

details on the mindfucking are sketchy but the general gist is:


What a waste of Hitler dubs
Do the world a favor and kill yourself faggot.

Cosmo also regularly shared pictures of that degenerate pornography with male anime people talking about being a girl and wearing skirts



did it die?

Let me explain it to you retard
Race is an environmental construct
Culture is a racial construct
Society is a cultural construct
They're all interconnected. But There has been studies that point to genetics affecting up to 70% of behavioral patterns. genetic absolutists are retarded.

An oxymoron, which embodies the whole problem with modern individualist society. In order to pull yourself up you need a fixed external ground as leverage, and this means your race, your ancestors, your cultural heritage, your land and your language. Only with these are you able to contextualize and localize yourself within the world, and their influence is so ubiquitous that you end up taking them for granted. But as (((they))) subvert these external foundations, destroy their solidity and replace them with a world culture of consumption, one ends up forgetting where he stands in the world, and the struggle to constantly justify himself and lift himself up in this quicksand of modernism only ends up plunging him further down towards all sorts of psychological and existential crises.

But it's definitely not all the plastics and chemicals, poisoned drinking/well water full of super estrogen, and soy in fucking everything you eat now all culminating in the lowest test levels and greatest hormonal disruption and cancer rates in women of all time?

what you're doing is literally a rapid fire succession of "so what you're saying"s

None of these "contradictions" are real because Holla Forums states none of those things.

so you didnt understand the studies at all

Bitch, the assualt on the male documentary and the the fucking literal documentary on trannies which confirms that doctors just let the fucks go HRT without denial and even fucking tell people that the people they get in are almost always these hilarious necbeard failures- It's basically a massive propgated trend that preyed on ancient faggotry and some more shit.

(((Kid Yid))) wears a mask because he's a Jew

bump for trannys getting btfo

She's between two niggers, user. Can't save her.

Said no one ever.

Good luck convincing a person who thinks that his 2000 old semitic traces make him God's Chosen about that.

It kills me that people who support trannies consider themselves to be the good people, the compassionate ones, while everyone who says it's a mental illness is a hateful bigot.

We don't help depressives by helping them kill themselves, we don't tell schizos the voices are real. Why the FUCK do we help people suffering from gender dysphoria by performing extreme surgery on them, mutilating them for life? And it's not even like it works! So-called "transition surgery" doesn't even reduce the already high suicide rates of people suffering that illness, it increases them! You can only imagine the regret a man must feel after every person he knows tells him he'll feel much better after he gets his dick cut off, inverted, and lives as a girl, only to realize afterward he's no happier than he was before and now his crotch hurts every day and it's irreversible.

People who support trannies and consider themselves to have the moral high ground are sorely mistaken.

I cannot agree more. This what I have been thinking from the start.

Making Golems.

And this too. We've poisoned our environments will hormone disrupting chemicals, xenoestrogens (XEs) and continue to do so. These have been well documented to affect hormone levels in humans and many other animals. It's in our water, our food, our cleaning supplies, the list goes on and on. There's no way this isn't having massive effects on people, especially those who are exposed to it from even before they're born. I'm certain that this shit is a least one part of why we see so many gays and trannies today, but for some reason that's conspiracy theorist far-right nonsense even though it's well fucking known that this shit fucks you up. God damn sometimes it drives me crazy how little people can think for themselves. Democracy was a mistake.


Compassion is dangerous or useful depending on what timescale you are looking on. In the long-term Holla Forumsacks can easily recognize that the behaviors of pampering, accepting, and promoting the mental illnesses of others is horrible for those people and others because it venerates a destructive weakness rather than attempts to solve it. Holla Forums can recognize from all data that in long-term results of treating the mentally ill like this is existential anguish, degenerate infection, and ultimately far more misery in the world. One with a long time horizon for their compassion sees the value in enduring some pain today to see a brighter future tomorrow. This view builds societies by making better individuals and virtuous men who will 'plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in'.

But this view only makes sense if your consideration of time is long, not short. Short-term compassion looks only at now and the immediate future, and in this myopic view compassion becomes boosting egos, compliments, and saying a person is wonderful just as they are. Because there is no time to change - the world is the eternal Now, and anything that brings any amount of pain now or does not alleviate it right now is not 'compassionate'. It is the whole give a man a fish today and tomorrow and every day after rather than teach him to fish because any suffering is evil. Even if he dies of starvation ultimately because he never learns to fish for himself, you're still 'good' because it isn't like you could have stopped that from happening without making him suffer, could you have?

If you cannot recognize the long future, you will see any attempts of long-term compassionate responses as at best not alleviating pain now, and at worst callous indifference to suffering. Whereas with a long-term perspective, one can see all these short-term 'fixes' as the poisoned bandaids they are which weaken the man and ultimately ruin him and everyone around him. That's why they call you compassionless and evil, because they themselves can't see past their own selfish worldview and lack the capacity or will to look into the future.


Exactly. It feels all well and good to love everyone indiscriminately in the short term, but in the long term it causes innumerable issues. It's just like sending mass aid to Africa. On paper, it looks good. Your donation just saved 4 kids from starving to death. Well done! But what happens next? Those 4 kids grow up and have 12 kids, and now those 12 kids are hungry. So you send a larger donation to keep them alive. Aren't you a good Christian! 10 years from now, those 12 kids have 5 kids each and now there's 60 starving children. And so it goes.

It's very, very easy to get caught up in the trap of feeling like a good philanthropist in the short term, while actually causing more human suffering in the long term.