About political ideologies


One misconception is that politics "is just a matter of opinion" when in reality we can get conclusions regarding what we ought to do given a particular situation.


That however does not mean there is one true political ideology, instead what's ideal will depend on your society and its interaction with the rest of the world. What was a good idea 200 years ago might now be a very bad idea.


Leftism and secular humanism
Leftism — or Progressivism, if you prefer — is a belief system. It is based on secular humanism and relies on Critical Theory
for its understanding of society. This means that, despite claiming to value reason, the only real use of “reason” is to reject religious faith. As soon as that is done, reason is itself discarded, and Critical Theory — storytelling — comes in.

As Leon Festinger described, when a person who has deeply held beliefs encounters evidence or argument that contradicts his beliefs (called “disconfirming evidence”) he experiences cognitive dissonance. This is extremely unpleasant, a kind of mental distress. It can be resolved only in the following ways:
  1. By abandoning or changing the deeply-held belief. This is painful, especially when — as in the case of Lefitsts — the belief is part of their identity.
  2. By finding new information (or argument) that contradicts the “disconfirming” evidence. This however, takes work. It’s also nearly impossible if your belief was irrational in the first place.
  3. By persisting in the belief, despite any evidence; this cannot be done alone. It requires social support, especially from new converts (“proselytes”)
However, you can avoid all three of these difficult or unpleasant outcomes, if you merely avoid encountering any “disconfirming” evidence. In other words, if you avoid hearing or seeing anything that you disagree with.

This is why Leftists like echo chambers, even more than “conservatives.” They avoid reading things they disagree with. And censorship on Reddit is just another way to do that.

Leftism is about taking care of everyone including ones that do not want to be 'helped' in the first place
• locking up teens against their will "for their own good" even though they didn't even do anything illegal.
• involuntary psychiatric treatments "they are mentally ill so they do not know what's best for them".
• compulsory schooling.
• preventing people from killing themselves.
• not allowing people to just buy any drug they want.
• banning medical quackery.
• making it illegal to con people out of their money.
• giving big welfare checks to people unwilling/unable to work.
• free healthcare to keep unfit people alive.

If we let people be free they will do stupid decisions and thus the left prefers the government controlling most aspects of our life "for our own good" instead of allowing natural selection. Some people might actually make better decisions than the government would make for them but that will not be tolerated in a lefty society, everyone needs to be kept down to the same level.

Enforcing high taxes will require totalitarian control over the population, the taxes are needed to pay for the giant ineffective welfare state. Unfortunately over time high taxes and welfare will create a bad mentality among the population where people become increasingly irresponsible.

The left may sometimes promote liberal values to get elected but it's just about getting votes, they do not actually care about LGBT people or sexual freedom, instead when they are in power they add totalitarian control over human sexuality. If a teen has sex with a 25-year-old male the left will view it as awful exploitation that needs to be stopped.


Humanism vs societal survival of the fittest
The issue with humanism is that then instead of doing whats best for society you do what you view as 'humane' even if result in a societal liability. This means that societies heavily based on humanism will find themselves as a competetive disadvantage against societies who do not care about that and said disadvantage will depend on how much better other societies can do.

One potential issue with leftwing-humanitarian societies is that they will end up with a growing welfare burden including economic immigrants, it's not really a sustainable system since you end up with more and more people you are 'morally obligated' to take care of.

Good luck winning war when you have to do it as humane as possible against an opponent who doesn't care about civilian casualties.


From humanism to veganism
Once you have bought into the dogma that "all humans have moral value" (unclear what that even means) the natural step is to expand it even further to animals, there is no end to this.

Vegans have won many debates against humanism using the "name the trait" trick even though the answer was already in the question (the answer is human).

But still there isn't any good reason to care about all humans and not give considerations to animals. There are many humans who are bad for society and there are many animals that provide value (such as nice tasting meat).


Why Veganism is nonsense
Vegans often claim that we ought to care for all sentient beings and therefore we shouldn't eat meat. There are 2 big problems with that.

First off there is no real reason for us to be particularly altruistic towards other sentient beings we are not related too "Hamilton's law". Even in the case of other humans altruism is often not beneficial when it comes to survival and reproduction.


but there is another problem vegans like to ignore. The killing of animals by humans is not a requirement to eat meat, all animals die naturally eventually so why not eat them?

There is also many animals killed in the production of plant-foods.

In order to actually examine if veganism is good we have to look at the impact on society. Most land used for meat-production is ill-suited for the production of plant-food.


Animal products are generally more nutrient-dense than plant-products and you cannot get all nutrients you need from just plant-food without supplementation (B12, etc).


About anarcho-promitivism
Of course a lot of claims made by Ted Kaczynski are correct.


For example thanks to technology it's now very easy to share nudes/pornography against the will of the people in said videos and due to internet it's near impossible to stop that spread. If you send a nude and regret it there will not be any way for you to undo that. Today even young teens have access to phones and they can easily take pictures or film themselves, that can actually land them in legal trouble in addition to the fact that they might regret that later in life.

For better or worse however societies will be pushed to progress farther with technology to get an advantage. A primitive society is very easy to invade.

Even if the entire world is primitive that will not last forever since there would be evolutionary pressure gradually increasing the intelligence of humans, that is why we ended up where we are today in the first place.

While the primitive period may have been better in many ways not that many people were alive back. Even if it would be fun you would not be likely to be alive at that time-period anyway.

We do not actually have that much time left to leave earth behind. The sun is gradually getting hotter which may kill all life on earth long before the sun becomes a red giant. If we cannot conolize other planets then we are all doomed and all of our struggle for progress would have been largely for nothing.


Pagan primitivism
Varg Vikernes is a prominent pagan primitivism.

He got deplatformed but you can still find his videos on bitchute.

He thinks civilisation is going to collapse which is a clear case of wishful thinking. In reality If one society fall some other stronger society will takeover instead, thus societal survival of the fittest make these primitivist ideologies unviabile.


Generally people advocating for what they view as socialism are liers or they are delusional. They are very unwilling to give a proper definition of capitalism and socialism.

Socialism is collective control of the means of production. The most successful form of socialism is corporations, some corprations are fully ownes by their workers.

Capitalism is private control of the means of production, this is how many companies are started, one individual having full control (except for some government regulations.

The issue is that socialists like to promote shit forms of socialism like worker co-ops.


Here Richard Wolff lied claiming you have no rights as a shareholder. You do have rights even if you you do not own enough to control the company, the majority owner is not allowed to screw over any minority owner.

All countries are a mix between socialism and capitalism.

If you complain about a corporation behaving badly you are technically complaining about socialism.


Egalitarian socialism
Often when the word "socialism" is used it specifically refers to egalitarian socialism meaning that instead of an elite having control over a company it's controlled in an egalitarian fashion or you have companies owned by a democratic government.

Full egalitarian socialism means that that all humans on the planet collectively own the means of production and get to vote in democratic elections.

Worker co-ops are not really egalitarian since the workers of one co-op might do far better than the workers of some other co-op.


About egalitarianism
Egalitarianism is emotionally appealing to a lot of people since it appeals to primitive instincts

Humans are not as primitive as monkeys so we for the most part realize that not everyone can be paid the same, a company insisting on that would have a hard time competing against less egalitarian companies, not even worker co-ops insist on equal pay generally.

In reality however for society some people are far more important than others, the reason USA was more successful than other countries in the past was because they recognized that.


Secular christianity
A lot of values promoted by secular people from the west stem from christianity were the weak, pathetic and self-sacrificing were held up as virious while the powerful were viewed as bad.

According to secular christianity we need to support the palestinians since they are pathetic losers implying that instead of defending themselves israel should just hand over their land to the palestinians giving them full citizenship (likely resulting in a new holocaust since jews would become a minority).

Of course israel has already adopted these values to a very large extent, they go very far trying to minimize palestinians death while they fight against hamas terrorists but that does not prevent the left from viewing israel as evil obviously. By going so far trying to prevent civilian deaths israel puts themselves at a severe operationan disadvantage, they can afford that against gaza but that would not work against a stronger enemy.

USA lost to vietnam since they were unwilling to do what had to be done in order to win, similarly israel is unable to put a permanent end to the terrorism due to their unwillingless to go all out against hamas. Bombing civilians can very much be justified

The notion that civilian lives would be more worthy of protection than lives of soldiers does fit into the secular christian dogma "weakness is a virtue" ignoring the fact that civilians are very often not innocent (they often support the state in various ways) and the fact that many soldiers are forced to participate via draft/conscription.


Feminism is built on 2 unsound premises

0. The notion that we ought to seek gender equality
1 .the notion that males are privileged

This however does not mean that policies feminists push for are all bad, far from it, it's just that when these policies are good they do not have a proper reasoning for pushing these policies.

The issue with promoting egalitarianism as a way to advance females is that then you also need to convince people that females have it worse and here we start seeing problems.

It's not even clear what "gender equality" should even mean. Should we put more females in jail to make it more 'equal' ? should we have homeless shelters specifically for males to get gender equality among the homeless?

Feminists often push for gender quotas when it comes to important positions of power (governments, corporate executives, etc) which is very problematic since it isn't meritocratic and it's not really great for the females who wouldn't have needed that to get into these positions (then a lot of people think they got to that position because they were female).

There are of course other forms of equality like trying to give people equal/similar rights but why should you be happy with shit treatment by society because other people also get treated poorly?

Who should be counted as female?
One issue with giving special treatment to all people of one sex/gender is determining who should actually be counted as female. For example many transphobes calling themselves feminists have various excuses for excluding trans females, of course these excuses doesn't make logical sense but they don't care about that since they dislike trans people.


This just further illustrate how we need to judge people as individuals rather than trying to group them together in large arbitrary collectives like race or gender.

You can make the laws themselves gender neutral and then give courts a lot of freedom to favor females over males, this without ever having to formally divide people into sex-categories.

Issues with adopting feminism as a personal philosophy
It does not seem to me like believing "it's a really bad thing to be objectified/sexualized" is going to help you live a functioning life, you end up in a war against reality which you have no chance of 'winning'.

Furthermore many feminist promote ideals a lot of cis/trans females really shouldn't bother living up to, not all females can be successful and independent. There is nothing wrong with accepting help from people around you, while having to rely on other people probably isn't ideal some people just cannot do any better unfortunately.

If you actually want to become independent you probably want to accept all real help you can get since that will make it much easier. Everyone start out helpless (as a child) and you will always have to rely on other people to a degree (such as not having a court take freedom away for you).


You yourself have the greatest incentive to look out for your own well-being, other people around you do not have the same incentive.

Unfortunately however just relying on yourself is not possible, humans start out in life as weak and in need of support for others. It's only when you get older that you gain the abilities to actually take care of yourself.

Even if you are capable however you still end up as a victim due to factors outside of your control, for example you may go to court having the law on your side and still lose due to the jury making a mistake, then you will suffer the consequences for that.

Even if you (somehow) manage to become a dictator gaining full legal countrol over your country you will still depend on other people, for example you need other people to keep things going if you are asleep, you may also have to rely on alliances by other countries.


Instead of relying on just one individual or trying to involve everyone (democracy) an elite is relied upon. Having an elite in charge is the only way for humans to be able to instantly make majority decisions, as long as a majority is always ready an instant majority decision can be made at any time.

An elite can together be more reliable than any individual human


The picture above is the probability for probability for an elite of 15 making a decision relative to probability of an individual senator making said decision. This illustrates how an elite can have super-human decision-making ability.



When people feel like the system is working they will be less willing to rake risks with reforms, especially not in the entire country.

The issue with this thinking is that while it may prevent some changes to the worse it will also prevent changes to the better.
Furthermore the fact that something worked in the past does not mean it will keep working. For example giving a lot of power or all power to just a single individual will often work out just fine but it's a really dangerous way to govern a society.


About bodily aotonomy
It's a very valuable right but also a right that is very hard to fully secure partly due to the fact that a lot of humans are simply not capable of making their own decisions (such as infants).



There isn't any clear way to divide humans into races, any such attempt will be arbitrary and thus race is actually a social construct in the sense that we as a society have created arbitrary categories for it that.

Since race socially is defined largely by appearance changing your race is very possible and this may also improve your quality of life. People being able to change their race means that race itself becomes less meaningful since it's more of an identity/presentation and less about what you were born as.

Of course people into toxic identity politics may very much oppose transracialism since it goes against their toxic ideologies but society itself do benefit very much from judging people by their actual abilities rather than the color of their skin.

Changing the color of your skin is very common, all you need to do is go out in the sun and tan. The difference between tanning and transracialism is just a difference in degree.


There isn't any clear way to divide humans into gender, any such attempt will be arbitrary and thus gender is actually a social construct in the sense that we as a society have created arbitrary categories for it that.

Since gender socially is defined largely by appearance changing your gender is very possible and this may also improve your quality of life. People being able to change their race means that race itself becomes less meaningful since it's more of an identity/presentation and less about what you were born as.

Of course people into toxic identity politics may very much oppose transgenderism since it goes against their toxic ideologies but society itself do benefit very much from judging people by their actual abilities rather than legal sex, especially when changing legal sex is easy (such as self-ID).

Medical transition will however in some cases prevent reproduction, this is especially a problem with FtM transition since even if eggs are banked a womb would still be required to make a baby. There is however no shortage of males being able to reproduce and sperm can be banked prior to transitioning, in addition fertility can often be restored by stopping HRT.


Medical transition from male to female could also be useful for social control since MtF HRT will feminize the brain


The following study showed that MtF transexuals were 20% less likely to get convicted of violent crime than comparable cis males but that was not statistically significant and this was also back when transgenderism wasn't as accepted socially.


We need to do a randomized Controlled Trial to examine of transition would be particularly effective in making people less criminal, in any case it's very likely that social factors are more important than hormonal factors when it comes to criminality.

Encouraging MtF transition specifically make sense if there is a very big portion of males unable to find a partner, unfortunatily voluntary transitions are unlikely to be enough to deal with involuntary celibacy and similar issues, most people are not at all willing to change their sex just to improve their dating options or even when transition would provide them with many other benefits as well.


while it is nice to have rights it is often not in your interest or the interest of society to give other people the same rights.


A weak government allows other actors to gain power instead and this is good for these other actors but it's not really a system that can last too long. You do need to initiate violance towards people in order to keep society stable. If the police is ineffective you end up with criminal gangs controlling people instead extorting them.

You do need the government to be in control over key infrastructure like the basic monetary system and social media.

This is what happens when you let private companies control social media:



Female supremacism
Females are simply more valuable in a modern society, males are becoming largely obsolete due to technology.








Why the government cannot be too big
The bigger the government the more there will be for government official to manage. There are too many decisions to make which requires a huge bureaucracy. Even if the people highest up in the hierarchy are good, there will still be a lot of problems further down.

For example, sars-cov-2 could initially be spread because the Hubei government did not handle it properly and once the Politburo's standing committee took over, it had spread throughout the country and they were forced to take very far-reaching measures to get it under control.

From version 28 of the vintologi bible (end of page 116):

Central planning & control
It takes effort and competence to govern over something, this is true both for countries and corporations. The governance burden will grow with the size of the company/government and this is why a government has to restrict itself when it comes to control.

Governments can control companies successfully but then they will have to spend time governing these companies and that brainpower could have been used for other things. The ability of a government to control things is however not fixed, technology such as computers will give a government entity more computational power allowing them to take on a bigger burden when it comes to governance.

Making the government bigger create the need to introduce more decision making entities, this can be local governments or specialized boards and the central government will not have time to properly watch over these entities, thus as the government grow there will become an increased number of critical decision making entities that all have to maintain a high decision making reliability.

Since corporations are also limited when in their ability to govern they might not actually be able to take over society completely since the difficulty in managing a company grow with its size, there have been successful cases of companies relying a lot on central planning 277 but these companies are still small relative to the entire economy.


Critical race theory
The aspect of critical race theory which most markedly distinguishes it from conventional liberal and conservative legal scholarship about race and inequality is a deep dissatisfaction with traditional civil rights discourse.

The main values opposed is the notion of color-blindness (that we should ignore the face of individuals as much as possible focusing on what actually matters) and racial integration

This belief in color-blindless and equal progress, however, would make no sense at all in a society which identifiable groups had actually been treated differently historically and which the effects of this difference in treatment continued into the present.
With it's explicit embrace of race-consciousness, Critical Race Theory aims to reemanine the terms which by race and racism have been negotiated in American consciousness and revatilize the radical tradition of race-consciousness among African Americans and other peoples of color - a tradition that was discarded when integration, assimilation and the ideal of color-blindness became the official norms of racial enlightenment.
And it gets worse

Critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and the neutral principles of constitutional law.

As a reflection of authenticity, critical race scholarship also rejects traditional dictates that implore one to write and study as a detached observer whose work is purportedly objective, neutral and balanced.
Why would you be open about this? wouldn't it be better to like conservatives at least pretend to value facts over feelings?

Also the notion that enlightment rationality would be a white thing is insulting towards non-whites and also factually very questionable, over 74 million people voted for Donald Trump and many whites in the US believe in creationism, would that make them black?

Critical race theorists embrace subjectivity of perspective and are avowedly political
Of course this is obviously bad for society since it prioritizes racial identity politics above meritocracy, rationality and objectivity. Instead they just blame everything on racism since they do not think they should have to even try to be objective.

as critical race theorists we adopt a stance that presumes that rasism has contributed to all comtemporary manifestations of group advantage and disadvantage along racial lines, including differences in income, imprisonment, health, housing, education, political representation, and military service.
Critical Race Theory generally doesn't focus on how to actually solve these 'problems' but it does look like many in the movement are against capitalism for some reason

Capitalism is essentially racist; racism is essentially capitalist. They were birthed together from the same unnatural causes, and they shall one day die together from unnatural causes.


Many lefties are bad when it comes to transgender stuff
What far left in practice means is extreme egalitarianism, you cannot acknowledge that some people are better or more valuable than others, you have to pretend that everyone is equal.

For example many on the left want to use an inclusive definition of "woman" which is based on self identification rather than "adult human female"


The reason many of the left do not want to accept this is because it clearly implies that many people who identify as female are actually male (such as due to not getting access to HRT or not wanting to transition medically).

Many on the left (such as "vaush") to recognize biological sex as a bimodal distribution but still fail to reach the very obvious conclusions from that
  1. Some people are more female than others
  2. some people are more male than others
  3. You can change your biological sex
https://twitter.com/BlackSeaBitch/status/1390758389056147458 transphobic meltdown by Vaush.

Promotion of puberty blockers
It's very common that people on the left promote puberty blockers even though they are unsafe and ineffective and offer near zero practical benefit over full HRT


Puberty blockers will not halt bone masculinization, you need estrogen for that:


It's a general issue that many political youtubers are very bad when it comes to actually analyzing scientific studies, instead they already have a pre-determined political position and then they try to find some studies backing that up.

For example if you look at studies regarding medical transition you see that most of the benefits come from HRT, not surgeries (SRS in particular is pretty questionable).


Government control over healthcare
The left is naturally opposed to people making their own medical decisions since then some people will do better than others (many will fall victim to quacks while others get early access to effective treatments) that will result in very unequal outcomes which the left view as very bad.
Instead the left want us to democratically decide what treatments people get and this can of course also be involuntary (you being forced to take a treatment due to 51% thinking it was a good idea).

If a young person refuses treatment, which may lead to their death or a severe permanent injury, their decision can be overruled by the Court of Protection.

Of course government control over healthcare hasn't worked out too well for trans people with many people having to order hormones online on the internet


Many trans people are unaware of this or think it isn't safe and end up waiting years causing irreversible damage.
The right: trans people are bad

the left: you can get HRT after 200 hours of psychotherapy and waiting 5 years.

With "the left" i do not mean people like Joe Biden (he has many flaws but he has been pretty good on trans stuff so far).
The government has control over healthcare. In effect, everything has to be approved by the FDA before it's available for human consumption
You think the US right like and trust the FDA?
Ivermectin isn't approved against covid-19 but a lot of people in the US manage to take it anyway getting around the FDA.

No one is ever forced to take a procedure.


We are also seeing various forms of vaccine mandates being pushed where governments restricts the rights of unvaccinated specifically even though there are masks that offer significantly better protection than any vaccine.

Here is a poll from the david pakman discord


Like in the UK - the government doesn't 'decide what treatments people get'. The vast, vast majority of procedures (including for trans operations) are covered by the NHS for free - but there is still the option of private healthcare, which is also overwhelmingly cheaper than the US because of the UK governments bargaining power also lowering prices for private firms indirectly.
That's actually a neoliberal system. There was a lot of opposition to that system in Sweden by the left since they do not want private companies to profit from it (at least that's their official justification for opposing these private actors).

You can get free private healthcare in Sweden (paid for via taxes) the left hate that here but do not opposte private companies building roads and bridges, this can be explained by them just wanting to control to ensure "equity".

The reason it is so effective is precisely due to the NHS (national health service - the government funded service) in effect having a monopoly
How is that working out for trans people?

GenderGP had to move to spain due to harrassment from UK authorities.

Sectioning to protect incredibly unstable people. Again - I am going to repeat myself - stop talking about subjects you do not understand in the slightest. Sectioning is done only when absolutely necessary i.e. your safety or someone else's safety would be at risk if you did not get treatment.
The bold is in direct contradiction to the text before it.

Most countries do not even have CTO legislation, only some western democracies have that. It's also not "strictly necessary" to protect people from harming themselves, we can just let people die.

As for being a danger to others: that does not justify forced treatments since then you punish someone for what you think they are going to do in the future, this goes against basic civil rights.

You being a danger to yourself or others could however justify observation/monitoring, no medical treatment is needed here.

The bigger issue is that often forced treatments are not even based on proper evidence, the bar in terms of evidence does need to be a lot higher for that


You argued against the government providing healthcare.
No it was about the government controlling healthcare such as you being preventing from accessing HRT by medical gatekeeping. I was talking about you not being allowed to get treated at all without government approval (such as by the FDA).

HRT itself is actually very cheap so it's not about funding in this case.

You failed to provide even a single citation for any of your claims.

>The world and FDA aren't banning treatments to discriminate, they're doing it to ensure it's the right decision - even if their decision is wrong, the medical community is acting with good intentions here. They may make mistakes but the decision comes from a lot of fucking research.

We cannot expect a political organization like FDA to do what's best for individual citizens, they are there to please politicians which in turn has to please ignorant voters and donors.

>approval comes after extensive testing to ensure that horrific side effects don't appear

No you also need to show that the drug is effective for FDA approval and this can take years even if it's effective.

>but there are those who refuse help, endanger others, and endanger themselves that it is astoundingly cold and cruel of you to say we should 'just let die'.

Except i didn't say that, i just illustrated that because letting them die is an option forced treatments are not "strictly necessary".

I did however suggest monitoring people that are "a danger to themselves or others" since that shouldn't be enough to warrant involuntary treatments.

People climbing mountains also put themselves in danger, should be force them into therapy due to their dangerous behavior?
But you're right - let's take the ponzi-scheme medication contianing shit that 100% will occur
With your post you clearly illustrated that my description of the left was accurate. You want to protect idiots from their stupidity instead of letting them get their well-earned darwin awards. By doing so you also erode your own rights as well since you might want to do something with your body not currently approved by authorities.

I am able to buy medication online if I wish, against doctors advice.
The only reason you can do that is due to the inability of governments to enforce their regulations. We see that with drugs all the time, government tries and fails to stop people from using them just making everything even worse.

When someone is severely anorexic and suffers organ failure - the drip put into them is punishment. The therapy is punishment
It's rehabilitation (if it works) under coercion which can be justified.

But it has to be strictly regulated legally and we have to ensure it doesn't get abused (such as subjecting people who are not actually anorexic to it).

You can also use forced treatments as social control.


While wokeism may seem to be left-wing at first it really isn't. It's basically neoliberalism plus some virtue signaling.

While many people on the left are into identity politics there is little to nothing inheretly left with wokeism. The reason why this is replacing the traditional left is because traditional left is a failed ideology that less and less people actually believe in. In order to stay relevant people and organizations who used to be traditionally left had to adapt more and more into this new "woke" ideology where capitalism is accepted as the norm and drone strikes continue except some of the pilots are transgender.

Of course identity politics can be problematic by overly focus on traits that are not important in terms of actually getting stuff done (such as gender identity) but this can be managed. For example "gender identity" has been pushed rather than focus on biological sex or birth-sex but gender identity is not really something you can test, anyone can claim to have any gender identity making the whole thing largely symbolic.

It can be both a good and a bad thing but too much focus on identity will of course make many people uncomfortable or outright hostile towards it.


I have read many stories about failed and successful transition and without exception people who believe in the modern trutrans ideology react the following way.
  1. If the transition is a success the individual had dysphoria all along, possibly without even knowing it.
  2. If the transition was a failure the individual didn't actually had dysphoria even if she claims she had it "it was body dysphoria, not dysphoria".
Which is in practice unfalsifiable pseudoscience since "dysphoria" is never given a clear cut fixed definition, instead it's very flexible so you can say that all people who benefited from it had it and all failed transitions lacked it regardless of circumstances.


Rather than focusing on things we can observe such as social circumstances and how well someone passes people who believe in trutrans ideology instead focus almost exclusively on "dysphoria" where the notion is that unless you suffer from gender dysphoria prior to transitioning you are not a real trans person but a faker.

The whole ideology is based around the pseudoscientific notion that brains fall in distinct sex charegories and if your brain isn't matched by your body there will be significant dysphoria, this was pretty much refuted just by the following intersex study (which also fully refuted the notion of innate gender identity):


Furthermore brains are not fixed from birth, they are heavily influenced by environment and your hormones. MTF HRT will feminize the brain itself, not just the looks of your body.


While HRT will affects all aspect of your body unless you have genital surgery you will still have your penis, you might like some aspects of your male body but that might remain even after full hormonal transition. The later you start transitioning the less effect you get from hormones.
If trutrans cultists were correct we would expect to see loads of detransitioners any moment now due to all "tucutes" detransitioning due to reverse dysphoria, this of course is not actually happening and instead we are seeing detransitioners mostly consisting of people born female who had dysphoria prior to transitioning. This is similar to how religious cults often predict some apocalypse that never materializes.

Why the cult exist
I think it's very common for people to want to exist in some special club instead of just being another ordinary human. Another big factor is transphobia or at least frustration with other trans communities which causes them to instead form their own cult that is one of the worst.
Another reason can be that some people who didn't themselves benefit from transitioning might turn to trutrans ideology to justify their own failed transition (mostly people born female).

People who believe in trutrans ideology generally blame their issues in live on other trans people thinking they are the problem even though they are not actually the ones causing them problems. For example when people are unable to transition via the healthcare system due to excessive gatekeeping (something the trutrans cult support) they blame that on other people also wanting to transition rather than realizing that the access to trans healthcare is being restricted by politics rather than any shortage of estrogen.

Trutrans ideology is the natural result from transphobes finding out they have gender dysphoria.

Harms to trans people
By focusing always exclusively on neurology they ignore the very real impacts social factors have on transition success. Them pushing for more gatekeeping of healthcare will make it harder for people who would benefit from transitioning to access these treatments.

They are also doing harm by spreading pseudoscience and misleading people in general (to the extent they are 'successful'. In addition they also push for trans spaces they dislike (which is pretty much anything that isn't their cult) to get banned from the internet.

Respectability politics
Many of them think that if they just put enough effort into appeasing transphobes they will get rewarded by good treatment from them, this of course will never happen, respectability politics historically hasn't work.


A good example of the futility of respectability politics is how some transphobes (mostly TERFs) think that it is rape if a trans female blends in well enough to pass as a cis female and then have sex with someone without disclosing that she is trans (even though she was never asked), the same people also claims that "nobody passes" and "we can always tell".

Anti-trans people also want to raise the minimum age for transitioning as far as possible to make it hard for trans people to pass as their desired sex, they do not want trans people to be able to just blend in with cis people.

It's clear to me that a big reason behind TERF ideology is bigoted cis females wanting to secure special rights only for them and not let anyone born male also take a piece of that cake. I am personally suspicious about feminists in general partly because i feel it's just a question of time before they will try throwing trans people under the bus to advance their own interests instead.


How to properly refute political (and other) beliefs
One common misconception is that you falsify a belief by refuting arguments for said belief but that is not correct. You can arrive at the correct conclusions via erroneous reasoning example:

A: "X²-2X+1=0 has only one solution since the function X²-2X+1 is only allowed to have one value".

B: "X²-2X=0 has only one solution since the function X²-2X is only allowed to take on one value".

In both cases the argument used is inself incorrect (many functions of X take on the value 0 for multiple values of X) the conclusion in case A is still correct since X=1 in that case just happens to be the only solution. You conclusion B by showing that both X=0 and X=2 solves the equation.

Of course if an incorrect conclusion is reached all arguments by necessity must be false and this is also what you will find when you examine arguments in favor of false political ideologies.

In the real world however it's often difficult to sole problems relying just on basic logics, often you cannot even properly figure something out via extensive experiments and then you will simply have to use less reliable types of thinking to make your best guess.

Often in very complex scenarious (such as when playing the game Go") the problem is to difficult for finding an exact solution and in that case the best way to approximate it is via neural networks such as what humans naturally have in their heads, neural networks like this can actually be highly accurate while it's difficult to figure out how the neural network reached said conclusion, this will often be the case with real-world decision making, you cannot always provide a proper explanation for your position or your action, just superficial rationalizations.


Is gender identity politics bad for trans people?
Gender identity politics is focused on identity (that there isn't any objective test for) rather than the biological characteristics of your body.
Gender identity politics is often used against trans individuals, it is claimed that males will pretend to be transgender to get access to female spaces, this is of course extremely rare but it's still an effective scare tactic.



I do not think you should try to get accept to female spaces like shower rooms if you still pass as a male. It's actually very common for trans individuals to start of buymoding and delay social transition until they pass better as female.

One potential issue with downplaying the importance of biological characteristics such as ability to breastfeed is that then it will be more difficult to push for early medical transition, then society can easier get away with not allowing teens to transition "you can just identify as female, you do not need to transition".

It is a fact that the later you start your transition the more you will end up being different from the average cis female, hip bones fuse at age 25


Hopefully in the future you will be able to get working ovaries and womb as a trans female so you will be able to get pregnant and give birth just like most cis females, development in that area would also help a lot of currently infertile cis females.


Of course having strict requirements for womanhood would also exclude a lot of cis females, this is not a hypothetical problem, both men and woman (cis) are subjected to gender norms where deviating from that will cause social problems.

Intersex people are also affected by these things, often they are surgically mutilated to fit into either gender category and sometimes it turns out the gender that were assigned to them didn't fit them particularly well. Them then being able to just identify as the sex they want to be will not solve the issue of them having been mutilated.

Another group affected by this are the ones that end up detransitioning, i do not think it's appropriate to let these people just change bathrooms because they change their gender identity. detrans females are biologically different from cis females who never started transitioning (as groups).

Self-ID can actually ve useful for circumventing discrimination based on legal sex.

If your state doesn't recognize same-sex marriage self-ID would allow you to go around that.

If there are gender quotas people disingenuously self-identifying as the other sex can allow the most qualified people to get positions instead of picking someone less qualified based on their sex.

In general self-id can be weaponized to push for gender egalitarianism by making legal sex near meaningless, abolishing discrimination based on legal sex isn't always politically viable. Personally i do not believe in egalitarianism and therefore i am sceptical of self-id.


it is bad. the gender abolitionist, gender identity crowd are lesbians and radfems who are attempting to claw back from trans women the title of “most oppressed body.” they also reject being women out of internalized misogyny and to distance themselves from trans women. if gender is just an identity, than trans women are just males who identify as women, and everything reverts back to genitalia at birth. it’s genius, really