What side are you on, Zig Forums?

Didn't gender abolitionism used to be the main current in radical leftist thought?

When did it all become about TERFs talking about "the female experience", liberal feminists talking about 2,000+ gender identities, and traditional feminists maintaining two genders with an acknowledgement of transgenders? It all seems incredibly anti-materialist.

It's all bullshit. Abolish womanhood and manhood, asexualism for the win.

Pronounrespecter pls go

Perhaps Muke was on to something when he said reading too many books was harmful…

Attached: Phil_greaves_based.png (588x737, 260.25K)

If we subscribe to transhumanism (which I think any decent leftist should), then abolishing biological sex characteristics doesn't seem particularly far-fetched. Granted, it's not something that I could see happening within the next century or two.

It would be possible to reproduce asexually given enough work, or at least seperate sexual reproduction from the person and birth new people in artificial wombs inseminated with artificial sperm. This doesn't even need to require any great transhumanist leap - we have most of the knowledge to do this now if we really wanted to pursue it, but research in this direction would be blocked for ideological reasons and for social stability.

Also bumplock when plz?

Oh, I see you're a fantasist who looked at the mess technology has made of our world and thought it was a good idea to do the same thing to our bodies.

Why? Flesh is not evil. Sex is pleasurable. Most of the process of reproduction seems satisfying to the women who put themselves through it. Eating nothing but soylent paste is possible. People don't because cheesecake, toast and oranges are pleasurable and losing them is to lose something desirable from life.

Trannies fetishize their ideal women through porn and aspire to look like a pornstar or some other foul fictional abomination, instead of an actual woman.

It's necessary to forgo traditional sexual reproduction if you want to really biologically engineer offspring, and artificial reproduction would be faster, cleaner, and better than old reproduction in every way. If people want to reproduce the old way for no real reason, they would be subjecting their children to a lesser life purely because they get some thrill out of inseminating or holding a child, because muh nature or some nonsense like that. The only reason to retain reproductive organs then would be as an emergency measure in case technology breaks down, or because it's not worth the effort to edit out those vestigial organs, or because the level of technology is not yet sophisticated enough to do much more than inseminate unaltered eggs. Even if you ignore biological engineering and just presume to take standard sperm and eggs and industrialize the process of reproduction, such reproduction would be better than old reproduction once the basic problems have been solved, and there would be no reason not to do it to control for things like miscarriage killing mothers or babies.

Yeah, it's really a bitch that people don't have to die of polio anymore and have a median age over 40. What a bunch of shit.

*average lifespan over 40

and you wonder why people think you guys are insane

Can you give a single cogent argument for why we shouldn't do those things other than "it creeps me out"?

Can you give me a reason why we should other than "this IS true equality" >implying Marxism is equality and you had a really horrible time during puberty?

Liberating humanity from its physical and biological restraints would dramatically increase the quality of life for everyone

So you don't have an argument, you're just spooked af. It's going to happen eventually whether I want it or not, if technological society persists and humanity stops killing each other and the environment over stupid shit. The choice will be between whether this technology is used to implement totalitarian control over life, or whether it can be used for good to build a society that is worth living in. Appeals to tradition will be irrelevant, appeals to muh feels will be irrelevant.

Because it is honestly baffling and incredible how deluded you have to be to believe that people are going to be okay with creating a wholly new species because some leftists are uncomfortable with some hard facts about the reality of gender and sex. If your politics don't serve human needs but need to create a new species to function then your politics fucking suck and are nothing but solipsistic "this must work or else" garbage. Getting rid of diseases and improving the genepool is something entirely different from changing the essence of what it means to be humans, humans are never going to agree with making the children they raise a different species and, basically, you are insane.

Biological engineering is not a leftist project. There is no fucking "human essence" at a genetic level, retard. Being a person is only defined by sentience and social awareness, and even that is denied when fascists want to deny the humanity of niggers, gypsies, poor people, or whatever ideology they're told to believe in today.

Let's not, filhty trotskyist rodent.
The reason of Musubi is a way better idea.

you are triyng to change the human essence, kek.

person, yes. human, no.

I literally don't see how the fuck are Hegelian dialectics supposed to explain why men should consume estrogen supplements and chop their dicks off. There is no reason to be found here.

transhumanism is fascism, it's the old nietzschean/nazi fantasy of the superior human

The Stirnerist position is the only good position on this: the whole argument is moot because gender doesn't exist.

Why would it matter if offspring are no longer homo sapiens? There is nothing special or mystical about race or species, those are just biological categories, and speciesism only has scientific weight because homo sapiens is the only extant organism that is sentient and engages in social relations (to our knowledge, anyway). If we're talking about biologically engineered organisms (which would likely have started as modifications of homo sapiens anyway), the category of species would no longer make much sense when talking about the variety of organisms considered persons, but all of them would have sprung most likely from homo sapiens, would have been inheritors of human history and culture, and there would be no reason for these offshoots to be seen as essentially different from original humans. No amount of engineering would change the fact that these organisms developed out of a process that started with homo sapiens evolving naturally. What ultimately happens would in part be determined by the parents, if they want to spread human culture to the future or if they act like shitheads and prove that homo sapiens and the cultures that exist on this world are something gross and better left forgotten.

As I implied to the other poster, it is hubris to think that we can do a better job of building our forms that several million years of field testing. Furthermore, I suspect you might be an Epsilon Semi-Moron if you think most people would consider this anything other than horrifically dystopian.

Seriously, you need to watch some sci-fi if you honestly can't see understand why this is not a good idea. Try some Star Trek. Or Ghost in the Shell. Or THX-1138. (Then get stoned and watch Tetsuo: The Iron Man just because fucked up body horror and a homoerotic subtext is particularly odd).

insane people like you don't give a shit, normal people do.

We can demonstrably do better by sexual artificial selection, which you Zig Forumsyps keep insisting on. What would be so different about biological engineering, except that it would nullify eugenics due to biological engineering far outpacing any progress that would be accomplished by eugenic artificial selection?

That's what they're really butthurt about, the idea that their ruling ideology of eugenics would be exposed for the fraud that it is, so they make some stories for the plebs about le evil biological engineering. Such dystopias about biological engineering are really just commentaries on eugenics ideology that exists today without any such advanced technology, yet polyps don't question eugenics and their insistence that niggers ought to be slaves.

Disgusting.

It's just a polyp retard.

Basically this.

The real world doesn't work like in Ego and its Own. Spooks aren't actually spooks. Mystical things are in many cases actually real.

The reason we can't do that because humanity's genome being outside of human's control actually puts things on a more even playing pool than artifiical design. Artificial design of humanity ends humanity, its essence and what it means to be human because, as of now, essentially we are equalized by the fact that our nobody is directly responsible for our genome, we have to work with what we have and cannot blame anyone. In this sense ware "all men are created equal", because we are all the result of random combinations we aren't responsible for. Once a conscious being changes the essence of humanity, there is responsibility and this brings with it a myriard of problems. Which changes do we make? Which changes should be made? How do we maintain diversity when some things are just objectively better (should everyone be 6' and above because it's just "better"?) should everyone have an Autism Level of 170? Eventually, with an entirely "improved" genome you erase humanity. This is the most important issue, who is responsible, what do we do with it, and the destruction that it causes to the human experience when we know everything in the world is our doing. It'd be the end of the "abyss of subjectivity". Why would I want another species to take over the planet? Why would anyone else? Nobody is going to accept making dolphins or chimpanzees masters so why would I accept that these fuckers take over earth unless being an insanely delusional strinerist on a dumb board who will grow out of it in 5 years?

It's time to stop, Zig Forums.

Neither does respect, m'dude. There is nothing stopping me from calling a biological male (XY) a "woman" or a "man". Just because somebody thinks they should be identified as a "transgender otherkin", it doesn't mean they will be thought of as such by others.
If I wished to, I could call a particularly effeminate man a "girl", or a masculine woman a "man". The only thing that would stop me from doing so is being shunned for behaving disrespectfully, which is, in theory, a spook, but does actually have real life physical consequences in practice.

Retardation, retardation, and more retardation. You literally cannot escape your own eugenics ideology and assume all people will think the way you do, because your ideology is necessarily totalizing and cannot conceive of the notion of anything beyond narrow self-interest and feels > reals. This might be news to you, but smart people do not have to hold extreme contempt for their intellectual inferiors, and dumb people do not instinctively hold extreme contempt for their superiors. That is largely a product of the eugenics ideology which has dominated for the past century, a product of totalitarian, militarized societies engaged in endless imperialism, of students in schools and universities being drilled constantly in the belief that overpopulation is a real thing and that eugenics ideology is necessary, of the most foul impulses of humanity being exaggerated and praised and the decency of human beings being systematically stripped away. There would be no need for exaggerated antagonism between people of differing capabilities, the way you see Zig Forumsyps bitch and moan about niggers for having the gall to continue existing and not being slaves, or something. Sure, there would be some antagonisms between people, but if the post-human society is built by decent people there would be no need to enforce a caste system, and the notion that the next generation would possess far greater general intelligence than the last would not be a source of existential crisis, nor would variations in general intelligence among the population be a life-or-death struggle necessarily. (I'm going to just assume such a thing as general intelligence exists on a quantifiable scale, but the reality of intelligence is not that simple, and eventually a limit to processing power would be reached and engineering higher intelligence by brute force would no longer be possible.)

This is a very spooky post.

Attached: squint.jpg (526x300, 52.06K)

As disgusting as I find transgenders to be, it amuses me to no end how feminists hate them because they use postmodernism against them. Taking away their special snowflake card makes trannies okay in my book.

Protip: You don't understand my point.

Stirner is fucking retarded. Spooks aren't a real thing. Things described as spooks are often real. Spooks is a retarded buzzword for pseudo-intellectuals unwilling to engage with actual philosophy, who think they can just read a guy who says everything is spooky xD and think they know everything.

Because they are ideologies, ideologies are necessary false consciousness, thus rooted in reality, thus have a real core, usually they are the interpretation or rationalization of a material condition. Gender is the one for the material condition of our sexually dimorphic bodies an behaviours.

I understand your point, which is why I know your point is retarded nonsense. Go back to pol you fucking faggot.

You are pathetic as fuck, because you feel smart for figuring out that the "muh eugenics" counter-argument doesn't work, projected it upon what I was attempting to say, attacked said projected argument and called me a retard for believing in an easily dismissable position you figured out is dismissable. I was making an entirely different point and you missed it in a very /r/iamverysmart fashion. Retard.

Lets just draw the line on dick. If subject has one its a male. Simple as that

But your argument is literally genetic purity for some spooky reason, and some biological essentialism as the definition of what is human. Anyone who is going to make the technological leap to do this isn't going to give a shit about muh human genetics, but anyone who does this and succeeds would start a chain reaction which makes widespread adoption of biological engineering inevitable. That's why eugenicists are so spooked about this and fall back on muh human heritage, because it makes a mockery of their retarded ideology and their claims of nobility due to better breeding. The question isn't whether to stop it, but to determine what will happen as a result of the technology.

So what if all humans are genetically clones of each other? (That wouldn't happen for a variety of reasons anyway, but let's take your argument at face value.) Why would that be a bad thing, other than some spooked belief in genetic individuality? I don't care about my genome. (Besides, I'm going beyond genetic engineering and talking about grafting technology onto and into the body, so genetics would be effectively moot beyond its application for engineering, but let's assume that every human being would be identical to each other in form, or at least an ideal would be set up - and there is no convincing reason why post-humanity would insist upon any ideal forms, let alone a universal one regardless of adaptation to environment or circumstances. They wouldn't deliberately damage their offspring, and there are probable traits that would be common like general intelligence, but it wouldn't even be possible to assure all men are identical clones of each other. Also, Autism Level tests are generally understood to be incredibly flawed measures of general intelligence, but I'm guessing by this point people would have a better handle on what intelligence is and not obsess over le processing power. Besides, if we wanted the biggest brain possible, we wouldn't want the hassle and support costs of a human body or personality, but that comes with tradeoffs.) Anyway, what would be the objection to a world of people who had the same exact form? The whole argument rests on an asinine biological essentialist argument that doesn't make sense, and even if it does, if the post-human clones are stronger than you, smarter than you, and better than you, and have the power to decide what goes, what you think and your feefees don't matter one bit - which makes me very happy.

Um guys y'all know that with transhumanism the sky is the limit so everyone would just go on competing who could have the best augmentations, the best gene enhancements, etc. I mean right now this already happens a bit with plastic surgery (and harmlessly with make up, for women).

You can say not liking that is feels>reals but ultimately people live for the feels and use reason as a tool to reach their desires. Tbh commodifying my body and my mind in such a manner as to be able to be equal to the rest of society creeps me the fuck out and seems extremely alienating. It doesn't seem very healthy to me to view yourself as clay to be molded.

Attached: socialism left and right.jpg (1500x3400, 2.12M)

Corbyn discredited himself to any serious leftist by embracing corporate-backed idpol.

*dilation intensifies*
Trannyshit is just feels>reals

Attached: leftypol.jpg (2036x3051, 955.73K)

I don't bear any ill will towards people who are suffering from dysphoria, but I also haven't been presented a single argument for gender essentialism that makes any sense.

Attached: gender.png (862x647, 215.96K)

Imo that's also because a division between sex and gender is bullshit beyond trans people who aren't wired right. Most people just identify with their sex in a purely practical way (I was born in this body which I am comfortable with, and I don't dislike having a male-specific hormonal balance, for example). Gender role essentialism however, now that's stupid.

Each side has nutcases I don't want to be associated with at all.
But the TERFs. Many are so radical, that they replaced class with men.
They combine the view that everything a man can do, a woman can do with that men are responsible for everything bad in the world.
So men are bad, but everything good they do can be done just as well or better by a woman.
So there is no reason for men to have power over anything.

To back up my point, think of chimps. They don't have a language, I doubt a male chimpanzee thinks of himself as a man or that chimps have intense inner debates about the proper and natural behaviour of women. Yet male chimps do different shit than female chimps. Because they are more aggressive and more strong it's the male chimps that dominate a group as an alpha male, who compete among themselves for female chimps.

Among mammals I believe different sexes also do different shit when it comes to raising babies. I'm not trying to moralize or make an appeal to nature, my point is that in animals, who don't moralize and have no conscious conception of 'gender', males and females are different. Because what a male is in his consciousness, is altered by more testosterone, and his practical position of difference due to having more strength, due to having a different mating strategy and wiring for raising babies.

My point here is that animals do not think of gender (most probably) but are simply
different anyway because of the practical consequences of sexual differences and hormonal balance. No gender needed.

err wht about the literally trillions of studies that observe heritable differences between men and women in behaviour?

*Shitposting intensifies*

Maybe if you opened any medical journals you would see the recommend treatment to gender dysphoria is to transition. Literally no Doctor says trans people aren't mentally ill. So unless you go invent some magic gender dysphoria cure pill the medically agreed recommend treatment to this mental illness is transitioning,

Also your're from obviously 4pol cause no one names their images leftypol.jpg, that board seems obsessed with the dilation meme.

Lo, here we see the transhumanism proponent is, as bloody usual, a bigmouthed ignoramus who knows fuck all about biology. See, the problem with being a clone species is that once some bacteria or virus defeats the defenses of one member of that species, it defeats the defenses of every member of that species. That's why you have very few exant clone species in nature: something like spanish flu almost inevitably shows up very quickly to dispose of them.

Honestly, the amount of complaining the philosophyfags do about scientists trampling over their field when they stroll into other disciplines to vomit out crap like this is jawdroppingly hypocritical.

Just like you idolize this abstract idea of “ideal woman”

I think this is a local maximum that appears beneficial based upon where we're coming from, but not the ultimate direction in which we should be heading. It used to be that men were pressured into adhering to masculine stereotypes. Now they have the option of swapping them out for feminine stereotypes. No doubt that's a load off their shoulders, but it doesn't really address why we have stereotypes in the first place.

I don't think such treatment should be banned, but I worry about it becoming institutionalized and gender nonconformity being medicalized.

Unironically this. I'm sick of everyone's identify.

There are certainly demonstrable differences between males and females in general (anyone who denies this is delusional) but that doesn't mean any of those differing traits are essentially male or female. For example, I know men who are very feminine, not just in a superficial aesthetic way but in ways that are deeper; they aren't interested in casual sexual relationships, they have low levels of aggression, they're better at verbal skills and worse at spatial skills, etc. But these males are still unambiguously men.

You don't get it, and you'll never get it. You're still hepped up on le genetics. Genetics would be moot when biological engineering.

This would be one of those various reasons why post-humans wouldn't turn into exact clones of each other, anyway, which was the point retardposter was making. But even if they did have the exact same form, that form would probably carry a robust immune system specifically designed to avert this flaw. Also, who is the retard that believes bacteria and viruses travel instantaneously?

Also learn how an immune system works before you recite more eugenicist bullshit. Ideological biology is worthless but that's unfortunately what we have, because eugenicists are batshit terrified of their ideology being exposed for the fraud that it is.

Intersectional feminism of course. Because TERF in most are market liberal/libertarians/nationalists. Who against 9000+ genders, all life are social construct and family are capitalist tool. Human are just homo sapiens, family values are capitalist and imperialit propaganda. We need get freedom from this. Not exists male and female, exists just humans and every can play any role.
Read picrelated.

Attached: 180px-Debord_SocietyofSpectacle.jpg (180x284, 23.7K)

That's what a lot of women do. Trans people are not an exception. Also, when did you become the arbiter of personal appearance?

I don't think that all that stuff is a good idea either. I just think it would be beneficial for both genders to not have rigid expectations on them based on what sex they were born as.And i believe we cripple people's potential and cause them all sorts of unneeded pain by doing so. I guess the argument is to how much do we need to abolish the idea of gender? I am more in the line of just highly loosen it and allow the individual to place themselves where they may. You know instead of society dictating it to them.