What does it even mean “psychology of the original sex”?

Seems to me like calling every male with height below 165cm of height trans, because he has below female average height.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights.

Yes, women as a group tend to have on average more “feminine interests”. But there are many individual women who have “masculine interests“ and many men with “feminine interests”, so I don’t think that the theoretical perfect transition should require change of interests per se.

I guess I am interested in both.

And I am also interested in a different hypothetical experiment: imagine a perfect genetic therapy that could fully change adults person sex, like growing true new reproductive organs, no need for hormonal supplements, etc.

Would this also be perceived as a threat? You know, in a way, if you can really truly perfectly change your sex, being trans doesn’t really mean anything anymore, or does it?

I am bit confused about this “trans eradication problem”.

Like, I can understand and respect anti-abortion position per se, but that doesn’t seem to be what you have in mind.

So, do you wish there to be more trans people? Why? Isn’t it the same as some deaf communities refusing cochlear implants for their children as to not lose “deaf culture”?

Part of the problem is different expectations on the quality of writing vs talking.

If you would just write word-by-word what you say, it would often look like a gibberish. And we happen to have higher standards for written word than for spoken word (see transcript of Trump’s speach). And we intuitively know that, hence the resistance to writing.

The big realization is that writing what you said is often good enough, and even if not, it is a good start, because you can edit and refine.

Thank you for sharing, though I can imagine it was hard to write.

In my teen years, I was very depressed, yearning love. I was often fantasizing about being born a girl, thinking it would give me the attention I craved. During that time, in my country, transitioning wasn’t really a thing. So it never occurred to me as an option. I don’t know what would happen if it did. I wonder how many kids feel like this during their teen years.

Nevertheless, I eventually fixed it with acquiring needed social skills.

Being “defensive” is not a synonymous with “defending oneself”, at least not in a way these words are typically used.

Being “defensive” implies usage of dirty practices, such as ad hominem, emotional manipulation, misrepresentation of the other party. Essentially, party behaving in a way where a normal good-faith constructive conversation is not possible.

I find it uncontroversial that such a behavior is considered suspicious and undesirable.

Hm. I never aim to arrive sooner than 90minutes before departure—and that’s only because baggage drop closes 60mins before.

If without luggage, I aim for 60min, no matter whether domestic or international.

Never missed a flight yet.

So, I am utterly confused about this whole Buddhist thing. It seems to me that the main goal is to stop existing, essentially die but really truly die, so that person stops suffering. At least that was my understanding of what Nirvana is trying to be. Is that correct or wrong?

Also, I notice a strong obsession with suffering. Yeah, I do suffer here and there, but I don’t make a big deal out of it. I am not even sure I would want all the pain and suffering gone permanently from my life. It feels to me that some discomfort is actively needed in life at least to serve as a backdrop to pleasure. Am I crazy for thinking so?