Tanoomba's Toxic Tank of Traducement

Vanessa said:

Having been in my fair share of trans chats on Kik, met a solid handful of trannies irl and been to two conferences where 100+ trannies convened, I can absolutely assure you that the stats are correct: most aren't just suffering from GD...

Click to expand...

Have the ones who aren't actually suffering from GD been diagnosed otherwise? How good are we, professionally, at telling the real deal from the transtrenders, in your opinion?

Tanoomba said:

Have the ones who aren't actually suffering from GD been diagnosed otherwise? How good are we, professionally, at telling the real deal from the transtrenders, in your opinion?

Click to expand...

I can only speculate, but I'm sure many many people who aren't suffering from GD have been diagnosed with GD and put on HRT, yeah. Shrinks and doctors are in a pickle; they don't want to be pegged transphobic and/or deal with a civil suit, yet they may feel the same as we do on the topic... that a good percentage are in it for the moment. A handful of unpassable douches I've met on KiK are groaning at not being prescribed HRT. When I asked why they said they don't know. One person responded "My doctor is a bigot". Rofl... riiiiight. Being a bigot to a tranny is the same as "the man" to a dindu... it's not my fault I'm an unpassable that gets misgendered; it's a buncha bigots out there.

It's really difficult to accurately answer your second question because it's akin to figuring out the real deal vs. poseurs. This genuine vs. fake concept extends to a plethora of things: deadhead vs. tye-dye Larry / gamer vs. titty-gamer-girl / og vs. wigger / musician vs. "I play guitar!" guy / bellylaugh vs. Jimmy Fallon --- It's kinda like... we all sense it, but how can you be sure? A lot of the non-binary don't want HRT anyway so there's nothing to diagnose or be confirmed with, so that's good.

I think suffering from GD is the biggest indicator of a transsexual. How to isolate *that* from other issues? I wish I had the answer, I truly do! What's interesting, for me personally, is that I had GD but wasn't depressed. I think that is a fundamental reason my shrink wrote my recommendation letter much sooner than most other patients (less than 3 months... this was 5 years ago tho, so shit may have changed?). He knew I hated crossdressing, he knew I wasn't just using this as a means of coping with other issues in my life... I was actually scared shitless being on this path vs. "ohh yay, a new shade of fingernail polish!". Tanoomba, I just don't know what the answer is, sadly... fact is that people still fool doctors today with getting adderall prescribed to them just to sell it.

Next time I see my endo, I'll actually ask him about all of this... I don't have insurance now having lost my job about 9 months ago so it may be awhile

Mario Speedwagon said:

lmao I can only imagine the shitshow these conferences were.

Click to expand...

Buncha unpassable trannies everywhere... it was sad, yes. The majority of us are. Reddit posts are skewed toward passable because they're the ones who have the guts to post for validation and such. Most passables tend to not be advocates or involved and simply blend it to the community. Who can blame them?

Vanessa said:

I can only speculate, but I'm sure many many people who aren't suffering from GD have been diagnosed with GD and put on HRT, yeah. Shrinks and doctors are in a pickle; they don't want to be pegged transphobic and/or deal with a civil suit, yet they may feel the same as we do on the topic... that a good percentage are in it for the moment. A handful of unpassable douches I've met on KiK are groaning at not being prescribed HRT. When I asked why they said they don't know. One person responded "My doctor is a bigot". Rofl... riiiiight. Being a bigot to a tranny is the same as "the man" to a dindu... it's not my fault I'm an unpassable that gets misgendered; it's a buncha bigots out there.

It's really difficult to accurately answer your second question because it's akin to figuring out the real deal vs. poseurs. This genuine vs. fake concept extends to a plethora of things: deadhead vs. tye-dye Larry / gamer vs. titty-gamer-girl / og vs. wigger / musician vs. "I play guitar!" guy / bellylaugh vs. Jimmy Fallon --- It's kinda like... we all sense it, but how can you be sure? A lot of the non-binary don't want HRT anyway so there's nothing to diagnose or be confirmed with, so that's good.

I think suffering from GD is the biggest indicator of a transsexual. How to isolate *that* from other issues? I wish I had the answer, I truly do! What's interesting, for me personally, is that I had GD but wasn't depressed. I think that is a fundamental reason my shrink wrote my recommendation letter much sooner than most other patients (less than 3 months... this was 5 years ago tho, so shit may have changed?). He knew I hated crossdressing, he knew I wasn't just using this as a means of coping with other issues in my life... I was actually scared shitless being on this path vs. "ohh yay, a new shade of fingernail polish!". Tanoomba, I just don't know what the answer is, sadly... fact is that people still fool doctors today with getting adderall prescribed to them just to sell it.

Next time I see my endo, I'll actually ask him about all of this... I don't have insurance now having lost my job about 9 months ago so it may be awhile



View attachment 161475
View attachment 161476

Buncha unpassable trannies everywhere... it was sad, yes. The majority of us are. Reddit posts are skewed toward passable because they're the ones who have the guts to post for validation and such. Most passables tend to not be advocates or involved and simply blend it to the community. Who can blame them?

Click to expand...

I appreciate your insight, thank you.

I apologize in advance for prying, but I'm curious:

What was your process to get diagnosed with GD? Was it just talking with your shrink? Did you have to speak to any other medical professionals? What kind of questions did they ask you?

Tanoomba said:

I appreciate your insight, thank you.

I apologize in advance for prying, but I'm curious:

What was your process to get diagnosed with GD? Was it just talking with your shrink? Did you have to speak to any other medical professionals? What kind of questions did they ask you?

Click to expand...

No need for apologies... you can't pry an open door

Just talking with my shrink for a few months yes. Then continued my weekly sessions with him until he moved up north to Jersey I think. I specifically sought out someone who was experienced with trans issues (he himself was a gay man) because I kinda wanted to be told I wasn't tg... that, y'know, I just had repressed this or that, had a twisted envy toward women, or whatever, because I wasn't stupid... I knew the path I was going down was going to be a hard life. He really helped me overcome a lot of my guilt I harbored being who I was.

No, just him (kinda). He was the one who wrote a letter of recommendation confirming my identity... I still had to go to an endo for the medical aspect of transition.

What questions was I asked? Typical shrink shit I assume? I have nothing to compare it to (I went to one via my parents at about 15 due to depression but can't remember details. That time period was extremely fuzzy). Ex: How long have you known? What was your childhood like? What is your perception of what femininity and masculinity are? It honestly sounds and feels silly writing this out but it's... I dunno, just a natural dialogue. You talk about everything. You talk about lots of facets of life, beliefs, key moments, revelations, and you talk about the past present and future too.

I feel sheepish because if I'm correct in my instincts, I believe you're searching for tight specifics as to WHAT the mental health standards are for proper diagnosis of GD and I don't think there is a definitive answer or version here. Wouldn't that be cool if there was something as easy and (seemingly) conclusive as a, say, Meyers-Briggs test for GD?

I've heard of WPATH as the standards of care but haven't looked deep into it, personally. My shrink may or may not have adhered to this. I'm simply extremely happy I am where I am now... I didn't expend much thought on how the car functioned; just the road I needed to drive on and the destination I was heading to.

AngryGerbil said:

First we need a lexicon.

Start here: https://www.amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Bertrand-Russell/dp/0671201581

Click to expand...

This is the "stretching" phase before some strenuous mental gymnastics, isn't it?

AngryGerbil said:

Interesting how you put that. As if stretching for mental activities is somehow a negative. Says more about you than anything.

Click to expand...

Dude, you can use mental gymnastic to draw parallels between ANYTHING and ANYTHING. If you think you've got a point to make, make it. So far you aren't holding up your claim to not look ridiculous while doing so, since your first opportunity to say something relevant was wasted making a failed passive-aggressive jab at me.

Make your case.

AngryGerbil said:

They're both epistemological subjectivists and postmodernists. Postmoderism makes them nihilistic in outlook because a postmodern person annihilates all meaning or even potential meaning in life, an act which inevitably makes them totalitarians in political outlook. The subjective realm is a realm of power games and narrative-control and that is why we must listen to the narrative, and believe it. The evidence for this is abundant in both cases.

From Marx to Sarks. Hitler was just a side show.

Click to expand...

So you start with a subjective evaluation based on your feels (that Sarkeesian is an epistemological subjectivist and a postmodernist), then take that already flawed premise and push it to an illogical conclusion (because you say she's postmodernist, she must also be totalitarian). I'm not even going to touch on Hitler, you've shown me I bet wisely.

Here's the fundamental flaw in your approach: You're working top-down instead of bottom up. You're starting with a label, then trying to find any evidence that the label applies. Once confirmation bias kicks in, then you assume that everything that label encompasses also applies.

Tell you what, though: Instead of trying to convince me that Anita is X, and X implies Y, and Y inevitably leads to Z, why don't you find me a quote of hers that preaches totalitarianism? The less that interpretation requires highly subjective flights of fancy, the better.

AngryGerbil said:

Political subjectivism also requires loyalty purges in the guise of 'political correctness', I forgot that one. From time to time the narrative has to be correctively enforced. This is why the Left 'eats itself' as they say. Sometimes this correction is a Twitter ban, sometimes it is a punishment cell in the Katorga mines.

Click to expand...

"The Left eats itself" isn't an evaluative observation that has any meaning at all. It's literally a sub-par meme used whenever one of "them" disagrees with another one of "them" about anything. You say "as they say" as though this were some standard axiom. It's not. It's what anti-SJWs say to make themselves feel smart.

AngryGerbil said:

Based on feels?

Objective evidence that Sarky-Poo is a subjective epistemologist:

Spoiler

Click to expand...

You clearly don't know what "objective" means.
You're applying YOUR perspective to a social issue that she has an entirely different way of approaching, and because her view doesn't gel with yours you're applying a convenient (for you) label to her. While this is entirely expected (certainly predictable), it is FAR from "objective".

Sarkeesian approaches women's issues from a different angle than you do. She believes not just that women are very unlikely to lie about assault but that the very process of coming forward about being assaulted is a trying, emotionally draining experience that subjects one to all forms of criticism and personal attacks from a distrusting public. What you see as "Evidence doesn't matter!" is actually "Don't be discouraged! There are people who understand what you're going through and are here to support you." But you are incapable of seeing it that way, because her actual message is unimportant, even irrelevant to you. What matters is that you find justification for a label that allows you to draw inaccurate conclusions.

Did you find any quotes where she endorses totalitarianism yet? If someone can be totalitarian without ever having expressed a single totalitarian view to you, then how are you any different from the "listen and believe" crowd? "There's no evidence, but trust me! This is totally the way it is!"

I'm gonna have to backtrack a bit here, I got my wires crossed.

Sarkeesian wasn't even talking about assault victims with her introduction of the "listen and believe" slogan. It was specifically about women's experiences with online harassment and sexism.