I know people, like many do, who don’t fit the standard models of our postmodern world. This has become an issue it seems, one that threatens the destruction of our “civilization”. The truth is that this is a lie; it’s the complete inverse.
But what do I mean? For one, can we name a time when identity was ever a standardized form? Broad categorization has always been a thing, but the more unspecified these identities become the less truthful they are to human reckoning. For instance there exists the category of men, as well as women. Both are seemingly specific due to the nature of sexual reproduction. You cannot reproduce if two people of the different and specific sexual categories are not brought together, a man and a woman. Anything outside of that eliminates reproduction as a natural possibility.
But when it comes to the category of men, many vastly different qualities apply, in vastly varying quantities, yet all within that category are men. The same is true of women. Sensitive, histrionic fools will complain about this but categories are best delineated by the minimally necessary common qualities that meet that definition. A man normally produces sperm capable of producing children with a woman’s eggs (lest some horrifying abnormalities/injuries prevent this). When it comes to women we can apply the same minimums as with the men but with eggs capable of becoming fertilized (lest some abnormalities/injuries prevent this). In the cases of injuries or abnormalities we are dealing with the broad categories but now with specific additional categories stacked on top.
Age is a limiting factor in a person’s fertility, so we call them not merely a man or woman, but an infertile or old, man or woman. Neither of the categories of man or woman are destroyed by the existence of infertile or aged men or women, while the accurate description of specific categories (infertile/aged) do not cause damages to whom it applies any more than any other accurate descriptive words. Overly emotional types will of course balk at this idea, but they aren’t really part of the rational discussion and should be ignored.
What I’m trying to get at here is that broad categories have never been meant to apply to specific categories. It’s the difference between “colour” and “red”. Red is a colour, but not all colours are red. Saying: “Blue is not red so therefore blue is not a colour.” is a really sophist thing to say. Even the category of “red” will contain various shades and grades of “red”, which at some point bleeds out into other colour categories. Yet we still categorize things, perhaps not for our benefit beyond simply easing understanding. If categorization doesn’t ease understanding, then it’s being used in an illogical manner.
Trains have a specific identity crisis. They are de facto a specific natural sex (chromosomally) and believe they have a mental or emotional desire to become the opposite (or some variant). The advocates for this identity category then attempt to manipulate the State and the naïve (but I repeat myself). Knowing the de facto natural sex cannot be altered (chromosomes) they must push this idea de jure, creating a legal fiction of sorts, essentially corpratizing the identity so the State will recognize and ”defend” it. They then dress the subject corporate entity in the “appropriate” attire, have them mimic the mannerisms of the opposite sex, and even go so far as to alter the body through artificial hormone dosing and surgical removals and additions of body parts to perfect the mimicry. All this is done in opposition to alternatives such as trying to get the individuals to accept their natural bodies through even as little as allowing time to pass. Despite all these interventions, the purported benefits arrived at never materialize, and when you dig into the results, negative outcomes (self-harm, suicide) actually increase drastically 7-10 years post-op.
Biplanes also have a categorization, mainly that they are sexually attracted to both men and women. That’s at least how it is broadly defined. Most self-declared biplanes are not actually biplanes, as the vast majority of them de facto sexually interact with the opposite sex, while their alleged attraction to the same sex is more de jure (though with ZERO precedent). If someone claims they are a biplane, would a man in this case be sexually attracted to sucking on a penis (not their own) or having another man suck on his penis until ejaculation? If a biplane man says “No.” then they are probably straight, and if he says yes then he is probably gay (because sucking dicks sounds pretty gay). How do I justify this? It is simple. The essential sexual nature of a man is in ejaculation of his penis. If “sexual arousal” is not present through the manifestation of male sexuality then the male in question is not a biplane, but straight. If sucking a dick sounds pretty gay to you, that’s because sucking a dick IS gay and everything else is cope. So I now argue that biplanes do not exist de facto, but only de jure, as a corporatized pseudo-identity manufactured to satisfy a psychological desire to be accepted by other corporate institutions or entities. In other words, both biplanes and trains exist for the purposes of power and expansion of power.
It is believed that autogynephiliacs make up the majority of cases in the train community. Around 80% of male to female trains remain exclusively attracted to women, and refer to themselves as “lesbians“. Since the rate of lesbianism is much lower in women than in male to female trains, many believe this must be an indication that the desire to become a male to female train is based in autogynephilia: the man/train gets sexual arousal out of the thought of themselves being a woman. Corporatized Train propagandists dismiss this as pseudoscience, but to do that would render the entire corpus of psychological literature worthless, which is broadly not true. What we have then is not a battle of Science A versus Science B (competing theories), but of Corporate Train de jure intent mimicry versus Science and de facto reason. The truth is not important to the de jure advocates, only power; and this continues despite the concept of degeneration and wanton destruction of civilization and humanity warned about in ancient texts, such as Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita.
However, though all of these abuses of reason and logic, trains, biplanes and autogynephiliacs are human beings. They deserve to be loved and cared for like any other. But they should not have their corporate identity empowered to destroy all who do not submit. They should be treated for their psychological conditions, pseudo-personalities, and comorbidities. Damage allowed to be done to them should be repaired; “surgeons” (read: Butchers) who operated upon their bodies and left them damaged and unable to be repaired should be tried and if found guilty, imprisoned. Politicians as well should be tried for crimes against humanity, and jailed or even executed if they are found guilty. No mercy should be granted, because of the implications for future generations and to prevent future monsters from practicing their craft. We will look back upon these corporate entities, surgeons (butchers), these political draculæ, as blood-sucking vermin wretches, for that is what they are, de facto.