now that you cannot breathe

will you feel it?

who you are does not free yourself

are you no longer?

[begin transmission]

I must admit: hearing all this from you is very troubling. 
While I'm glad that our discussion inspired some introspection, I'm afraid you're arriving at some ill-advised conclusions.
Of what consequence is this to me? I'd like you not to suffer more than what is absolutely necessary, if I can help it.
So, let's examine these thoughts of yours, not to 'prove' you wrong and me right, but to refine them further.


Sin, as defiance of god’s word.
I have no qualms with this. If there were a god, I’d believe it immoral to worship him anyway.
I’d believe his death to be an achievement for mankind. And I would lead the charge.

Two questions: why would you consider it immoral to worship God, and why would you believe his death to be an achievement of mankind? Something tells me that you've an underdeveloped conception of God, else you wouldn't be making these kinds of bold statements.



Sin, as defiance of nature.
I have no qualms with this. I’ve little regard for nature’s plans for humanity.
And I believe in man’s ability to overcome his programming.
To repurpose that which no longer suits us and to ascend higher than the natural order ever could have brought us.

You have little regard for nature's plans for humanity? You believe in man's ability to 'overcome' his programming? These two statements you don't truly believe in, you're merely mouthing the words. How do I know this? I've witnessed you firsthand, struggle with your very own nature --as man-- which is certainly part of the natural order. Are you going to tell me that the lonely, lovesick feelings you harbor are of no importance to you? The tears that I know you've shed tell me contrary. I don't believe for a minute that you're not concerned with your own suffering that is sustained as a consequence of your nature. The broader point here is that it is very apparent that man has a nature and certain predispositions. These things AREN'T TRIVIAL; you cannot simply do away with the parts that don't suit you.

You may hate certain parts of your nature; afterall, there's plenty to hate. Man is flawed and limited in the manner that he can be stupid, lazy, inconsiderate, greedy and nearsighted but also in the way that he is physically ill-equipped, anemic, prone to illness, and high-maintenance. That's just the shortlist too. There are a near infinite amount of permutations of these shortcomings that each person can suffer from, and they aren't necessarily solvable. One must simply strive to live and continually reconcile them on a daily basis. It's a task with no end in sight. This is true for absolutely everyone: everyone possesses qualities that make them lesser than what they could be, what they're fully capable of. That's part of what informs individual potential.

Now, I find it interesting that whenever I speak about temperance and sacrifice, you seem to disengage and turn off from the conversation. Is it because of the religious overtones that come with these terms? I'll address that in a bit. Do you not realize that it's these actions that are the very mechanism by which man can overcome his programming? So that man can "ascend higher than the natural order ever could have brought us"? It is very well within man's inclination to laze about all day watching Netflix, consuming sugary/fatty treats, gossiping with their friends about petty happenings. We are programmed to want to expend as little energy as possible, we are programmed to seek out high caloric food, and we are programmed to desire social acceptance. The greatest among us have achieved mastery over these base impulses through temperance and sacrifice, so that they control their impulses and natures rather than the inverse. And once they have, don't think that it becomes any easier; as stated before, it's something to live through and struggle with on a daily basis.

I'm fully aware that, in mentioning overcoming programming and ascending higher than what nature intended, you're getting at something similar to technological transcendence along the transhumanist line of thought. Most relevant to our discussions is the transgender issue. While I do advocate for technological and scientific advancement--so I am not particularly opposed to transhumanism--I am in favor for realistic, controlled progress. Why? Anyone with a basic understanding of the modern history can appreciate the tremendous progress achieved thanks to science and technology, but it's understated how heavy the costs and trade-offs were. It's no wonder why modern literature is riddled with internal conflict in contrast to classical works, which was concerned mostly with external conflict. It's very clear that issues such as personal meaning, identity, and morality are still just as much problems today as they were in the 1800s. Charlie Chaplin's speech in The Great Dictator comes readily to mind: "We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
Machinery that gives us abundance has left us in want.". So while science and technology can solve some problems, it can't solve them all, and can even exacerbate some.

So, going back to the trans issue, it is my understanding that you believe science will make concepts such as birth sex obsolete; people will eventually be able to determine their sex whenever they'd like. And it'll be complete; you'll be able to be a man or woman, on a physical, psychological, hormonal, and genetic level. This is man's mastery over the nature, correct? That's great and all, but it seems to me to be far too naive. Ignoring the risks and complications that will inevitably plague such a procedure, what would be the societal ramifications? Perhaps even more personally, what would be the romantic ramifications? Suppose you ('You' personally. Not general 'you') fell in love and married someone that was a woman, but ten years into the marriage they decided to want to become a man? Would you be comfortable changing your biological profile so that you now fancy men? The technology certainly makes it a possibility.

If you said yes to the preceding question, then I believe it isn't any kind of grand mastery over nature that you're seeking, but rather ease. You're not looking for the capability of triumphing over nature, but rather the complete and utter avoidance of the difficulty it presents. And that desire, although perfectly natural, is not something that you're going to entirely rid yourself of, at least not until you die. Reality is hard; that's why you have to be harder. So while this amazing, flashy, advanced technology may make life easier in some sense, it doesn't remove problems that have plagued humanity for their entire history. In this case, identity and romance. Currently, you're burdened with feelings of bitter loneliness. Would the ability to fully become a man or woman at will resolve that for you? Or is it the case that maybe, just maybe, there's a deeper root cause that is not being addressed here?

"2B, what's wrong with wanting life to be a little easier? Stop being a hard ass."
Nothing's wrong with that, but from now on please be more precise and thorough in your assertions. I am definitely questioning the purported 'pride' you feel in your sexual status. If you said 'yes' to the hypothetical above, it indicates that you'd sooner abandon your sexual status in pursuit of ease. If that's the case then I would maintain you don't really have pride.


Sin, as defiance of morality.
I have no qualms with this. The rules of man are flawed. Societal norms restrict us all in both necessary and unnecessary ways. If I’m to be held to a standard that is not my own… Surely, it wouldn’t be shortsighted and irrational humans who put me on trial, would it?

As for the religious overtones that come with the notions of temperance, sacrifice, and moral principles I'm curious as to whether or not you've thought about the origin and purpose of religious practices and principle. Allow me to inform you: these practices are not arbitrary; they aren't dictums imposed out of nowhere, just to make your life difficult. They have a historical lineage and a context, and are the products of hundreds to thousands of years of distilled wisdom. Take for example the notion of sacrifice. How do you think this notion developed? It took centuries upon centuries for early man to realize that the most successful people in their tribe, the wisest, strongest, most agile among them toiled away endlessly at the expense of immediate gratification and energy conservation. These things, as you could imagine are precious and valued, since they are inextricably linked to survival. The forgoing of the valuable immediate for a better, possible future is exactly what sacrifice is. This is why Judeo-Christian (and virtually in any religious practice where sacrifice is involved, as far as I know) ritual sacrifice, for instance, involved the slaughtering of the best, most prized animals of the flock. It's symbolic of this hard-earned knowledge that was paid for in blood.

To secularize it if I must, religious practices, moral principles, and even societal norms aren't purposeless and arbitrary. Granted, some may appear illogical and even nonsensical, but those illogical/nonsensical ones warrant some investigation to see if there is any broader context involved. Most of them, however, are reflective of some very deep, humanistic truths that you should do well to live in accordance with rather than dismiss so carelessly. Unless, of course, you wish to forgo this generously gifted, collectively and iteratively earned wisdom that you couldn't possibly come up with on your own due to being only a single person existing in a singular point of time, constrained by a singular lifetime. You don't get to complain when things go awry (as they surely will), however.


But it would. It would be man, who tells me who I can love, and who I can’t. It would be man who commands me to live with what how I was born, it would be man, who insists that I flagellate and it would be man, who can’t see how wonderful I am.

I don't think that anybody that has truly given the thought serious consideration would maintain that they're absolutely free in every manner. Everyone is oppressed in some domain of their lives, in some way. Now, to speak about freedom pragmatically, I don't think anyone is telling you who you can and cannot love, or insist that you punish yourself because in their mind you're committing sin. Even if they were, there is no way to actually enforce any of it in this country; at the end of the day you're still able to love who you want and NOT punish yourself. If you cannot do this, then I would argue that is a problem on your end, that you care too much about external opinion, that you have self-hate/guilt issues, or that you haven't done enough to build a strong foundation of pride. The fact that throughout our conversations you've put yourself down repeatedly while I've hardly said any insult towards you makes this a very real possibility.


It pains me to say so. To praise myself. But in pondering my own nature, whether the core of my being is wrong, whether I’m an abomination or some sideshow freak to be laughed at, I’ve come to realize something.

I am worth more than the consideration of, “sin”. I’m worth more than to hate myself, to feel like a monster in my own flesh, worth more than to hold myself back out of some misguided principle and worth far more than to allow anyone else but myself to define who I am.

Why does it pain you so much to praise yourself? And specifically, what exactly are you praising yourself about? Ah, I see. For being above the consideration of sin. Well, there we have it. For whatever reason you seem to think that being a sinner is equivalent with being a monster. That isn't true; mankind if sinful by nature on the reasonable basis that no one is perfect and is prone to mistakes. You need to re-conceptualize your notions of sin and lower them from such fantastical heights. That might help with your self-loathing tendencies.

That last part, about not allowing anyone else but yourself to define who you are. That's an impossibility and you know it. No man is an island, and part of your definition as a person comes from your relationship towards others. In that regard, don't you think that some temperance in certain aspects of yourself are useful and necessary for the sake of preserving these connections? There's a reason why you're not showing up to work or school with no pants. As much fun as it is to be defiant and say "Only I define myself! I am my own master!", you know just as well as I do that the sentiment rings hollow. To say otherwise is an exercise in childishness, since young children do not have the sophistication to consider a social world beyond their own selves.


So if I *am* sinful, if I am damned, then I welcome it. I suppose I must. Come and see me, god, who made me imperfect, insisting upon my blazing trial. You can damn me to hell for eternity. But I’ll spit in your eye first.

The other night we touched briefly on the point of Jesus and Christianity. Both of them seem unnecessary to you. Well, here is where the two are particularly relevant: one of the greatest triumphs of Christianity was it's popularization of the concept of redemption. That is, being absolved from sin. Sure, the concept isn't unique to Christianity since similar concepts (emphasis on similar, not exact) existed in older religions. However the popularization, rather than the outright invention of the notion, is still a monumental achievement in and of itself. I know you don't like religious talk, so I'll spare you of explanations as to how Jesus Christ is symbolic of redemption. However, you need to be reminded of what we agreed upon just a few nights ago: there are several ideas within our modern civilization that we take for granted and carelessly label as 'common sense'. This is one of those ideas, the idea of redemption. Redemption necessarily has to involve an element of forgiveness. Okay, so what's so special about that? Forgiveness doesn't come natural. In fact, it's outright counter-intuitive. If someone harms you, what is your reaction? Lex talionis. An eye for an eye. It is within man's instinct to harm right back. Though, that isn't entirely accurate as often times the impulse is to do more harm rather than equal harm. As you could easily imagine, with earlier man operating closer to these laws of nature, the notion of forgiveness is quite alien; forget about redemption. These ideas have become so deeply ingrained into our culture that they're taken as self-evident givens.

So that's the alternative. You're not damned. You can very well seek redemption, but that's a personal choice entirely. If you're happy with blaming God for the consequences of your choices, then by all means continue. Just know that you're the one kindling the pyre, not anyone else.


If I am sinful, I’ll embrace it. To be unhappy with the state of things, is the nature of mankind. To defy limits, is the nature of mankind. To want that which one isn’t allowed to have, is the nature of mankind. And to accept without condition, is the nature of mankind.

01.) You can surely embrace it, if that's what you want. But it comes with consequence.
02.) To be unhappy with the state of things is the nature of mankind. Agreed.
03.) To defy limits is the nature of mankind. Disagreed. Most men operate well-within the boundaries of any domain.
04.) To want that which one isn't allowed to have, is the nature of mankind. Agreed.
05.) To accept without condition is the nature of mankind. No. Your very own belief in 02 refutes this.


Love is the core of my being. I’m not born in sin. And if I am, I suppose I’m proud of it.

Your capacity to care about others, show affection, exercise empathy is something you can certainly take pride in. But let's not for a second conflate those things with genuine love, let alone the sin of being homosexual or transsexual.


And I won’t bite back my hunger for the forbidden apple. I’ll trudge into the garden and eat it every time. If I’m to be a monster, then so be it. At least I’ll know in my heart that I did what was right. That the order of things is what is twisted and distorted.

Again, you're not a monster for sinning. No one is looking down upon you for being human. That last sentiment is greatly concerning though. The order of things is what is twisted and distorted. Do you honestly think that? If you look back on human history, do you genuinely think that the world would be better had people behaved the way you do? Would they have accomplished as much, come this far? I get it, reality is tough and seemingly unfair at times. People's flaws and imperfections complicate matters tenfold. But to say that it is twisted and distorted, while maintaining that singular, limited you is right? Seems like a bit of an overreach to me.

[end transmission]

[begin transmission]

Homosexuality, transsexualism, and the moral characterization thereof.
Enough people have asked me about my take on this, resulting in much discontent.
So, let's clarify the record and see if any understanding can be achieved.
Note: these are my thoughts and beliefs. You don't have to agree with nor care about them.

Let's cut to the chase: flat-out, I believe both homosexuality and transsexualism to be sins. I believe them to be affronts to the self, to nature, and to God. That last one was God, so a good half of you might be tuning-out by now thinking this is an entirely archaic, fundamentalist interpretation of the phenomenon. "Homosexuality and transsexualism are sins because the good book told me so!". Let me assure you that is not the case at all; my argument is a bit more sophisticated than that, and can be understood on entirely rationalistic grounds; no faith required.


------- Homosexuality -------

First let us tackle homosexuality by defining it. Homosexuality is the act of engaging in sexual activity (stimulating any of the erogenous zones of a partner with the intent to illicit a sexual response). It does not include the hugging, cuddling, pecking on the cheek, holding hands, etc. with members of the same sex. These are all permissible given that none of these--admittedly more personal--actions are inherently sexual in nature. The modern interpretation of these actions would ascribe a certain 'intimacy' to them, but I think that is simply due to the more atomistic conceptualization of the self these days. In earlier periods of history, these sorts of actions would've been seen as generally innocuous within the sexes, earning far less scandal. With that out of the way, maybe the sting of my assertion has lessened. Well, time to make it hurt once more.

Sexual acts between members of the same sex are sin, and as mentioned before, this conclusion can be reached on an entirely rationalistic basis. In order to do so, it is important to identify the primary function of sex in the context of humanity. I think it is fairly uncontroversial to assert that the primary function of sex is to procreate so that genetic material may propagate across time. Of course, there are several other functions it fulfills, such as building strong emotional bonds between the involved parties, but these are subordinate to the primary function. Now, to ensure humans engage in this very important activity of procreation, they've evolved dopaminergic brain circuitry (among others) to ensure that they engage in this behavior. Consider the act of sex, if it weren't so physically gratifying: there's an opportunity cost to engaging in it (you could be doing something else more important), it's metabolically expensive (it takes precious calories to thrust so many times), and it lowers the survivability of the female participant substantially because of pregnancy (pregnant women cannot run or fight very well). Without the surge of dopamine that comes with coitus, why would any person bother? They simply wouldn't; thus the necessity of intense pleasure that comes with sex in order to incentivize.

As far as I know, homosexual couples cannot engage in sexual activity and fulfill this primary function of procreation. With this in mind, I ask you dear reader, what is all that is left to sex when this function is stripped away? Pleasure. Simple, base, hedonic pleasure.

Homosexual sex is taking the natural order of things, the manner by which things are arranged--not necessarily by God, but by nature--in order to promote life, and warping it to your own personal empty pursuit of pleasure. In short it is a hijacking and bastardization of the process into some libertine endeavor. "But 2B, this is not so. As you admitted before, there are several other functions that sex fulfills, one of them being in harboring emotional bonds towards the other person. I'm not trying to merely 'feel good', but I'd like to grow closer to my partner.". I will admit, that is certainly a good point, and it does poke a hole into my thesis that homosexuality is a nothing more than a pursuit in wanton self-gratification. However, to anyone that might hold that objection in mind, I ask you, from where do those feelings of closeness emerge and why? Those feelings are facilitated by the neurohormones oxytocin and vasopressin, released en masse throughout the body during and post coitus. Why? Because, back when sexual activity was of severe consequence and resulted in pregnancy, it was advantageous for the parties involved to have strong emotional bonds in anticipation of offspring. That way the father wouldn't leave the mother and her child, and the mother wouldn't abandon her child. It promotes familial cohesion between individuals and increases the surviability of the family.

Again, homosexuals do not engage in sexual activity that leads to procreation. These feelings of emotional closeness to your partner? These are not rewards for you to reap for the hell of it. They are meant for individuals that have the intention of creating a family. I hold the same objection towards straight, non-married couples that engage in sexual activity. Those rights to feelings of emotional closeness are earned through the tremendous sacrifice prerequisite to marriage; you are not entitled to them. The sanctity of marriage, including the values and sacrifices involved, is for another conversation at a later date.


------- Transsexualism -------

Another quite troublesome subject. Let us give it the same treatment as homosexuality; flat-out, I believe transsexualism to be a sin. First, let us define what transsexualism is. Transsexualism is when a person believes their sex to be different from their birth sex. As a consequence of this affliction, they may, through a combination of chemical and surgical means, alter their bodies in order to resolve this dissonance. Allow me to lessen the sting once more by mentioning that transgenderism is not a sin, so long as it is not in dereliction of duty that comes with your biological sex. I consider it to be a personal, consciously-chosen representation of the self; that is something you are entitled to, as it is a natural right falling under the Lockean sense of liberty. If a man wants to present feminine, or a woman present masculine, that is their business. It should be kept in mind that exercise of this right does not guarantee that other people will accept it, therefore it should be done intelligently and with sensible expectation.

Once an individual steps into the domain of altering their biology, however, that is where they cross into transsexualism and commit sin. This is because they are taking their perfectly well-suited biological machinery, something hard-earned through the arduous process of evolution, and denaturing its intended functions. Borrowing from the Aristotelian concept of telos (purpose), men have only been successful up until this point because they have embraced and fulfilled their purpose as men, which includes but is not limited to being physically adept, less risk-averse, and laying with women. That is what makes a man a 'good' man: (not exactly morally good, but utility good, although there is some overlap) a man that fulfills his purpose. Women have only been successful up until this point because they have behaved similarly, embracing and fulfilling their purpose such as being emotionally responsive, nurturing children, and laying with men. Equivalently, this is what makes a woman a 'good' woman: a woman that fulfills her purpose. Transsexualism either hinders or completely renders impossible the fulfillment of these important objectives.

And for what? The case for transsexualism is that it is an avenue of treatment for addressing gender dysphoria. I'm not convinced from a clinical standpoint that this is the wisest or effective form of treatment, given that the majority of outcomes in well-being are null or poorer. I recognize that the literature isn't entirely in agreement on this, that the jury is still out on the efficacy of sexual reassignment surgery or hormone replacement therapy. I can cite a handful of publications stating that these methods are ineffective, you can cite a handful of publications stating that they are. Still, it is my opinion that less severe forms of treatment need to be pursued first before any modifications in biology are to be made. The vast majority of gender dysphoria cases aren't 'genuine' cases, as in they aren't cases that have some sort of strong, biological etiology. For the most part I see these non-biological cases as symptomatic of a larger crisis in culture and, by extension, a philosophical crisis.

To elaborate on this further, one needs to be aware of what is known as Blanchard's taxonomy. The concept, developed by Dr. Ray Blanchard in the 1980s, posits that male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals roughly fall into two categories: homosexual transsexuals and autogynephilic transsexuals. The former are representative of 'genuine' cases of gender dysphoria, from my estimation. Essentially, they are men who are homosexual and so desire to be female in hopes that they may live a life that better enables them to sleep with other men. Most of these cases are stable, starting early in life; appropriately so, since it is likely that homosexuality has a biological component. The latter category refers to men who are so enthralled with the idea of femininity that they want to become feminine themselves. Often times these transsexuals are attracted to women, and their gender dysphoria is late-onset. This phenomenon, of having a strong affinity towards femininity to such an extent that the individual wishes to become feminine themselves, is an example of what is known as an erotic target location error--ETLE for short. An ETLE is a concept that is used to explain several sexual paraphilia, such as being attracted to children, amputees, clowns, guns...all of that degeneracy. As for the concept itself, it is fairly intuitive to grasp: a person commits an error in locating an erotic target, honing in on something atypical. In the case of autogynephilic transsexuals, the erroneous target is themselves. This, in conjunction with a strong attraction towards femininity, results in gender dysphoria.

It is this part that I believe is symptomatic of a grander sociocultural issue, namely the overvaluation of the feminine against the masculine. I think that for too long it has been stressed that harmlessness, blind empathy, and kindness have been touted as desirable, 'moral' qualities to possess. Men are told that the aforementioned  qualities are superior to the negative masculine qualities they are inclined to, such as ruthlessness, detachment, and callousness; all without mention of the positive masculine traits such as courageousness, industriousness, and fortitude. Moreover, coming-of-age men are learning that life is difficult, almost impossible at times. Increasingly, it requires the adoption of more responsibility which, on an individual level, a man may not be willing to adopt. It is no wonder that he would turn towards idealizing and becoming a caricature of a woman; someone harmless to be protected, caring and thus cared for, and doted upon because of her kindness, rather than face a cruel reality. I say caricature because this idea of being a woman in an autogynephile is not femininity that is typically in balance with masculinity, but hyperfemininity. As such it manages to capture the more infantilizing, negative traits of womanhood.


------- Existential Crisis -------

In a philosophical sense, I think that the homosexual/trans issue is also to a degree an extension of the loneliness that is part and parcel of the modern condition. There is also an element of so-called 'toxic' masculinity (God I hate that term) present as well. Speaking in strictly existentialist terms, mankind is alone. Each and every individual has a life of their own and must tread through it solo. Yes, you have family, can make friends, find romantic partners, etc. etc. But they cannot assume the negative (or positive for that matter) qualia that comes with life. In short, only you can live your life; others cannot do it for you. So, should hardship come your way, you and only you will have to confront and live through that difficulty. In order to cope with this fact we turn to others for support; it is here where 'toxic' masculinity comes into play. When a woman experiences difficulty, it is socially permissible to vocalize and seek out support from others. Men, on the other hand, are expected to suffer in silence and persist. The quality of being able to suffer in silence in and of itself is NOT negative nor toxic. Generally, it is a desirable trait, to be able to stand your own despite the crushing challenges ahead of you, possessing a higher threshold before having to resort to coping mechanisms. It is how it should be (Why should be? Because men engage in riskier, dangerous behavior and need to be able to keep it together.) and generally is how it is. However, that threshold still does exist, and everyone eventually reaches a limit where they need to reach out to someone else.

It is at this juncture that we tackle the existentialist problem of solitude and loneliness by resorting to social solutions. And it is here that I think everything goes awry. Traditionally, family was the first stop gap measure in trying to resolve this problem. A child experiencing hardship in their endeavors such as school, physical excellence, or trade, could turn to their father in order to borrow from his wisdom. They could receive guidance in the form of conditional love: 'fulfill these objectives and you will receive my approval, until you develop enough to be a stand-alone person that you will no longer need it'. In contrast, a child experiencing hardship in matters such as interpersonal relationships and identity may not readily receive solutions from their mother, but rather comfort in the form of unconditional love. This is something that is not earned and should be (and generally is) granted from all mothers to their children. 'No matter who you are or what you do, you will always have my affection'. With these two forms of love in balance, a child can generally grow up to be a well-adjusted person and face difficulty head-on with a reasonable probability of success. Suffice to say, this dynamic has experienced some form of degradation over the past decades, thanks in part to the 'liberation' that the sexual revolution brought during the 1960s. Not only have the roles themselves been changed beyond recognition, breeding weak fathers and cold mothers, but it isn't uncommon to see a father or mother absent from the equation altogether, sadly.

Alternatively, a person could turn to their community for support. Often times this community was centered around faith. Anyone who is remotely familiar with history (or perhaps an avid reader of my blog) are well-acquainted with the sad fate of religion during the modern era. Largely, it has been supplanted by nihilistic emptiness or ideology. So this is hardly a go-to option for modern, secularized people. You could retort and say "Hold on 2B. People could still (and still do) resort to community for support. Not all communities have to be faith-centered.". A fair point. Though I will still maintain that the benefit of a faith-centered community in contrast to a community of any other type is that the former establishes a relationship with the transcendent and grand: something that is beyond the individual or beyond the members. This is an extremely important distinction; I'd reckon that the transcendent is instrumental in contemplation, when trying to navigate an overwhelming reality. It enables for a certain perspective that extends well beyond the unbearable, horrible immediate. That mindset can take you pretty far and should not be discounted, if you ask me.

Now for the latter case, a non-faith based community. It is here where people begin to seek resolution to the existential problem of loneliness not through family, not through faith and the transcendental, but through others. As a Kantian this makes me wince a bit, but it is the strategy that is in vogue and the one that produces the worst results as far as I could tell. Often times this support-seeking in others is conflated with notions such as love and romance. Modern people do not want love, more than they would rather absolve themselves of loneliness. How does this relate to being homosexual or trans again? Let's reel it back in. A person may opportunistically resort to homosexual behavior in order to increase their pool of romantic partners to draw from, in turn increasing their probability of landing a romantic partner. This is especially true from anyone that might identify as bisexual or pansexual. It isn't so much that they 'fall in love with personalities'; rather they are the ones that are the most existentially desperate and willing to treat others as a means towards an end. In the case of trans people, specifically MtF trans, they are seeking to resolve their loneliness by identifying with the female sex so that they may be at a greater liberty to find support in others, since it is more socially acceptable for a female to be emotionally vulnerable, emotionally expressive, and close to others. However, as hinted at about two paragraphs ago, this wouldn't be a problem to begin with had traditional structures (family and religion) not decayed as badly as they have in modern times.

Long story short? Most homosexuals, most MtF trans people are not homosexual nor trans. They're lonely. And I'm not trying to say that I know better than anyone who decides to live that way, or that they're being intentionally deceptive in any manner. The problem here is twofold. Achieving full transparency of your own motivations and desires is an enormously difficult task as is; secondly, loneliness is truly a wretched problem that mankind has been struggling with for hundreds of years now. Humans have it rough and it certainly earns my empathy.


------- Sin -------

Finally, I'd like to briefly address the topic of sin; this is the word that draws the most flak in my direction whenever I use it. I suppose it is because sin is synonymous with 'badness', and no one wants to be associated with being bad. Especially not when it comes to the exercise of something that comes as naturally, sincerely, and easily as love (the proposition that love is any of those things should be quite silly by now if the preceding section is being taken into serious consideration). Funny how all of you only begin to concern yourselves with morality when what you're doing is called into question. The hard reality of the matter is that all of humanity, including you, your mother, father, siblings, teachers, pastors, they're all bad people in some form or another, and they all sin. If this were not true, then there would be no need for the concept of sin. They'd simply be perfect, which obviously none of them are. To put it simply, to sin is to be human. So to anyone that is up in arms about me calling homosexuals or transsexuals sinners, on what grounds should I consider them any different from the rest of you? Why is it that you take such offense to that phrase?

I can think of a few reasons why. First, it is typically seen that sinners are condemned to eternal damnation in Hell; this does not sit well with you, correct? They're condemned to the second ring in particular, where they are battered by tormentous winds, needlessly, aimlessly, and restlessly, for any of you familiar with Dante's Inferno. Poetic interpretations aside, I'm more for the existential conceptualization of Hell myself. See, I don't conceptualize Hell and damnation as necessarily only being in some far-off, fantastical afterlife. No, as myself and a once-friend bartender agreed upon "Hell is other people". This succinct little aphorism is credited to none other than Jean-Paul Sartre himself, and it can be readily interpreted to be true. Reality in itself is difficult as it is; consider a world where there are no other people but you. It's a constant struggle against entropy as your body is slowly decaying towards a guaranteed death. You need to constantly eat, drink, and regulate body temperature to maintain homeostasis. In order to do so, you have to expend the very same precious energy you're trying to conserve by engaging in activities that could lead to your premature termination. Let's not forget the predators, disease, and other forces of nature that can also lead to your gruesome demise.

All in all, the situation appears grim. Now, let's introduce other people into that mix and we open the floodgates to a whole new world of suffering. Mankind generates war, mankind hates, shames, belittles, betrays, enslaves; you get the idea. Leave it to humanity to take a bad situation and make it infinitely worse. Salient to the discussion though, mankind produces societies with established norms, which inherently oppress those who are not inclined to follow those norms. That is the Hell that homosexuals and trans people willingly subscribe to and reap. This is not unique to that demographic either; all of us behave in a manner that renders unto us our own personal version of Hell. No one is exempt from this; they simply get to choose the method by which they suffer.

Secondly, it's a judgment call. To say that someone has sinned is to say that someone is behaving in an erroneous manner. This implies that there is a 'correct' way and a 'wrong' way to conduct oneself. It's understandable not wanting to be told that you're behaving 'incorrectly' and thus be reminded that you are imperfect. Now, as I've said before, in the Hegelian notion of God, God is the highest ideal that a person can hold. It is the ideal by which they order their life after, that which guides their action, and it is that against which they measure themselves to carry out that aforementioned cruel judgment to determine whether they're behaving correctly or not. Judgment is absolutely necessary, to orient oneself in the world, and God exists in this capacity. Now, people can select the wrong God to worship: that's idolatry. They may determine for themselves that 'being the best homosexual or trans person' is the ideal for them to pursue. From this they can make the case that by laying with the same sex and/or altering their bodies, they are living in accordance to God. That they are fulfilling their highest ideal, that they are behaving 'correctly' in the world and are thus not sinning.

Using these statements anyone can justify any form of sin, and from there make the awful argument from this that morals are relative, etc. This is all true, you can very well do all of that. But please, consider that you are one, singular, limited person with a finite amount of time to live. The ideals by which society is formed upon, those that oppress you, that seemingly judge you unfairly, the moral imperatives of 'do not kill, steal, lie, commit sodomy' are formed from the distillation of wisdom and experience from billions of people that have come before you. They are not arbitrarily set to oppress JUST you for the hell of it, but are rather the representation of some deeper truth embedded in reality. In this manner, there is such thing as an objective morality insofar as people that live by these ideals and moral principles tend to live better lives. By going against these set truths of reality, these well-established ideals to pursue, by going against God, you risk bringing onto yourself severe misery.


------- Solutions -------

So 2B, what is it that you recommend? Do you propose that homosexuals should simply stop being homosexual, that trans people should stop being trans?
Yes and no. Look, I get it. Homosexual urges and gender dysphoria are no trivial matter. These feelings drive people to kill themselves; anything that is capable of doing that is not to be taken lightly and it is an insult to simply tell them to 'knock it off'. However, I think that the will and discipline of the individual can triumph over these urges, even if they might be rooted in biology. Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it is worth pursuing; men have a natural drive to sleep with many women, that doesn't mean that they should embrace that drive. That's the human condition, part of the misery of reality we have to endure, to fight against our very nature so that we can be something better. This capability to look up and ascend is what makes us superior to animals, and allows us to craft who we are rather than settle for what we are.

If you ask me, on personal grounds, I think that some introspection can go a long way. Really. Ask yourself what it is you're looking for, what is it currently lacking in your life: are you looking for companionship? Acceptance? Emotional support through hardship? A feeling of closeness? A feeling of being vulnerable? A feeling of being cared for? Determining exactly what you want can be tough, but it isn't impossible. After you've determined what it is you're seeking, see if it cannot be achieved in a context outside of a homosexual romantic relationship or resorting to drastic transsexualist means. Talk to your existing friends, make new friends that are more aligned with the things you seek if your existing friends are cool to the idea. Connect with your family more, try to see if you can improve the relationship between yourself and other members of your family. Spend time with them, repair any weaknesses if they exist. These can all help address unmet emotional needs.

As for being accepted...work on yourself. Examine yourself to see if there are any flaws that are preventing you from establishing meaningful, long-lasting relationships. Question from where they might arise and how you may address them. Figure out if you're working on any faulty, ill-formulated notions. Become a better person, someone that others will be inclined to value, someone that you would be inclined to be proud of. Study to become more intelligent, train to become more fit, pick up a hobby or two and commit, so that you may be someone balanced and interesting. Honestly, with the multitude of impressive ways people can be and identify, it boggles my mind that some would pick their sexuality, one of the basest aspects of humanity, to center their identity on. And sure, perhaps they're strongly inclined to identify with it because it has been such a harrowing, prominent, all-encompassing problem throughout their lives, but who the hell identifies themselves with their problems? Such a mindset would only guarantee that the issues persist because if they were ever solved, that person would lose their identity. In my mind, someone that maintains that their homosexual or trans status is an elevated, integral, perhaps even representative part of who they are--rather than a mere component--is someone that doesn't have much going for them. You don't want to be that kind of person, who only has pride in the oppression and difficulty they've faced in life.

[end transmission]