[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]