/r9trip/ - The Complete Robot

Castration seems like a sensible option, based on my synthesis of Pete's works with my own already pre-formulated convictions based on the prevailing influences of my previous ideological exposure. I present the following arguments:

- Following the premise that estrogen and testosterone are endogenous neuro-toxins that whilst independently harmless, are in synergy harmful with catecholaminergic substances – all neurotransmitters, basically; again, beneficial only independently – so it therefore follows that their complete elimination would remove factors in the cascade of excito-toxic neurological damage.

- Additionally, following the premise per the Benjamin scale that sub-clinical severity transsexualism-mimetic ego-dystonias (a term I've adapted contextually external from its original meaning of 'homosexuality caused by an adjutant disorder'; therefore, ego-dystonic transsexuality arises from the same) constitute forms of severe transvestism at the very worst, then there exists a natural progression of the condition facilitated initially by a fetishistic element to gradually progress into a dysphoria as the capacity for carrying fetishism decreases therein the catecholamine-mediated neuro-biological damage (caused initially by the nymphomania-inducing hyper-testosteronism and subsequent exogenous estrogen abuse leading thereto), diminishing imagination. In the past, this would've been attributed to a Freudian psycho-analytical theorem of feminine/maternal neglect/failure to mature egotistically in an identification with the power of a sex incongruent to one's own – in a word: Oedipus, or biological-essentialist explanations focusing solely pre-natally; though it might be true that the majority of sub-clinical transsexuals might lie anywhere between suffering sub-clinical and full-blown autism caused by marginally elevated in-utero amniotic testosterone, it is in itself not a causative factor until a post-natal, proto-pubescent event triggers the cascade from dormancy.

- Therefore, the cure for the post-duration to prevent not only the progression of the cascade but the underlying problem is to treat it not as a psycho-sexual disorder needing alleviation through the very manifestation of the fetishistic desire, as is the current paradigm in psychiatry, nor is it to encourage, under the false-pretense of therapeutic counter-action, these tendencies in the inevitably failed administration of psychiatric medication (upregulating prolactin and paracrine catecholaminergic activity, and therefore, though not increasing estrogen directly, serving as a synergistic excito-toxic factor), but to target the source of the problem, by removing the sexual impetus for its very formation, and consequently, curtailing the development of its degeneration into a delusional conviction, at its source an emanation of the subsequent disruption that the sexological endocrine factors initially play in its fetishism-inducing role to the underlying neuro-biology, through complete sexual castration. The recommendation: Anti-androgens – preferably a GnRH antagonist; disabling pituitary function slows down neurological aging while spironolactone simply decreases testicular function while aggravating pituitary function, influentially signalling for the increased sensitivity of receptors to excito-toxic factors – and no concomitant estrogenic replacement.

I think I've done enough theorism for today. Also to Ginger: I'm sorry for the 'goodbye cruel world' histrionics of a few days ago; I was still suffering from the aftermath of shattered expectation, such that had been instilled into me at the hands of Walter's gaslighting. Please understand that I wasn't trying to elicit sympathy. I was telling you this with the sincere intention that I'd felt my life to have reached an unsurpassable vicissitude. Informing you of my most honest instantaneous intentions, though, does not preclude having changed my mind later on. I was, to put it briefly, too stubborn to let Walter win. Call it conceit, but the desire to emerge a victious party from attritive struggle is an all-pervasive mentality of mine which is unvanquishable and unsacrificable.

I'm castrating myself and engaging in Peat's metabolism-upregulation diet per his recommendations on how to rejuvenate one's energy levels. It hardly makes sense for me to have a sexuality when it only leads me to delusional situations such as this. It'll be about a month before I can afford a GnRH antagonist illegally imported from India but it'll be worth it.

>>2104

>>2103

As a neurotypical woman of course this was difficult for me to understand, however I would like to say that aside from skimming over the medical terminology that evades me, I don't think you should do it. You've already clearly had enough problems with questionable medicinal treatment and people manipulating you for personal gain, why don't you just stop taking these dangerous and possibly illegal remedies and just…yknow, let your body do it's own thing and return to normal.

You know you'll regret castration after it's done, but unlike the gender dysphoria stuff you did, castration isn't (as far as I know) reversible.

Don't make major life decisions like this on impulse.

You want to be castrated? Wait a year. If, for every day of that year, you are 100% sure, then do it. The wait will reaffirm your beliefs and make you feel better. If you're not sure, then don't do it. For every day you were uncertain, your suffering would've been a lot worse had you actually gone through with it.

tl;dr stop trying to drastically change your life by using questionable methods impulsively and rather give yourself some time to figure shit out.

Just because you comprehend logically the effects of these things and know how they work doesn't mean that you're emotionally ready for it.

>>2106

Please don't interpret this imminent post as some kind of attackative sleight on your advice; prudence is an appreciable perspective from my point of view as it is from yours, and I'm in agreement with this recommendation on principle.

However, this is where agreement in principle ends and its incongruence starts: when I consider my normal physiology, it is in context of a defective physiology that only happens to be 'normal' for me, not conducive to my transcendental improvement. A lot of this conclusion of mine is based on a general Overman/Neitzchean outlook, except instead of acheiving that through virility, I'm taking a more Mongoloid approach of measured decorum and sustained calm, akin to Temple Grandin's 'meditative focus,' than this Germanic idea, misguided by Fabian-esque sentiments, of the over-virilized militant patriotic foottroop. That being said, militance isn't incongruent with the kind of hormonal profile that I aspire to; Mongoloids just express it in a more restrained and reserved manner, if slightly more excitable.

I feel as though my over-excitability could potentially be toxic in the long term, deteriorating the sustainance of my focus. From all the evidence I've collated, the extension of the glial sling (a neuro-regenerative process by which the myelin sheath of nerve axons is reinforced) by testosterone appears to be largely mythological; that is in fact progesterone mediated, which I've been superdosing on for the last several months.

Not to mention, my face has feminized, ever so slightly. I'm happy to refrain from identifying as a tranny so long as I look pedomorphic (physiologically infantile) enough to be internally happy.

Neurotypical womanhood has definitely manifested in your assessment, though. Raising an excellent point of moral restraint, you've nonetheless receded into a collectivist mentality of one's 'place' in society (a phenomenon I refer to as 'Fabio-Hobbensianism'; though I'd regard that term to be self-explanatory in its implications, you might want to spend some time reading into their meaning), as though my role should be pre-ordained. This is what Ginger means when she speaks of the tendency towards collectivism of females. This isn't their fault; the forces of evolution had so compelled them to homogenize their own genetic diversity. That would be a semi-appreciable quality in more traditional societal circumstances whereby a more eudemonious diet less conducive to reinforcing the estrogenic cascade was consumed in a widespread way. Sugar-rich (particularly HFCS-rich sources) junk, and questionably semi-healthy choices have been toxic to the hormonal profile of females, further degenerating them from their baseline, with a potential for pleiotropic effects to gradually develop down the evolutionary lineage later on (that mainstream biology denies in its disconnection of the phenotypical with the genotypical; Moss can tell you about that, his sincerity permitting), that has seen itself demonstrated in the intermediary stage of our slow but sure decline towards dysgenic breeding patterns. This is further reinforced by the follies in courtship that potential mating partners engage in, influenced by estrogenically – particularly exogenous/supplemented estrogen/HRT – up-regulated major histological complex incompatability (leading the pursuer of the potential mate to pair with a partner with consequentially wider-ranging pleiotropic incompatibility, producing defective offspring as a result). My conclusion inevitably leads to these factors being causal ones for the detrimental down-marriage of partners. Though inspecific to you personally, I've reason to suspect that, although to a lesser degree, it had occurred in your immediate ancestors. I would like to stress, once again, that this was outwith your control and thus absolvable of responsibility.

Understanding your perceived irrelevance of these points, I would like to raise that I'm absolutely convinced in my role of inevitable contribution to the problem were it to play out, and although not heterosexual, it is not as if gay genes/neurology have been incogruent with hetero-normative selection simply out of more basal compulsion to pass on one's progeny. This, along with the potential deterioration of any attempts in neurological preservation that I may make, are the primary factors motivating my decision.

I would like to thank you in advance for investing the patience to read this explanation, do you so choose to.

>>2108

I read every word, albeit didn't necessarily comprehend it fully but alas I got the gist. Not sure how I receded into a collectivist mentality although it could have been by my usage of saying "return to normal", which I questioned. I don't really care about the impact that your castration would have on society nor do I care about you being accepted in society and the perception that others will have on you. No offense but I'm not too emotionally invested in you. However, you are a person and I would hate to just sit around while I let you do something that I personally felt would be bad overall for you in the long run which is why I urged you to wait a bit and think long and hard on your decision.

I don't really believe that to be collectivism however I could be mistaken. It is not the fact that most people are not castrated which is why I urge you to refrain, it's that you are going to be voluntarily losing something quite important to you- your fertility. I'm not certain about the parameters of castration and the process of doing so, as I am too tired to research on it from school and work from 7:00 to 22:00 however I'm assuming that your genitals will be intact however you might become impotent and will lose your babymakin' ability. You never really know how something drastic like this will affect you until it's already over.

I'm empathizing with you on a basic human level: if I woke up and knew I made myself permanently infertile, it'd destroy me. I am thankful every day that I have the ability to create life and I don't know what kind of person I would be if I didn't have the option to reproduce: regardless of whether or not I choose to do so with my partner in the future.

So yeah, just do what you think is best but again I urge you to exercise caution and patience with this as it's not a decision to be lightly made.

>>2110

I don't know why your emotional investment into me would be relevant to the discussion; from where I stand, it's for its own sake, rather than being something neccessitating vested sentimentality.

You are misconstruing, either from length, tone, or detail, an attempt to establish a dialogue with one to elicit some kind of deeper bond. This is disingenuous for two reasons. 1. It is a misestimated over-expectation of your own empathy, and 2. it incorrectly demands that I stop being profuse when the reason for me being so isn't predicated on your participation, that you seem to view with a certain self-importance, implicatively speaking.

I thought we had ironed this out, but I find myself having to repeat everything we'd covered earlier.

Also, what use to me is reproduction, when I'm hardly eugenic? That was the main crux of the final point made in my post, after all. I'd contest that yearning desires and divine gifts constitutes reasons in themselves, rather than irrationally driven compulsions, for keeping those. The ability to pass on my progeny would seem to fall categorically under such a fallacy.

I've read your posts Legion Faggotymously over the last couple of weeks. Let me congratulate you on your job and the progression of your life path further to that in general. You are already more successful than I could ever be, and though I'm resentful, on the same token, it's nothing to which I could hold myself personally responsible, for the fact of various mitigating factors having thwarted my independence.

I'm not reading all this. Anyways, I cut you off from my Skype because you were going increasingly incoherent once more. Your calmness and ease to talk to turned into random fits of sperging rage and your ultimatum, while comparing me to David Chac, was the last straw. I'm still gonna try to find a way for you to leave that shithole of a country, but don't count on me to love you. You lost your chance with your clinginess and bipolar, paranoid nonsense. And the fact that you rejected me earlier on so I found someone else in the meantime.

>>2112

Okay. Would you at least have the courtesy to readd me on Skype?

Also, I think I'm owed an explanation from Ginger as to why she had removed me.

>>2112

I forgot to add that the reason I ask is that it would be fairly inconvenient to co-ordinate such emigration without a means for contact, unless by 'ways' you mean other connections in which case, please point me in the appropriate direction…

>>2114

Sure thing, just gonna get the username back.

>>2114

The spontaneity and extremity with which you alter your opinions and hormonal stasis vex me.

There is little point in maintaining a conversation with someone with no static identity.

>>2119

That's nonsense, they've been fairly consistent over time.

You miss their external context in the compartmentalized nature of feminine cognition, and although being hardly blameworthy, nor is it the case that this lies with anything I've surmised when it's so readily misinterpreted.

Anyway, my identity is as static as this: I'm not a guy, but I wouldn't call myself a femalewhore either, exactly; as Charles Manson once said, "I'm nobody."

Autphag, why do you insist on using such dense language? Generally people do this to be more rigorous, but what you gain in rigor is (in my opinion) heavily outweighed by alienating those without the same level of language skill and the cumbersomeness to those who still do still try to read your entire posts.

I really think you could effectively communicate the same ideas in less than half the length.

>>2136

Dense language can easily be used as a litmus for debate and logic skills, which often tie in to reading comprehension.