“To be proud, one must have proof for the external creation of a thing. If for internal creation, then how is proof for identity the case of simple admittance, if one cannot show validity? Would no proof for identity simply be the raw deception, because that evidence is lacking?”
– Modern Romanticism
Swapping identities, would require proof for it. Just as a name change must require validity for it, as well, then so should every form of identity require that evidence. If not, then it is nothing more than deception. However, for pride’s sake, creation should not be allowed to compel a person to feel such, when they have no proof of their acts to what was formed. For the sake of pride, a person must show proof of action, not a display of words. At the same time as one cannot simply state aloud their identity, is for the same reason that anything else held for pride must be proven of action, not words.
Neither pride nor identity is valid, without its show, not tell, of proof. A person leads themselves, understands others, through examples of truth, not through the force of their words into the listener’s ear. For that would be the same as seeing the self, while ruling over others, through deception. There’d be no room for the truth that should compel a person to also identify with someone else. If a leader has a way with identifying with their population, then it is to truth that they follow. If their examples are through proof of action, while it is words that are seen as an atrocity, then it is deception that the opposition follows on their own. An individual, as a leader, cannot be truthful neither to themselves nor to others, when they cannot identity with another based on what they prove through a show of it. It is the case that no person has a real command over their own speech, if they have no way to show what they admit.
Would a person simply say, “I saw Jesus Christ in my backyard?” and be expected that this can be taken seriously? Is the culture of “anything goes” merely following the pathway of deception? If that be the case, then why follow it at all? If a person cannot be taken seriously on them stating that a UFO landed in their driveway, then why should we, for instance, take seriously a person who says they have a different gender? Can proof be offered for that, or is it simply at outward, spoken admittance to it? And, if they are prideful to this sudden realization of themselves, though there is still no proof, then there must be deception to which they follow.
It is simply the case that if there is no proof, then one is lying in the attempt to get another to believe them. Neither pride for identity can offer validity of who or what someone is, without that evidence. If this were simply the case, then Atheism would never be a way for certain people. Without evidence, a Christian could say to an Atheist the words, “God exists” and the latter would believe the former.
Modern Romanticism 
If a boy is bathed in too much estrogen while in the womb; his brain will form in the female mode.
If a girl is bathed in to much testosterone while in the womb; her brain will form in the male mold.
This is the physical cause of Gender Dysphoria in both men and women.
When this occurs in women it is usually caused by a malfunction, due to a genetic mutation of the genes designed to control the development of the child gestating, in her mothers womb.
What isn’t generally known is that DDT and other Pesticides break down into compounds that mimic estrogen.
They do not affect the parent but have the ability to flip the sexual orientation of the offspring.
This was reported in Audubon Nature Magazine in the mid to late1990’s. I used to have a copy of that article and the magazine in which it was published.
There are chemicals in plastics that do the same thing – mimic estrogen. And there was a time when cows were deliberately fed the female sex hormone Estrogen because it fattened them up.
This is the reason that females of the past three generations; on average have larger breasts than their grandmothers generation.
A causal glance at Marilyn Monroe and Jane Mansfield (who were considered voluptuous in their day. Confirms they both would be considered average and/or below average today.
The actresses in Leave It Too Beaver and The Andy Griffith Show, along with the Movie Stars of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s all had much smaller breasts, then their female counterparts have today.
This is also one of the primary reasons plastic container manufacturers are removing PBA’s from their products today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice comment. I didn’t even know half of this. All I use are my eyes, and I make observations to write them down, based on people’s behavior. I tend to balance out the “interest in behavior” with the “interest in people”, hence why my blog is about both philosophy and poetry. There’s a bit of something for the non-empathetic, more calculating individual, and for the heartfelt, more sensitive individual.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you all my life I’ve managed to gather tid bits of information that eventually assemble themselves into a coherent picture.
And since I’m a heterosexual male I’ve always paid extra attention to women.
Plus I grew up during the time when movies made during the 40’s thru the 50’s were all the rage on TV.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I’ve figured out is that when people are prideful, people state this feeling with words. Though, with no proof, one cannot simply be proud for something not accomplished with action. This is because action is required for an accomplishment to manifest. If one just feels pride for their words, though no obvious action was taken for the accomplishment, then it is the same with the very nature of identity. That is, in the very proof for what something is, beneath all the layers that conceal the truth, a thing cannot simply be revealed if not for the action it takes to uncover it.
For example, if a painting were upon a canvas, shielded by a cloak, and the painter merely spoke aloud what the art looks like, then he or she is deceiving their audience. They never uncover it, remove the layers, because just like any deceptive individual, they don’t want the truth to be exposed.
This would mean that any person who just speaks aloud what they are prideful for, being of their own identity, would be deceptive to who hears this. It is due to no proof being shown (keyword) to the world of what is attempting to be represented (another keyword).
In truth, it would just mean that a person who just states their identity, is adding another layer to conceal the truth. It’s like a robber putting a mask over their face to hide themselves.
Btw… what Transgender or Gender Studies individual has actually been able to prove themselves as such? Is it possible to prove a lie? I never thought so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem with Transgenders is that physically they are either born male or female.
Yet their brains have been formed in the mold or image of the opposite of their physical gender.
This is why they think they have been born into the wrong body.
I can sympathize and have compassion for them; unfortunately those who should know better are to intellectually dishonest to recognize the truth.
This goes for both those on both the right and the left.
And it is also the reason every individual should have the freedom to seek put relationships with whomever they desire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So… we’re sympathizing with unintentionally poisoned individuals, since birth? That is downright sad.
But, somehow, a certain side is manipulating them as tools. And, as far as I can see, they’re being displayed all over television like mannequins painted with tie-dye. But, I guess that’s politics for you. So long as someone’s gullible enough, they’ll fall into whatever comfort zone a politician makes for them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem isn’t so much transgenders, but the heterosexuals who refuse to transcend their revulsion and discard, intellectual dishonesty.
In other words they are too invested their fantasy/thuth to deal with the actual reality of the situation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I never stated that the problem was the transgenders.
However, I am noticing something that is occurring…
I believe it started with the Post-WWII Deconstructionists and Post-Modernists who sought to do everything they could against tradition, order, and beauty.
Now… it’s an emplaced-into-society philosophy that breaks down people of being an inborn unified force, to separated groups. This is what people praise to be “diversity”. It’s a diversity that relates to causation, not creation. Because, through creation, individualism would be praised. Though, through causation, the collective is praised. This is very much like a Marxist or Communist agenda.
Causation side with chaos. Creation sides with order. If there’s any person who sides with order, then they side with Individualism, too. If there’s any person who sides with chaos, then they side with Collectivism.
“Diversity through causation” is the splitting apart of something already created, to the point where several supposedly different aspects can be understood. Because, out of chaos, and out of things breaking down or dissected, knowledge is founded. Though, what is left is what has been broken down, are the people who have lost what they so long kept together. And, what people have “so long kept together” were things like unity and the traditions that have lasted through the generations.
I believe science’s true opposition is love. Protection of what can last, versus what can instantly change in the blink of an eye, is what differs love from science. When people progress, they go in different directions with their ideas. They never go in a straight line. Everyone wants their own voice, their own version of Democracy, which eventually breeds the Vengeance that people have cited to be “Justice”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What our society is experiencing is very similar to what happened in France during the French revolution.
They too ditched order and tradition only to discover their value after France lay in ruins.
Today’s Left is simply repearting the mistakes of the past and will have to relearn the lesson the hard way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality. Yet its the refusal of Christians to come to grips with the underlying physical cause.
That prevents them from dealing with those caught up on it with compassion and understanding.
Nor do Christians understand that they are demanding transgenders to go against their very nature.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Most Christians are very ignorant. Just as ignorant as Atheists.
The book of Genesis, of the tale between Adam & Eve, is where many Christians gain their “argument” that love is between male and female. However, they don’t realize that this tale is one that depicts deception, and individual action for what one prefers.
When Eve bit the apple, she did not listen to God. When Adam bit the apple, he listened to Eve, not to God.
It is not a tale between Man and Woman, though a tale of Woman to herself, and Man to himself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do accept the Bible’s version of truth and it informs my own personal morality.
But I never force it on anyone else and yes most Christians are ignorant of what the Bible teaches and reality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What’s that saying?
“A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
True that! Unfortunately so!
LikeLiked by 1 person