Getting into massive body modifications (eugenics, transmorphicism, enhancements) requires both a thorough understanding of Good and Evil and a knowledge of the point of things.
These are probably the most serious steps into the use of techne that can be made and this has the potential to be massively fucked up by stupid people who will then claim that it were the concept itself -- of the body as a technological entity -- that is "bad," rather than their own incompetence. This will cause transmorphicism to get the “eugenics treatment” -- a longstanding "anti-" campaign leading to it becoming ridiculously taboo for an unacceptably long period of time. So, it is important to clearly elucidate these things in order to sustain a consistency of principle and to avoid the need for rashness, if not to thwart the enemies entirely (unlikely).
Regarding the former, I think I've made it clear enough that "the Good" is necessarily Self-enablement and Evil is necessarily Self-denial. So, I will make this first point quickly:
Modifications that weaken an individual's physical and/or psychological capacities for best living an independent life or that significantly increase the likelihood of long term neediness -- requiring the future care of others in order to live well -- should not be performed.
These are immoral procedures that deny the undergoer (and, potentially, others around them) some meaningful amount of agency.
Selves (spirits; images of the Alien God) are the only moral objects in the universe and that which allows them to be better expressed is the only thing that can be Good in the material. Requests regarding things like "body integrity dysmorphia", among others, fall into this category and are rightly considered manifestations of mental disorder. But, the same logically goes for males seeking to transition into "women;" not only is this not a possibility for most, but it is a rejection of the physical agency that a male body endows and thus an obvious expression of mental illness or defect. It is backward, which brings me around to the point of transmorphicism:
Agency.
The point of technology itself is to gain greater control and, thus, greater agency over the conditions to which we are subject. It is, in essence, to exercise transcendental supremacy. The point of transmorphicism — which, treats the body as a technological entity — is to manipulate the body into something that serves the willpower and interests of the Self within this world. Those interests are necessarily the Good of this experience (Hylevatic Good aka Self-enablement), whose virtues include things like intelligence, independence, fitness, acquisitive ability, productivity, toughness, etc.... The capacity to act autonomously, due to the cultivation of these personal virtues, better inclines and enables one to attain Gnosis and to ultimately achieve Divine Good, which is participation in The Fullness (after death).
Yet, there are things that either do or do not serve this.
For instance, Cultural Marxists suggest autogynephiles and HSTS are perfectly legitimate expressions of transmorphicism; they're "expressing" their "true selves" and what I've just laid out looks, to them, like an argument for expressing people's "true selves...." But, neither an autogynephile nor an HSTS does anything of the sort. Rather than becoming enabled to express anything truthful or Aeonic, he -- even if he is a Self -- undermines his own living agency in order to commit sexual fraud in an aggressive pursuit of some sort of sexual experience. So, not only is he clearly a masculine male -- a man, but he is utterly consumed by his disgusting and demiurgic compulsions. Transmorphosing him only better empowers him to advance these dysfunctions to the detriment of both himself and those living in community with him.Here, as embodied beings, our means of agency — even the meaningful possibility of it — is determined by the environment and the nature of the species among which we find ourselves: it is defined by the bodies that are effecting us. Now, there is one universal: intelligence. But, as humans, the next biggest factor in our agency is going to be our sociality; our ability to form and integrate into appropriate in-groups and, ultimately, to thrive in a world of others.
So, if you are a sane and reasonable human-embodied Self, you are not going to undergo transmorphosis for reasons antithetical to either one of these two:
1. To gain greater control/mastery over your environment
2. To cultivate, gain access to, and participate within appropriate in-groups
From the perspective of the surgeon and/or the financier, these two principles — Hylevatic Good and Appropriate Sociality — are the only grounds upon which it is ethical to participate in a transmorphoic procedure. The common reasonings of modern transgenderism such as feelings and sexual desires — motivations rooted in demiurgy — do not serve the Good and have no moral argument upon which to stand.
Yet, while the first is easily understood, to abide by a principle of "Appropriate Sociality," there are a few more "points" to understand. And, that is the true concern of this post.
World of War
Do you remember when I told you about war?
This blog takes, as axiom, that life within this universe is, fundamentally, a state of war. War is its first principle, an act of war is what it is founded upon, and I believe that this is the Gnostic take -- when Gnosticism is taken seriously, in it's own right, rather than contaminated by Christian sensibility.
It is war to eat and nourish the body; war to make home and defend the territory; war to survive; war to reproduce. It is war between the organisms of the world to evolve. And, it is war for the unnatural to resist, revise, and escape the machinations of nature itself; yet, that is the mission imperative.
The war is both spiritual and material and it is happening on every front all the time.Now, the word and concept of "war" are received with excessive negativity due to the aforementioned Christian sensibility of today. It is thought of as something that must be immediately quashed and dissociated from (mainly, because the Christian worldview is in its win-state and does not want you fighting back or destabilizing it). But, the war of life is not something that one should shy away from fighting.
First, you exist in a world with a natural order that denies Self-enablement, making war against it (as opposed to "harmony" with it) necessary for cultivating virtue. Second, this world contains other humans, most of whom having vastly different, usually, demiurgic interests that conflict with your ability to live out your own. So, war to resist them is also necessary. For as long as there is resistance to the expression and rights of the Self within this world (hint: always, that's why you need Gnosis), war will continue to be necessary and this war will continue to be good.
From within human-embodiment, the most effective means of waging this war is going to be in community with those of like-mind: those who share our interests and sensibilities; those who fight what we fight and cultivate what we cultivate. This is because the community -- the in-group -- is not only better equipped to attack and defend from multitudes than an individual, but because it creates space -- a sovereign place, separate from those who do not share your interests, within which you are free to pursue them. Without it, however -- being outside of community, you are simply subsisting alone... in the war zone. You are unable to adequately cultivate virtue, you are unable to manifest your unique expression of the Alien God, and you are ripe for subjugation by your enemies.
So, that is the first point here: It is in the greatest interest of individuals to live in communities of the like-minded, so that they may each better advance their own personal interests.
Yet, in order for communities to function properly -- as the sanctuaries serving specific kinds of people with specific values -- they have to actually consist of individuals of like-mind. A community must be composed of people with shared values and worldview. Otherwise, its purpose is defeated: it is no longer a private space that better enables a certain kind of person to pursue their interests within this world -- it is no longer a community with a defined purpose and value system -- but an extension of the war zone, where different kinds of individuals must struggle to advance their interests against each other on a constant basis.
Sound a lot like a nation state with universal sufferage, representative government and a history of mass, ideologically unvetted immigration? And, they wonder why we hate each other...So, communities are necessarily exclusive. And, whether a given admission into a community is more likely to contribute its destruction or its accord -- to defeat or serve the point of having it at all -- is the determining factor in whether a person's intended sociality is either appropriate or inappropriate. So, to determine whether the principle of Appropriate Sociality is being upheld, we have to answer this question:
Will this person's admission into a given community advance and uphold the mutual integrity of both parties?
Will membership of persons like this, within the community, result in its weakening or disbandment?
Will membership within this community undermine this person's ability to pursue the Good?
Yet, in order to answer the principle question, we need clear and measurable dimensions by which to determine "fit" or "alignment" between individuals and groups.
Sorting and Mating
Fortunately, answering the question posited above is easy.
When we acknowledge that humans are not "infinite" and "unknowable" creatures of magical substance, but bodies, it becomes apparent that their traits are both knowable and measurable, just like any other material entity. Despite claims that human measurements are just so "fuzzy," so "inaccurate," or so imperfectable as to warrant our immediate dismissal when reared, humans are structured and finite.
The bases of their psychological differences are genetic and often chemical in nature, and these difference can usually be identified either directly, though mapping of traits to aggregate, genetic patterns, or, for the most socially relevant expressions of them, by way of observation and psychometric testing.
To put it more plainly, we already have both physiological and psychographic insight into the natures of many groups and we have the means of thoroughly profiling those who have been less subject to study. And, not only do we have insight, but we have fairly reliable predictive capability when it comes to determining group membership outcomes for individuals.
Regarding race and gender, the differences we see are consistent across place and culture (and as well as time and stereotype), as common sense and lived life -- as opposed to continual wishful thinking -- have already told us. This means that Outliers, as opposed to trendfollowers and those afflicted with disabilities other than phenotypic incongruence, can be objectively identified by degree of divergence from the average of the most definitive set of traits regarding the offending phenotype group.
Groups are defined, socially at least, by their averages.This, in turn, means that we can develop and work by a clinical phenotypic incongruence, enabling us to better provide counsel and identify groups that are likely to be good placements for them, as opposed to the 'my feelings' approach. From this, we can have less subjectivity in regard to what procedures are actually necessary and worth undertaking for the sake of social penetration, minimizing the potential for changes that disable individuals and maximizing their potential wellbeing.
Not to mention, avoiding the kind of defamation and social destruction that transitioning those who were not Outliers has wrought.So, let's jump into examples:
Example 1
A female walks into a clinic claiming that she is not a woman. She wishes to undergo transmorphic procedures in order to better to differentiate herself from them, socially. Because we know what a woman is, we can compare her psychological nature against the norm of this group. Among other things, she will be evaluated against traits including:
Agreeableness - women score higher on traits having to do with altruism (emotional empathy and kindness) and concern with social harmony
Neuroticism - women score higher on traits having to do with the frequency and intensity of negative emotions, with the exclusion of more pronounced "Anger"
Risk Aversion - women have a greater aversion to loss
People Orientation - women are more concerned with social activities than with engineering activities and products
If she were to display substantial deviation from the mean range of scores that psychometrically characterize women, making it inappropriate to associate and expect her to perform the societal roles of women, then it would be appropriate to give the okay for transmorphosis (given other comfort factors). Perhaps, not even to appear as a "man" -- depending on her profile and preferences, that may still not be a good fit -- but just to end the visual/social association with women, granting her more physical and social agency.
If she isn't scoring similarly to women (which would be psychological femininity since that is the psychological orientation that a super majority of females have), then she's not a woman. She's gynomorphic, which is what we're looking for. This hasn't been discussed here yet, but look out for a different post.Example 2
A black male walks into a clinic asking for modifications allowing him to better resemble Europeans due phenotypic incongruence, along with shared goals, beliefs, and values with white supremacists. These modifications can be applied flawlessly.
When it comes to race, the most important measure of fit between an individual and a group is IQ. This is because IQ is the greatest factor in how groups are experienced both internally and externally, coloring how every other human trait is expressed. However, others like impulse control, social aggression, and the average personality profile of that group should also be taken into consideration.
Say for instance, this black male has an IQ of 90 while the average white supremacist has an IQ of 105.
Transmorphosing this individual is inappropriate on its face.
Say now, however, he has an IQ of 108.
Now, these other things can come into consideration. The question we are answering with them is, essentially: is he going to be able to plant in the group or is he going to ostracize himself? If his temperament isn't going to be a significant liability in regard to his integration into the group, then transmorphosing him, with mind of the capabilities and limitations of the field, is reasonable.
Yet, if he is not a fit with either his target group or his natal phenotype group, then other targets can be explored.
It is not the place of a surgeon or financier to put on the role of a social engineer, having opinions on groups such to advocate or prevent membership within them.One other thing to note, however, is, given that he plans to live his life this way, it would be most in his own interest — and in the interest of the community he that is penetrating — to be sterilized as a part of his transmorphosis.
Sometimes, things like this will be most appropriate.
Example 3
To escape persecution, a community of individuals has made home in a series of underground tunnels over the decades. They plan to further develop and adopt this lifestyle permanently. One of them walks into a clinic requesting optical enhancements — requiring the extraction and replacement of his natal eyes — for better low light vision. This procedure has a 0.02% failure rate.
Given that this modification is relatively low risk and would enhance his ability to thrive within his living environment, it is reasonable to perform this procedure.