/hypno/ - Hypnochan

My problem is they can't handle me being trans

It's they're looking for one thing only

Finding a good tist on omegle is extremely difficult, if not impossible. The only exception being tists just trying to have fun on there who are already established otherwise.

Would not recommend if trying to actually go into trance, as the only thing these tists know is "hey… when i snap my fingers… you go into trance… *snap*… yes… now take off your pants". Lame.

A much better solution here, is to look for established tists you could have a 1 to 1 session with on discord or skype or whatever. Going to any tist/fetish events is also a great way to network, although pretty tough unless you live in specific regions or are willing to travel long distances.

>>58813

> they can't handle me being trans

The simple answer is not to tell them. A trans woman is a woman, a trans man is a man. Does anyone bother to check someone's genitals before catcalling them? No. Are you going to have literal sex with this person? No.

The idea that you can 'always tell' is easily debunked, not simply by the fact that trying to restrict trans women going into women's bathrooms has literally only affected cis women who want to piss, but also by just looking at trans women and cis women. If you start assuming cis women are trans, you quickly realise that a lot of cis women simply do not pass, by the same criteria, especially those in film.

> 58821

> Finding a good tist on omegle is extremely difficult, if not impossible

The other day I found an AMAZING hypnotist. They actually did proper work towards induction. But, it was very easy to tell, by the way they went about it.

I am the forrest gnome

i have also broken camera

>>58835

If someone is born a man, they're a man. If someone is born a woman, they're a woman. No amount of pills, surgery, therapy, or anything else can ever change this fact.

'Transwomen' are just mentally-ill faggots. They're men.

>>58873

>>58873

If someone is born a mindless moron, they're a mindless moron. No amount of smartassing, being a piece of shit, pretending you have a cock, or other bullshit can ever change that.

They're just mentally ill pieces of shit. They're morons.

>>58835

>A trans woman is a woman, a trans man is a man.

A trans woman or a trans man is suffering from a mental disorder that pop academia has embraced for social and political reasons as a lifestyle in need of affirmation, rather than an illness that requires treatment. After years of hormones and surgery, most trans people experience the same amount of depression, suicidal ideation, and dysphoria as they did before transitioning. Trans people are not the gender they identify as, and playing along with the idea that they are is as harmful as playing along with the delusions of a psychotic person.

>>58884

"Pop academia", you say?

Does the National Institute of Health count as "pop academia" to you?

>Omegle thread

>people are still arguing about trannies

>>58888 (checked)

This seems to explain a lot.

And while there is a place for gender play, the general ethical consensus is that all participants have the right to know each other's true biological sex before beginning any scene, whether "traditional" or hypnotic.

>>58884

The brain is embodied. People born without limbs can get phantom sensations, and the reverse condition is possible as well, having a limb while not having the appropriate brain structures. The result of the latter condition is far worse than what you'd expect.

In "A Leg to Stand On", Dr. Oliver Sacks described his experience with brain/body mismatch. He had become disconnected from his leg in the same way that people with scotomas lose part of their field of vision. The concept went missing and not just the content.

It reads like HP Lovecraft. He experienced horror and revulsion, as though the leg were made of exotic matter, a "foreign inconceivable thing" that did not belong in this world. It took on a sinister quality, with its own identity separate from his own, a monstrous leech that was parasitizing him.

I noticed a similarity to the most extreme descriptions of the effect of gender dysphoria on the experience of body, genitals, and puberty. Puberty is like turning into The Fly, a process somehow inhuman that everyone happily treats as normal, the body feels like an alien skin you have been stuffed into, etc.

The eldritch horror generated by brain/body mismatch reminds me of the abject terror that occurs during waterboarding. Visceral instincts rise from the id to swallow us whole when certain conditions are met; imagination fails to capture it.

>>58875

Not an argument.

Genetic has already responded to that, there's only male or female anything else is a mutation that can be more or less severe.

Postmodernism isn't a valid options too to construct your argument.

>>58887

>Does the National Institute of Health count as "pop academia" to you?

Not him, I'd say yes, even the WHO count as "pop" and when I say pop I mean people pushing and agenda. See for example the Grievance Studies affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair

This proves what was suspected for a long time. Academia and high instances are infiltrated by, who knows who?, to push an agenda that is alienating a whole generation around the globe, not only it's alienating themselves but it's also making them extremely anti social and violent towards anyone who does not agree with their view, thus creating conflicts.

Aka larping on omegle.

>>59908

Just because the author of a paper says it's a hoax, doesn't make the paper invalid. In postmodernism the author's opinion is just one among many. Barthes announced the death of the author, and Derrida argued there is nothing outside the text. The paper was peer-reviewed, and the authors could have challenged it then, but they did not. If they want to challenge it now, after peer-review, their only option is to write a paper refuting it, and get that published too. To announce that it is a hoax is to presume they have authority over the content's meaning, simply because they produced it. If you disagree with me, I present you this paradox: everything I said above means the opposite, and I am the author, so you must accept it, right?

wowee this thread turned into a garbage fire quick

>>59911

>Just because the author of a paper says it's a hoax, doesn't make the paper invalid

This is research that we are talking, don't mind warp with cognitive bias.

>doesn't make the paper invalid

I read these papers, they are completely absurd. The consequences of such papers are extremely negative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vyBLCqyUes

I also read all the "big" studies distributed by the rare people with gender dysphoria who accept to discuss. And they were all false, either there was no methodology or in the rare case where the methodology was described it was incorrect.

>>59913

It's not cognitive bias, it's an argument. Suppose I published a mathematical proof, and later said "I was only kidding, the proof is a joke." Would that make the proof invalid? I can't declare a proof incorrect just because I'm the one who found it. The proof as written would have to have a real mistake.

There is always the possibility that someone, in attempting to create a hoax, could make real progress completely by accident. Once written, what they said is now part of the conversation and can be built upon no matter the original intent.

Compare what happens when an author's thought evolves beyond their work. Late Wittgenstein disagrees with early Wittgenstein, but we don't throw out early Wittgenstein, or pronounce it incorrect just because the author changed his mind.

The author of an apparent hoax is not changing their mind, of course, but writing things they didn't even believe while they wrote them. But it may be that what they wrote was correct, and what they thought while writing was incorrect.

As a direct example, everything I'm writing right now is being written tongue in cheek, including this paragraph. I don't actually believe any of this, but that doesn't preclude what I'm writing from being correct anyway. Perhaps I am just so awesome that I'm correct without even trying.

Anyway, to switch to a more serious note, I don't think the targets of that hoax are in the same field as the parts of science that convince me that being transgender is valid. There's a difference between, eg. queer feminist theory, which may be speculative and is more like philosophy than science, vs. medical/neurological science, or psychology with good experimental methodologies.

Also seriously, I would compare such hoaxes to the replication crisis. Does the replication crisis mean we should throw all psychology out and that we've learned nothing from the field? I would say no. I think it just means that there is some trouble with standards, rather than being a repudiation of the entire field. I have no doubt the papers were on the ridiculous side, as you say, but that doesn't automatically mean that other queer theory papers are equally ridiculous, just that the worst of those published are. But the worst papers published in fields known to be legitimate are often pretty bad.

In fact, similar hoaxes have been done in many other fields, including math, physics, computer science, etc.

Anyway, here's an interesting adversarial collab I read recently done by two people who disagreed about transgender transition: slatestarcodex.com/2018/09/08

>>59910

It took me a while to figure out that you were trying to equate being a veteran with being trans. They're not equatable, but if you really want to make that comparison then veterans can and do move past mental issues arising from their service to return to normal civilian life, which I guess in this analogy means that trans people can move past being trans to return to normal life in their biological gender?

>>59911

>Just because the author of a paper says it's a hoax, doesn't make the paper invalid.

If I make a bunch of fake bullshit up, it doesn't matter that a heap of gullible idiots think it sounds good and sign off on it. The fact that it's fake bullshit that I made up is sufficient reason to disregard it.

>Barthes announced the death of the author

I announce the death of the death of the author. Checkmate.

>everything I said above means the opposite, and I am the author, so you must accept it, right?

Playing linguistic games does not change the fact that made up bullshit is made up bullshit.

Could you guys move this discussion to it's own thread please?

>>59901

Good shit, thanks for sharing something relevant to the thread.

>>59948

Np, glad you enjoyed it :)

>>59901

I was under the impression hypnosis could only occur on Video, not Text. What does that tinyurl link redirect to?

>>59936

Veterans don't "move past" being a veteran, they can live a normal life but they continue to believe they were in a war. The analogy there is transgender person living a normal life without dysphoria post-transition.

>>61569

>Veterans don't "move past" being a veteran,

Literally not what was written.

>The analogy there is transgender person living a normal life without dysphoria post-transition.

That doesn't happen. The underlying disorder that caused the gender dysphoria, depression, suicidal ideation, etcetera, is still present, so all of that still gets reported by post-op trans people, along with the despair that comes from the thing they thought would solve all of their problems not actually solving anything.

This site isn't active about hypnosis or people are not really interested in that field… I don't waste my profession on people like this who only want troll. Atte: Mentok "The Mind Taker" The only one and original

>>62979

Kill yourself, nigger.

I don’t know if anyone can find this but it was a log from Hypnohub about Mindwipe being hypnotized for the first time, and apparently it was hot. Sadly the pastebin for it is expired. Anyone got a copy of it?

https://pastebin.com/hbA5NHV4