Disclosure & Misdirection by Inverts

[invincible]

I was wondering whether you were going to say that inverts are people that appear to be one sex, but unbeknownst to themselves even, they have hidden/internal sexual organs of the other - ie some sort of hermaphroditeism. Perhaps as a consequence of the environment, or some other special mechanism (eg drugs whilst in the womb). But you're not saying that.

There are basically three (sorry) schools of EGI schizo:

1) They are all inverts (according to Potatoes defn.) and very few have hermaphroditism

Mr.E: focuses on castration & MtFs (says FtMs are too difficult to determine, not true) freemasonry, alchemy & Inanna/Ishtar worship. Rarely mentions disorders like Swyer, Klinefelder, Freemartinism, etc. Will discuss Freemasonry/Orange 33 but seems hesitant to reveal too much

Horrifying Houseguest: believes their genitals are kept intact/tucked, believes they worship the image of the Baphomet/Satan. WILL identify FtM's but won't discuss Inanna/Ishtar or "Orange 33" tactics.

2) They are all inverts and most have some form of hermaphroditism (womb alchemy) but some have regular sex parts and live as the opposite gender

Hans Wormhat: believes their genitals look like anyone else's, for the most part. Believes they worship Satan. WILL identify FtM's but won't discuss Inanna/Ishtar. Also reveals more about modern Orange 33, incld. their experience growing up in an invert family. Will discuss Freemartinism, Klinefelders, Swyer and has even shown his body for comparison

and

3) Above Is Below, who I don't have time to define. I'm not entirely sure what she thinks of their genitals but has tons of info on most things.

[YouCanCallMeAl]

Cheers. Thanks for the info.

I do think there is something to the idea that some celebrities do pretend to be the opposite sex. For example the no doubt singer Mr E posted earlier seems very likely to me -

The logical problem with this sort of idea though, is that as it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis - ie we cannot ever resolve the truth one way or the other. The only way it is resolved is via a positive disclosure from the person being discussed. Mr E, as a teacher of critical thinking, would recognise this problem. You can effectively say anyone's sex is opposite to what they say, and the claim cannot be resolved, except if the person admits that they are trans.

This is different to something like 911, where you can look at the footage and show flaws and errors in what is shown. With transvestigations research you can see the characteristics of one sex in another, sometimes strongly, but this cannot be conclusive - unusual characteristics can only be hints. I think most people would agree that - in their personal experience - there are no clear lines demarcating one gender from another. Now you may see knockout evidence occassionally - eg the megan thee stallion footage - but that evidence can only prove the case for that one person. And lets not forget, that it is possible that this sort of evidence can be faked. And that all of it is provided via screens.

Anyway, I do wonder where this sort of research can go. Claims are made, and apparently accepted, while they are only based on hints and nudges. But in the vast majority of cases they can never be proven or disproven, even accepting the source of the evidence (the msm). The true believers in this idea can argue that everyone is an invert of some sort ... and how can anyone convince them otherwise?

But, to me, there isn't that much evidence that passes muster - at worst transvestigations are a sort of salacious opinion/smear. I suppose there is room for this sort of research, but having got the general idea, nowadays I find myself skipping over the content because there really is no evidence - its all in the eye of the beholder.

[invincible]

Eh well that's just like, your opinion man.

Determining someone's sex is way easier than getting stuck for years in some tranny rabbit hole like 9/11. This is what I'm referring to in my first post: I don't care about made up invert conspiracies. They make them confusing and impossible to solve on purpose.

If you're genuine and not trying to derail this conversation, just ask God to show you. That's what I did - boom, inverts everywhere. Had never been religious or a big "Believer" before that. It's impossible to go back for me. If you enjoy TrannyWorld and love the lie, by all means but please don't try and convince us that there's "no way to know". We're beyond that at least.

[invincible]

IDENTIFYING MEN AMONG FREEMARTINS - Here's one perspective to answer some of your questions, Al. You'll at least get a kick out of the part where he says "Today I'm going to show you what a real man looks like"

Some of us have heard that line before but never thought we'd be agreeing and taking notes

[YouCanCallMeAl]

If you're genuine and not trying to derail this conversation, just ask God to show you.

Of course I'm genuine. But I look to reason, not God.

I'm skeptical about what I am shown, and I don't dispute there is something to this idea. But I don't think it can go anywhere - on a logical basis - this is not opinion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test that can potentially be executed with existing technologies.

With the transvestigations, all you have is lots and lots of hypotheses (people being scrutinised). This can seem like there is also a lot of evidence, but, in fact, very few (if any) of the hypotheses are proven. What you really have is a lot of unverified claims, and you can add more whenever you like - eg Tyson. For a presenter of this info (eg Mr E who says he taught critical thinking!), it's the gift that keeps on giving - you can just say whatever and the claim stands. It is far more akin to gossip or smears, than the scientific method (the method is valid, even if 'the science' isn't).

The transvestigation process is not a valid way to proceed and know the truth, and it can never be valid.

[invincible]

Genuine people ask questions and want to learn more. When I first found out about this, I wanted to dissect every aspect to break it down and figure it out. It seems like you're trying to position yourself as the voice of reason in this discussion by using specific language but not even providing examples of what you consider "unverifiable". Not judging, I was the same and had to consider asking God part of the scientific process to even proceed. Growing up in this culture makes you insecure and always worried about feeling "dumb".

I'm not going to try and convince you though. I could have this kind of discussion on reddit or facebook, not really interested in a debate. Unless you have specific questions or examples of course. Thanks for replying, God bless

[YouCanCallMeAl]

Funny how people who are of god, will say they are not judging, and then launch into judging others. Too too genuine and godly, I guess.

Pretty much all the examples are unverifiable. There are photos or videos, none of which can be verified. A physical examination or something similar, would be far closer to verification. No personal verification is going on. My 2 previous posts made this clear, I think.

I won't post here in future, I understand these are not welcome points. I have already started a different thread here :
viewtopic.php?t=955

[invincible]

Noticing familiar or derailing behavior is not the same as "judging" someone. I'm glad you made your own thread to address your concerns and hope you find the answers you're looking for.