"Woke" Franchises

[King Arts]

The remake I'd say was woke (taking out the ass shots of Miranda, for example). But not the originals. Even not the third: remember, the only way to live in the end was to pick mass genocide, including of the good geth.

Basically, a big question is what values are being taught. A great set of differences is The Last of Us 1 v 2. In 1, it's about manning up and what it means to be a dad: your kid is more important than the world. That's very individualistic and non-woke. The second is woke and also the fetish of the main writer brought to life.





As for gayness defining whether a game is woke, I'd say it's heavily correlated, but not always now. This used to not be the case, but now it is. Most 'gay shit' in games was just giving the characters options (notably in Bethesda games, where they made everyone bi).

I'd say woke games generally have the following characteristics:

• De-sexing female characters, especially those who are white and straight. Why? Because that's who the bottom of the intersectional hierarchy wants. Guys can still be hot though.
• Characters for whom being some (real world) minority is their main character trait. Think the trans character who shares that they are trans. All non-binary characters qualify for this.
• Constant talk about modern day relevant politics

This simply cannot be the line, otherwise sex with anyone infertile is equivalent to bestiality. Beastiality is wrong for a number of reasons, all of which boil down to intelligence and the ability to consent. It's animal abuse, degrading to both parties, and at worst, can serve as a replacement for genuine romantic connection, which destroys the person's ability to have that.

Infertile women are women who suffer from a disability. They are not a seperate “class” of being from other women. It’s like if you explained what a human is to me and said “one head, two arms, two legs, etc” and I said “Ahhh but I know someone who was born with one leg are you saying they aren’t human?”

As for the beasteality no it’s not degrading to the animal animals have no real dignity. Animals have preferences and can want things or not want but they don’t have “rights”. You are right that beastelity does degrade the dignity of humans though. It lowers humans to be mere beasts that’s why it should be banned.

Your argument is based on false notions like equality or balanced partnership. But that is against natural law. Under your logic someone could have a relationship with Mrs. Beaver from Chrinicles of Narnia she is equally intelligent to normal humans and it would be ok.


Yet if they were to mate with the humans from planet of the apes they would be doing beasteality. I say you have it backwards better a sub sentient human female than a fully sentient nonhuman.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

(or something like xenobeastality).

xenobeastality

 

[King Arts]

I know there is some slaneshi tier degeneracy here because some people just don’t want to have a cute human wife to reproduce the human species.

It’s sad.

 

[DarthOne]

I know there is some slaneshi tier degeneracy here because some people just don’t want to have a cute human wife to reproduce the human species.

It’s sad.

I know. I’ve…seen things. Things I never wanted to see. Things I never asked to see.

Things I want to forget. Lord willing, I will.

 

[Iconoclast]

If you fuck a cow, it's beastilty. If you fuck an alien that has intelligence equal to humans, it's not beastality. If you fuck an alien cow, it's beastality (or something like xenobeastality).

Xenobestiality is a good brutal slamming death metal band or album name.

 

[Abhorsen]

Infertile women are women who suffer from a disability. They are not a seperate “class” of being from other women. It’s like if you explained what a human is to me and said “one head, two arms, two legs, etc” and I said “Ahhh but I know someone who was born with one leg are you saying they aren’t human?”

Yes. And that's a problem, not something that can be glossed over. I would need a better definition of a human in such a case. Now colloquially, you can use this definition to give a rough idea of something, but if this definition seeks to explain why something is or isn't moral, then it 100% needs to be a definition you can't poke holes in. Your definition fails because of this.

In general, moral rules have to be consistent. If X is bad because X is Y, then if Z also is Y, Z also needs to be bad, or you need a load of reasoning. This can't just handwaved away.

In short: Your argument was "Beastiality is bad because they can't have kids". This having bad implications means your argument needs fixing.

Your argument is based on false notions like equality or balanced partnership. But that is against natural law. Under your logic someone could have a relationship with Mrs. Beaver from Chrinicles of Narnia she is equally intelligent to normal humans and it would be ok.

Yes, that would be morally okay. That's an actual person (not human, but a rational person). Personally, I'd think it was kinda gross, but it doesn't warrant arresting them.

Yet if they were to mate with the humans from planet of the apes they would be doing beasteality. I say you have it backwards better a sub sentient human female than a fully sentient nonhuman.

Nope, the reverse. If the person is really so dumb they can't consent (think a severely mentally disabled person, I'm not sure if the person in the movie qualifies), we call sex with them rape even if they say yes. It's illegal because of this. Note, though, it would be rape, not beastiality, but the reasoning would be the same: inability to consent.

Consent explains nearly all sexual rules: Why can't you have sex with a child? They can't consent. Why can't you have sex with a severely mentally disabled adult? Can't consent. Why can't you rape people? No consent. Why no bestiality? Can't consent.

 

[Terthna]

And this is why I avoid 95% of all anime/manga. Especially the modern stuff.

What exactly do you mean by that?

 

[Iconoclast]

Realistically it’s any nonhuman creature, because you can only reproduce with humans.
The intelligence doesn’t really matter too much.

But in the case of Mass Effect where there is a race who can reproduce with anyone and it’s bad if they reproduce with themselves.

Then from a naturalistic argument unions that bore fruit are ok and those which can’t are wrong and contrary to nature just like homosexual unions.

So in Mass Effect it’s ok for human males and females to be with Asari. Since those pairings can have kids, the Asari also look humanoid.

It would not be ok to have a union with a Turian(even if Garrus is a total bro) because they are another species and you can’t have kids. Again it takes more than intelligence to make a union acceptable, because otherwise logically there would be nothing wrong with marrying the talking animals in Narnia for example. We can look and just know that’s fucked up so our logic must be in accordance with our gut feeling, because those gut feelings are part of nature and they exist for a reason.

As for Asari themselves when they mate with each other they have recessive traits that can make them give birth to basically vampires. Thus they see it as bad and incest. So they prefer other species. And Asari unions like incest are only really acceptable if there is no other choice for propagation of the species. After all a chance of creating Joffrey should not be taken if there are other safer better alternatives.

This is actually a far deeper philosophical debate than it appears at first glance.

The standard that furries and alien-lovers typically use is the so-called Harkness Test (a.k.a. if it's sapient and can consent, we can fuck it).



This is actually quite a multi-faceted issue.

• It's bad to fuck aliens/anthromorphic animals because they're not human.
  • What is "human?" Can a non-human possess something akin to humanity, or is personhood located strictly in the body itself? Is there such a thing as a form of undifferentiated personhood separate from the human body? What if I were to upload my mind into the body of a different species? Would I still be a human person on the inside, or an intrinsically different kind of person?
    • This also, naturally segues into a much deeper and thornier argument about what a person is, what identity is, whether or not non-humans can even be treated as persons or acquire personhood, or possess a form of personhood that is in any way comprehensible to us, and so on.
• It's bad to fuck aliens/anthropomorphic animals because they have a different body plan from humans, which makes them something more akin to animals, regardless of intelligence.
  • This argument would also necessarily apply to people with extreme birth defects that alter their body plan, like Myrtle Corbin, who was born with four legs, two pelvises, two sets of functioning genitals, and so on.
• It's bad to fuck aliens/anthropomorphic animals because you can't reproduce with them.
  • Well, neither can infertile people or gay people, technically.

Transhumanists have a concept called "morphological freedom", where they believe that humans should be able to alter ourselves into whatever, up to and including fragmenting ourselves into completely different subspecies. Anders Sandberg wrote a long essay on it (which is unfortunately paywalled):

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118555927.ch5

This notion was mirrored by Zoltan Istvan's "Transhumanist Bill of Rights":

Immortality Bus Delivers Newly Created Transhumanist Bill of Rights to the US Capitol

Immortality Bus Delivers Newly Created Transhumanist Bill of Rights to the US Capitol

www.huffpost.com

Article 3. Human beings, sentient artificial intelligences, cyborgs, and other advanced sapient life forms agree to uphold morphological freedom--the right to do with one's physical attributes or intelligence (dead, alive, conscious, or unconscious) whatever one wants so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Some people disagree with this, on the basis that the human body itself is not individually owned but constitutes a form of communal property:

Why Morphological Freedom Is a Fantasy: Your Body Isn't Just Your Own

Transhumanists claim complete freedom to modify their bodies, but that absolutist stance could endanger future generations.

www.inverse.com

This past November, the Center for Genetics and Society called for a moratorium on the genetic modification of children. Morphological freedom, at its purest, doesn't only pertain to one's body — it also allows for individuals to decide what reproductive technologies they want to use when having children. This is where the talk of designer babies comes in.

"Gene editing may hold some promise for somatic gene therapy (aimed at treating impaired tissues in a fully formed person)," reads a letter from the Center for Genetics and Society. "However, there is no medical justification for modifying human embryos or gametes in an effort to alter the genes of a future child. Permitting germ-line intervention for any intended purpose would open the door to an era of high-tech consumer eugenics in which affluent parents seek to choose socially preferred qualities for their children."

A bit more bluntly, MIT professor of biology Eric Lander writes in The New England Journal of Medicine that "such efforts would be reckless" and that as of now "we remain terrible at predicting the consequences of even simple genetic modifications in mice."

This is kind of a monism versus dualism thing. It really boils down to whether or not you perceive a person as their body, or as a disembodied, sexless, identity-less mind that's just using a body as a type of vehicle.

This same ontological debate is the same thing that underpins transgenderism and the bioconservative backlash against it. These are two separate and irreconcilable ontological stances. One holds that you inhabit your body and that your identity is whatever you decide it is, internally. The other holds that you are your body and your identity is decided by how you are perceived by others, and so on.

Of course, there are a lot of inconsistencies with the woke stance. For instance, if being transgender is okay, then why can't people be transracial? Why can't I wake up one day and decide that I'm black?

You'll hear a lot of nonsensical, incongruent arguments against this:

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/

Now return to race. Being Black in the United States is similar to being a person who qualifies for IRSSA reparations in at least one important respect: being Black isn't simply a matter of internal identification; it is also a matter of how your community and ancestors have been treated by other people, institutions, and governments. Given this, we think that race classification should (continue to) track—as accurately as possible—intergenerationally inherited inequalities. More directly, we need conceptual and linguistic tools for identifying those who are entitled to reparations for racial wrongs, where by "reparations" we mean institutional correction of intergenerational inequality. These might include, but are not limited to: affirmative action in employment and education; compensation for past economic and personal exploitation; debt-cancellation for affected populations; medical, home buying, and college aid; institutional apologies for past harms; and the creation of a standardized curriculum which explicitly addresses the role of racial oppression in state-building.

Central to this argument, then, is the observation that in the case of Blackness, inequality accumulates intergenerationally. For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Black women born in the United States are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white women. What explains this? Arline T. Geronimus, public health researcher and professor at the University of Michigan's Population Studies Center, has argued using a series of empirical studies that the intergenerational effects of racism explain a number of decreased health outcomes for Black Americans, including lower birth weights and higher rates of pregnancy-related complications for Black women. Geronimus famously termed this phenomenon "weathering," a term that refers to the idea that "Blacks experience early health deterioration as a consequence of the cumulative impact of repeated experience with social or economic adversity and political marginalization."

...

Notice that this argument does not apply in the case of gender and gender inequality. Gender inequality, unlike racial inequality, does not primarily accumulate intergenerationally, if only for the obvious reason that the vast majority of households are multi-gendered. While parents often are responsible for ingraining patriarchal ideas and rigid gender norms in their children (it is extremely difficult to avoid!), this is not a "passing down" of socioeconomic inequality itself but, rather, of a socialization that perpetuates gender inequality.

Absolute nonsense. One absolutely can make the argument that women, as a group, have suffered "intergenerational trauma and inequality". Consider how many women in medieval times were barred from specific professions and learning certain trades which could have formed the basis of female-led institutions in the modern era that could have acted as a support network for women seeking apprenticeship and gainful employment now. Note the wokesters' oddly conservative focus on "multi-gender households". Oddly paternalistic of them, and dare I say, patriarchal. Does a woman cease to exist outside her "household?". It's almost as if they're implying that there can be no such thing as all-female clubs, sororities, and networks outside the home. Their suppression over time could have easily formed the basis of intergenerational oppression and diminishment of opportunity for women as a group.

There is no coherent argument against transracialism. Therefore, I am black now. Have a nice day.

 

[Iconoclast]

I should mention, there's yet another dimension to this particular debate. Leon Kass coined the idea of the "wisdom of repugnance", or that deep-seated disgust toward something should be taken as a sign of its unethical nature.

Wisdom of repugnance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

His argument was that cloning people, eugenics, transhumanism, et cetera, are disgusting and that the disgust they generate should be taken as evidence of their immorality, and so on.

https://web.stanford.edu/~mvr2j/sfsu09/extra/Kass3.pdf

This idea is, at least, self-consistent, but it also opens the door to all kinds of actual prejudices, such as, "I think vaginas are yucky therefore women should have a diminished role in society". Actually, Martha Nussbaum wrote a whole book on this entitled Hiding From Humanity.

Martha Nussbaum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hiding from Humanity[58] extends Nussbaum's work in moral psychology to probe the arguments for including two emotions—shame and disgust—as legitimate bases for legal judgments. Nussbaum argues that individuals tend to repudiate their bodily imperfection or animality through the projection of fears about contamination. This cognitive response is in itself irrational, because we cannot transcend the animality of our bodies. Noting how projective disgust has wrongly justified group subordination (mainly of women, Jews, and homosexuals), Nussbaum ultimately discards disgust as a reliable basis of judgment.

EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, Leon Kass's argument from disgust isn't even self-consistent. People can quite easily end up experiencing disgust and loathing toward themselves in their basic, natural state (as in, misanthropy), which can, in turn, form the basis of a desire for unattainable perfection, which can lead to them doing literally all the things that Leon Kass argues should be forbidden by our disgust (i.e. human augmentation, genetic reengineering of humans, etc.).

Let's say there's a person out there who thinks humans are awful, disease-ridden, violent, rapacious, ecosystem-destroying predators with repulsive sexual urges. This person might be so disgusted by humans as they are (including disgust directed at himself), he might feel compelled to alter humans to be more moral and dignified on a biological and physical level.

In short, the argument from disgust can easily be twisted to advance the opposite position.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Disgust?! What kind of psycho wants to base a moral system around what disgusts us?

I'm disgusted by 99% of medicines. So is medication unethical? What an idiot.

 

[Iconoclast]

Disgust?! What kind of psycho wants to base a moral system around what disgusts us?

I'm disgusted by 99% of medicines. So is medication unethical? What an idiot.

That is literally his argument, yes. To quote Leon Kass:

Revulsion is not an argument; and some of yesterday's repugnances are today calmly accepted--though, one must add, not always for the better. In crucial cases, however, repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason's power fully to articulate it. Can anyone really give an argument fully adequate to the horror which is father-daughter incest (even with consent), or having sex with animals, or mutilating a corpse, or eating human flesh, or raping or murdering another human being? Would anybody's failure to give full rational justification for his revulsion at those practices make that revulsion ethically suspect? Not at all.

Let me suggest that our repugnance at human cloning belongs in that category. We are repelled by the prospect of cloning human beings not because of the strangeness or novelty of the undertaking, but because we intuit and feel, immediately and without argument, the violation of things that we rightfully hold dear. We sense that cloning represents a profound defilement of our given nature as procreative beings and of the social relations built on this natural ground. We also sense that cloning is a radical form of child abuse. In this age in which everything is held to be permissible so long as it is freely done and in which our bodies are regarded as mere instruments of our autonomous rational wills, repugnance may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity. Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder.

 

[ATP]

Why do corporations keep spending their hard earned money for people who hate them and want them dead?

Why Wall Street supported first commies,and then Hitler? and,after WW2,commies again ?
Reason is the same.They want us enslaved,and use commies,Hitler&others as their tools to do so.

 

[Adrassil]

I think there are a couple of things that could be considered "woke" if you look at them from a very surface level. Their popularity alone proves that most people who are "anti-woke" or whatever are fine with representation and diversity if it's done well. One is Cyberpunk 2077 (especially the expansion Phantom Liberty), which is a franchise; obviously, the other is the new Rogue Trader TTRPG.

I thought of this because my cousin, who is very "anti-woke", pointed out to me that Phantom Liberty could be pulling the "progressive line". The NUSA has a badass woman as its leader; you've got two badass spies. One is an African American man, and the other is a mulatto woman who's later revealed to be a lesbian. The expansion revolves around the plight of an Asian American woman who is like a god-tier hacker, and the "big bad" is very much a white guy. He wasn't convinced it was, as he hadn't got far through Phantom Liberty yet, and I was quick to say it might be true if the characters didn't have depth. If CD Projekt Red didn't make them characters with flaws and strengths, that'd be the case. One thing I think Phantom Liberty did exceedingly well in the base game is to show characters who and what they are and allow the player to make up their own minds about them. This is a philosophy I try to adhere to in my writing. I think a great example of this in writing form is the Eisenhorn trilogy, especially at the end. Has he gone off the deep end and become a full-on heretic? Or is he a pragmatic man backed into a corner? So forced to use extreme methods, but still loyal? It's up to your interpretation.

Anyway, I digress; the "woke" thing is also negated by the fact you have enemies such as The Voodoo Boys, who are entirely black, and they continue to be antagonists through Phantom Liberty, much more than the base game. Another thing that also prevents this is Johnny Silverhand is still there, and he isn't demeaned or anything like that. The world of Cyberpunk, especially Night City, also makes perfect sense to be incredibly diverse, all the people migrating there to "make it big", and by that time in the future, it makes sense the city is full of different people of many skin tones, cultures, etc. The thing it does well in the base game is that it shows people of all walks of life and melanin levels as being all over the moral spectrum. One of the worst characters is a white woman you are tasked to assassinate after she tortures and experiments on other human beings. Another is one of the most out-of-touch people who ran over a child and thought she could get away with it due to her insurance, and she so happens to be black. Then you have Dexter Deshawn, who is one of the scummiest characters, and he's black. Then you have the cool hacker dude who works for Rogue and the other black dude, Solo; both are characters I liked, anyway. Then you have T-Bug, who I quite liked despite her being a bit prickly at first.

You also get an excellent transgender character who has her own arc during her quest line because she's got character. She also isn't completely defined by being transgender.

Rogue Trader is also diverse. You have a party made up of 50/50 males and females. You have a black woman who happens to be a psyker and who has...an interesting perspective of the Imperium of Mankind. She also has an arc. Then you have a...distinctly Middle Eastern? Woman, she's quite interested in being part of the underworld.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed my Ted Talk, lol.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Why Wall Street supported first commies,and then Hitler? and,after WW2,commies again ?

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[ATP]

What the hell are you talking about?

Wall Street send Trocky to Russia,and he win revolution there,not Lenin send by germans.Later they supported soviets,but before WW2 also Hitler - german get patent for making fuel from them.
After WW2 they supported soviets again.

When both soviets and Hitler would kill them,if they take over USA.

Why? becouse Wall Street knew,that soviets and Hitler never would conqer USA - so they supported them to destroy rest of the world.

Now,corpo are doing the same,only in USA,too - they want enslave people not only in world,but also in USA.
Becouse they belive,that they would get their beloved "world goverment" that way.

Some normal dudes,like me,could be simply stupid.If i belive in woke shit,it would mean only that i am idiot.

But,if Corpo leaders support such thing,they did it becouse they want enslave us,not becouse they are stupid enough to belive in woke shit.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

...I want whatever this guy is on.

 

[Aldarion]

...I want whatever this guy is on.

Well, he is not wrong about the corporations...

 

[Terthna]

That is literally his argument, yes. To quote Leon Kass:

It's the sort of argument that arises from the faulty assumption (which a lot of intellectuals sadly make) that everyone has, or should have, exactly the same value system as you do.

 

[Poe]

...I want whatever this guy is on.

ATP some has batshit takes, this isn't one of them. US Plutocrats have been the builders and funders of every single one of our great rivals for the past century at least, Nazi's, Soviets, hell they just did it again with China.

 

[King Arts]

es. And that's a problem, not something that can be glossed over. I would need a better definition of a human in such a case. Now colloquially, you can use this definition to give a rough idea of something, but if this definition seeks to explain why something is or isn't moral, then it 100% needs to be a definition you can't poke holes in. Your definition fails because of this.

In general, moral rules have to be consistent. If X is bad because X is Y, then if Z also is Y, Z also needs to be bad, or you need a load of reasoning. This can't just handwaved away.

In short: Your argument was "Beastiality is bad because they can't have kids". This having bad implications means your argument needs fixing.

I was arguing based on natural law ignoring any religious reasons. The reason why we beings mate is because it feels good, it feels good to incentivise life forms to do it and pass on their seed/offspring.
The point of marriage is a union for the parents to raise children together so there is a better chance for offspring to live. It also functions as a union of two separate families to encourage clan and village growth and the growth of society.

The definition comes from that, infertile women are not relavent. They are still women, they are just disabled, disabled are not included in the definition of a group, if it was possible to make the infertile fertile and cure them then it would be great to do so.

Yes, that would be morally okay. That's an actual person (not human, but a rational person). Personally, I'd think it was kinda gross, but it doesn't warrant arresting them.

I completely disagree again it's a disorder the point of reproduction is to pass on you genes your DNA. She may be a person but that's not relavent. Again you thinking it's gross as well as most other people is proof that it is wrong.

Nope, the reverse. If the person is really so dumb they can't consent (think a severely mentally disabled person, I'm not sure if the person in the movie qualifies), we call sex with them rape even if they say yes. It's illegal because of this. Note, though, it would be rape, not beastiality, but the reasoning would be the same: inability to consent.

Consent explains nearly all sexual rules: Why can't you have sex with a child? They can't consent. Why can't you have sex with a severely mentally disabled adult? Can't consent. Why can't you rape people? No consent. Why no bestiality? Can't consent.

Nope under that logic animals when they mate are raping each other and we should stop them just like we do to children. Consent has little to do with why pedos are evil. It's evil because it's damaging the child they could die, or be infertile since they can't carry a child to term, hell they might not even be developed enough to have intercourse without horrible damage. Again naturalism is what I'm arguing for what is good for the species and how it acts in nature not high minded liberal "rights of man"

I mean look at planet of the Apes. Let's say that disease that deevolved humans only worked for one gender, would you think humanity should stop reproducing and just take a monkey lover? At this point your enlightenment ideology about rights, equality, and consent between equal partners has just become an anti human and anti life ideology like communism.

This is actually quite a multi-faceted issue.

• It's bad to fuck aliens/anthromorphic animals because they're not human.
  • What is "human?" Can a non-human possess something akin to humanity, or is personhood located strictly in the body itself? Is there such a thing as a form of undifferentiated personhood separate from the human body? What if I were to upload my mind into the body of a different species? Would I still be a human person on the inside, or an intrinsically different kind of person?
    • This also, naturally segues into a much deeper and thornier argument about what a person is, what identity is, whether or not non-humans can even be treated as persons or acquire personhood, or possess a form of personhood that is in any way comprehensible to us, and so on.
• It's bad to fuck aliens/anthropomorphic animals because they have a different body plan from humans, which makes them something more akin to animals, regardless of intelligence.
  • This argument would also necessarily apply to people with extreme birth defects that alter their body plan, like Myrtle Corbin, who was born with four legs, two pelvises, two sets of functioning genitals, and so on.
• It's bad to fuck aliens/anthropomorphic animals because you can't reproduce with them.
  • Well, neither can infertile people or gay people, technically.

Don't quote Torchwood. It's hyper liberal.
Anyway a human can be defined a few ways mostly based on how it's DNA is sequenced. But to make it simple I'd say any being that can reproduce with other humans as we are now and have been the past thousand years is a human.
If you change your body drastically then you are no longer human but some AI abomination. If you are another species then you now are that species and not human.

I agree with the second one. I looked up this Myrtle girl, apparently she could have children. She had a horrible mutation but again she can have kids with humans so I'd say human.

As for the infertile thing that was already discussed above, when someone mates with an infertile person they aren't doing so knowingly on purpose(even if you know they are infertile, your eyes and other senses can't tell that the person is "damaged" so a human animal will just go for it. After all there are animals that could have that disease that affects fertility and they won't act differently. You can't tell someone is infertile unless you use medical tests. Or it's obvious like castration.

As for gay unions yes under a naturalistic argument it's wrong.

Transhumanists have a concept called "morphological freedom", where they believe that humans should be able to alter ourselves into whatever, up to and including fragmenting ourselves into completely different subspecies. Anders Sandberg wrote a long essay on it (which is unfortunately paywalled):

I disagree with transhumanism I support humanity as it has been the past 10,000 years and more. Anything that threatens that should be wiped out.

This is kind of a monism versus dualism thing. It really boils down to whether or not you perceive a person as their body, or as a disembodied, sexless, identity-less mind that's just using a body as a type of vehicle.

This same ontological debate is the same thing that underpins transgenderism and the bioconservative backlash against it. These are two separate and irreconcilable ontological stances. One holds that you inhabit your body and that your identity is whatever you decide it is, internally. The other holds that you are your body and your identity is decided by how you are perceived by others, and so on.

Of course, there are a lot of inconsistencies with the woke stance. For instance, if being transgender is okay, then why can't people be transracial? Why can't I wake up one day and decide that I'm black?

You'll hear a lot of nonsensical, incongruent arguments against this:

I don't really care about how a person feels on the inside. Such questions are pointless for society. That is something that a person should only share with themselves, family, and close friends. However you should obey the social mores of where you are. So if you are a male you should act as such socially if society sees you as such(even if you don't "feel like a man" whatever that means) Same for women we have physical bodies and that's how we interact with society, I believe in a soul and am not a mateialist. But I don't know if a soul has a "gender" so it does not matter sure maybe men's and women's souls are the same and there is no disntiction. But our physical bodies are and our society lives in the material so deal with it.

Disgust?! What kind of psycho wants to base a moral system around what disgusts us?

I'm disgusted by 99% of medicines. So is medication unethical? What an idiot.

Yes we base it off disgust because that hind brain has that reaction for a reason. We do this even if Germanic pseudo robot wannabees pretend otherwise. Let's look at incest(brother sister pairings of equal age so there is no unequal power balance) it's illegal. The argument against it is that it can lead to increased chance of hereditary disease and that is true. But also it's not like every pairing will have that happen, and we also don't prevent OTHER pairings with increase chance of inferior genes being propagated.

That is eugenics and current society doesn't like that. Even though we do perform eugenics people always try to go for the best mate they can that is eugenics it's natural selection in action.

It's the sort of argument that arises from the faulty assumption (which a lot of intellectuals sadly make) that everyone has, or should have, exactly the same value system as you do.

I mean most things that cause disgust are universal eating poop for instance. It's very rare.

There are universals(a Christian will say it's the law of God written on the hearts of man) a biologist will say that these are things that are universally disadvantageous to human life. But you have to separate the universal morals from cultural ones. Many things people claim are universally reviled are only because of cultural socialization.