https://gofile.io/d/U8BxsO

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003600)

That’s the whole movie

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003612)

2nd scene: tranny Ellen page pretending to be a man

3rd scene: woman spewing feminist platitudes

This is a parody of shitliberalism

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003782)

the viewers reviews are more interesting to me, so we'll see. i was willing to give Nolan a chance given his other films. i hoap this is a good one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003683)

You are goycattle

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003827)

Wtf is with this board these days?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003786)

https://x.com/soylennial/status/2077536019109573016

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003644)

then imagine being dumb enough to not notice the badge and think this is the actual trailer, sucking down low effort sloppoasting

mmmmm mmm 😋

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003658)

Nonetheless, as humans, the current crop of corrosive STARPOWER motherfuckers are infinitely more revolting than digitally programmed influence vectors

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003676)

Date: July 16th, 2026 9:44 AM

Author: computer online (🧐)

imagine being so low effort you just do it straight in grok so the "Made with AI" badge ruins the joke

then imagine being dumb enough to not notice the badge and think this is the actual trailer, sucking down low effort sloppoasting

mmmmm mmm 😋

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2#50003658

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003798)

He quickly turned into birdshit M Night Shyamalan.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003802)

I don’t like any of his shit. Also his monochrome cinematography is garbage

With that said he has a weird Retard Attraction where peopl generally love to watch and debate his shit, look no further than this board and this post and even my reply here

I know I’ve made this exact point multiple times before in other Retard Nolan threads

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003805)

Dunkirk is the shittiest movie ever only after Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Dude sucks ass since Inception which was a legit 180 movie until he ruined the reveal/ending with faggotry

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003880)

https://x.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/2077459147218465177

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003835)

Anyway, you can watch the first 5 minutes above in animeboi's link before giving these kikes money for this trash. The Trojan horse is changed from a votive offering to a gift, the tranny character is shoehorned into the story when the role of Sinon in the original is totally different, Oddysseys's wife is a feminazi, etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003848)

Couldn't they at least find a big tranny instead of the twink?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003968)

is achilles supposed to be a little woman who is presenting as a man... in the universe of the iliad story, told in the universe of the odyssey story?

like when the black rapper starts telling the iliad to the suitors, he is narrating achilles and we "see" the story he tells. what we see is literally a bio-girl, 5'1, beardless, scrawny, in male armor in a war of swords and arrows.

is the black rapper reconteur telling it that way? is he describing achilles as a person born with a pussy, weighing 114 lbs?

or is he just describing a man? if so, why are we seeing a twerp born with a vagina? this is entirely outside of whether transexuality exists, etc... Im just trying to make sense of the story I am being told

like, what the fuck is going on here?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003871)

I'm honestly just very confused and don't even understand what the hell they are trying to do. Like I'm ready to judge it as "woke" garbage but until I even understand wtf is going on I feel like I should reserve judgment

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003885)

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2#50003878

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003903)

- does author 1 (nolan) intend us to trust him? or do we approach his text recognizing he / it are lying to us, and our reading is metafictional, where author 1 is telling us a different story via the acknowledged lie / false story?

- within author 1's story, we find author 2 (black rapper) telling a story, the iliad. We "see" his telling, and what we see is something shocking, a little girl presenting as a glorious male soldier. Is he telling that? We dont get to hear his words. Do his words differ from what we see? Then has author 1 reappeared in the gap to lie to us? Or is author 2 telling the story of a bio-girl presenting as a man?

- hoving around all is author 3, homer. We know his story, and have known it for millennia, as author 1 is well aware. Author 3 most certainly does NOT present achilles as a former-girl.

Is all of this resolved by making the leap that there is no such thing as a former-girl? Page is, and always was, a MAN in the same way Brad Pitt is? That's the lib resolution of all of the above conflict. If that is Nolan's resolution, then indeed, he can be erased from consideration as an artist completely and simply be a propagandist. That's kind of sad and I would like to believe it is not so.

But the questions above demand answers. Yo Chris! Your art is visual, i.e. we consume it with our eyes. But our eyes, as you know, see a former-girl. If you ask us to disbelieve our eyes, what are we left to look with?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003933)

That’s a deep and neatly framed question. You’re asking whether a certain metaphysical move—denying that there ever was a “former-girl,” and asserting that Elliot Page was always a man in exactly the same sense Brad Pitt is—dissolves all the puzzles about counterfactuals, personal identity, and the “trans issue.” The short answer is: it resolves a specific cluster of problems, but only if you accept a particular view of gender identity, and it doesn’t make *all* philosophical tension disappear. Let me unpack that.

### 1. What would the “leap” actually mean?

The claim “there is no such thing as a former-girl; Elliot Page is, and always was, a man in the same way Brad Pitt is” is a strong essentialist thesis about gender identity. It says:

- Gender identity (being a man, being a woman) is an intrinsic, immutable property of a person, not a social role, a performance, or a physical configuration.

- What changes over time is only the *recognition* and *expression* of that identity, not the identity itself.

- Therefore, statements like “Elliot Page used to be a girl” are simply false. The correct description is something like “Elliot Page was always a boy/man who was mistakenly assigned female at birth and compelled to present in a way that society read as ‘girl’.”

Under this view, “former-girl” is a category error, much like “former human” would be if someone were misidentified as a Martian for years.

### 2. How this handles counterfactuals and personal identity

If you adopt this essentialist picture, many counterfactual puzzles indeed dissolve:

- **Counterfactual: “If Elliot Page had never come out as trans, he would still be a woman.”**

On the essentialist view, this is false. The truth is: “He would still be a man, just one who was never socially recognized as such and who might never have realised it himself.” The gender identity is a hidden fact about him, not dependent on social transition.

- **Counterfactual: “If Elliot Page had been born in a society with entirely different gender categories, would he still be a man?”**

The essentialist can answer: “Yes, because his manhood is an intrinsic property, not defined by local social constructs.” This preserves a stable object of counterfactual reasoning.

- **Personal identity over time:** The worry that transition challenges the continuity of the self is sidestepped. The person is the same continuous self throughout; only their outward gender presentation and social role change. Psychological connectedness and narrative identity remain intact; there’s no “death of the old self” required, only a correction of a misdescription.

In short, if you treat gender identity the way many philosophers treat biological sex (as an objective, intrinsic feature, albeit one not always perfectly correlated with chromosomes or anatomy), then the trans experience becomes a story of discovery and alignment, not of *becoming* a different gender. This is a very clean philosophical picture, and it is the one many trans people themselves affirm when they say “I’ve always been a boy/girl.”

### 3. Does this resolve *all* of it?

It resolves a lot *within that metaphysical framework*. But the “leap” itself is a substantive philosophical commitment that not everyone shares, and it leaves some other puzzles untouched. Here’s what remains:

**a) The metaphysical price of essentialism**

You have to accept that “man” and “woman” refer to something like a gendered soul or an innate psychological essence that is independent of both biology and social recognition. This is a strong claim that needs defending against both biological determinists (who tie gender to sex assigned at birth) and social constructivists (who see gender as constituted by social position and performance). The essentialist view isn’t obviously *wrong*, but it’s a contested position, not a neutral resolution.

**b) Reference and semantics**

Even if you take the essentialist leap, there are still semantic puzzles. Take the sentence “Ellen Page was nominated for an Oscar in 2008.” If “Elliot Page” refers to the same person, and that person was always a man, then the name “Ellen” was a name used under a false description. We can accommodate that—we often refer to past stages of a person with corrected terms (e.g., “When Elliot was presenting as Ellen…”). But this requires a theory of how names and gender terms work across time. Do we retrospectively correct all past statements? Most people do that out of respect, but it is a linguistic choice built on the essentialist picture, not a logical consequence forced on everyone by the facts alone.

**c) The body and material counterfactuals**

Essentialism about gender identity doesn’t erase the physical body’s history. Counterfactuals like “If Elliot Page had never taken testosterone, he would not have a deep voice” remain true. The term “former-girl” is often used as a sloppy proxy for “person who once had a body typically associated with females and was socialized as a girl.” The essentialist wants to sever that link: having that kind of body never made you a girl. That’s a coherent move, but it means you now owe an account of what “girl” *does* mean if not that. The essentialist says it means “having the intrinsic gender identity: woman.” That’s clean, but it redefines the word for many people, which is why the public debate continues.

**d) The epistemological gap**

If manhood is an intrinsic, immutable property, how does one know it? Brad Pitt doesn’t need to introspect to know he’s a man; his social alignment and body line up. In the essentialist trans narrative, the evidence is an inner feeling of “rightness” or “wrongness” about one’s assigned gender. This makes gender identity a privately accessible fact, which raises epistemological questions about error, self-deception, and how we verify someone’s “true” gender. The leap doesn’t resolve those; it just relocates the problem from metaphysics to epistemology.

**e) The “same way as Brad Pitt” part**

The phrase “in the same way Brad Pitt is” might oversimplify. Brad Pitt is a cisgender man: his manhood was never contested, his body never caused social misgendering, and he didn’t undergo a process of transition. The sense in which he “always was a man” includes seamless alignment with his sex assigned at birth. The essentialist says the *gender identity* is the same kind of thing in both cases, but the *total life experience* of being a man is radically different. So while the metaphysical status (“is a man”) may be identical, the counterfactual histories are not. That’s fine philosophically, but it means “the same way” needs careful qualification.

### 4. So, is the “trans issue” resolved by that leap?

If by “the trans issue” you mean the specific metaphysical puzzle of how someone can change gender while remaining the same person, then **yes**, the essentialist leap dissolves that puzzle entirely: they don’t change gender; they only change presentation. Personal identity is untouched.

If by “the trans issue” you mean the broader social, ethical, and linguistic debates about trans identities, then **no**, because not everyone accepts the essentialist metaphysics, and the leap doesn’t compel agreement from those who hold a different view of what gender is. It offers a coherent, respectful, and internally stable framework—one that aligns with the lived experience of many trans people. But it’s a *resolution-for-those-who-accept-the-premises*, not a universal logical knockout.

In philosophical terms, you’re describing a form of **gender identity essentialism** that treats transness as a matter of discovering a pre-existing, immutable self. It elegantly handles the counterfactuals you asked about. The remaining friction isn’t about logic; it’s about whether that metaphysics of gender is the right one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5883180&forum_id=2],#50003956)