Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gender & Sexuality

401 replies to this topic
Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#241

Posted 12 December 2016 - 06:42 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 12 December 2016 - 06:50 PM.

It's a scientific article. I don't have to quote it verbatim. You can do that if you want to. What the article says is that there is substantial evidence that what I'm concluding from it is accurate. Now you can conclude whatever you want from it. I really don't care.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#242

Posted 12 December 2016 - 07:32 PM

No, what you're concluding from it isn't accurate. You've grossly misinterpreted the actual findings and I'm fully astonished that someone who is normally fairly astute towards the impact of semantic differences is having such a difficult time grasping this.
  • Tchuck, mr quick, Eris and 1 other like this

Twang.
  • Twang.

    F U L L Y A U T O M A T E D

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2005
  • None

#243

Posted 13 December 2016 - 05:14 PM

In my experience, the type of toys children play with depends mostly on what type of toys you give them.

  • El Diablo, Tchuck, mr quick and 1 other like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#244

Posted 27 December 2016 - 12:19 AM

 

Yep feminism is just a bourgeois plot to keep the working man down. How could we be so blind?

 

But my actual point was that the mainstream media doesn't push narratives of social justice or progress to make social justice or progress, but generally highlights the most emotional, irrational and divisive narratives, to keep people resentful and passive. In the US over 90% of all media are owned by 6 companies, and those who own those companies don't want people to be even slightly informed.

 

But my actual point was that the mainstream media doesn't push narratives of social justice or progress to make social justice or progress, but generally highlights the most emotional, irrational and divisive narratives, to keep people resentful and passive. In the US over 90% of all media are owned by 6 companies, and those who own those companies don't want people to be even slightly informed.

Actually they are just incredibly moderate. The 'feminism' that is offered in the mainstream media, is incredibly moderate, incredibly soft on men. Patriarchy as well as white supremacy (and 'income inequality') are treated as disembodied happenstance rather than a system of power maintained by an oppressor class.

Getting back to this, take a look at how ABC, a giant media corporation owned by Disney, an ever bigger media corporation, is going to make a television special of pretty much Social Justice Warrior the movie,



where white men and cops are all nazi's and conspire to oppress trannies and black people, and SJW's have to practically burn everything down to eliminate the tyranny, starring Whoopi Goldberg.. And conclude with me that my argument was really 100% spot on accurate, and that the media is really not as moderate as you claim it is anymore (what you are thinking the media is like is what the media was like years ago), but really radical and divisive, and not with the intent to enact genuine social change and improvement obviously, but to stir up hatred and resentment. And also in this context try to reconsider what I said about BLM and how that movement is manipulated and turned into a hate movement by msm elitists, and how this is true. All of this is very sad, because if lower class African Americans would organize themselves on a rational basis (which I assume, some already do, but too many don't) they could improve America incredibly.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#245

Posted 27 December 2016 - 09:50 AM

And conclude with me that my argument was really 100% spot on accurate


Anyone who cherry picks a single example and claims it proves a trend and therefore an argument opens themselves up to ridicule. This really is a red flag issue for you apparently; any contribution you seem to make on the subject descends into fallacy and farce.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#246

Posted 08 January 2017 - 09:50 AM

I'm not saying that biological factors don't influence social and cultural identity, just that gender roles are fundamentally social and cultural constructs. As for your "infant society" question, without the indoctrination of societal gender identities and with no external I don't think you'd see a replication of current social identities.

I don't think it's constructive to conflate gender roles and gender identity. Former are definitely a social construct. But that doesn't imply that the later is as well. Where would you put courting behaviors, for example? They are clearly not social constructs, but at the same time, while strongly correlated with sex, you can have a mismatch between them.

I would not insist that if we started from scratch we'd end up with the same gender identities. Indeed, we know that gender identities can be quite different in different cultures. But I would argue that there is certainly a biological factor that plays into development of these identities in society as well as formation of individual's identity. That like sex, there is a component to it that's purely biological.
  • Mister Pink likes this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#247

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:48 AM Edited by Melchior, 10 January 2017 - 03:48 AM.

 

I'm not saying that biological factors don't influence social and cultural identity, just that gender roles are fundamentally social and cultural constructs. As for your "infant society" question, without the indoctrination of societal gender identities and with no external I don't think you'd see a replication of current social identities.

I don't think it's constructive to conflate gender roles and gender identity. Former are definitely a social construct. But that doesn't imply that the later is as well. Where would you put courting behaviors, for example? They are clearly not social constructs, but at the same time, while strongly correlated with sex, you can have a mismatch between them.

I would not insist that if we started from scratch we'd end up with the same gender identities. Indeed, we know that gender identities can be quite different in different cultures. But I would argue that there is certainly a biological factor that plays into development of these identities in society as well as formation of individual's identity. That like sex, there is a component to it that's purely biological.

 

Perhaps you can outline what the actual difference is between gender roles sex roles and 'gender identity'? 


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#248

Posted 12 January 2017 - 08:26 AM

In a nutshell, gender roles are externally assigned an enforced. Gender identity is self-assigned. And yes, gender identity can be strongly influenced by existing gender roles, which can be viewed as a negative, but they don't have to be.

For example, dress code requiring women to wear skirts is gender role. If I was to decide to wear a skirt to feel more feminine, that's part of identity. Influenced by a somewhat archaic and unnecessary gender role. In contrast, to stick with clothing, what I actually end up wearing is slightly baggy jeans. This is purely a convenience choice to accommodate my male anatomy. This would provide no such benefit to someone with female anatomy, yet might still be a way for someone to express their male identity regardless.

At the end of the day, any identity is a way to incorporate self into a social group. Note, not society, but much more primal group of individuals we associate self with. Thus has to do with how humans, and most higher animals, learn behaviors. From childhood, we find individuals to mimic. Usually, most similar to ourselves. Indeed, if you are an animal in the wild, you want to learn to hunt or hide from predators based on behaviors of your species. Often your own sex. These instincts are still there. We look for role models that look like us. Usually, that involves matching race and gender. And we learn to copy their clothing styles, their intonations, and so on.

The crazy part is how deeply ingrained this behavior is. If we do somehow manage to get rid of socially enforced gender roles and stereotypes, all this means is how much refined our ability to discriminate the little things will become. Even if we get rid of roles, gender identity will remain a factor. And some people will continue to identify with gender associated with opposite sex.
  • Mister Pink and The7thOne like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#249

Posted 12 January 2017 - 12:06 PM

'Gender identity' is just postmodern dogma tbh. I've never seen a defense of the concept that didn't rely on the idea that women are naturally submissive and glittery and that men are naturally stern and dominant. What is a 'male identity'? You're a man if you have a dick, it has nothing to do with denim. Gendered clothing is just blatantly an example of a sex role. 'Gender' refers to a labour hierarchy premised on sexual dimorphism, 'gender roles' is a tautology. 

 

I don't think you really agree with queer theory anyway. If you had a son that liked to play with barbie dolls and they were like "he's actually a girl we'll block his hormonal development before he gets all testosterony" would you be having that? 

 

 

 

And some people will continue to identify with gender associated with opposite sex.

Why? As far as I can see transgenderism (what you're describing) is a dubious, not at all universal medical practise. 


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#250

Posted 12 January 2017 - 08:43 PM

'Gender identity' is just postmodern dogma tbh. I've never seen a defense of the concept that didn't rely on the idea that women are naturally submissive and glittery and that men are naturally stern and dominant. What is a 'male identity'? You're a man if you have a dick, it has nothing to do with denim. Gendered clothing is just blatantly an example of a sex role. 'Gender' refers to a labour hierarchy premised on sexual dimorphism, 'gender roles' is a tautology. 

 

In other words, people who exhibit stereotypical masculine and feminine behaviour do so because of indoctrination by society, and not because of innate tendencies. Stereotypically feminine women have an internalized self hatred and stereotypical men have internalized oppressive and exploitative tendencies. Therefore, we should coerce both of these groups to change their ways towards more androgynous norms. This is what you believe right?
 

 

If you had a son that liked to play with barbie dolls and they were like "he's actually a girl we'll block his hormonal development before he gets all testosterony" would you be having that? 

"According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty." https://www.acpeds.o...-harms-children


Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#251

Posted 13 January 2017 - 12:34 AM Edited by Melchior, 13 January 2017 - 12:38 AM.

 

'Gender identity' is just postmodern dogma tbh. I've never seen a defense of the concept that didn't rely on the idea that women are naturally submissive and glittery and that men are naturally stern and dominant. What is a 'male identity'? You're a man if you have a dick, it has nothing to do with denim. Gendered clothing is just blatantly an example of a sex role. 'Gender' refers to a labour hierarchy premised on sexual dimorphism, 'gender roles' is a tautology. 

 

In other words, people who exhibit stereotypical masculine and feminine behaviour do so because of indoctrination by society, and not because of innate tendencies. Stereotypically feminine women have an internalized self hatred and stereotypical men have internalized oppressive and exploitative tendencies. Therefore, we should coerce both of these groups to change their ways towards more androgynous norms. This is what you believe right?

Like I said, gender is a labour hierarchy. We should construct social life so that emotional and domestic labour are equally shared between men and women and so that sex is always mutually desired and mutually enjoyable. I don't know where 'coercion' comes in. If its coercive to tell men to learn to be competent caregivers, why isn't it coercive to do the same to women? 

 

The specific example I was responding to was baggy clothing. Baggy clothing is thought of as masculine because it is sexually unflattering and moderately subversive. Women are fulfilling a role by wearing tighter, more complex and less convenient clothing. 

 

 

 

"According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty."

And a majority of them are gay, but these days it is apparently violence to even suggest that we shouldn't transition children. 


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#252

Posted 13 January 2017 - 01:12 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 13 January 2017 - 01:20 AM.

Like I said, gender is a labour hierarchy. We should construct social life so that emotional and domestic labour are equally shared between men and women and so that sex is always mutually desired and mutually enjoyable. I don't know where 'coercion' comes in. 

Coercion comes in when you want to 'construct' social life in a way to manufacture equality of outcome and androgyny, like you think we should do. You think you are being more inclusive, even though you consider stereotypical male behaviour 'toxic', and stereotypical female behaviour 'oppressed', which is actually a very intolerant world view.
 

If its coercive to tell men to learn to be competent caregivers, why isn't it coercive to do the same to women?

Nobody is coercing women to be caregivers in modern Western society. They choose it themselves. It could be coercive to learn men to be competent caregivers in the case that you coerce them to learn it. So that depends. I'd actually agree with you that for men it can be good to develop their feminine side, but they should do so out of free will.
 

Women are fulfilling a role by wearing tighter, more complex and less convenient clothing.

Or maybe they are expressing their innate femininity in a way that is culturally appropriate out of free will and as a way of self expression, as opposed to the idea that they are burdened by an evil patriarchal plot intended to subjugate them. Heterosexual men don't even have any influence on women fashion at all actually. Homosexuals and women themselves set the norms.
 

but these days it is apparently violence to even suggest that we shouldn't transition children.

http://www.theatlant...t-creep/477939/
http://www.theatlant...an-mind/399356/

  • Mister Pink likes this

omgz153
  • omgz153

    Vincit qui se vincit

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2007
  • Poland

#253

Posted 13 January 2017 - 02:06 AM Edited by omgz153, 13 January 2017 - 02:08 AM.

 

 

Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences.

 

 

During his professional life, Money was respected as an expert on sexual behavior, especially for allegedly demonstrating that gender was learned rather than innate. Many years later, however, it was revealed that his most famous case was fundamentally flawed. The subject was the sex reassignment of David Reimer (Born as Bruce Reimer), in what later became known as the "John/Joan" case.

 

In 1966, a botched circumcision left eight-month-old David Reimer without a penis. Money persuaded the baby's parents that sex reassignment surgery would be in Reimer's best interest. At the age of 22 months, Bruce underwent an orchidectomy, in which his testicles were surgically removed. He was reassigned to be raised as female and given the name Brenda. Money further recommended hormone treatment to which the parents agreed, Money then recommended a surgical procedure to create an artificial vagina, which the parents refused. Money published a number of papers reporting the reassignment as successful.

 

In 2000, David and his twin brother (Brian) alleged that Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements", with David playing the bottom role. He said as a child, Money forced him go "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks", and that Money forced David to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections". On at "least one occasion", Money reportedly took photographs of the two children doing these activities. Money's rationale for these various treatments was his belief that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity".

 

Reimer had experienced the visits to Baltimore as traumatic, and when Money started pressuring the family to bring him in for surgery during which a vagina would be constructed, the family discontinued the follow-up visits. From 22 months into his teenaged years, Reimer urinated through a hole that surgeons had placed in the abdomen. Estrogen was given during adolescence to induce breast development. Having no contact with the family once the visits were discontinued, John Money published nothing further about the case.

 

For several years, Money reported on Reimer's progress as the "John/Joan case", describing apparently successful female gender development and using this case to support the feasibility of sex reassignment and surgical reconstruction even in non-intersex cases. Money wrote, "The child's behavior is so clearly that of an active little girl and so different from the boyish ways of her twin brother." Notes by a former student at Money's lab state that, during the follow-up visits, which occurred only once a year, Reimer's parents routinely lied to lab staff about the success of the procedure. The twin brother, Brian, later developed schizophrenia.

On July 1, 2002, Brian was found dead from an overdose of antidepressants. On May 5, 2004, after suffering years of severe depression, financial instability, and marital troubles, David committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a sawed-off shotgun at the age of 38. Reimer's parents have stated that Money's methodology was responsible for the deaths of both of their sons.

 

Money claimed that media response to the exposé was due to right-wing media bias and "the antifeminist movement". He claimed his detractors believed "masculinity and femininity are built into the genes so women should get back to the mattress and the kitchen". However, intersex activists also criticized Money, stating that the unreported failure had led to the surgical reassignment of thousands of infants as a matter of policy. Privately, Money was mortified by the case, colleagues said, and as a rule did not discuss it. Money's own views also developed and changed over the years.

 

I suggest anyone who is interested in this topic read about John Money, the man who coined the term gender. 


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#254

Posted 13 January 2017 - 09:55 AM

And a majority of them are gay, but these days it is apparently violence to even suggest that we shouldn't transition children.

You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by "transition". This ambiguity is the reason for polarization in the first place. Any sane person who has even rudimentary understanding of puberty will tell you that putting a child through hormone therapy, let alone surgery, prior to them putting puberty well behind them is idiocy. And yes, there are people out there that think otherwise. They are the same kind of lunatics as the folk who don't want their children immunized.

On the other hand, there is zero reason to try and force children into gender-specific patterns. If a child happens to want to identify as a different gender than assigned to them, there is zero harm in allowing it. Enough people out there will call that transitioning to cause violent disagreement with people who don't. Yes, majority of these cases are going to be gender-confusion and will resolve themselves. Trying to force it will not help a gender-confused child, and will potentially cause long-term problems for anyone who actually transitions later in life.

The bottom line is that the only identity a person has is identity they assign to themselves. There is never a reason to accuse the person of lying or being confused. It doesn't matter if the person claiming an identity does so because that's really the only way they can see themselves as part of society, or if it's a passing quirk. Whether it's somehow innate to their biology or a simple choice. That goes for adult or child. If an individual elects to wear certain kind of clothing or asks to be addressed by a specific pronoun, it's a simple enough matter to grant them that regardless of who they are. Further, if a competent, mature adult elects to take hormones or undergo a body modification, it's their business.

We are way more tolerant of people's religion, for crying out loud, belief that there are people in the sky who have nothing better to do than tell you what to eat and who to f*ck. Something that has absolutely zero support from any kind of evidence or reliable record, and yet we are perfectly happy to let these people gather in their decorated houses and pretend to talk to their imaginary person of choice.

Can you just imagine walking up to someone and telling them, "I'm sorry, sir. This is a Mosque. You were born in America, so you are a Christian. We don't care that you 'Converted.' Please go to a Church where you belong."

And yet we can't force ourselves to allow even such courtesy to people who identify as a different gender. Something for which there is at least some psychological basis. This is beyond pathetic. And for anyone who thinks that gender is just a social construct that should be dismantled, go dismantle religion first. It's far more harmful, absolutely one hundred percent a social construct, and we'd be way better without it. Except, of course, that actually trying to force religion on anyone is known to backfire really badly and cause even more problems. But if you're so stubborn that you can't understand these things, I'd much rather see you throw yourself under that train and leave transgender people alone.
  • The7thOne and DarkSavageDeathlyCloud like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#255

Posted 14 January 2017 - 05:55 AM

 

Like I said, gender is a labour hierarchy. We should construct social life so that emotional and domestic labour are equally shared between men and women and so that sex is always mutually desired and mutually enjoyable. I don't know where 'coercion' comes in. 

Coercion comes in when you want to 'construct' social life in a way to manufacture equality of outcome and androgyny, like you think we should do.

I have no idea what 'equality of outcome' has to do with anything. All socialists believe in equality of outcome.

 

As for coercively manufacturing social conditions: not all calls for change are proposals for the temporary gulaging and reeducation of the entire population. In fact, none of them are. That's just the only way you can imagine our inherent pink and blue souls not manifesting their True Nature. 

 

 

 

You think you are being more inclusive, even though you consider stereotypical male behaviour 'toxic', and stereotypical female behaviour 'oppressed', which is actually a very intolerant world view.

You're right, I am intolerant of peoples' behaviour and wish to change it using policy, education, social pressure and cultural refocus. We call this 'politics' usually. I have no idea where you heard the word 'inclusive' but it wasn't from me. 

 

 

 

Nobody is coercing women to be caregivers in modern Western society. They choose it themselves.

Funny how women's 'choice' manifests itself invisibly and organically. And how this 'choice' is equally women's action, and men's inaction. Also wonder why someone would choose to do more total labour than their partner in the first place. 

 

 

 

It could be coercive to learn men to be competent caregivers in the case that you coerce them to learn it. So that depends. I'd actually agree with you that for men it can be good to develop their feminine side, but they should do so out of free will.

'Develop your feminine side' is something you hear in a psuedo-spiritual self-help book. Fitting, because it is a religious concept (my soul is blue but has purple patches). Child rearing and emotional labour are not abstract things men can explore at out leisure, they are forms of labour (natch) that need to be done no matter how you feel about them. If men don't do them, women are stuck with them. It is that simple. 

 

 

 

Or maybe they are expressing their innate femininity in a way that is culturally appropriate out of free will and as a way of self expression, as opposed to the idea that they are burdened by an evil patriarchal plot intended to subjugate them. Heterosexual men don't even have any influence on women fashion at all actually. Homosexuals and women themselves set the norms.

I have no idea how gay men set fashion norms for women. Or how women set them for that matter: they're set by corporate, market concerns informed by organic cultural output. 

 

I don't see what is 'innately feminine' about complex fashion. Or about any specific styles. 

 

 

 

http://www.theatlant...t-creep/477939/
http://www.theatlant...an-mind/399356/

Most of it is just performance politics, honestly. I don't think anyone is genuinely happy to see TW: couch like "woah luckily I didn't have to hear any further mentions of couch after I was nearly crushed by that falling couch." 

 

Since taking an anti-SJW stance I have been accused of harassment and abuse countless times. It is harassment if someone starts a debate with you, and you don't let them win. It is 'tone policing' (a form of abuse!) if you tell someone to stop calling you a reactionary sh*tlord in every post. I don't think they believe it though. Someone told me it was never appropriate to contradict lived experience. I told him that my lived experience contradicted his lived experience, so we were at an impasse. Then I was 'speaking over him.'

 

They just make the sh*t up as they go along, because they are incapable of having a discussion about principles or policy. They deal exclusively in appeals to mental health. It can never be 'this is factually wrong' or 'this is amoral.' It's probably because universities (the bodies people practise their activism on) will only respond to such appeals and that they are sort of inherently non-threatening, because your response is a matter of sympathy rather than accuracy or consistency. 


Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#256

Posted 14 January 2017 - 06:59 AM

 

And a majority of them are gay, but these days it is apparently violence to even suggest that we shouldn't transition children.

You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by "transition". This ambiguity is the reason for polarization in the first place. Any sane person who has even rudimentary understanding of puberty will tell you that putting a child through hormone therapy, let alone surgery, prior to them putting puberty well behind them is idiocy. And yes, there are people out there that think otherwise. They are the same kind of lunatics as the folk who don't want their children immunized.

On the other hand, there is zero reason to try and force children into gender-specific patterns. If a child happens to want to identify as a different gender than assigned to them, there is zero harm in allowing it. Enough people out there will call that transitioning to cause violent disagreement with people who don't. Yes, majority of these cases are going to be gender-confusion and will resolve themselves. Trying to force it will not help a gender-confused child, and will potentially cause long-term problems for anyone who actually transitions later in life.

How is there zero harm in sending boys to school in a girls' uniform and addressing them with female pronouns? How is there zero harm in allowing teenage girls to use breast binders? This is what social transition involves.

 

Children are medically transitioned to varying degrees though. If you can't find a doctor willing to give you puberty blockers, then the online queer community is here to help.

 

 

 

The bottom line is that the only identity a person has is identity they assign to themselves. There is never a reason to accuse the person of lying or being confused. It doesn't matter if the person claiming an identity does so because that's really the only way they can see themselves as part of society, or if it's a passing quirk.

If you think you need a new body to express your personality, you are confused. Unfortunately our entire society is equally incapable of imaging a sensitive man or an assertive woman. 

 

 

 

Further, if a competent, mature adult elects to take hormones or undergo a body modification, it's their business.

Except sex changes are a medical treatment for dysphoria, not an elective surgery. 

 

 

 

And for anyone who thinks that gender is just a social construct that should be dismantled, go dismantle religion first. It's far more harmful, absolutely one hundred percent a social construct, and we'd be way better without it.

Oh I guess we'll just put this whole feminism thing aside for a bit then.

 

 

 

But if you're so stubborn that you can't understand these things, I'd much rather see you throw yourself under that train and leave transgender people alone.

tbh I doubt you're well versed in queer theory. In fact I'd imagine this is the first time you've ever heard the phrase 'queer theory' and you have no idea what position we're both arguing from. Do you even Judith Butler? 

 

This has nothing to do with transgender people as individuals. 


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#257

Posted 14 January 2017 - 11:10 AM

How is there zero harm in sending boys to school in a girls' uniform and addressing them with female pronouns? How is there zero harm in allowing teenage girls to use breast binders? This is what social transition involves.

I see zero harm.

Children are medically transitioned to varying degrees though. If you can't find a doctor willing to give you puberty blockers, then the online queer community is here to help.

And that's a bad thing. Extremism is bad in absolutely anything in general. Healthy eating can be bad if you take it to a religious extreme. It's not an argument against concept.

If you think you need a new body to express your personality, you are confused. Unfortunately our entire society is equally incapable of imaging a sensitive man or an assertive woman.

You ever got a hair cut? Any dental work? Not a single person on this planet goes through life without some amount of body modification. Almost all of it for vanity's sake. Sex change is on the extreme end of the spectrum, which is why people don't generally do it on a whim, but ultimately in the same category. Stop being a hypocrite.
 

Except sex changes are a medical treatment for dysphoria, not an elective surgery.

You can't have it both ways. You either argue that there is a conspiracy in medical community to doctor evidence of psychological condition requiring a sex change, which is actually a voluntary procedure for confused individuals. Or you admit that there is a serious psychological factor at play here, for which sex change is a less damaging option than forcing the person to live with their biological sex. If you go for the later, transgender case follows without any effort on my part. I'm comfortable enough proving my point from either angle, so just pick one.
 

Oh I guess we'll just put this whole feminism thing aside for a bit then.

Feminism is a broad term. People who think they are promoting equality with their crusade against gender are actually doing more harm than good. If that's what you mean by "feminism", then f*ck it. Trying to promote equality by fighting gender is exactly the same as trying to promote cultural tolerance by banning religion. The result is exact opposite. Forcing people out of gender identity is a form of oppression and will only breed more sexism.
 

tbh I doubt you're well versed in queer theory. In fact I'd imagine this is the first time you've ever heard the phrase 'queer theory' and you have no idea what position we're both arguing from. Do you even Judith Butler? 
 
This has nothing to do with transgender people as individuals.

Are you trying to replace an argument with appeal to authority again? We can go that route, but I'll start citing abstracts of medical papers from peer-reviewed journals and that trumps philosophical ramblings any day of the week. But that doesn't help to actually advance the discussion.

If you feel like you don't have a point of your own, feel free to start citing your favorite authors. Just make sure you are including supporting arguments, and not just empty theses.
  • Ruin,  dice and DarkSavageDeathlyCloud like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#258

Posted 14 January 2017 - 01:20 PM

 

How is there zero harm in sending boys to school in a girls' uniform and addressing them with female pronouns? How is there zero harm in allowing teenage girls to use breast binders? This is what social transition involves.

I see zero harm.

You see no harm in raising a boy as a girl, with the expectation he will one day have the body to match? 

 

 

 

And that's a bad thing. Extremism is bad in absolutely anything in general. Healthy eating can be bad if you take it to a religious extreme. It's not an argument against concept.

Okay, except my point was that society is transitioning children and you disagreed, implying I was confusing medical and social transition. I didn't accuse you of being an extreme proponent of queer theory. The opposite in fact: I accused you of not understanding what you were parroting. 

 

 

 

You ever got a hair cut? Any dental work? Not a single person on this planet goes through life without some amount of body modification. Almost all of it for vanity's sake. Sex change is on the extreme end of the spectrum, which is why people don't generally do it on a whim, but ultimately in the same category. Stop being a hypocrite.

Yeah except me cutting my hair isn't really comparable to a mastectomy or a hormone treatment which causes sterility. Also I individually choose to cut my hair for benign reasons: it isn't in response to mental illness, and the barber doesn't scrutinise my condition for a year first. 

 

 

 

You can't have it both ways. You either argue that there is a conspiracy in medical community to doctor evidence of psychological condition requiring a sex change, which is actually a voluntary procedure for confused individuals. Or you admit that there is a serious psychological factor at play here, for which sex change is a less damaging option than forcing the person to live with their biological sex.

What? Gender dysphoria is caused by a simultaneous rejection and internalisation of gendered expectations. There are two responses: transgenderism, or counseling people so that they feel they can feel comfortable in their own bodies. Many detransitioners and trans people who have yet to manage detransition will tell you that their transition was an attempt by society to 'correct' their androgyny and homosexuality. 

 

Transition is still necessary to stave off dysphoria, but what 'gender identity' ideology does is repaint transgenderism not as a medical practise but as an inherent, immutable part of someone's character, where gender dysphoria stems exclusively from society's failure to have already transitioned them. Ultimately, we should all live free of stereotypes.  

 

 

 

Feminism is a broad term. People who think they are promoting equality with their crusade against gender are actually doing more harm than good. If that's what you mean by "feminism", then f*ck it. Trying to promote equality by fighting gender is exactly the same as trying to promote cultural tolerance by banning religion. 

Yeah because gender is not a labour division it's like two different religious sects? Also feminism is like a movement to make peace between Muslims and Christians, only with men and women?

 

Liberalism: not even once.

 

 

 

Are you trying to replace an argument with appeal to authority again? We can go that route, but I'll start citing abstracts of medical papers from peer-reviewed journals and that trumps philosophical ramblings any day of the week.

What would you prove by doing so? We haven't discussed any of the technicalities of medical transition. That isn't what's being scrutinised here. 

 

I asked you to tell me the difference in between sex roles (gender) and 'gender identity.' You haven't done so, because you have no idea what I'm even getting at and you have no idea how your own views clash with mine, which is what I was suggesting with the 'appeal to authority' which is more of an appeal to you not actually subscribing to the views you are parroting. 

 

You're aware that gender identity is a specific theory, right? We've had transgender people in society since the 1930s but we've only had queer theory for few short years. It stems from concepts like 'performativity' and is really only compatible with a postmodernist worldview, one where there is no such thing as truth. You are not defending trans people from bigotry, you are defending the work of Judith Butler. Many trans people would tell you thanks but no thanks.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#259

Posted 14 January 2017 - 04:26 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 14 January 2017 - 04:33 PM.

I have no idea what 'equality of outcome' has to do with anything. All socialists believe in equality of outcome. As for coercively manufacturing social conditions: not all calls for change are proposals for the temporary gulaging and reeducation of the entire population. In fact, none of them are. That's just the only way you can imagine our inherent pink and blue souls not manifesting their True Nature. 

The only way to achieve equality of outcome is through mass coercion, because people are born with radically different innate abilities and needs. That is also why you see that in freer countries the difference between the choices men and women make increase, not decrease. The opposite should happen if your tabula rasa delusion would be true, but it doesn't, because it's false.
 

You're right, I am intolerant of peoples' behaviour and wish to change it using policy, education, social pressure and cultural refocus. We call this 'politics' usually. 

Social behavior and culture don't arise through state coercion, except in extremely repressive authoritarian circumstances (like Islamic State destroying cultural heritage and murdering any dissenters). Social behavior and culture shouldn't be politically manufactured. They should occur out of individual free choice and expression.
 

'Develop your feminine side' is something you hear in a psuedo-spiritual self-help book. Fitting, because it is a religious concept (my soul is blue but has purple patches). Child rearing and emotional labour are not abstract things men can explore at out leisure, they are forms of labour (natch) that need to be done no matter how you feel about them. If men don't do them, women are stuck with them. It is that simple. 

Biological sex, and the fact that women for hundreds of thousands of years have had a specific role in raising and taking care of children, that they have innate abilities to do so (breastfeeding, hormones that affect behaviour) are not 'religious concepts'. In fact, they are actual existing things in the objective world. Human beings are a species of animal. Just like all other animals we have innate abilities, tendencies and an evolutionary history.

I know you will respond by arguing against a strawman of male chauvinism, which holds that traditional feminine role patterns should be normative and forced on individual women, which nobody ever argues for in the developed world anymore. Individuals are free to make their own life choices.
 

If men don't do them, women are stuck with them. It is that simple.

If you think taking care of children is such a horrible burden, then do the hypothetical kid a favor, and don't have him/her. Many women love child care, but we are indoctrinating modern women that they shouldn't desire taking care of children, and that they should take life decisions based on an aim for increased social economic status, careerism, and contributing to economic growth. And that's why white Westerners are getting increasingly fewer children. Another reason is the decline of marriage.
 

I have no idea how gay men set fashion norms for women. Or how women set them for that matter: they're set by corporate, market concerns informed by organic cultural output. 

Then you've never in your life opened a women's magazine, or watched a tv show about runway models and fashion designers. Sure, it is probably white heterosexual men investing and making profit, but they aren't any significant part of the creative aspect of women fashion.
 

Since taking an anti-SJW stance I have been accused of harassment and abuse countless times.

You should stop letting purposefully dishonest, miserable, resentful, sh*tty people suck the life out of you and stop wasting time on them is what I propose.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#260

Posted 15 January 2017 - 04:50 AM

 

I have no idea what 'equality of outcome' has to do with anything. All socialists believe in equality of outcome. As for coercively manufacturing social conditions: not all calls for change are proposals for the temporary gulaging and reeducation of the entire population. In fact, none of them are. That's just the only way you can imagine our inherent pink and blue souls not manifesting their True Nature. 

The only way to achieve equality of outcome is through mass coercion, because people are born with radically different innate abilities and needs.

Equality of outcome is when everybody gets paid the same. 

 

 

 

hat is also why you see that in freer countries the difference between the choices men and women make increase, not decrease.

No it's because 'women are bad at math' doesn't exist in societies where women are thought of as inherently stupid. 'Women are good at sociology' is a very recent stereotype, same as 'women are good teachers.' We've had this conversation before.

 

 

 

 

The opposite should happen if your tabula rasa delusion would be true, but it doesn't, because it's false.

I don't believe in tabula rasa I believe that testosterone levels are only a small part in determining whether or not you perform labour which didn't exist until 100 years ago. Also the entirety of my gender politics is based on the idea that women are inherently more suited for domestic labour. The reasoned, measured conclusion from that is that women are forced into it out of convenience, not that they have an innate burning desire for it. Your position is pure ideology. 

 

The fact that it is more convenient to leave women at camp when they're pregnant or nursing meant more women developed skills for cooking, making clothes and taking care of kids. Basically, men were warriors and women were civilians, although often you'd have warrior women and domestic men. 

 

The roles arise because of these needs, they aren't dictated by chemicals. Estrogen is not a magical femininity drug. Transwomen take estrogen and their behaviour and thought patterns are still more similar to men than women. The 'purpose' of estrogen is just to dampen testosterone, which is the hormone that makes you care about things, so men's higher testosterone levels and lower estrogen levels make us somewhat less reflexive, socially. But it depends more on other factors: a high testosterone man isn't necessarily more in your face than a low testosterone woman. Women aren't 'more empathetic' so much as they are just less aggressive. 

 

Basically, this developed to make men stand out more to women with a larger size and beards (this is the most basic form of sexual dimorphism, often males are just larger with markings and have no behavioural differences), and testosterone makes men orgasm faster and the strength and aggression make it harder for women to resist sexual violence. Generally, sexual dimorphism is about sex and children, it doesn't prescribe your personality. Even if the differences that exist for the convenience of reproduction are convenient to unrelated labour divisions.  

 

 

 

Social behavior and culture don't arise through state coercion, except in extremely repressive authoritarian circumstances (like Islamic State destroying cultural heritage and murdering any dissenters). Social behavior and culture shouldn't be politically manufactured. They should occur out of individual free choice and expression.
 

Right except that's just conservative heckling. https://en.wikipedia...cial_revolution

 

 

 In fact, they are actual existing things in the objective world. Human beings are a species of animal. Just like all other animals we have innate abilities, tendencies and an evolutionary history.

I know you will respond by arguing against a strawman of male chauvinism, which holds that traditional feminine role patterns should be normative and forced on individual women, which nobody ever argues for in the developed world anymore. Individuals are free to make their own life choices.

Actually above I think I explained pretty well how and why humans are sexually dimorphic, so maybe now you can stop pretending I ignore the differences between men and women and actually address my argument: that gender is a superstructure- premised on but not a natural consequence of- sexual dimorphism. 

 

 

 

If you think taking care of children is such a horrible burden, then do the hypothetical kid a favor, and don't have him/her. Many women love child care, but we are indoctrinating modern women that they shouldn't desire taking care of children, and that they should take life decisions based on an aim for increased social economic status, careerism, and contributing to economic growth.

Oh come on. The 'honorary men' thing is about women mimicking men's bad behaviour when entering flawed institutions. Women having careers is not them being indoctrinated, don't be silly.

 

If child care is so great, we should get in on the fun. 

 

 

 

Then you've never in your life opened a women's magazine, or watched a tv show about runway models and fashion designers. Sure, it is probably white heterosexual men investing and making profit, but they aren't any significant part of the creative aspect of women fashion.

That isn't really a response to anything I said.

 

 

 

 

You should stop letting purposefully dishonest, miserable, resentful, sh*tty people suck the life out of you and stop wasting time on them is what I propose.

tbh when you see people getting accused of 'literal colonialism' for posting a meme with a black guy's face on it somewhere, or accusing someone of literal murder for suggesting a 'cis' character can play a trans character in a movie, it's hard not to respond. It's mostly young people into this, and it would be nice if these people learned some real principles rather than just sensitivity jargon before they inherit the legacy of left-wing politics. 

  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#261

Posted 16 January 2017 - 12:07 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 16 January 2017 - 12:27 AM.

 

 

I have no idea what 'equality of outcome' has to do with anything. All socialists believe in equality of outcome. As for coercively manufacturing social conditions: not all calls for change are proposals for the temporary gulaging and reeducation of the entire population. In fact, none of them are. That's just the only way you can imagine our inherent pink and blue souls not manifesting their True Nature. 

The only way to achieve equality of outcome is through mass coercion, because people are born with radically different innate abilities and needs.

Equality of outcome is when everybody gets paid the same. 

 

Yes, but I meant it in a broader sense, where you say you think we should force men to stay at home taking care of babies to the point where they share this occupation 50 50 with women. The only way to achieve such a thing is by coercion, because in a situation where free choice is the norm such a situation would almost never occur. The only culture where divisions of labour between men and women are close to equal are in some hunter gatherer tribes. Maybe if you completely destroy everything modern and civilized and let people live in the woods without agriculture and without waging war (because war causes patriarchy as well) for a few thousand years, such a situation where division of labour starts to become equal will occur. But in the civilized modern world differences increase out of free choice and self expression, and differences in talent start having larger effects. And I like it in the civilized modern world actually. Maybe if you hate it so much you should go to one of these tribes: https://www.theguard...ndrelationships and let a baby suck on your disgusting man nipple.
 

No it's because 'women are bad at math' doesn't exist in societies where women are thought of as inherently stupid. 'Women are good at sociology' is a very recent stereotype, same as 'women are good teachers.' We've had this conversation before.

Oke, I'll try to make this point though I think I have made it before. The fact that expressions of femininity are different across cultures and times, doesn't mean that femininity is a made up culturally relative fiction that only exists in the minds of people, and not in matters of fact. In the West we like parading women as sex objects, and in the Middle East they cover them up to the point where noone can see them. Femininity on the surface means opposite things to these two distinct cultural circumstances. But below the mere historically and culturally relative expressions in both circumstances the female body and female sexuality are considered as being very powerful. In one culture they respond to this by covering up, in the other one by worshipping them as sex objects. History and culture shape how we interpret and act out certain aspects of the world and it can vary wildly, but that doesn't make it an arbitrary ideological delusion.
 

I don't believe in tabula rasa I believe that testosterone levels are only a small part in determining whether or not you perform labour which didn't exist until 100 years ago.

Yeah, see previous point. Testosterone makes people more interested in tools and systematizing (see the child play research, where fetal testosterone correlated with certain types of play behaviour) The fact that a tool or a job is recently developed doesn't exclude the possibility that it is generally a more interesting thing to a mind that is on testosterone. Also look at this: https://en.wikipedia...al_testosterone

 

the fact that it is more convenient to leave women at camp when they're pregnant or nursing meant more women developed skills for cooking, making clothes and taking care of kids.

It also had a rather decisive evolutionary influence and shaped our minds and innate interests and abilities.
 

and the strength and aggression make it harder for women to resist sexual violence.

I see this is part of the thought pattern where you think dominant men are fundamentally rapists and evil. Maybe you should consider that the dominant men throughout history were able to actually naturally attract females, and it were probably generally failed resentful beta males that had to necessarily rape to reproduce. And to this day women are much rather around dominant successful men than around resentful losers with fantasies in which they are morally superior.

 

Right except that's just conservative heckling. https://en.wikipedia...cial_revolution

And most of these historical examples of 'social revolutions' actively destroyed culture with violent mobs. Any social revolution that overthrows an oppressor but has the right amount of respect for history and tradition I applaud.
 

that gender is a superstructure- premised on but not a natural consequence of- sexual dimorphism. 

What you and other modern social construct fanatics mean by this (what you signify with the therm 'premised') is that gender is an arbitrary ideological construct. What I've been explaining to you over and over is how many different reasons there are that this is false. Depending on material and economic circumstances innate differences between individuals manifest themselves in society, and that's how gender arises, and not by an arbitrary conspiracy by the patriarchy. It's really quite sad how many women believe that their innate femininity is actually indoctrination by a patriarchal conspiracy in order to subjugate them. It's tragic, and it's increasingly causing a mental health crisis.
 

Women having careers is not them being indoctrinated, don't be silly.

There are women who prefer careers over family, sure. But right now we are making them the norm because we live in a culture where we worship social status and economic growth.

If child care is so great, we should get in on the fun.

 

Sure, fathers are incredibly important. Supposedly all sorts of social statistics prove fathers play an essential role in their children ending up succeeding and happy, and single motherhood is a disaster. I hope to be a highly involved dad some day, but I won't be a loser unemployed or part time working house dad. Real men work full time.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#262

Posted 19 January 2017 - 12:18 PM

 

 

 

I have no idea what 'equality of outcome' has to do with anything. All socialists believe in equality of outcome. As for coercively manufacturing social conditions: not all calls for change are proposals for the temporary gulaging and reeducation of the entire population. In fact, none of them are. That's just the only way you can imagine our inherent pink and blue souls not manifesting their True Nature. 

The only way to achieve equality of outcome is through mass coercion, because people are born with radically different innate abilities and needs.

Equality of outcome is when everybody gets paid the same. 

 

Yes, but I meant it in a broader sense, where you say you think we should force men to stay at home taking care of babies to the point where they share this occupation 50 50 with women. The only way to achieve such a thing is by coercion, because in a situation where free choice is the norm such a situation would almost never occur.

Yeah but your only defense of that are references to the existence of biological sex. Now that I've informed you that I accept and in fact base my views on sexual dimorphism, you need to get more specific. 

 

 

 

The only culture where divisions of labour between men and women are close to equal are in some hunter gatherer tribes.

Did you mean to type 'the modern day West'? Because generally in the West women work outside the home and men perform emotional labour. But they don't do it equally. Hunter gatherer tribes typically have a division between domestics and warriors which is premised on, correlated with but not inherently tied to biological sex, I explained this in my last post. I don't know what you are getting at here.

 

 

 

Oke, I'll try to make this point though I think I have made it before. The fact that expressions of femininity are different across cultures and times, doesn't mean that femininity is a made up culturally relative fiction that only exists in the minds of people, and not in matters of fact.

How is this even a defense of your point? How does 'women are bad at math' express itself in other societies? 

 

The 'child play' study is meaingless. You know those studies are meant to be a small contribution to the overall picture painted by the discipline, they aren't supposed to be used a gotcha in nature vs. nurture arguments? I doubt the authors would approve of you pointing to that and going "see! women are bad at math!" 

 

Also socialisation begins as an infant, and cerebral elasticity means you can develop specific neural pathways through socialisation.

 

So are higher testosterone women better at math than low testosterone women? What about compared to low testosterone men, since there's evidence that high testosterone women are better public speakers than low testosterone men, it would stand to reason they are better at math too, right? It's like you don't even understand the grand scale of the claims you are making with vague and highly specific studies to back them up. And your statement 'brain on testosterone' leads me to believe you have a lacking understanding of what hormones actually are. 

 

 

 

It also had a rather decisive evolutionary influence and shaped our minds and innate interests and abilities.

This is only controversial to the extent you're claiming it's relevant. You are attributing magical powers to sex hormones.

 

 

 

I see this is part of the thought pattern where you think dominant men are fundamentally rapists and evil. Maybe you should consider that the dominant men throughout history were able to actually naturally attract females, and it were probably generally failed resentful beta males that had to necessarily rape to reproduce. And to this day women are much rather around dominant successful men than around resentful losers with fantasies in which they are morally superior.

Are you accusing me of being resentful of 'dominant men' like you? Because lol. As if feminism is my revenge for all the girls you get! Let's be clear: masculinity is my lived experience, not something I aspire to like you. 

 

As for the actual point: the larger size and aggression is more about raping females from other societies. Like if a male finds a female alone, it is convenient for procreation if he can overpower her. Strength and aggression evolved for this reason (the aggression is probably more about orgasming first, but it provides a physical advantage). 

 

 

 

And most of these historical examples of 'social revolutions' actively destroyed culture with violent mobs. Any social revolution that overthrows an oppressor but has the right amount of respect for history and tradition I applaud.

I don't know what you mean by 'destroying culture' the 'violent mobs' (known as a 'military' usually) were suppressing the old elite and their lap dogs. What makes them social revolutions is that social and legal relations were altered. 

 

 

 

What you and other modern social construct fanatics mean by this (what you signify with the therm 'premised') is that gender is an arbitrary ideological construct. What I've been explaining to you over and over is how many different reasons there are that this is false.

Yeah between your brazen misrepresentation of scientific evidence and your vague immaterial talking points, I am just about to agree with your slippery and baseless assertions. 

 

"Depending on material and economic circumstances innate differences between individuals manifest themselves in society, and that's how gender arises, and not by an arbitrary conspiracy by the patriarchy."

It's a division of labour: base and superstructure etc. Nobody said it was an 'arbitrary conspiracy' in fact that's the opposite of what a class analysis of gender suggests. Either engage with the theory or don't bother.

 

"It's really quite sad how many women believe that their innate femininity is actually indoctrination by a patriarchal conspiracy in order to subjugate them. It's tragic, and it's increasingly causing a mental health crisis."

Women: I am not here to clean dishes or take care of children!
You: it's actually really sad and tragic that you deny your True Nature and Sacred Preserve. You are killing your pink soul and it is driving you mad. 

 

 

"There are women who prefer careers over family, sure. But right now we are making them the norm because we live in a culture where we worship social status and economic growth.[...]Sure, fathers are incredibly important. Supposedly all sorts of social statistics prove fathers play an essential role in their children ending up succeeding and happy, and single motherhood is a disaster. I hope to be a highly involved dad some day, but I won't be a loser unemployed or part time working house dad. Real men work full time."

Nobody is telling you to become a homemaker, women don't even do this anymore. When you get married 100% you and your wife will both work the same or comparable hours outside the home. You will still cook clean and take care of children, but the woman will do it slightly more. This is a bare faced injustice and no amount of religious wrangling can turn it into a sacred honour or biological imperative. 

  • Tchuck likes this

Hayduke
  • Hayduke

    Square Civilian

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2015
  • United-States

#263

Posted 05 April 2017 - 08:04 AM

I dunno guys I'm pretty happy with the gender and sexual orientation and so should everyone else, arguing about whether someone can or can't feel a certain way about their own bodies and minds seems like a complete waste of time to me. Maybe this species should spend more time solving world hunger than f*cking about telling each other how they should and shouldn't feel and live.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    modern life is rubbish

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#264

Posted 05 April 2017 - 11:23 AM

Gender dysphoria is effectively a form of depression, that transition doesn't necessarily deal with. I think we should scrutinise feelings which make people kill themselves, how unreasonable of me. 

 

I don't know what to tell you, but when people tell me it's literal murder to say the word 'vagina' and that eight year old boys are really girls because they were born with girl brains, there's no reason to walk on egg shells. This is stupid. 

  • Tchuck and Mister Pink like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#265

Posted 05 April 2017 - 03:11 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 05 April 2017 - 03:15 PM.

I don't know what to tell you, but when people tell me it's literal murder to say the word 'vagina'

lol, who tells you that?

 

and that eight year old boys are really girls because they were born with girl brains, there's no reason to walk on egg shells. This is stupid. 

Social constructionist ideology is as scientifically tenable as creationism. Recently an entire edition of the Journal of Neuroscience was published on the topic of sex differences. Anyone claiming the sex differences between men and women in the brain are negligible and irrelevant for the study of 'gender' are scientifically backwards. But it isn't unusual for postmodern frauds to explicitly oppose scientific knowledge and objectivity anyway.

 

"Neuroscience today is at a crossroads. Do we continue the status quo and ignore sex as a biological variable, or do we acknowledge that sex influences the brain at all levels and address the major gaps in knowledge?"

 

"Due to a deeply ingrained, implicit (but false) assumption that “equal” means “the same,” most neuroscientists 'knew', and even feared that establishing that males and females are not the same in some aspect of brain function meant establishing that they were not equal. This assumption is false and deeply harmful, in particular to the health of women (see Cahill, 2014), but remains deeply impactful nonetheless."

 

"This themed issue of the Journal of Neuroscience Research (JNR) heralds a zeitgeist shift. It is the first ever from a mainstream neuroscience journal entirely devoted to the issue of sex influences on brain/nervous system functioning. Papers from about 70 groups of authors, from those who have been investigating the issue for decades to those uncovering them only recently, forcefully document the fact that sex influences on brain function are ubiquitous, regularly reshaping findings—hence conclusions—at all levels of our field, and powerfully demonstrating how much “sex matters.”"

http://onlinelibrary...95.1-2/issuetoc

  • K^2 and Mister Pink like this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#266

Posted 06 April 2017 - 02:05 AM

 

I don't know what to tell you, but when people tell me it's literal murder to say the word 'vagina'

lol, who tells you that?

 

Clearly you haven't spent enough time on feminist circles to know that it is actually a thing.

 

More and more the TERF term has been expanded to encompass biological women in general because "how dare they flaunt their cis privileges and having an actual vagina whereas me, a woman trapped in a man's body, will never be able to experience having a delicious puffy vagina banged by a big fat cock and it is prejudice because they should care about me and my lady-dick, in fact lesbians should go after me too despite my lady-dick because I am a woman".

 

Thus you get transpeople complaining about vaginas being a thing. Because they can't have one.

  • Eutyphro likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#267

Posted 06 April 2017 - 11:38 AM

Clearly you haven't spent enough time on feminist circles to know that it is actually a thing.

I'm increasingly starting to avoid certain types of articles with identity political angles or social constructionist irrationalism because it feels like reading these views hurts my brain and has negative consequences for my psychological well being.

  • krypt0s likes this

Switch
  • Switch

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Iraq

#268

Posted 06 April 2017 - 11:21 PM Edited by Switch, 06 April 2017 - 11:23 PM.

reading these views hurts my brain and has negative consequences for my psychological well being.

 

 

 

 

Could say that about your posts too my guy, just please bear with us buddy.

  • mr quick, Android, Fonz and 2 others like this

SA's Most Wanted
  • SA's Most Wanted

    Vote SA's Most Wanted for Best Artist in Graphics

  • Facade
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2015
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [GFX]

#269

Posted 06 April 2017 - 11:57 PM Edited by SA's Most Wanted, 07 April 2017 - 12:00 AM.

 

reading these views hurts my brain and has negative consequences for my psychological well being.

Could say that about your posts too my guy, just please bear with us buddy.

3BAN3oZ.jpg?1

 

Seriously though, too often people seem to mix Gender, with Sex.

The whole Biological v Sociological differences goes down the drain with some people, and its all about biological differences ._.

 

Sexuality wise, I guess its their life, let them do whatever, I mean people go on about progressiveness, and in a sense, that comes with it, especially in our world today.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#270

Posted 07 April 2017 - 12:59 PM

Could say that about your posts too my guy, just please bear with us buddy.

So you can read about something like 'cultural appropriation' or 'rape culture' and think to yourself "ah, yes, this is perfectly rational"?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users