Topic: Fluid gender garbage. (Read 519 times)

I'm very curious as to exactly what kind of archaeological studies you think are taking place that only care about the sex of a deceased individual and not how they actually lived (when the latter is, um, kinda the whole point of archeology). Are you sure you're not thinking of necrophilia?

Why would you expect them to? Dividing things into categories is a matter of taxonomy, not science, and taxonomists can't even agree on a definition of species that works in all cases. Rigid adherence to established biological taxonomy is how you end up making absurd statements like "tomatoes are technically a fruit", "viruses aren't really alive", and "there's no such thing as trees".

Like all the science supporting the existence of gender dysphoria, you mean?

In 100 years, when they dig up a body they will still test the bones to determine the gender of the individual.  They won't care about the person's self exploratory journey to discover who they are on the inside or worry about how they identified...  Science is science.  I find it absolutely insane that the party of science who bashes the other side constantly for not agreeing with their "research" can deny that gender isn't something we choose.  Taking it a step further, they can't even say what a woman is.  Only that they identify as one.  I think to be a modern day liberal you either have to suffer from serious mental illness or you are so set on having your way by any means possible that you look the other way at all the nonsense and stay focused on growing your numbers to get your way.

It's not social media companies that cause people to think in certain ways; they're simply the delivery mechanism. But obviously social media can be exploited by people/companies/nations to cause people to think in certain ways.

Facebook/Twitter etc don't have an incentive to promote any particular narrative, other than 'Facebook/Twitter is great'. Censoring tends to occur when social media companies decide that they need to do something because if they don't, it will reflect badly on them, and they could get into legal trouble or (worse) lose revenue. Censoring Trump (which is I think what you're alluding to) was done entirely out of self-interest, I don't imagine they give a f*ck about Rep/Dem etc, they're interested only in themselves as a company and how their actions or inaction affect their profits.

As regards Covid, they probably don't want to be seen to be promoting the view that people should be injecting themselves with bleach or exposing their internal organs to the healing power of sunshine. That could reflect kind of badly on them, if people start dying. I don't think they'd particularly care about people dying, but they'd certainly care about being associated with it (or being seen as causing it).

As regards gender, if social media companies appear to be pushing anything, then I'd suspect again it's out of self-interest, and not wanting to be accused of being anti- anything.

It's all self-interest, nothing more sinister than that.

I think it is probably more true that social media companies have the ability to cause people to think in certain ways. During covid early days, there was a lot of propaganda surrounding covid, and social media was censoring posts that did not fit a particular narrative.

Many social media companies are trying to do similar things regarding gender, however, what they are pushing is just too ridiculous for most reasonable people to accept.

Ideally there would be no gender identities, because it would all be natural and wouldn't even need to be discussed. But for so long as discrimination persists, labelling of some sort is required.

Speaking of which, it's kinda snitch to have you back on the forum, hope you stick around.

Sure but it's a lot simpler to go in the other direction: Instead of 86/whatever genders, just one.

Hello, Komrade.

In many ways, philosophy and the so called motivational speakers could be some sick in the head people (Am just saying, not like I mean it but, if you look at it, it's actually true). To have come up with points like this gives me the impression of some gay lover speaking out on his or her context. The society wants us to respect onces choice for being a transgender, a guy person and other things like that but it's my wish as well that they don't force its acceptance on me.

One deduction I made out of OP was the fact that, despite there attempt to escape not sticking gender to some qualities, they still drew a fine line in expressing the fact that, there are habits or characters that could express in someone and it puts you in a gender bracket.
That in itself is the gender they were trying to avoid. Perhaps they could have gone ahead to say, there isn't a thing as gender. Garbage!

I'd argue that if the percentage of people who are capable of critical and independent thought was to increase, then the percentage of people who hold your viewpoint would decrease. Is your position really that the (overwhelmingly) old, white men who control the world are actively plotting their own downfall in order to usher in some sort of trans-gender/gay/black/feminist/whatever-else-you-don't-like dystopia ruled entirely by oppressed minorities?

If the world had let's say 8 million people instead of 8 billion+, that is if human life were currently precious and rare enough for the continuation of the species, then transgenderism and all of the LGBTQ+ movement would be seen as a serious disorder that needs to be healed.

Instead, you have an overcrowded world, limited resources, and some powerful groups are very interested to push any agenda that will keep the population down. Lower T, lower natural instincts, lower procreative sex, lower will to power; in short more docile, passive, dysfunctional and defective people that will rather prefer to be farmed like obedient and dependent consumers instead of being interested in their self preservation and creating a progeny...

One lesson that can be deduced from the Covid pandemic is that the vast majority of the Homo Sapiens currently inhabiting Earth are conformist followers, very small % of the species are capable of critical and independent thought, so if the ruling elite would like to push any agenda, no matter how detrimental it is to quality of life and even survival, a staggering majority are easily and eagerly convinced to obey like zombies...

Many young children dream of being an astronaut, a firefighter, or a police officer when they grow up because society views them as heroes of the world. It is also not uncommon for young girls to go through a "tomboy" phase or a young boy to go through a feminine phase. Both are totally natural, however, most people ultimately outgrow these types of phases.

Just as it would be a bad idea to send a six-year-old into space, it it bad to chemically castrate a young teenager. It is even worse to pressure a young child into thinking they want to be a different gender, and to put the child through surgery in order to "affirm" what the preditor is saying the child's gender is.

In general, I don't have an issue if someone wants to falsely claim they are a different gender than they actually are. What I do have a problem with is that person imposing their nonsense on other people, as well as using their fiction to remove rights and privacy from others.

In general, race by definition is genetic, however there may be fluidity in how you interpret your genetic background at different stages of your life or depending of your learning about your ancestry. In some countries you will fill in questionnaires and you can "choose your race" in a sense. For example, you may have 1/4 of African origin, but "decide" that you are "African Black" because that is how you "feel your race" or that one of your ancestors was Asian and then you consider yourself Asian.

This mostly occurs in the case of mixed origins and may interpret their background differently as time passes, for people who have a mostly uniform ancestry, race is kind of a given.

Because gender and race are entirely different concepts? Stating that if gender can be fluid then race must also be fluid is a logical fallacy. Simple as that.

It would be like comparing two different physical characteristics and saying "Well, if you can change your weight then you therefore must also be able to change your height."

Someone needs to make the argument to me about why gender can be fluid but race can’t be. It’s a weird liberal double standard that makes no sense. As they begin being so woke that they turn on themselves I imagine the next decade is not going to be kind to democrats at the polls. People are getting sick of mental illness being considered normal, crime being allowed to run rampant, and the government overstepping their boundaries to force their masks and fears on the rest of us. Now that people are seeing the damage this scamdemic has caused with inflation and the government lying and blaming Putin, I think it won’t be long before the swamp drains itself this time.

No, I certainly wasn't referring to you, or to anyone else in this thread, merely to the sort of "argument" put forth in that "Black crimes" thread.
And I am also certainly aware that your brain is capable of complex and nuanced thinking. We have had some good discussions in the past (as well as the inevitable disagreements)!
I take your somewhat combative thread title to be more a question of the semantic distinction between "sex" and "gender" than anything else, and wouldn't regard you as someone who is against people feeling a certain way.




Women are discriminated against, sometimes, in certain situations, by certain people. I wasn't aware this was a contentious point; I thought it was an almost universally-accepted truth rather than a "leftist vision" (which implies a minority viewpoint and something theoretical rather than real and empirically verifiable).

I would agree with you that the word gender has been used as a synonym for biological sex, and indeed often is still used that way. In fact I've no doubt used it that way myself. And I would agree that this adds to the confusion. But if we are talking about the distinction between the way someone feels and their biological situation, then this is the distinction between gender and sex.

No, you could not get onto a women-only shortlist for a job by simply declaring that you feel like you are a woman. This is because if you are applying to strangers for a job, they will go by your apparent gender (your sex), because they don't know your intimate thoughts, nor those of everyone else at the company. Similarly with racial equality, you can't get onto an ethnic-minority-only shortlist if you're ethnically white but "feel" black.

Of course, if you are a biological man but believe you are being discriminated against by certain people because you've told them that you identify as female gender, then that's an entirely separate issue (equivalent to applying to people-you-know-and-in-whom-you've-confided for a job).

There is a limit: contradiction.

According to the leftist vision of gender inequality, women are discriminated against, and to alleviate this discrimination, quotas must be reserved for them in certain jobs.

Note that it is called "gender" inequality, not sex inequality.

If gender is something subjective that depends only on my feelings, simply by declaring myself a woman I have the right to access that reserved quota. Let's see who can prove that I don't feel like a woman.

If we go to objective facts, to sex, that does not happen.

To defend that there is gender discrimination and that gender is simply what one feels is contradictory.


I hope it is clear that it is not that I like or dislike the concept, it is that it is nonsense.

And I also hope you are not alluding to me indirectly, because my brain is capable of more than thinking that:

1) Person A has big ears.
2) Person A is an idiot.
3) Conclusion: all people with big ears are idiots.

It's just that in the last thread you already came out with such an absurd argument.

This is perfectly true, people are people, and there will be idiots in any group of sufficient size. But we need to be aware that the other side of this is true as well, there are people who dislike concepts such as gender fluidity or homosexuality, and will cite individual examples of LGBT people being assholes in an attempt to argue that this non-representative minority is actually the norm, and they are all like that. See also the farcical "Black crimes" P&S thread.

Non-binary just means you don't ascribe a particular identity to a single masculine or feminine facet. The gender fluid people might describe themselves as "male" one day or "female" another day because they think that gender is a spectrum that is free flowing. The term non-binary applies to everything in the middle of absolute "male" and "female" at the far ranges of the spectrum. Someone feels a bit masculine one day, then might feel more feminine another day.

None of these labels are objective in any sense so the verbiage might not even be relevant. I can't keep up with it, to be honest.


Like this lovely lady?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdnBV-S-RXk

Yep, but gender is exactly about how someone feels. You have a natural gender (or two) and then you have a psychological gender which is actually determined by internal psychological factors. There is no limit to how people may feel and how fluid that may be.

I think that is more or less the same as CNut237's view.

Not really. According to what I've learned, to feel non-binary, is to not feel identified as either male or female, and, in fact, at the conference I attended, one guy who asked a question introduced himself as non-binary. But that's independent of possible gender fluidity. You can feel non-binary and always feel that way, so your gender doesn't (supposedly) flow.


Not really, my point is that what you feel doesn't determine what you are. There are objective parameters to determine what you are and what you feel doesn't change what you are. That I feel I am the most handsome in the world, or the smartest in the world, does not make me the most handsome or the smartest in the world. And if it's my mother who feels it doesn't either.


I think basically the same.

As for locker rooms (which was one of the things discussed at the conference) I think the best solution is locker rooms for everyone, regardless of sex or gender. But with a common lobby and individual compartments for changing.

I frequent a mixed WC, where everyone can enter regardless of sex or gender, and I only felt a little weird the first time. Once you get used to it, it doesn't matter. The toilets are in individual compartments and the sinks for washing hands as well as the hand dryers are shared.


Yeah, well, I am OK with that distinction.


Yes, as I said above, if we were to apply it to other aspects of life it would be laughable.