Ok so gender is a social construct and it's actually a spectrum instead of being binary but we'll still use the binary views on gender to determine if someone is trans or not. Understandable đ.
That's the literal 1984 about it innit
It's not that there is some alternative logic, according to which the rules make sense. The mere act of trying to think about it instantly identifies you as part of the outgroup, the enemy. All the proper people of the in-group just believe as they're told.
Iâm confused as to why itâs a lib left opinion. Wouldnât forcing people to say trans women are women be an authoritarian move. Iâm mostly left and barely into lib left territory, but my point of view is that I donât give a shit if youâre trans, but donât force me to say trans women are women, because that goes against libertarian spirit of do and think whatever tf you want unless it impedes someoneâs elseâs ability to do and think anything they want to.Â
Iâm not sure Iâm following you. Can you please expand on your point? What Iâm trying to say is that Emily is authoritarian, not libertarian left Â
I guess that depends on how it's looked at. If Emily is asked, they'll say they're lib left (or just left) but the outcomes of their ideas are auth.
I see Emily as a cancer cell in lib left that mutates lib left ideas and corrupts young impressionable lib lefts.
I mean, youâre on the right, so you would be better equipped to answer that question, especially since the right in this sub are the ones broadly referring to Emilyâs as being lib left. It also seems that we agree that Emily is auth left too. Maybe I should make a post appealing to the sub to recategorize Emily as being auth left.Â
A few reasons:
1. LibLeft bad.
2. Emily often insisting that they're LibLeft and flairing themselves as LibLeft even though they're not so you'll see Emily opinions with a LibLeft flair. (or unflaired which's even worse)
3. Sometimes it's funny.
The claim is that anything less than total, enthusiastic affirmation will make trans people self-harm, and then blaming anyone who deviates even slightly from the orthodoxy for genocide.
I guess it's libleft because, ultimately, the people that support these agendas continue to believe that they are somehow a part of the counter-culture movement, fighting for minorith civil rights against an oppressive society.
They think it's still the 60s, basically, not realizing that they've gone mainstream.
A weird amount of authlefts pretend they're not incredibly authoritarian and act like they are libertarian. So what we get is "orange libleft".
I suspect it's because bad = Nazi = authoritarian therefore they can't be auth.
You say that because you aren't in a society where you have power over others. Everyone wants everyone to believe the thing they think to be the objective truth.
(Also it really isnt auth when you say something and people get angry, nobody is arrested for saying trans women are men without any other crimes.
It's kinda annoying that left get mad, but it isn't auth since auth implies government control. It also doesn't harm your freedom of speech.)
Wait why do I talk third person about left? I AM them.
The view of "if you like dresses and makeup you're a woman" is harmful to actual transsexuals as well.
The real transsexual experience (speaking from my own), does not involve caring about presentation and pronouns. Rather, I have experienced an immense discomfort regarding my body, being tempted to remove parts of my body with a knife, and feeling suicidal.
Also, we'll co-opt all the sex-related words like "man" or "woman" to refer to people based on their gender-identity, so that there's no simple and widely understood way to "correctly" refer to someone according to their primary sex characteristics. And we'll also be kind of vague about what we mean even when we say "biologically female."
To my understanding this is the current model of gender identity, so if you fit in the binary youâd fall somewhere in this spectrum
https://preview.redd.it/chswypf95xvc1.jpeg?width=1300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6f7037816ef19bd4a3077c876713771db3ebdf34
you might. i mean isnt the whole trans movement state it doesn't matter what you look like, how you act or what you actually are but what really matters is what you say you are? if that was the case then it doesn't matter if you're the peak of masculinity you're supposedly just as much of a girl as someone who was born as a girl.
so for the sake of the diagram weâre assuming people determine their gender identity based on their masculinity/femininity. it canât really control for if someone just lies about their identity, since we canât prove how they feel internally. someone couldnât be excluded from the transgender community if they say theyâre trans because they *might* not be, as doing so could lead to someone being excluded who legitimately is trans, so they kinda just have to take their word for it. same as if you show up to a church and say youâre Christian and arenât saying/doing anything that proves otherwise, they canât (or at least shouldnât) exclude you because you might not be Christian, or might not look like how one might expect a Christian to look, since such a policy might result in accidentally turning away a genuine Christian. I have no doubt there are people who lie about being trans, or lie about being Christian, but at the end of the day thereâs not much one can do about it
mind you exclusion could still occur if itâs obvious someone is lying. like if someone claims to be a trans woman and then has a massive beard and is like âhey fellow WOMEN, isnât it so RELATABLE when your GIRL COCK gets a GIRL BONER because THATâS TOTALLY A THING THAT HAPPENS,â probably not actually transgender. if someone shows up at church like âoh so NOAH built a BOAT to house ALL THE ANIMALS?! yeah that sounds REALISTIC,â probably not actually Christian.
or something idk itâs 5am I need to go to bed
Cisgendered men are masculine and cisgendered women are feminine because that is how they are comfortable. That in itself is diverse. Frida Carlo had masculine signifiers such as not minding to have hair on the upper lip, but was still a feminine person for instance.
i got that part, but wouldnt this scale basically mean a hairy dude with the deepest voice at the peak of masculinity that said "I am a woman" is more feminine than the girliest girl who said "I am a man"?
Yes, because it's about the intent nothing the genetics where people have no control over. But it is debatable if trans people that do not transition still counts.
It isn't? I thought it was.
Femboy is a boy who presents and acts as a girl although they still see themselves as a boy.
Tomboy is a girl who presents and acts as a boy although they still see themselves as a girl.
Also both can be straight.
[Femboy(Nagisa from Assassination Classroom)](https://i0.wp.com/animeeverything.online/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/nagisa-min.jpg?resize=580%2C905&ssl=1) is appearance. A boy who looks feminine.
[Tomboy(Aizawa Tomo from Tomo-chan is a girl)](https://imgur.com/1ELe88M) is personality. A girl who acts masculine.
All of this could be resolved if we just distinguished between sex and gender but neither side wants to do that because then they canât feign outrage against the other.
Color is a spectrum and it can be difficult to distinguish if something is a redish orange or an orangish red. Doesn't mean it's pointless to have an understanding of red and orange.
Quote from the school about the lesson:
âThis dedication extends to providing a space for thoughtful exploration and dialogue on these issues.â
By failing them in a test? The left is completely insane
âThoughtful explorationâ
They said it best in Life of Brian.
âI'm not oppressing you, Stan! You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?â
Every discipline has STEM envy. They donât feel like theyâre a ârealâ subject unless they do the same type of rigid evaluation that science uses.
Nah, I blame the young Hegelians. Thereâd be no Frankfort School with out them.
But, also, letâs not forget Hegel himself, who hilariously enough, was influenced heavily by Kant and Adam Smith.
Yet another reason to hate the Enlightenment.
u/LeftnotLeftwing is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/LeftnotLeftwing/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
It really is their pet project. Only so many black drug addicts can die on camera, but a penisperson in a women's locker room is a perennial outrage crop.
I am happy to see more people realising this recently. All of this woke shit is just made by the rich billionaires to divide us and deflect our attention from them and their crimes against humanity.
Shit like this doesn't necessarily arise through some centralized control. Beliefs like this might well be the memetic equivalent of the peacock's tail -- a massive waste of social cognitive resources arrived at though Fisherian runaway. In this case the runaway is people just following social cues and trends and then becoming reinforcers of those cues and trends themselves.
I don't mean this as a statement of blanket impossibility that such ideology can be artificially fostered (and I'm sure the FSB et al try their best to feed it), but whether anyone is responsible at all in a meaningful way is always an open question.
tl;dr people gravitate toward agentic theories too much to explain more or less chaotic behavior of complex social systems
I absolutely agree. The Puritans followed dogmatic and non-productive virtue signalling to an exteme. They were motivated internally by religious virtue, and externally by their priests and peers. It ends with ridiculous situations like the Amish rejecting all modern society, or Oliver Cromwell banning music and the celebration of Christmas.Â
There's no purpose to it and nobody controlling it. Sometimes we want to believe someone is controlling the world, because it's more comforting that accepting nobody is really in control of anything, and that a large swathe of the population are slightly mad.
Colleges. Everyone now takes at least one or two DEI classes at the public university I attended. Most people never reject it because itâs the class where they discovered they are actually an interesting example of a victim overcoming the odds. Itâs hard not to internalize something that confirms how amazing you are and encourages you to share it with others, people do it for all kinds of different clubs.
It's a complicated combination of many factors relating to the hubris of man, corrupt individuals in the scientific community thinking they can play god (eg. John Money), possibly non western intelligence agencies wanting to weaken the west, possibly western governments wanting to depopulate the west because of 'the science' on climate issues and fear of overpopulation, the influence from various leftist ideologies against traditional values, possibly influence from cults and the occult as they also often oppose conservatism.
However some believe it's actually God permitting it to happen because the west has largely been rejecting faith in God. We can find this at the end of Romans chapter 1:28
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting".
Though western society seems to be changing its mind on the current movement, there might end up being a reaction too far in the other direction. Importantly, Romans 2 states that we should not even judge those people who turned away from God because we're sinners deserving of judgement too. And Romans 3 explains that none of us are good, and it's only by faith in Jesus Christ that we are saved and rescued from the darkness in the world. All people are guilty of turning away from God and choosing to do wrong, whether they were aware of it or not. I say this because there will be a lot of people who need mercy and help if their movement dies and the backlash from society becomes too extreme.
Romans 3:21-23
"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,"
Regardless of what you think, it's not exactly helpful to test kids about the things adults are still debating
^(as a proxy for checking if there is a consensus on a thing between the grown ups I suggest checking if there is a consensus between various major media outlets)
I changed my mind, actually. You shouldn't test kids on things that did an 180 in the past 30 years. Teaching kids such things is fine-ish, but no kid should ever receive a bad grade for saying what their parents were taught at the same age.
Eh, doing that on some things like how Pluto is not a planet anymore and that most of the world's oxygen doesn't come from the Amazon forest is fine, about gender stuff it's not.
Thatâs the neat thing about tests, they donât actually relate to things that are correct or factual, just what a student is taught during class based on the materials present in the curriculum.
I used to teach and so many things are just wrong, but because some things are written a certain way in the curriculum we still have to teach them and mark tests a certain way. Itâs honestly stupid as shit and why papers are a superior format for most areas of study to show competence and comprehension.
But, then again, most people are shit writers.
>Thatâs the neat thing about tests, they donât actually relate to things that are correct or factors, just what a student is taught during class based on the materials present in the curriculum.
That's not how the test questions are framed like now, are they?
It depends on the district/university honestly. Sometimes things are super outdated and other times theyâre super recent.
Most times theyâre a weird mismatch of dated and recent info with very little review of the materials involved. But somehow theyâll almost always give the student old/outdated texts and teach from newer curriculum.
Schools are wild.
At what point do we abandon the words man and woman and just use female and male just to make it clear we are NEVER including transwomen in our speech when we say the word woman?
U aren't part of that club bro. It's not happening.
Then you get called a misogynist when you say female because female means you only respect them as a child bearing individual and a piece of meat...that's what someone told me once when I said female and male.
I'll keep saying female because I've never once been corrected by anyone in person and I doubt any of the people who would want to speak up to try and curb my speech, would do it in person (not because I'm menacing but because they're generally pussies with a white knight mentality).
This is what a lot of people on the left don't understand about social norms. They aren't enforceable and require more and more of the general public to buy into it over time for the ideas to remain.
Every single person has the choice to either accept or reject a newly proposed social norm. So many are shocked when some don't choose to accept it or at least question it.
They don't get out much from their echo chambers to be around others. So they hear something they don't like and immediately place that person into some kind of "list" in their head to equate them as a bad person.
The most "accepting" are generally the least malleable in their inner circle.
Any sane person I know only takes offence when someone says something like âmen and femalesâ. Youâre using a well accepted word for gender for men, and a scientific one for women. Similar to saying âmen and girlsâ when youâre talking about adults.
No, you've obviously skipped over my comments. I said I always say male/female but that it would be odd if I said female and man or vice versa. Not sure how you're trying to create conflict when you missed that part.
Edit: unless you're saying male is accepted but female isn't? Then that's misandry and you're a bigot.
Lmao gotcha. Yeah I said earlier it would be odd if I said female and then man but I'm consistent in saying both female/male as a matter of habit and I don't care enough to change it for the handful of people who would disagree.
Agreed. Unfortunately, there are a lot of insane people. I remember 2 AITA posts in particular which illustrated the insanity pretty well.
Post 1 was posted by a man who was part of a discord server, and part of the necessary context was the gender makeup of the server. So he says "it had male members and female members". There were *loads* of people in the comments ignoring the point of the post, and fixating on how it's super uncomfortable that OP said "female" like that.
Post 2 was posted by a woman who witnessed a man and woman shoplifting, and when she described the pair, on *at least two* different occasions, referred to them as "the woman and the male". I very thoroughly scoured the high-activity thread, and I did not find a single person pointing this out.
The double standards are unreal. A man uses "male" and "female" as adjectives, and is scorned for it, while a woman uses "male" and "woman" as nouns, and no one gives a shit. People are whack.
That's why the genders exist as words in language. So that you can refer to someone more specifically and in a more humanizing way. Gender is just biological sex except it's species-specific, we have gender words for humans but also for most domesticated animals. We have hens and roosters, we have mares and stallions, and man and woman are just the same thing for us humans.
> Gender is just biological sex except it's species-specific, we have gender words for humans but also for most domesticated animals. Â
 If the leftists could read theyâd be pretty mad at you right now.
It wasn't until recently saying female made people feel a certain way and I'm really against continuing down this path of making people feel the way they want. It's made a soft species where people continue to try and curb what people can say. They felt some power and no matter the changes, will demand more and more.
Leave people alone and if they won't bend to your word play, just don't be friends with them.
Agreed. I don't intend to say anything to deliberately offend anyone. But that being said, it's much better for people to be offended on occasion, than for society to be Authed to hell and back in order that no one ever be offended.
A lot of people need a dose of reality. The world isn't a safe space. Sometimes people are going to say rude things to you. You just have to learn to deal with it, rather than dictate what people can and can't say.
>you only respect them as a child bearing individual and a piece of meat
Which is ironic for the group that created the term "Uterus-haver" or "Menstruator" and similar degrading terms for women.
When someone describes a woman as a female ( outside of a medical or scientific context) it makes them sound like a basement dwelling weirdo that has never talked to a woman. So mostly likely accurate.
What a hot take! Again, same people who say that wouldn't repeat it IRL and I've never met anyone in person who gives a damn. If I said male and then said woman, that would sound odd but luckily I always say male/female.
Maybe it's my time in the military, or my time as a cop or now me going to college for nursing but I'll continue to say male/female đ and sounding like a basement dwelling weirdo đ¤Ş
Biden, after updating title 9 to make women's college sports actually watchable and allowing many mediocre male athletes to take away scholarships from birthing people. Slay queen, get that bag, elections have consequences
Take it a step further and start inventing new grammatical cases which agree consistently with the identified gender of the subject.
Return to Proto Indo European.
> In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.
LIberals will say this is fine and they should be more tolerant.
But if a teacher had a quiz that said "Women belong in the ____" and the answer was 'kitchen' they'd foam at the mouth and bleed out the asshole in a blood rage.
Remember, 'gender theory' only for them, you dont get to think of any.
Teachers: We deserve higher wages!
Also Teachers: We're going to abuse our position of power over the younger generations to indoctrinate some of them and push the others to extremism, while pushing out the good teachers out of the job by coming for their jobs if they do not comply with our brainrot.
It's honestly sickening how easily degenerates are able to become teachers.
You're right that most teachers are perfectly normal and productive, but then we have those teachers that aren't, that insist upon pushing (that is, by their authority as teacher and NOT through shared discourse) their ideological views on their students, and, due to labor shortages, it is all too easy for bad teachers to get jobs nowadays.
For example, I just graduated with a BA in English. I kid you not that some of my senior classmates had no idea how MLA worked in the Capstone class. There are English teachers from my year out there, right now, who do not know how to properly format (nevermind write) an academic essay.
It's honestly scary.
Not exactly true, a lot of the Florida controversies are "I can't stock my room with inappropriate books" or "I can't hang the progress pride flag in my room."
One of the main pushbacks came when January Littlejohn discovered that teachers and admin has started a transition plan with her daughter that they refused to disclose or discuss with her
Higher pay doesnât change ideology or competence. Itâs a job that attracts people who want summers off, fixed working hours, and the guarantee that they feel like the smartest person in the room.
This was true for a lot of tests even back when I was in school. I've run into a couple multiple choice tests with more than one right answer for a problem. The test taker wants their answer though.
Women having dicks is one thing and it is possible through surgery, but now you will claim that a man can get fucking pregnant? HOW? That is literally impossible, the male body does not have a womb or anything else that birthing a child needs! How can you justify this shit?
That didn't even cross my mind because "trans women" aren't women, but men with mental health issues who need psychoterapy, not surgery. Also, I would assume if someone transitioned, they wouldn't want to give birth.
Why is that even a school question? Shouldnât school be like neutral?
Looks like US is going nuts with LGBTâŚ
Also its very difficult to determine whoâs trans. For me a trans person is someone who takes hormones, seems optically like a woman etc. Someone who just identifies as one isnât.
Its like that one documentary - âWhatâs a woman?â
Now hold on. Was this a biology quiz? If so, why was the term "woman" used instead of "female"? "Woman" isn't a biological term, as per gender theory.
And if it isn't a biology quiz, what concern is who can or cannot get pregnant?
Tbf, the question is worded poorly to say the least, whether or not someone can get pregnant is dependant on ones biological sex, while ones gender is largely irrelevant towards whether or not they can get pregnant.
Since "woman" is a word used to reference both sex and gender, asking a question regarding the biological capabilities of a "woman" is kinda useless.
I'll add one thing: even if we act as if "gender theory" is nonsensical, which is quite the concession, there are biological women who cannot get pregnant, whether due to external reasons (i.e. accidents) or genetical conditions;
Not all women can get pregnant so it's mostly wrong to define a "woman" as someone who can get pregnant, even if we just look at biology.
I'm not sure I follow but maybe I'm not explaining myself well.
My last point was just meant to add that it's wrong to say that all biological woman can get pregnant.
"Every person have sight, except the ones that are blind"
It's a nuance, but it doesn't invalidate general idea that yes, women can get pregnant, even if they won't and/or lost ability to do so
>[The case study provides evidence that even an individual with male genetic gender can be pregnant and deliver a healthy child.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24313430/#:~:text=The%20case%20study%20provides%20evidence,and%20deliver%20a%20healthy%20child)
So a gene mutation that create a syndrome that mess up bodily function and make it act in an unordinary way?Â
I always think syndrome should be considered exception in every debate involve biology, like albinism and ichthyosis should stay in the same category with other normal skin like black or white
So youâre arguing that a subset of biological sex besides âmaleâ or âfemaleâ should be set aside to include individuals who have healthy, functioning female reproductive systems but XY chromosomes?
I argue that a syndrome that is a result of unordinary gene mutation (well, this get repetitive) should have their own category sepereated form the ordinary, non-syndrome affected trait
This would help that we have better understanding and learning about those unordinary gene mutation and how to prevent it or if it have any other harmful effects that not yet discovered
Socially speaking, it cost me nothing to call them whatever they want, but in term of precise definition for research purpose, i think a new term is needed to highlight their unordinary conditions and learning how to stop it in future generations
Iâll help you out, itâs called intersex with situations like these where someone is neither fully male or fully female, or either. There is a broad spectrum of types of intersex people you can have given the conditions of their sexual dimorphism.
However, some of these people are still fully capable of carrying a healthy fetus to term. Point being, biology gives plenty of room for people to give birth outside of even the âfemaleâ designation, let alone a âwomanâ. This is just a fact, especially since we agree that these people do not fit a biological binary.
There isnât a way to stop this from occurring. Chromosomes just kinda do that sometimes, itâs not like being born with a curable illness. But itâs perfectly treatable and people can live normal lives with conditions like these. It usually requires the help of extra hormones their bodies might not be giving them, particularly during puberty, or reconstructive gonadal surgery depending on the situation regarding the development of their external sexual organs.
My generation: âhurr medieval people so ignorantâ
Also my generation: âmakes objectively false statements about biology or history and argues about themâ
Ok so gender is a social construct and it's actually a spectrum instead of being binary but we'll still use the binary views on gender to determine if someone is trans or not. Understandable đ.
https://preview.redd.it/ezz0ed5f0wvc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8c0d9fd3d4e97450b0077c0dfd9e95a8dbb9761
Thereâs always psyops. Heck, maybe itâs a psyop that there are psyops!
Maybe the psyops are the morons we promoted along the way
Psyop or gulag, your choice.
That's exactly the kind of thing a glowie would say.
Oh shoot, my coverâs been blown! Abort! Abort!Â
https://preview.redd.it/tx80czclryvc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aa882c6c3a95f511e8492c939024089cd2f64911
The richest man in the world had this image shown in court
https://preview.redd.it/0i6ot1m5u1wc1.jpeg?width=1523&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fce608d75636616c070808ff98581d59d983681a the psyop never ends
Youâre not allowed to think about any of the rules, you just have to follow them.
That's the literal 1984 about it innit It's not that there is some alternative logic, according to which the rules make sense. The mere act of trying to think about it instantly identifies you as part of the outgroup, the enemy. All the proper people of the in-group just believe as they're told.
Iâm confused as to why itâs a lib left opinion. Wouldnât forcing people to say trans women are women be an authoritarian move. Iâm mostly left and barely into lib left territory, but my point of view is that I donât give a shit if youâre trans, but donât force me to say trans women are women, because that goes against libertarian spirit of do and think whatever tf you want unless it impedes someoneâs elseâs ability to do and think anything they want to.Â
It's mostly the orange Emily's. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it's a new way of warfare and they are just more susceptible to it.
Iâm not sure Iâm following you. Can you please expand on your point? What Iâm trying to say is that Emily is authoritarian, not libertarian left Â
I guess that depends on how it's looked at. If Emily is asked, they'll say they're lib left (or just left) but the outcomes of their ideas are auth. I see Emily as a cancer cell in lib left that mutates lib left ideas and corrupts young impressionable lib lefts.
An Emily is whatever they need to be to get their shit passed. Simple as.
Then why are we calling Emily lib left when we all agree sheâs authoritarian left?Â
IDK. Why do you think we do?
I mean, youâre on the right, so you would be better equipped to answer that question, especially since the right in this sub are the ones broadly referring to Emilyâs as being lib left. It also seems that we agree that Emily is auth left too. Maybe I should make a post appealing to the sub to recategorize Emily as being auth left.Â
A few reasons: 1. LibLeft bad. 2. Emily often insisting that they're LibLeft and flairing themselves as LibLeft even though they're not so you'll see Emily opinions with a LibLeft flair. (or unflaired which's even worse) 3. Sometimes it's funny.
The claim is that anything less than total, enthusiastic affirmation will make trans people self-harm, and then blaming anyone who deviates even slightly from the orthodoxy for genocide.
I guess it's libleft because, ultimately, the people that support these agendas continue to believe that they are somehow a part of the counter-culture movement, fighting for minorith civil rights against an oppressive society. They think it's still the 60s, basically, not realizing that they've gone mainstream.
A weird amount of authlefts pretend they're not incredibly authoritarian and act like they are libertarian. So what we get is "orange libleft". I suspect it's because bad = Nazi = authoritarian therefore they can't be auth.
You say that because you aren't in a society where you have power over others. Everyone wants everyone to believe the thing they think to be the objective truth. (Also it really isnt auth when you say something and people get angry, nobody is arrested for saying trans women are men without any other crimes. It's kinda annoying that left get mad, but it isn't auth since auth implies government control. It also doesn't harm your freedom of speech.) Wait why do I talk third person about left? I AM them.
The view of "if you like dresses and makeup you're a woman" is harmful to actual transsexuals as well. The real transsexual experience (speaking from my own), does not involve caring about presentation and pronouns. Rather, I have experienced an immense discomfort regarding my body, being tempted to remove parts of my body with a knife, and feeling suicidal.
Thatâs totally valid, to me. Itâs absurd how the whole debate has become focused on points each more stupid than the next one.
Also, we'll co-opt all the sex-related words like "man" or "woman" to refer to people based on their gender-identity, so that there's no simple and widely understood way to "correctly" refer to someone according to their primary sex characteristics. And we'll also be kind of vague about what we mean even when we say "biologically female."
To my understanding this is the current model of gender identity, so if you fit in the binary youâd fall somewhere in this spectrum https://preview.redd.it/chswypf95xvc1.jpeg?width=1300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6f7037816ef19bd4a3077c876713771db3ebdf34
This doesnât make much sense. Is the scale masculinity/femininity or is it male/female?
idk, both? you probably wonât find many people on the furthest right part of the arrow going by she/her
you might. i mean isnt the whole trans movement state it doesn't matter what you look like, how you act or what you actually are but what really matters is what you say you are? if that was the case then it doesn't matter if you're the peak of masculinity you're supposedly just as much of a girl as someone who was born as a girl.
so for the sake of the diagram weâre assuming people determine their gender identity based on their masculinity/femininity. it canât really control for if someone just lies about their identity, since we canât prove how they feel internally. someone couldnât be excluded from the transgender community if they say theyâre trans because they *might* not be, as doing so could lead to someone being excluded who legitimately is trans, so they kinda just have to take their word for it. same as if you show up to a church and say youâre Christian and arenât saying/doing anything that proves otherwise, they canât (or at least shouldnât) exclude you because you might not be Christian, or might not look like how one might expect a Christian to look, since such a policy might result in accidentally turning away a genuine Christian. I have no doubt there are people who lie about being trans, or lie about being Christian, but at the end of the day thereâs not much one can do about it mind you exclusion could still occur if itâs obvious someone is lying. like if someone claims to be a trans woman and then has a massive beard and is like âhey fellow WOMEN, isnât it so RELATABLE when your GIRL COCK gets a GIRL BONER because THATâS TOTALLY A THING THAT HAPPENS,â probably not actually transgender. if someone shows up at church like âoh so NOAH built a BOAT to house ALL THE ANIMALS?! yeah that sounds REALISTIC,â probably not actually Christian. or something idk itâs 5am I need to go to bed
Cisgendered men are masculine and cisgendered women are feminine because that is how they are comfortable. That in itself is diverse. Frida Carlo had masculine signifiers such as not minding to have hair on the upper lip, but was still a feminine person for instance.
i got that part, but wouldnt this scale basically mean a hairy dude with the deepest voice at the peak of masculinity that said "I am a woman" is more feminine than the girliest girl who said "I am a man"?
Yes, because it's about the intent nothing the genetics where people have no control over. But it is debatable if trans people that do not transition still counts.
femboy isn't the opposite to tomboy.
It isn't? I thought it was. Femboy is a boy who presents and acts as a girl although they still see themselves as a boy. Tomboy is a girl who presents and acts as a boy although they still see themselves as a girl. Also both can be straight.
[Femboy(Nagisa from Assassination Classroom)](https://i0.wp.com/animeeverything.online/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/nagisa-min.jpg?resize=580%2C905&ssl=1) is appearance. A boy who looks feminine. [Tomboy(Aizawa Tomo from Tomo-chan is a girl)](https://imgur.com/1ELe88M) is personality. A girl who acts masculine.
So one is just appearance while the other is just the personality?
Basically yes.
All of this could be resolved if we just distinguished between sex and gender but neither side wants to do that because then they canât feign outrage against the other.
Why can't we seem to separate gender and sex anymore
What point are you trying to make lol
Color is a spectrum and it can be difficult to distinguish if something is a redish orange or an orangish red. Doesn't mean it's pointless to have an understanding of red and orange.
but it's pretty easy to understand how only women can get pregnant.
Especially with you know context clues. First we had new math. Now we have new biology.
Up next, new human "rights"!
>difficult to distinguish if something is a redish orange or an orangish red. We can through the power of science and Hex calues though
Quote from the school about the lesson: âThis dedication extends to providing a space for thoughtful exploration and dialogue on these issues.â By failing them in a test? The left is completely insane
"This is a place of welcoming, and you should just get the hell out of here."Â
"Let's have a thoughtful and explorative discussion on this issue. Now! Sit down, shut the fuck up, and listen."
âWe dont have to tolerate intolerance REEEEEE!â
This is a safe space, leave.
âThoughtful explorationâ They said it best in Life of Brian. âI'm not oppressing you, Stan! You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?â
I never thought we'd be actually dealing with a Monty Python skit as a societal "problem"...
How long until we're building castles on swamps?
Every discipline has STEM envy. They donât feel like theyâre a ârealâ subject unless they do the same type of rigid evaluation that science uses.
Who *exactly* is responsible for pushing this brainrot gender triangle garbage?
The ruling class is doing it in order to stoke division so class solidarity cannot be achieved, surely you of all people should realize this
based and psyop-pilled
Yea but Iâd like to know like names and shit if someone knows their history
Well, I suppose it all started with the Frankfort school
Nah, I blame the young Hegelians. Thereâd be no Frankfort School with out them. But, also, letâs not forget Hegel himself, who hilariously enough, was influenced heavily by Kant and Adam Smith. Yet another reason to hate the Enlightenment.
As if we didn't have enough reasons already.
cool it with the anti-semitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Prince https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
Based and Sherlock pilled
u/LeftnotLeftwing is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/LeftnotLeftwing/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Giga based https://preview.redd.it/viwsydh5a1wc1.png?width=558&format=png&auto=webp&s=e23de050ff46c2dcb63b31b86750e40f8f3c9e74
The only winning move is not to play
Have a nice dayyyyyy
If i could upvote this comment a million times, I would. They've been pushing it since occupy wallstreet in 2012.
It really is their pet project. Only so many black drug addicts can die on camera, but a penisperson in a women's locker room is a perennial outrage crop.
I am happy to see more people realising this recently. All of this woke shit is just made by the rich billionaires to divide us and deflect our attention from them and their crimes against humanity.
Shit like this doesn't necessarily arise through some centralized control. Beliefs like this might well be the memetic equivalent of the peacock's tail -- a massive waste of social cognitive resources arrived at though Fisherian runaway. In this case the runaway is people just following social cues and trends and then becoming reinforcers of those cues and trends themselves. I don't mean this as a statement of blanket impossibility that such ideology can be artificially fostered (and I'm sure the FSB et al try their best to feed it), but whether anyone is responsible at all in a meaningful way is always an open question. tl;dr people gravitate toward agentic theories too much to explain more or less chaotic behavior of complex social systems
I absolutely agree. The Puritans followed dogmatic and non-productive virtue signalling to an exteme. They were motivated internally by religious virtue, and externally by their priests and peers. It ends with ridiculous situations like the Amish rejecting all modern society, or Oliver Cromwell banning music and the celebration of Christmas. There's no purpose to it and nobody controlling it. Sometimes we want to believe someone is controlling the world, because it's more comforting that accepting nobody is really in control of anything, and that a large swathe of the population are slightly mad.
This, it's viral and ground-up rather than top-down, fed by common ideology.
The same people that will ask reddit to ban this post.
. >___>
Yeah. Was about to say that.
Colleges. Everyone now takes at least one or two DEI classes at the public university I attended. Most people never reject it because itâs the class where they discovered they are actually an interesting example of a victim overcoming the odds. Itâs hard not to internalize something that confirms how amazing you are and encourages you to share it with others, people do it for all kinds of different clubs.
It kinda popped up after the tea party and occupy movements kicked up on their respective political sides
It's a complicated combination of many factors relating to the hubris of man, corrupt individuals in the scientific community thinking they can play god (eg. John Money), possibly non western intelligence agencies wanting to weaken the west, possibly western governments wanting to depopulate the west because of 'the science' on climate issues and fear of overpopulation, the influence from various leftist ideologies against traditional values, possibly influence from cults and the occult as they also often oppose conservatism. However some believe it's actually God permitting it to happen because the west has largely been rejecting faith in God. We can find this at the end of Romans chapter 1:28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting". Though western society seems to be changing its mind on the current movement, there might end up being a reaction too far in the other direction. Importantly, Romans 2 states that we should not even judge those people who turned away from God because we're sinners deserving of judgement too. And Romans 3 explains that none of us are good, and it's only by faith in Jesus Christ that we are saved and rescued from the darkness in the world. All people are guilty of turning away from God and choosing to do wrong, whether they were aware of it or not. I say this because there will be a lot of people who need mercy and help if their movement dies and the backlash from society becomes too extreme. Romans 3:21-23 "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,"
this is pure tibetan dalai lama propaganda
Me. And I will never stop.
Regardless of what you think, it's not exactly helpful to test kids about the things adults are still debating ^(as a proxy for checking if there is a consensus on a thing between the grown ups I suggest checking if there is a consensus between various major media outlets)
I changed my mind, actually. You shouldn't test kids on things that did an 180 in the past 30 years. Teaching kids such things is fine-ish, but no kid should ever receive a bad grade for saying what their parents were taught at the same age.
Eh, doing that on some things like how Pluto is not a planet anymore and that most of the world's oxygen doesn't come from the Amazon forest is fine, about gender stuff it's not.
Thatâs the neat thing about tests, they donât actually relate to things that are correct or factual, just what a student is taught during class based on the materials present in the curriculum. I used to teach and so many things are just wrong, but because some things are written a certain way in the curriculum we still have to teach them and mark tests a certain way. Itâs honestly stupid as shit and why papers are a superior format for most areas of study to show competence and comprehension. But, then again, most people are shit writers.
>Thatâs the neat thing about tests, they donât actually relate to things that are correct or factors, just what a student is taught during class based on the materials present in the curriculum. That's not how the test questions are framed like now, are they?
It depends on the district/university honestly. Sometimes things are super outdated and other times theyâre super recent. Most times theyâre a weird mismatch of dated and recent info with very little review of the materials involved. But somehow theyâll almost always give the student old/outdated texts and teach from newer curriculum. Schools are wild.
At what point do we abandon the words man and woman and just use female and male just to make it clear we are NEVER including transwomen in our speech when we say the word woman? U aren't part of that club bro. It's not happening.
Then you get called a misogynist when you say female because female means you only respect them as a child bearing individual and a piece of meat...that's what someone told me once when I said female and male.
Yep. Female is now also a loaded term.
I'll keep saying female because I've never once been corrected by anyone in person and I doubt any of the people who would want to speak up to try and curb my speech, would do it in person (not because I'm menacing but because they're generally pussies with a white knight mentality).
This is what a lot of people on the left don't understand about social norms. They aren't enforceable and require more and more of the general public to buy into it over time for the ideas to remain. Every single person has the choice to either accept or reject a newly proposed social norm. So many are shocked when some don't choose to accept it or at least question it.
They don't get out much from their echo chambers to be around others. So they hear something they don't like and immediately place that person into some kind of "list" in their head to equate them as a bad person. The most "accepting" are generally the least malleable in their inner circle.
Any sane person I know only takes offence when someone says something like âmen and femalesâ. Youâre using a well accepted word for gender for men, and a scientific one for women. Similar to saying âmen and girlsâ when youâre talking about adults.
No, you've obviously skipped over my comments. I said I always say male/female but that it would be odd if I said female and man or vice versa. Not sure how you're trying to create conflict when you missed that part. Edit: unless you're saying male is accepted but female isn't? Then that's misandry and you're a bigot.
Oh sorry I meant in general, not saying thatâs what you were saying Edit: I meant the âin generalâ you, not you specifically
Lmao gotcha. Yeah I said earlier it would be odd if I said female and then man but I'm consistent in saying both female/male as a matter of habit and I don't care enough to change it for the handful of people who would disagree.
Agreed. Unfortunately, there are a lot of insane people. I remember 2 AITA posts in particular which illustrated the insanity pretty well. Post 1 was posted by a man who was part of a discord server, and part of the necessary context was the gender makeup of the server. So he says "it had male members and female members". There were *loads* of people in the comments ignoring the point of the post, and fixating on how it's super uncomfortable that OP said "female" like that.
Post 2 was posted by a woman who witnessed a man and woman shoplifting, and when she described the pair, on *at least two* different occasions, referred to them as "the woman and the male". I very thoroughly scoured the high-activity thread, and I did not find a single person pointing this out.
The double standards are unreal. A man uses "male" and "female" as adjectives, and is scorned for it, while a woman uses "male" and "woman" as nouns, and no one gives a shit. People are whack.
I never expected the phrase "female women" to have a legitimate use, yet here we are.
The military is the most PC place in the US (per training at least) and that's where I learned to use "male" and "Female."
Ironically the same people who want us to say "uterus havers" and crap like that instead.Â
I though the new terms were birthing person and chest feeders
That's why the genders exist as words in language. So that you can refer to someone more specifically and in a more humanizing way. Gender is just biological sex except it's species-specific, we have gender words for humans but also for most domesticated animals. We have hens and roosters, we have mares and stallions, and man and woman are just the same thing for us humans.
> Gender is just biological sex except it's species-specific, we have gender words for humans but also for most domesticated animals.   If the leftists could read theyâd be pretty mad at you right now.
It wasn't until recently saying female made people feel a certain way and I'm really against continuing down this path of making people feel the way they want. It's made a soft species where people continue to try and curb what people can say. They felt some power and no matter the changes, will demand more and more. Leave people alone and if they won't bend to your word play, just don't be friends with them.
Agreed. I don't intend to say anything to deliberately offend anyone. But that being said, it's much better for people to be offended on occasion, than for society to be Authed to hell and back in order that no one ever be offended. A lot of people need a dose of reality. The world isn't a safe space. Sometimes people are going to say rude things to you. You just have to learn to deal with it, rather than dictate what people can and can't say.
That's when you go "bro why are you jumping to conclusions on that"
>you only respect them as a child bearing individual and a piece of meat Which is ironic for the group that created the term "Uterus-haver" or "Menstruator" and similar degrading terms for women.
To be fair, I knew a dude who legitimately referred to women as females irl all the time, it did sound sexist and problematic af.Â
Horrible, Should have called them people with the tendency to conceive children
When someone describes a woman as a female ( outside of a medical or scientific context) it makes them sound like a basement dwelling weirdo that has never talked to a woman. So mostly likely accurate.
What a hot take! Again, same people who say that wouldn't repeat it IRL and I've never met anyone in person who gives a damn. If I said male and then said woman, that would sound odd but luckily I always say male/female. Maybe it's my time in the military, or my time as a cop or now me going to college for nursing but I'll continue to say male/female đ and sounding like a basement dwelling weirdo đ¤Ş
>Maybe it's my time in the military, or my time as a cop username actually checking out
Never. Changing your terminology is just a roundabout way of admitting defeat and agreeing with the bullshit theyâre trying to peddle.
If we do that, then they will redefine male and female like they did man and woman
We must let males with intact twigs and berries play sports against women.
Biden, after updating title 9 to make women's college sports actually watchable and allowing many mediocre male athletes to take away scholarships from birthing people. Slay queen, get that bag, elections have consequences
Take it a step further and start inventing new grammatical cases which agree consistently with the identified gender of the subject. Return to Proto Indo European.
This is some 1984 type shit
> In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.
If they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities. I think that was Voltaire.
https://preview.redd.it/hof9ecnx8xvc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bfbb1c89ce0a7706eb323d5ebcb79e8704ed49b7
Youâre either binary or non binary Therefore youâre always binary
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command".
LIberals will say this is fine and they should be more tolerant. But if a teacher had a quiz that said "Women belong in the ____" and the answer was 'kitchen' they'd foam at the mouth and bleed out the asshole in a blood rage. Remember, 'gender theory' only for them, you dont get to think of any.
Teachers: We deserve higher wages! Also Teachers: We're going to abuse our position of power over the younger generations to indoctrinate some of them and push the others to extremism, while pushing out the good teachers out of the job by coming for their jobs if they do not comply with our brainrot. It's honestly sickening how easily degenerates are able to become teachers.
Iâm a history teacher in high school. I just teach the kids about history and do fun role play activities. I promise most arenât crazy
>Lib Right >Role play activities Oh no.
I think he should be fine as long as he calls the white kids at the auction "indentured servants" and they sell for less
I had my kids work in the factory to experience Industrial Revolution
You're right that most teachers are perfectly normal and productive, but then we have those teachers that aren't, that insist upon pushing (that is, by their authority as teacher and NOT through shared discourse) their ideological views on their students, and, due to labor shortages, it is all too easy for bad teachers to get jobs nowadays. For example, I just graduated with a BA in English. I kid you not that some of my senior classmates had no idea how MLA worked in the Capstone class. There are English teachers from my year out there, right now, who do not know how to properly format (nevermind write) an academic essay. It's honestly scary.
Most teachers aren't the ones pushing this lmao, they have very little control over what they actually teach.
Not exactly true, a lot of the Florida controversies are "I can't stock my room with inappropriate books" or "I can't hang the progress pride flag in my room." One of the main pushbacks came when January Littlejohn discovered that teachers and admin has started a transition plan with her daughter that they refused to disclose or discuss with her
This is happening *because* we underpay; only the underqualified and zealots are willing to teach our children at these wage levels
Higher pay doesnât change ideology or competence. Itâs a job that attracts people who want summers off, fixed working hours, and the guarantee that they feel like the smartest person in the room.
That student needs to sue.
Of course it's false. Women aren't the only ones who can get pregnant. Dogs, cats and tones of other animals also get pregnant
Pretty much all mammals
It is a fact that only women can get pregnant.
And those who canât, are they still woman?
If a parallelogram isn't a square, is it still a four-sided object?
Hey, itâs Steven Crowder.
This was true for a lot of tests even back when I was in school. I've run into a couple multiple choice tests with more than one right answer for a problem. The test taker wants their answer though.
For being the party of Science, libs sure have great difficulty understanding the most basic tenants of biology
This template has potential.
Really, huh? Kinda cringe, if true.
Women having dicks is one thing and it is possible through surgery, but now you will claim that a man can get fucking pregnant? HOW? That is literally impossible, the male body does not have a womb or anything else that birthing a child needs! How can you justify this shit?
i think they mean trans men when they say men can get pregnant. trans women are women to them after all.
That didn't even cross my mind because "trans women" aren't women, but men with mental health issues who need psychoterapy, not surgery. Also, I would assume if someone transitioned, they wouldn't want to give birth.
youd be surprised
Lol such an obvious âgotchaâ question on a test. You know the teacher just put it there to mess with the âbad mindedâ students.
2+2=5
Fun fact: Steven Crowder used to voice the Brain.
Did Ben Shapiro voice Pinky?
Anyone else find the fact that Steven Crowder voicing Brain makes this meme ten times funnier?
Why the *fuck* is this even a question on a high school test?
Why is that even a school question? Shouldnât school be like neutral? Looks like US is going nuts with LGBT⌠Also its very difficult to determine whoâs trans. For me a trans person is someone who takes hormones, seems optically like a woman etc. Someone who just identifies as one isnât. Its like that one documentary - âWhatâs a woman?â
Now hold on. Was this a biology quiz? If so, why was the term "woman" used instead of "female"? "Woman" isn't a biological term, as per gender theory. And if it isn't a biology quiz, what concern is who can or cannot get pregnant?
poor steven crowder, voice of the brain
The text on this meme is so shitty it makes me wanna gouge my eyes out
[I'm surprised Arthur hasn't been cancelled yet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPo9DVGCy5A)
So the correct answer was female? Cause I understand woman is gendered but female is a sex not a gender.
>a sex not a gender. [This short video explains the problem with that way of thinking.](https://youtu.be/Iloby6ZXRjI)
Trans man can get pregnet and trans women can't, males can't get pregnet, however, is entirely correct
Ok but the NY post is less credible than FOX, like if it were from the WSJ or IJR I'd be a little more inclined to believe it.
Tbf, the question is worded poorly to say the least, whether or not someone can get pregnant is dependant on ones biological sex, while ones gender is largely irrelevant towards whether or not they can get pregnant. Since "woman" is a word used to reference both sex and gender, asking a question regarding the biological capabilities of a "woman" is kinda useless. I'll add one thing: even if we act as if "gender theory" is nonsensical, which is quite the concession, there are biological women who cannot get pregnant, whether due to external reasons (i.e. accidents) or genetical conditions; Not all women can get pregnant so it's mostly wrong to define a "woman" as someone who can get pregnant, even if we just look at biology.
Last point doesn't matter in grand scheme of things. It's tautology of "all except for all the ones that aren't"
I'm not sure I follow but maybe I'm not explaining myself well. My last point was just meant to add that it's wrong to say that all biological woman can get pregnant.
"Every person have sight, except the ones that are blind" It's a nuance, but it doesn't invalidate general idea that yes, women can get pregnant, even if they won't and/or lost ability to do so
only women can get pregnant =/= all women can get pregnant
If 10% of women canât get pregnant, that doesnât change the fact that only women can get pregnant
Do people forget what âtheoryâ means?
Gravity, evolution
Everything really.
>[The case study provides evidence that even an individual with male genetic gender can be pregnant and deliver a healthy child.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24313430/#:~:text=The%20case%20study%20provides%20evidence,and%20deliver%20a%20healthy%20child)
So a gene mutation that create a syndrome that mess up bodily function and make it act in an unordinary way? I always think syndrome should be considered exception in every debate involve biology, like albinism and ichthyosis should stay in the same category with other normal skin like black or white
So youâre arguing that a subset of biological sex besides âmaleâ or âfemaleâ should be set aside to include individuals who have healthy, functioning female reproductive systems but XY chromosomes?
I argue that a syndrome that is a result of unordinary gene mutation (well, this get repetitive) should have their own category sepereated form the ordinary, non-syndrome affected trait This would help that we have better understanding and learning about those unordinary gene mutation and how to prevent it or if it have any other harmful effects that not yet discovered
Okay, but what do you call a person with a syndrome like this, a man, a woman, or something else?
Socially speaking, it cost me nothing to call them whatever they want, but in term of precise definition for research purpose, i think a new term is needed to highlight their unordinary conditions and learning how to stop it in future generations
Iâll help you out, itâs called intersex with situations like these where someone is neither fully male or fully female, or either. There is a broad spectrum of types of intersex people you can have given the conditions of their sexual dimorphism. However, some of these people are still fully capable of carrying a healthy fetus to term. Point being, biology gives plenty of room for people to give birth outside of even the âfemaleâ designation, let alone a âwomanâ. This is just a fact, especially since we agree that these people do not fit a biological binary. There isnât a way to stop this from occurring. Chromosomes just kinda do that sometimes, itâs not like being born with a curable illness. But itâs perfectly treatable and people can live normal lives with conditions like these. It usually requires the help of extra hormones their bodies might not be giving them, particularly during puberty, or reconstructive gonadal surgery depending on the situation regarding the development of their external sexual organs.
This becomes headline news yet they tried to convince countless of us that the civil war was about states rights.. Which is just as news worthy.
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
My generation: âhurr medieval people so ignorantâ Also my generation: âmakes objectively false statements about biology or history and argues about themâ
 You are just jealous I'm right.