oh, right.

yeah take a hot bath or something lol.

Why are they wrong?

Excuse for laziness

:confused: - either you're saying "eh, that's a good excuse", or you're calling me lazy. If it's the former, thank you; if it's the latter, :fuckyou:.

If you are so confident you can school me but say you can't be bothered i don't see what is controversial about being called lazy.

All I'm doing is asking for people to provide a response to those feminists that is either well reasoned or backed up by some kind of factual information.

gender, as assigned by our genetic code, is fluid and has always been. 1 in 1000 kids are born with some form of hermaphroditism, and 99% of them are either operated on as babies or just raised as a single sex.

Many are born with NO sexual organs or characteristics.

the idea of "male" and female" as the only polar opposites that truly exist is fucking dumb and owes its existence to the fucking dumb all or nothing world created by origanized religions of the past 2000 years. In countries where they had civilization and religion before monotheism all sexual characteristics are usually accepted and understood.

sexual preference is a completely different thing to gender, and works on a bell curve, not an either/or dichotomy.

right, gender is not reducible to chromosomes, and while chromosomes are extremely important, it’s simplistic dumbfuckery to reduce everything to them, because a) they alone do not determine ontogeny, and b) even if they did, there’s not just 2 identical sex chromosomes out in the wild to say all chromosome combos are equivalent. mutation is a thing.

the world is supremely chaotic, and we can attempt to categorize it all, but we’re only really successful at it with very simple things, like physics and chemistry. for everything else we’re more or less testing and making it up as we go. and rules of thumb are useful, but they’re not everything.

life as we live it is incredibly complex, and that scares people who then run to find mental refuge in simplistic explanations for all. religion does this, and science-as-religion is no different.

the kind of normative naturalism that jordan lobsterman preaches is extremely lazy thought. yes, we have to recognize the biological as he says—but no, the biological is not as simple as he pretends in order to advance his order vs. chaos ideology. he might have once measured crustacean serotonin but he’s certainly not an endocrinologist.

it's a form of hate speech and doesn't need a response

You are confusing sex with gender. Gender is not defined by genetic code.
Don't really see any relevance between what you are saying and the question I asked so I presume you are not talking to me.


"In countries where they had civilization and religion before monotheism all sexual characteristics are usually accepted and understood." Don't really know where you get that one from or which these countries are, I think you pulled this out of your arse.

Nope. In many countries (especially older ones that were no founded by christians), intersex genders are recognized, whether it is native americans belief that a human can have two souls (male and female souls in a male r female body, or a male soul in a female body or vice versa), and the Longstanding Hindu belief that there are sex genders between male and female, or the acceptance of early China regarding men with female souls or vie versa. There are many many examples. The Inuit do so. There are tribes and cultures in Africa that shared these views.

Be serious. Why is it hate speech for genetic women to say that womanhood isn't something you can assign yourself?

Why is it that you all-born-male-people presume to know better on the issue of what womanhood is than people who have been women all their lives?

Yeah I know, hijras, etc. It's a more sensible and accepting way of looking at people and the world. But that is not the same as "all sexual characteristics are usually accepted and understood". We had civilization and religion before monotheism in Europe and your statement is not true for here. They've never had monothesim in Japan (well not yet) and your statement isn't true for there either.



NB I'm not defending gender binaries. Nor am I advocating intolerance of non-binary/trans people.

what is “womanhood”? just aXing (about the terms of this discussion.)

well, T n B is going into the ignore bin..:)

The guy has shown an interest in wanting to learn so why not have a discussion with him? Not as if he's been a dick about it all. It's too easy to just go "urgh you just don't get it" as if that proves your point.

too facile on the "wanting to learn" thing. It seems practiced and shop worn to me. I've got a real low tolerance for bullshit, since I am neither working nor running for office, I just don't have to respect other peoples fucked up opinions. :)

Do you understand the difference between a question and an opinion or are you being wilfully closed minded? I guess if you put someone on ignore then the answer is obvious.

Read my posts that have my actual opinions: having multiple genders (or none) is more sensible and accepting the binary.
Gender binary is dumb. I'll add this: i have great admiration for people who transition, it must be immensely difficult and probably comes after long periods of alienation, depression and self-loathing. And I imagine is a very difficult decision to make and tell your friends and family, and then actually carry out and do.

However, it takes a leap of logic to say that someone who transitions to male or female is the same as a person of was born, raised, lived their who life and is biologically male/female. This is why binary is dumb. This is why multiple (infinite/none) genders is more sensible.
Why is it controversial for a cis woman to say trans women are trans women? As far as I can see that is not derogatory or dehumanizing unless you think there is something wrong or inferior with being trans.

Quoted just in case you were blocked :D

Womanhood I was using to refer to whatever it is that people like Germaine Greer or Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie regard as being their province, whether that means it is exclusive to cis women or just theirs to a greater extent than trans women, or a thing that is similar but separate to transwomanhood (don't ask me what that is).

I'm not saying I know what it is, I'm just expecting that these women do.

ok i don’t know what constitutes womanhood either or what the novelist wrote, but is it anything like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice...transsexualism