ChatterBank14 mins ago
Can You Guys Please Analyse And Refute The Following Quote?
59 Answers
"Every time I hear someone use the word "cis" I die a little inside. Feminists truly are a joke nowadays, the little tumblrinas really need to get off their pretentious negativity trips.
There are little to no cognitive differences with male and female homo sapiens at birth. There is nothing special about man or womanhood. We understand the fundamentals and our pool of knowledge concerning the finer details is expanding every single day. That said, there isn't some mystical element that makes a woman a woman or a man a man. These attributes can be changed and replicated. In the future I would imagine the greatest thing on the planet (i.e. science) will be able to flawlessly alter physiology in a sexual context. As it stands, sex changes are good enough not only for the law but medical professionals as well. You can change your sex and the associated procedures only expand in accuracy.
As mentioned above, there are next to no differences between males and females at birth. The truth of it all is, the differences in the human sexes are minute at best. Everything beyond this is entirely a product of the environment. If women are uncomfortable that a transwoman is changing in front of them, tough ***, get over it; based purely on statistics they probably won't even prefer women. We don't need separate locker rooms, we don't need separate restrooms. These are archaic concepts that don't belong in the modern world. There is little to no issues with co-ed facilities. Logically, since we have separate bathrooms entirely due to sexuality, proponents of this would have to advocate separate bathrooms for homosexuals in order to avoid being hypocritical. Oh wait, what about bisexuals? Now there's a paradox.
I would prefer gender itself to go back to being uselessly interchangeable with sex, but as it semantically stands, it doesn't. That's the way it is in ENGLISH. Other languages such as French assign gender to random objects like lamps and chairs. This only furthers the notion that the way gender is perceived beyond a black and white biological perspective is purely linguistic and subject to the culture.
With that said, not everyone that claims to be transgender is actually transgender. Not every crossdresser is transgender, not every man that wants to be a woman is transgender. Someone legitimately has to be experiencing and diagnosed with gender dysphoria. There's a clear distinction between this and fetishizing something. It's also important to note that a transsexual may or may not be transgender. Most of these constructs we have of what it means to be a man and woman are purely socio-economical, meaning that beyond that black and white biological perspective, it's essentially trivial. If someone feels they fit that the social construct of a women and want to take that a step further and impeach on it from a biological standpoint, more power to them. It doesn't affect me and or really anything important.
That all said, I hate Caitlyn. Yes, their name is Caitlyn, they legally changed it. Caitlyn is a bigot, an inconsistent hypocrite that doesn't understand the pressures many trans women go through. Being a rich celebrity that went off and on hormones in the 70s and 80s, never publicly coming out as anything (until now), is a far cry from what trans people deal with. Especially considering the *** had all that extra fame and money from being apart of the vapid Kardashian brand"
Do you agree with the notion that he is extremely intelligent and can you analyse the post? The creator of the post claims to have a degree in Anthropology.
There are little to no cognitive differences with male and female homo sapiens at birth. There is nothing special about man or womanhood. We understand the fundamentals and our pool of knowledge concerning the finer details is expanding every single day. That said, there isn't some mystical element that makes a woman a woman or a man a man. These attributes can be changed and replicated. In the future I would imagine the greatest thing on the planet (i.e. science) will be able to flawlessly alter physiology in a sexual context. As it stands, sex changes are good enough not only for the law but medical professionals as well. You can change your sex and the associated procedures only expand in accuracy.
As mentioned above, there are next to no differences between males and females at birth. The truth of it all is, the differences in the human sexes are minute at best. Everything beyond this is entirely a product of the environment. If women are uncomfortable that a transwoman is changing in front of them, tough ***, get over it; based purely on statistics they probably won't even prefer women. We don't need separate locker rooms, we don't need separate restrooms. These are archaic concepts that don't belong in the modern world. There is little to no issues with co-ed facilities. Logically, since we have separate bathrooms entirely due to sexuality, proponents of this would have to advocate separate bathrooms for homosexuals in order to avoid being hypocritical. Oh wait, what about bisexuals? Now there's a paradox.
I would prefer gender itself to go back to being uselessly interchangeable with sex, but as it semantically stands, it doesn't. That's the way it is in ENGLISH. Other languages such as French assign gender to random objects like lamps and chairs. This only furthers the notion that the way gender is perceived beyond a black and white biological perspective is purely linguistic and subject to the culture.
With that said, not everyone that claims to be transgender is actually transgender. Not every crossdresser is transgender, not every man that wants to be a woman is transgender. Someone legitimately has to be experiencing and diagnosed with gender dysphoria. There's a clear distinction between this and fetishizing something. It's also important to note that a transsexual may or may not be transgender. Most of these constructs we have of what it means to be a man and woman are purely socio-economical, meaning that beyond that black and white biological perspective, it's essentially trivial. If someone feels they fit that the social construct of a women and want to take that a step further and impeach on it from a biological standpoint, more power to them. It doesn't affect me and or really anything important.
That all said, I hate Caitlyn. Yes, their name is Caitlyn, they legally changed it. Caitlyn is a bigot, an inconsistent hypocrite that doesn't understand the pressures many trans women go through. Being a rich celebrity that went off and on hormones in the 70s and 80s, never publicly coming out as anything (until now), is a far cry from what trans people deal with. Especially considering the *** had all that extra fame and money from being apart of the vapid Kardashian brand"
Do you agree with the notion that he is extremely intelligent and can you analyse the post? The creator of the post claims to have a degree in Anthropology.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Trevorblack2014. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Here is the quote:
"I like how blinded you are by your agenda. You outwardly contradicted yourself in your own post.
"No, your crotch does define your sex either male or female. It's in the dictionary."
"You are not a female because you take hormones, SRS"
Aside from your contradiction, by your own logic a woman is no longer a woman if she has a hysterectomy or her genitals are mutilated. This is due to your oversimplified view on the matter. The science behind it begs to differ, and if you're interested in being something other than disingenuous (which judging by your fervent post history on this video seems unlikely) I can cite you a variety. I also like how you seem to only focus on transwomen as opposed to transmen.
Regardless, the point you as many others commenting fail to understand is that this is a semantical issue. I'm a linguist. Have been for 10 years. I understand words and their origins/structures better than most people. Let me tell you, this is mainly an issue with English. In Spanish, French and German the denotations are not the same whatsoever. Some of the connotations may still be bigoted, but they often do not share the same origin or excuses. For example, if I were to create a new language that holds sex and gender with completely similar but different denotations, you'd be in absolutely no position to correct me. Such is the case with French.
There are also more than two sexes, fungi have 36,000 sexes. Humans sometimes have intersex conditions. Gender and sex can be interchangeably depending on the language and context. At what point is the line drawn and why? Almost always it's due to a social agenda"
"I like how blinded you are by your agenda. You outwardly contradicted yourself in your own post.
"No, your crotch does define your sex either male or female. It's in the dictionary."
"You are not a female because you take hormones, SRS"
Aside from your contradiction, by your own logic a woman is no longer a woman if she has a hysterectomy or her genitals are mutilated. This is due to your oversimplified view on the matter. The science behind it begs to differ, and if you're interested in being something other than disingenuous (which judging by your fervent post history on this video seems unlikely) I can cite you a variety. I also like how you seem to only focus on transwomen as opposed to transmen.
Regardless, the point you as many others commenting fail to understand is that this is a semantical issue. I'm a linguist. Have been for 10 years. I understand words and their origins/structures better than most people. Let me tell you, this is mainly an issue with English. In Spanish, French and German the denotations are not the same whatsoever. Some of the connotations may still be bigoted, but they often do not share the same origin or excuses. For example, if I were to create a new language that holds sex and gender with completely similar but different denotations, you'd be in absolutely no position to correct me. Such is the case with French.
There are also more than two sexes, fungi have 36,000 sexes. Humans sometimes have intersex conditions. Gender and sex can be interchangeably depending on the language and context. At what point is the line drawn and why? Almost always it's due to a social agenda"
I'm getting the hang of this site now, I think. http://
-- answer removed --
cis by the way is mis spelt
it means near in Latin and should I imagine be 'sis' in this context
I mean the whole argument is rubbish
take the second para
As mentioned above, there are next to no differences between males and females at birth. The truth of it all is, the differences in the human sexes are minute at best.
As mentioned above, there are next to no differences between males and females at birth. erm I think there are you know
The truth of it all is, the differences in the human sexes are minute at best.
erm no - seeany anatomy text book
Everything beyond this is entirely a product of the environment.
erm no - genetic influences extend beyond birth
etc etc
I mean I have wasted five minutes of my life on this useless subject
it means near in Latin and should I imagine be 'sis' in this context
I mean the whole argument is rubbish
take the second para
As mentioned above, there are next to no differences between males and females at birth. The truth of it all is, the differences in the human sexes are minute at best.
As mentioned above, there are next to no differences between males and females at birth. erm I think there are you know
The truth of it all is, the differences in the human sexes are minute at best.
erm no - seeany anatomy text book
Everything beyond this is entirely a product of the environment.
erm no - genetic influences extend beyond birth
etc etc
I mean I have wasted five minutes of my life on this useless subject
What I THINK he is trying to say is that 'male' and 'female' are determined by environment and upbringing rather than by nature. Which to me is rubbish. However he takes so long to say it and gets so tied up in his own pompous verbosity that it lacks any credibility as an argument.
Putting it simply the whole thing is bull sh***
Putting it simply the whole thing is bull sh***
I this is partly to do with a subject we discussed on AB recently: a letter circulated to schools and colleges in the US saying that transgender pupils should be allowed to use the facilities of the gender that they saw themselves to be rather than the one they physically were.
Verbose man would appear to be supporting that idea.
Verbose man would appear to be supporting that idea.
Latest Posts
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News22 mins ago
News24 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
ChatterBank35 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles51 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.