Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 04:11:13 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / The intl left is a science-denying cult
Rugian
Member
Thu Jan 19 18:38:17
Top Google search results for "can men menstruate:"

"Having a period is not a feminine thing, and people of all genders menstruate, including non-binary people, agender people and even plenty of men! Menstruation doesn't change anything about your gender, it's just a thing that some bodies do."

http://www...ABFA&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp
Rugian
Member
Thu Jan 19 18:38:57
Modern-day conservatives are more prosecuted than Galileo in their attempts to uphold scientific truths.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 19 18:44:37
"Dna isnt real its against our religion"

murder
Member
Thu Jan 19 20:49:01

My Google search returned ...

"No, men do not have periods, nor anything like it. Females are the only sex to menstruate."

Maybe it has to do with the information Google has collected about you. ;o)

Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Jan 19 22:10:39
Talking about a Marxist cult, it was inevitable to see the Lysenkoism.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jan 20 02:27:03
It goes further than that.

Look at Leanne wenn, she said recently that covid deaths are probably exxagerated and laid out the reasons. The left (or a segment of)lost their shit, even though she is finally accurate. Because they are too invested in covid being the end all plague.

Now Dr. Senn is also a partisan hack who is right by coincidence that it benefits the whitehouse stance at the moment.

-----
Then we look at davos and they are preaching climate change disaster, end of the world prophecies while simultaneously preaching a forever war in the Ukraine, which is what is causing the resurgence of coal anyway.

We need massive building projects of nuclear power, replace coal plants with Nuclear as fast as we can (I realise we lack the expertise at scale) and estimate the job transfer issues and prepare for it with retraining in careers we need.The left should love large projects and lowering carbon.

------

They often follow dogmatic beliefs from their leaders void of any real science.

We need less ideology and more pragmatism.
LazyCommunist
Member
Fri Jan 20 06:34:31
Cherub cow does not understand Marxism. For her everything that is bad is Marxism, stupid capitalist cunt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_LGBT_rights

The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality volume two is unequivocal on Marx and Engels view of homosexuality, stating: "There can be little doubt that, as far as they thought of the matter at all, Marx and Engels were personally homo-phobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letter on Jean Baptista von Schweitzer, a German socialist rival. Schweitzer had been arrested in a park on a morals charge and not only did Marx and Engels refuse to join a committee defending him, they resorted to the cheapest form of bathroom humor in their private comments about the affair."
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 20 07:21:31
Murder

Try it without quotation marks.
obaminated
Member
Fri Jan 20 07:32:35
Can men menstrate? I do not think so. But anything is possible.
Cherub Cow
Member
Sat Jan 21 01:25:54
"The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality volume two is unequivocal on Marx and Engels view of homosexuality,"

Lulz. The same trope as "[Marxism is economics, not culture!]" This pathetic multi is playing the old Poe's Law game of "[Hur hur; I'll say something retarded and see if they can guess if I'm retarded or trolling — joke's on them that I'm both!]"

You can always tell that someone is low-IQ based on their inability to deal with metaphors. A low-IQ person would look at surface details in media — like understanding plot points but not themes — and a low-IQ person would similarly not understand that Marxism is *not* limited to the primary doctrine and beliefs of Karl Marx himself any more than Christianity is limited to the teachings of the Christ figure. In other words, Marx provided a dialectic which can easily be substituted into cultural issues that even he himself did not intend. This is a central concept in Critical Theory: mapping rhetorical strategies onto new scenarios which effect the same frameworks while disguising their source logic from casuals.

..
"Look at Leanne wenn, she said recently that covid deaths are probably exxagerated and laid out the reasons."

Leana Wen is a great example of the "failing upwards" strategy at work here (the infiltrated managerial elite — filled with credentialed midwits), so seeing her trying to explain that she's two years behind the "conspiracy theorists" has been precious. The psychosis mobs on Imgur and Reddit don't even want to talk about these many reversals because memes like "[the science changes]" and "[they adjusted their positions after more data]" started to ring hollow after it became clear that even these supposed elites *had* the data but were too captured to realize they were doing the wrong thing with it. They can only purge so many of their own elites before their fallacy of authority leaves them very lonely.

This is why I keep mentioning the archetype of the Soviet citizen wandering in the Urals after the psychosis of Bolshevism: they stand on thousands of misdeeds and know that their consciences failed them when it was needed most. They are left with their shame for being complicit in a bloodthirsty movement that was only ever meant to enslave them and cast them aside when their utility to the Party had ended. "[But we thought we were *saving* lives by centralizing authority, ending liberty, and praying to the Death Cult!]" The narrowing Overton Window comes for everyone — best to recognize that early.

Wen is also a good example of why no official with Chinese or Indian affiliation should be trusted right now. They are all likely invested in the fall of the West. She may just be reading the changing wind and trying to retain her propaganda position.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 21 01:39:45
Rugian:

Perhaps because the scientific term is sex not gender.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jan 21 07:59:10
The scientific phrase is men dont have periods. Duh. How far fucking backwards are we going? Is the far left going to say a flat earth is more equitable next?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 21 10:34:03
Are we still pretending like gender is a thing distinct from physical reality? I thought we talked about this and agreed that woman and man are meaningless beyond the biology, that even trans-sexuals et al are trying to FIT into another biological form, either through surgery or with make up and culturally appropriate clothing.

Crazy that we keep coming back to this.
Dukhat
Member
Sat Jan 21 10:35:31
It's not that crazy. The right-wing outrage machine needs something to distract the peanut gallery with while they rob you blind.
obaminated
Member
Sat Jan 21 10:46:15
This coming from the dipshit who said a sick woman being killed by hospital guards was much to do about nothing but suddenly lost his shit when he found out somewhere in the world a dog got hurt.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 21 10:55:04
Sam:

The earth is objectively not flat.

What you mean when you say "man" on the other hand is entirely a question of semantics.

What you are trying to say is "the only human entities that has a menstrual cycle cannot be called a man". That last bit isn't scientific, its a social construct. We categorise and describe the properties of things however we like.

So the fact we can choose to refer to people who menstruate as a man and treat them in most social settings as a man violates no scientific law at all. It's clearly possible because it literally happens all the time.

The only scientifically illiterate people here are those that are trying to pretend that social constructs are somehow fundamental laws of nature.

You can try and demand that the word man mean exclusively people with a XY chromosome and none of the biological features typically associated with the female sex. But that's not something written into any fundamental law of nature. It's just an arbitrary label to describe a set of phenomena, and the problem is you want that label to have one meaning, and others are using it to mean something different.

And the root cause is that you and nim want the way society relates to (and they relate to society) to be dictated by chromosomes, and others think that shouldn't matter.

Nim:

The gender of the word La Luna is feminine. Not because the moon or the word has a vagina or chromosomes.

Sex is the concept you are referring to. Pretending gender is the same as sex is just silly because it obviously isn't. Otherwise either the moon or the word Luna other to menstruate, or you would say the idea of calling words masculine it feminine was stupid and illogical.

You might think that peoples attitudes to each other *ought* to be dictated by their sex, but trying to pretend it is a scientific law that they must is trivially falsified.
obaminated
Member
Sat Jan 21 11:10:50
Lol.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jan 21 12:28:20
"What you mean when you say "man" on the other hand is entirely a question of semantics. "

No. It very specifically means an adult human male with xy chromosomes.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 21 13:45:15
Sam:

So, can we conclude in your view:

1. It's vitally important that I check someone that looks like a mans gonads and run a quick check in their DNA before calling them a man, or sir, or Mr, or referring to him or he; and that's a matter of scientific fact?

2. People with Kleinfelters syndrome or Jacobs syndrome are not to be referred to as men, and the estimated 1 in 20,000 humans that develop male body types and gonads with XX karyotype are also not men, and it is a scientific requirement they not be documented as male on their birth certificates, referred to as men, called mr etc?

3. You know perfectly well that the term male gender and man in the context these folk are using it simply denotes a sociological aspect and status, not a concrete statement relating to their sex, so again, are you really saying it is of vital import to insist on referring to someone using a gendered pronoun (remembering that several languages do not even have gendered pronouns) that matches their biological sex - "because science"?

This debate has nothing to do with science or scientific literacy.

It's a silly semantic attempt to pretend it's not actually an issue of sociology. Because of course, you don't exhibit emotionally driven social preferences: you are rational and objective. So very rational. Lol.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 21 16:12:32
Seb
"The gender of the word La Luna is feminine. Not because the moon or the word has a vagina or chromosomes."

The gender we are talking about is not grammar, and of course you know this and I addressed this asinine grammatical reduction the last time you brought it up. This is extra relevant for me since Persian, my mother tongue, does not have gendered pronouns (he/she her/him etc. do not exist), let alone gendering of the entire vocabulary. You can throw all of these linguistic phenomena in the sea and we still have man and woman, or as they are know in Persian "mard" and "zan".


Etymological fun facts!
The relationship for "mard" and "man" is obvious, for "Zan" less, but it has the same indo-european root as the English word "Queen" and the Nordic word "Kvinna" which means *woman*.

"Pretending gender is the same as sex"

If they are not when it comes to your socially/cultural identity, then there to talk about, we have two sexes, male and female, also known as man and woman. This gender concepts that you speak of seems stupid and has zero value either to explain anything or convey information that isn't already transmitted with the words "man" or "woman".
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 21 16:13:55
same root as the English words Queen and woman*
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Jan 21 16:29:30
I am essentially throwing you a life line here rooted in our shared indo-european heritage, because you people have obviously gone fucking lost in the weeds here. Totally fucking confused about the simplest things because you have deconstructed your entire sense of being and making sense by thinking you are the words.

You are not the words!
obaminated
Member
Sat Jan 21 19:54:08
Yeah watching seb drown himself the past few days has been amusing.
Dukhat
Member
Sat Jan 21 20:00:40
Is this how you live your life mexican retardo? Feel like you won an argument because you surround yourself with idiots.

Fuck you.

You should have died instead of your grandmother. The world would be better off.
obaminated
Member
Sat Jan 21 21:21:54
Cuckhat is clearly having a fun Saturday night, lol.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Jan 21 21:52:02
ctrl+f: "klein"

Oh look it's Seb pushing the <1% exception scapegoat. Hop in an abortion thread and talk about incest while you're at it
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Jan 21 23:55:35
"1. It's vitally important that I check someone that looks like a mans gonads"

Seb if you are so confused about language and science that you feel the need to start looking at other mens gonads, help yourself. Its hardly vital though.
Cherub Cow
Member
Sun Jan 22 03:51:22
Semantics in the gender/sex issue is an excuse to smooth-brain midwits into believing that words are totally arbitrary rather than metaphors that get close to concrete ideas. People who erode those words are often trying to disable those metaphors and make more malleable brains, like Seb's for instance.

"Gender" is grammatical; it describes only masculine, feminine, and neutral in most romance languages and is closely related to physical human sex and early Jungian archetypes of the femininity and masculinity of various personified items (e.g., the Moon as feminine).

For the Sebs however, smooth-brained idiots accept the definition re-writes of pederast John Money, who wanted to make objects out of his sexual victims and therefore attempted to separate gender from sex in humans by using the objectifying logic of personification. That is, where the Greeks might refer to the femininity of the Moon due to the moon's "soft" and smooth look and its monthly cycle (a harmless assignment to an unthinking object), John Money, wanting to fuck children, attempted to objectify child identities by applying this personification logic to thinking human beings. This allowed him to fuck children and remove their genitals while absolving himself of the guilt of ruining a human being for his personal perversions.

This is the foundation of gender discourse: pederasty and objectification. Gender discourse becomes very useful in an enslaved population because it allows more malleable useful idiots who will remove their genitals to please the state's Malthusian and perverted aims. It makes objects of the population, as in Foucault's "docile bodies" (Foucault *also* being a pederast), which was Foucault's way to position bodies in a way which makes them of a formless gender and therefore receptive to destruction by the perverted total state.

Incidentally, this might also be related to the Nazi book burnings, which many have been taught were a bad thing but which included burning the works of the "Institut für Sexualwissenschaft", an institute run by a pedophile who prefigured John Money and was attempting to use this same logic of emasculation. Funny, that.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 22 04:11:13
Nim:

"The gender we are talking about is not grammar"

Exactly. And when we talk about someone's gender Vs their sex, we are also talking about two things.

Attempting to deny the concept exists, and that gender it's just another word for sex and that it is "scientifically impossible" to relate to someone in society other than as dictated by their sex is both scientifically illiterate and frankly somewhat Orwellian: "if we can control the language we can obliterate concepts we don't like".
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 22 04:14:56
Forwyn:

"Oh look it's Seb pushing the <1% exception scapegoat"

No, its seb pointing out that the "scientific" definition of the word "man" that relates it to specific chromosomes doesn't actually work scientifically.

We are quite happy to call those people "men". It's clear that the word "man" isn't actually fundamentally defined by clear scientifically measurable parameters.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 22 04:17:24
Sam:

Oh I'm not confused. I'm pointing out your argument that the word man can only be used to describe people with xy karyotype is nonsense.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 22 04:20:38
In practice we have no idea of anyone's karyotype other than what the bits of them visible to us physically look like, how they present themselves, and indeed it is considered perfectly normal to call quite a lot of people that aren't trans and don't have xy karyotype a man.

I.e. your assertion that the word man means adult person with xy karyotype.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 22 04:20:54
Is demonstrably not true.
Cherub Cow
Member
Sun Jan 22 22:53:45
"frankly somewhat Orwellian"

Always comical to see Seb projecting his own guilt. Gender was explicitly linked to sex via the plain realities apparent even to children who could quickly decipher the sex of costumed pederasts just by looking at their sickly appearances until the pederasts decided to erode language for their perverted sexual appetites—drawing those children a little closer through deceptions.

Here's an excerpt from "Saint Foucault : Towards a Gay Hagiography" (1997), which draws from Foucault's talk of "fisting" as prolonged sexual pleasure where people do not necessarily climax (as in a normal arrangement of sex between a male and female) but instead focus on loosening the asshole to show that their defenses have been totally lowered for prolonged sodomy — both physical and mental sodomy:
http://i.imgur.com/OwbeXiF.png
Dukhat
Member
Mon Jan 23 00:37:33
lol, imgur links as references. Cherub spends so much time in a bubble of isolated stupidity.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 23 01:26:50


"Gender was" - a bold statement to claim that in all societies for all time, all social roles were determined by sex and that the concept that we use the word gender to explain is actually equivalent to paedophilia.

Demonstrably false in fact.

Difficult to tell if their objection here is the claimed appropriation of the word gender to make it distinct from the word sex to encapsulate a concept and phenomenon, or the concept and phenomenon itself.

Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 23 05:53:01
Seb, being of the pedophile cult, is quite resistant to the knowledge that many languages were created as a reflection of humanity and that humanity is sexually male and female. Being of the pedophile cult, it is far more enticing to him to invite his depravity onto others by allowing children to be groomed into objectifying rhetoric. This Sebbishness is how cowards, pedophiles, and weaklings infiltrate society and debase its strengths.

..
"lol, imgur links as references."

I know that you are comically fucking retarded, but that "Imgur link" is an image of a plain-text book — you know, one of those things with fucking pages that you never read.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 23 06:46:40
Seb
No, not exactly, you are confused. This is evident by you repeatedly arguing with examples of grammatical gender e.g ”la luna” my personal favorite is ”le fromage” that have no relationship with real world phenomena, all the while the salient discourse is about the _semantic_ gender conveying actual information about the sex of a person, i.e he or she.

And yet even these gendered pronouns that have semantic value anchored in real world phenomena and properties like vaginas and ballsacks, are not culturally universal. You know what is though? Man and woman, even the third option is anchored to the above in “none of the above”.

This is the post modern quagmire you have created where you people are confusing the shit out of yourself by butchering your own language and sensemaking at the behest of intellectually and likely mentally compromised people.

”Attempting to deny the concept exists”

Again the confusion shows, no one is denying the concepts exists, what I am telling you is that your mangled concept is as useful as angles and demons or unicorns, all concepts that exists with zero relationship to the real world.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 23 06:57:39
Seb
”we are also talking about two things.”

”We” are not no. You are. ”We” have already been over this. Whether someone is a woman of a man is only important because of biology, in most other instances we are just human beings. My wife is not just a human being, she is a woman and she is a woman because she is a female. You don’t get to butcher language like some kind of mental patient!
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 23 08:19:55
Sam Adams
Member Thu Jan 19 18:44:37
"Dna isnt real its against our religion"


Seb
Member Sun Jan 22 04:14:56

"the "scientific" definition of the word "man" that relates it to specific chromosomes doesn't actually work scientifically."


Rofl. Called it.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 23 08:58:22
Nim:

"No, not exactly, you are confused."

Don't be silly - I made the point, you grasped the point, you agreed with the point.

You are not arguing about whether the word gender is being used in the way that it is trans discourse, you are arguing that such a concept cannot exist - that there is only sex and any attempt to describe the concept of gender that is different from sex is therefore nonsense.

This is itself nonsense. The concept clearly does exist: we can describe it perfectly well and many people have put the concept into practice.

It is no more impossible to describe a person as having a gender than a word - and neither need to be predicated on whether a vagina or testes are involved or the object in question has a particular karyotype.

There is nothing particularly post-modern about this. That's just a word you are throwing out there to try and buttress your flawed thinking.

"no one is denying the concepts exists,"

Absolutely you are: you are trying to say that it is scientifically illiterate as by definition gender - as conceptualised as a thing distinct from sex - is a meaningless concept and must be the same thing as sex.

"your mangled concept is as useful as angles and demons or unicorns"
Nonsense. It describes a objectively real phenomenon about how millions of people behave. Angel, demon and unicorn are all perfectly useful concepts in that the describe a concept that exists - whether or not unicorns, angels or demons objectively exist.

Trans people exist, whether or not you think there is such a thing as a gender should be recognised as distinct from sex - they do, other people do - and behave accordingly.





Seb
Member
Mon Jan 23 09:00:15
Nim:

"Whether someone is a woman of a man is only important because of biology"

To you, perhaps, but not everyone agrees and you don't get to decide what is important for everyone else.

And in any case you are incorrect - we have gendered pronouns in many languages for a start - and I believe you are a stalwart for insisting that replacing these pronouns with gender neutral ones is a bad idea.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 23 09:33:37
Seb
"You are not arguing about whether the word gender is being used in the way that it is trans discourse, you are arguing that such a concept cannot exist"

If this is your take-away from this thread and the previous threads, then you are thicker than I give you credit for. I do not give a shit about la luna or le fromage, don't care, don't need it. You being either confused or running interference as a woke government agent, keep bringing up grammatical gender either to confuse others as a strategy or simply as a consequence of having a amputated understanding of language and meaning.

So you are welcome to stop bringing up grammatical gender, any day you fancy.



Semantic gender exists and is informative about real world phenomena i.e the sex of a person.

Then we have your woke definition of gender where he and she have drifted away from male and female and they are no longer the same thing. I acknowledged that this concept exists like the concept of unicorns and demons. It is not only useless like those concepts to convey real world information, but also serve to confuse and destroy the precision in language.

"The concept clearly does exist"

I can make up all kinds of things, describe them and practice them. This is what human beings do. Do you know any human beings? Can you define human being scientifically?

"It is no more impossible"

What is impossible is for you to have a conversation at any length before you go Cathy Newman on us, but you don't even bother to be as polite as Cathy Newman and pose your stupid straw men as fake questions anymore, you just run with it from the start.

"Angel, demon and unicorn are all perfectly useful concepts in that the describe a concept that exists - whether or not unicorns, angels or demons objectively exist."

They are _not_ useful concepts to describe real life phenomena you clown which is the entire fucking point of semantic gender! Man, woman, trans-people, he/she these are all real world phenomena! It could not be any more clear that you have butchered your ability to make sense of language and that you are in fact perfectly confused and/or illiterate. You actually do not understand that things that exist in the conceptual space do not by virtue of existing in that space, exist in the material/physical world. You think you can actually will things into existence from the conceptual world of unicorns.

"Trans people exist"

But unicorns do not and a person born as a man, can not become a woman or vice versa. Hence why we call them trans-women and trans-men. You just have to make up new pronouns because he and she are already taken by men and women <- notice they are not amended with a prefix.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 23 10:45:23
Nim:

"You being either confused or running interference as a woke government agent,"

Tin foil is not a good look Nim.


"keep bringing up grammatical gender either to confuse others as a strategy or simply as a consequence of having a amputated understanding of language and meaning."

The word gender, as used in sociology and in relation to trans issues, has a particular meaning.

Screaming "No, it must mean Sex, and because Sex is about Chromosomes and gonads ipso facto any defintion of Man in terms of gender rather than sex is scientifically illiterate" is either a foolish semantic game where you pretend that Gender means something other than it does, or is a futile attempt to wish away a concept you would like not to exist by pretending there is no term for it.

And that is the point I am making.

Gender has a meaning distinct from Sex - whether you like the idea of their being a concept of gender distinct from sex or not.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 23 10:48:23
Nim:

"Semantic gender exists and is informative about real world phenomena i.e the sex of a person."

Nope, that is simply saying Gender is the same as Sex, when we know in this context it is defined quite differently.

So again, is either a stupid and futile attempt to try and misunderstand the meaning of the word in context "la la la la I refuse to hear how you are using the term Gender and will interpret you to mean Sex instead"; or to try and attempt to wish away the concept the word is being used to describe "La La La La you must mean Sex because there is nothing else other than Sex" which is stupid because it evidently does, whether you agree with the concept or not.

There is no other way to characterise this sterile line of debate.

Seb
Member
Mon Jan 23 10:52:41
Semantically, the word Gender is used to describe the socially constructed differences between people designated male and female - and this can be quite distinct from their sex.

The decision to call someone "He" or "Her" is obviously a real world phenomenon and need not correlate with their gonads any more than appending "Royal Highness" as part of the pronoun to denote their royal status is in someway anything other than a purely social construct. Granted if you go back a few centuries you would find someone much like yourself trying to furiously argue that actually those elements of the pronoun relate to fundamentally real world phenomenon like royal blood and revealed divine right or some such.

Forwyn
Member
Mon Jan 23 21:28:10
Note that the objective differences between the vast majority of biological males and females are being treated as subjective, just in the last decade, to appeal to a tiny minority of weirdos, almost as small as the Kleinfelter scapegoat lol
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 23 22:43:38
Forwyn:

They aren't. Because gender - the social difference - isn't the same a sex.

You only think the major biological differences are being ignored because you thinking that sex and gender are the same thing.

Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 23 23:36:08
[Nim]: "my personal favorite is ”le fromage” that have no relationship with real world phenomena"

Not quite true of «le fromage».
One thing to point out with grammatical gender is that the gender of the object is typically tied to the word's origin. Cheese is not masculine due to cheese itself but due to the origin of the word "fromage", which comes from Latin's «formaticum» ("mold" or "form"). «Fromage» is masculine because form was given as from the original "mold", which was Adam, a masculine man made in God's image. Cheese borrowed from the Latin because of the process used to create cheese: molded from raw material to create a form, with that form being as the original masculine creation. So cheese, as a molded thing, becomes the re-forming/re-molding of Adam, a man (masculine). This makes sense since cheese-makers are like gods in France ;)

[Nim]: "You being either confused or running interference as a woke government agent"

*This* a thousand fucking times. Seb is 100% a representation of government propaganda. I almost think that that's the point of his multi: just repeat whatever the government says as "truth". He's like a parody of someone whose god is government.

[Nim]: "your woke definition of gender ... is not only useless like those concepts to convey real world information, but also serve to confuse and destroy the precision in language."

Bingo.

[Nim]: "What is impossible is for you to have a conversation at any length before you go Cathy Newman on us"

lol. I love witnessing Seb getting virtual-murdered XD

[Nim]: "It could not be any more clear that you have butchered your ability to make sense of language and that you are in fact perfectly confused and/or illiterate."

I had this same issue with Seb years ago (2016?). I eventually just had to ask him if he understood that math was a language (i.e., a way to use signs to get close to underlying reality while not necessarily being the reality itself). He outright said that he does not think it's a language. Seb possesses a broken mind.


..
[Seb]: "The word gender, as used in sociology and in relation to trans issues, has a particular meaning."

Which is divorced from reality, yes. It is designed to push smooth-brained halfwits into beliefs such as that "[there is no real-world difference between a trans-man and a man]". Acceptance of such insanities allows Party Members to declare their loyalty to the Totalitarian Party. The Party continually changes language to direct their useful idiots while also using it to conduct a perpetual loyalty test. Strong-minded people can see the Overton Window of Party doctrine shifting, but weak-minded people merely adjust to the eternal present of the new doctrine.

[Seb]: "to try and misunderstand"

Minor sidebar. I've seen people do this "try and [verb]" form a lot lately. It's grammatically incorrect (correct is, "Try [to] understand"), yet I've seen fucking *"journalists"* making the same error, like the midwit Taylor Lorenz (screenshot of her Tweet by some rando since she has her Tweets protected):
http://twitter.com/aginnt/status/1616287295124176896
"any resources to try and combat"
There are arguments for "try and" as 'acceptable' (typically the camp of, "[Fuck it! What even is grammar?]"), but the issue is that it creates a separate meaning ("to try [as well as] to combat") when that's not her meaning — which would be made explicit with "to". So it's not a surprise to see people who are bad with grammatical understanding and functional speech using it — not that that or any other error alone would be a total red flag.

[Seb]: "the word Gender is used to describe the socially constructed differences between people designated male and female"

And there it is: "socially constructed". That is the postmodern feminist version of gender, adapted straight from Simone de Beauvoir's resentment and cope essays — shields she used to protect herself from the affirming experience of pregnancy in her genetic death-pact.

[Seb]: "Gender has a meaning distinct from Sex"

False. "Gender" is meant to get as close to sex as possible through the persistent metaphor of "masculine" and "feminine" aspects of male and female bodies. Only in the addled minds of Marxist useful idiots does this metaphor fade, with the goal being to rape and emasculate your children and/or get you to accept your own degradation — of body and of spirit.

Just accept that you're a pedophile-supporting Marxist, Seb. It's a quick and easy statement that gets to the core of your entire worldview. ;)
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 24 00:00:22
"You only think the major biological differences are being ignored because you thinking that sex and gender are the same thing."

They are like 99%
Seb
Member
Tue Jan 24 02:39:29
One small problem with "Seb is a govt agent set to try and run interference on us". The UK govt doesn't align with my beliefs. It aligns with yours.
Seb
Member
Tue Jan 24 02:59:23
Sam:

Not really. Some languages have gendered pronouns. Other don't. Lots of cultures have different styles of clothing and other fashion associated with gender. They can't sell be objectively "correct".

It's pretty clear that the association of any one of those particular specific aspects of gender to sex is arbitrary social construct. Their karyotype on the other hand, isn't. That's an objective, immutable fact.

And Nims own position is that the sex of a person doesn't actually matter for almost any social purpose. Therefore there's no particular importance that these socially constructed gender identifiers *must* strictly be used with sex. That's a choice.

Is there any vital reason why the gendered pronoun used to refer to a person absolutely must correspond to karyotype or whatever definition you are using for sex?

And if so, how is it there are functioning societies that have no gendered pronouns at all?

Like I said, the belief that trans stuff is somehow scientifically illiterate is just nonsense. It would only make sense if the social signifiers of gender were somehow in physical law bound to a person's karyotype. And that's literal magical thinking: that the language we use and behaviours we exhibit can change something physical.

Hence: gender is the word to describe the arbitrary social differences, sex the word to describe the intrinsic biological.


Insisting the two are the same can only be:

A. Semantic: arguing that the *word* gender is a synonym for sex and a different word should be used. Which is fine but also evidently not how it is being used and majority of users of the language and indeed dictionaries disagree with the idea that this usage, in this context, is wrong.

B. Substantive: that it is impossible for social constructs not to align strictly to biological sex. Which again is obviously false.

This is all just a sterile distraction from the actual argument you are trying to make, I.e. Normatively, gender should be dictated by sex and failure to do so is against your preferences and your traditions. You have a preference for a different social construct.

That's really all there is to it.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jan 24 10:32:12
Seb
"Tin foil is not a good look Nim."

What I mean with government stooge is that you are a brain washed useful woke idiot. You have to get used to my version of "defund the police" and kill all white men".

"Nope, that is simply saying Gender is the same as Sex, when we know in this context it is defined quite differently."

If gendered pronouns are not informing us about sex, then it is like I have told you countless times, completely meaningless. Which works for me since my mother tongue does not even have them, because we don't *need* them, it is just a grammatical construct that is efficient and removes ambiguity in language. In Persian you can only remove the ambiguity by mentioning the name of the person (provided it is unambiguously male or female) or explicitly state man/woman. These grammatical constructs, meant to remove ambiguity is now hijacked by people of questionable mental integrity to will unicorns into existence and make the real world ambiguous and confusing. Man, woman, pig, granite. Anything can be anything.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jan 24 10:32:36

Cherub Cow
"Not quite true of «le fromage»"

Fair enough and interesting, I really love etymology. *No relationship* with real world phenomena was a poor wording on my part, what I meant was that it does provide more information about cheese.


"eventually just had to ask him if he understood that math was a language"

I actually remember this, didn't make the connection, but I once found myself telling seb that math was an abstraction of the physical world, which is describing a significant portion of how a language works, the words are not reality. Now with actual language you additionally have human experience and sensation of the words and phenomena described with them, these can not be said to be abstractions, not so much with math, differing experience of algebra is not relevant as say "warmth" and "pain". Does that make sense? Anyway he agreed by scolding me that he did have a PhD in physics!
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jan 24 10:48:20
"And Nims own position is that the sex of a person doesn't actually matter for almost any social purpose. Therefore there's no particular importance that these socially constructed gender identifiers *must* strictly be used with sex. That's a choice."

What are you talking about Cathy? I have NEVER said that they are "socially constructed" in the arbitrary way you are implying, in fact I have throughout the multiple threads maintained that he and she are rooted *strictly* in the male and female sex. There is no there there without the biology of sex. As soon as you try to separate him from male, you have unraveled the entire thing and rendered them confusing, in direct opposition to their function in the languages where they exist.

Seb
Member
Tue Jan 24 15:31:32
Nim:

"What I mean with government stooge is that you are a brain washed useful woke idiot"

Retraction accepted.

"If gendered pronouns are not informing us about sex, then it is like I have told you countless times, completely meaningless."

Nope, it's not completely meaningless as it still signifies an aspect of identity that the people in question care deeply about. And if it's completely meaningless to you, you wouldn't be so fixated on the issue. You'd just shrug and go "sure, whatever floats your boat".

"is just a grammatical construct"

Lol! You've just spent half a thread rejecting this very proposition!

"These grammatical constructs, meant to remove ambiguity"
If gendered pronouns were "meant" to reduce ambiguity, then why don't we have age based pronouns?

They are signifiers of identity and entrenched idea of how social behaviour should be differentiated based on sex. I.e. gender.

The point about people clarifying the premiums to match their identity surely removes ambiguity by allowing them to be addressed in the manner they identify as.

Surely this is far more pertinent given
that you reject the idea that sex is (bar some edge cases we probably agree on) a meaningful criteria for such differentiation anyway, so why fight tooth and nail and die on this particular hill: that gendered pronouns are essential for removing ambiguity?

"What are you talking about Cathy?"

You think you are making a point here but it's the opposite one to the one you think you are making. The principle is: respect other people's identity, do not try to impose one on them.

"I have NEVER said that they are "socially constructed""

Well, if sex is, as you put it - "Whether someone is a woman of a man is only important because of biology, in most other instances we are just human beings." - but other folks, such as the Taliban actually think it is absolutely pivotal and defining characteristic determining everything from basic civil rights onwards, it is pretty clear that it is a social construct. You can't both be right.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jan 24 16:18:09
"identity that the people in question care deeply about"

You don't get to decide how our common language is used because you care about something deeply, it is not sufficient. Remember how we agreed that your identify is negotiated? You have to be accepted by whatever group/community/society you want to belong to.

"Lol! You've just spent half a thread rejecting this very proposition!"

You are putting undue emphasis on "just" because you are confused and thus projecting your confusion and need me to be confused like you. If we remove the word "just" nothing changes, "it is a grammatical construct meant to..." It is juxtaposed with all the language that work perfectly fine without them, it thus just a grammatical construct, not meant as it has no value and function. It just is.

"then why don't we have age based pronouns?"

Is a stupid question that does not deserve an answer, why do some languages have pronouns and other not? Nobody said language doesn't contain ambiguity, but that this specific construct removes ambiguity in a sentence, "he went to his car". Try writting that without pronouns using only 5 words.

I am going to stop reading here, because I am very familair with this stage of the seb cycle, where the questions and arguments get increasingly retarded and incoherent, because seb is unable to realize what he is saying is stupid. This last one is a perfect example of the final stage of seb, i.e any ambiguity in language now invalidates the grammatical constructs and rules that do remove ambiguity. Classic seb/cathy newman, goes all the way back to "so you are saying all muslims rape all the time, AHA here is a muslim that doesn't rape, check mate!"
Forwyn
Member
Tue Jan 24 16:25:16
"You only think the major biological differences are being ignored because you thinking that sex and gender are the same thing."

Riiiiight...just ignore chest feeding and pregnant people and men giving birth and biological men who went through male puberty beating the shit out of female MMA fighters lol
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jan 24 16:28:01
efficient* and unambiguous.
Seb
Member
Tue Jan 24 16:31:55
Nim:

"You don't get to decide how our common language is used"

Sure you do. Language has always been an evolving consensus. Don't be ridiculous.

"Remember how we agreed that your identify is negotiated?"

Indeed, and here you are trying to impose one on peoole who reject it by insisting is dictated through language that somehow can't be modified and which is is vitally important correlates to sex; whilst paradoxically claiming that sex is by and large irrelevant.

The negotiation is simple: a large builder of people think you are being an offensive dick,castigate you and ostracise you. That's it. That's the negotiation.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jan 24 16:31:55
Forwyn
Or the latest thing in fashion, men that menstruate.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jan 24 16:37:12
Seb
"Sure you do. Language has always been an evolving consensus. Don't be ridiculous."

No, I do not consent.

"and here you are trying to [inform about the very real constraints that physical reality has on our identity]"

Fixed it for you.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 25 03:03:39
Nim:

That's fine. But you know and understand that's how others are using the language, and you know that trying to impose your concept of their identity onto them is offensive to them and others; while at the same time you profess this sex based identity to be largely irrelevant anyway.

So obviously, that just makes you a total dickhead.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 25 03:50:08
"Why am I being cancelled, its so unfair" he screams, having dedicated himself to undertaking unwanted action he knows will offend people on an issue he professes is irrelevant to him anyway.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share