Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6689
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:14 am

Greta wrote: If you resent being told what to think then you must spend your life in a constant state of barely controlled apoplexy because, last time I looked, almost everyone is telling us what to think almost all of the time.
You are probably right here :lol:
You can have opinions without telling others what they are allowed to say or think, even to the extent of putting it into laws. That's not free speech. Brain-washing school children is not ok either.
I wasn't stereotyping anyone. Is it a stereotype to say that women are xx and men are xy? (Oh yes, we all know there are exceptions).

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3234
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by Greta » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:25 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I wasn't stereotyping anyone. Is it a stereotype to say that women are xx and men are xy? (Oh yes, we all know there are exceptions).
Okay, that broad brush statement is largely okay, and the same goes with many physical observations (various intersex and trans variations aside). It's not so easy to find comfortable broad brush statements about the genders that don't involve physical differences, though.

3Sum
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:54 pm

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by 3Sum » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:55 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
3Sum wrote:Is there a point to that last post of yours, Hobbs? Except that you don't want to have sex with your grandmother?
I've made my point, you are just too dull to see it.
Perhaps a better name for my thread would be "Relations between the two sexes...", but not "sexual relations" as that would have different implications, understand? And yeah, as commendable as it is that you won't fuck your grandmother, I don't see what your sex life has with this thread.

wtf
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by wtf » Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:45 am

3Sum wrote: Perhaps a better name for my thread would be "Relations between the two sexes..."
What makes you think there are only two sexes you cis hetero scum? Signed, the SJWs.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6689
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:56 am

Greta wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I wasn't stereotyping anyone. Is it a stereotype to say that women are xx and men are xy? (Oh yes, we all know there are exceptions).
Okay, that broad brush statement is largely okay, and the same goes with many physical observations (various intersex and trans variations aside). It's not so easy to find comfortable broad brush statements about the genders that don't involve physical differences, though.
Of course, heaven forbid that anyone should ever mention physical differences. Trivialities like internal organs, huge manly hands, deep voices, receding hairlines, towering height, physical strength, muscle mass, hairy legs, face, chest, and feet, genitalia.......
Wow, it certainly takes a lot of work to be your 'natural' self.
Good luck with making the olympics a gender free zone.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3234
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by Greta » Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:50 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Greta wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I wasn't stereotyping anyone. Is it a stereotype to say that women are xx and men are xy? (Oh yes, we all know there are exceptions).
Okay, that broad brush statement is largely okay, and the same goes with many physical observations (various intersex and trans variations aside). It's not so easy to find comfortable broad brush statements about the genders that don't involve physical differences, though.
Of course, heaven forbid that anyone should ever mention physical differences. Trivialities like internal organs, huge manly hands, deep voices, receding hairlines, towering height, physical strength, muscle mass, hairy legs, face, chest, and feet, genitalia.......
Wow, it certainly takes a lot of work to be your 'natural' self.
Good luck with making the olympics a gender free zone.
There's more straw in that post than in little Jesus's manger, Veg. It reminds me of how I was taken to task by a number of people here for using the term "straw person". Talk about PC! To me it was a tiny thing but people were blowing up about it. Sometimes I say "straw man"; it depends on my mood. That's how important this stuff is to me, ie. not at all.

Do you really care if I like to just take people as people without caring whether they are male, female or whatever shade in between? When I interact with dogs I don't care about their gender either (unless patting the belly) as I also have no intention of bedding them.

Now I have more time to ponder space, the universe, life, consciousness and the overlapping systems of reality. I'm not much of a fan of these "human issues" threads. Give me metaphysics any day - much more happiness-inducing. I should leave you guys to it. I think there's still a fellow here hankering for a return to the bad old days.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6689
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:04 am

Greta wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Greta wrote: Okay, that broad brush statement is largely okay, and the same goes with many physical observations (various intersex and trans variations aside). It's not so easy to find comfortable broad brush statements about the genders that don't involve physical differences, though.
Of course, heaven forbid that anyone should ever mention physical differences. Trivialities like internal organs, huge manly hands, deep voices, receding hairlines, towering height, physical strength, muscle mass, hairy legs, face, chest, and feet, genitalia.......
Wow, it certainly takes a lot of work to be your 'natural' self.
Good luck with making the olympics a gender free zone.
There's more straw in that post than in little Jesus's manger, Veg. It reminds me of how I was taken to task by a number of people here for using the term "straw person". Talk about PC! To me it was a tiny thing but people were blowing up about it. Sometimes I say "straw man"; it depends on my mood. That's how important this stuff is to me, ie. not at all.

Do you really care if I like to just take people as people without caring whether they are male, female or whatever shade in between? When I interact with dogs I don't care about their gender either (unless patting the belly) as I also have no intention of bedding them.

Now I have more time to ponder space, the universe, life, consciousness and the overlapping systems of reality. I'm not much of a fan of these "human issues" threads. Give me metaphysics any day - much more happiness-inducing. I should leave you guys to it. I think there's still a fellow here hankering for a return to the bad old days.
I've always thought I write quite clearly. I must be wrong, the way everyone on here seems to misconstrue what I write.
No, I don't care if that's what you want to think. I care about what's true. I don't like people trying to pass off their political agendas as scientific truth. I don't like children being brainwashed by PC social engineers. I don't like being told what to think and say. Jenner can call him/her/hir/zu/whatever self a woman if __wants to. Just don't force me to say __ is one (and that's not directed at you). Actually I think he's (oops) well aware that __'s not a woman. __ should just accept __self as __ is--a man who likes to dress as a woman (except that I've never dressed like that or worn that much makeup in my life). And I would like to know how many heterosexual women could happily live with not one, but three wives (because he's not gay), presumably having regular sex with them and producing a tribe of offspring.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3234
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by Greta » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:15 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Jenner can call him/her/hir/zu/whatever self a woman if ...wants to. Just don't force me to say ... is one (and that's not directed at you). Actually I think he's well aware that he's not a woman. He should just accept himself as he is--a man who likes to dress like a woman (except that I've never dressed like that or worn that much makeup in my life).
You are free to think that way, but I personally think it rather unkind. It's not as though transpeople are taking over the world. Everyone has issues and they opt for whatever solutions seem to make sense to them. They have some big issues and they go for a big solution. My understanding is that it works out for some but not others. I guess that comes down to the individual's judgement - whether they can pass in the other gender without scaring the horses. Who knows what transpeople we may have met and not known?

Personally, I would have no problems calling Cait Jenner "she", but that's not the vibe I get from what I've seen on TV. By the same token, if I meet someone who seems like a real turd, I don't take on the role of truth-teller and say "You're an turd". No, I go through the usual social motions and get away as gracefully as possible. It's not for me to force my beliefs about who and what a person is on them, especially if they are part of an already oppressed and pretty harmless minority dealt this problematic hand in life.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6689
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:31 am

Greta wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Jenner can call him/her/hir/zu/whatever self a woman if ...wants to. Just don't force me to say ... is one (and that's not directed at you). Actually I think he's well aware that he's not a woman. He should just accept himself as he is--a man who likes to dress like a woman (except that I've never dressed like that or worn that much makeup in my life).
You are free to think that way, but I personally think it rather unkind. It's not as though transpeople are taking over the world. Everyone has issues and they opt for whatever solutions seem to make sense to them. They have some big issues and they go for a big solution. My understanding is that it works out for some but not others. I guess that comes down to the individual's judgement - whether they can pass in the other gender without scaring the horses. Who knows what transpeople we may have met and not known?

Personally, I would have no problems calling Cait Jenner "she", but that's not the vibe I get from what I've seen on TV. By the same token, if I meet someone who seems like a real turd, I don't take on the role of truth-teller and say "You're an turd". No, I go through the usual social motions and get away as gracefully as possible. It's not for me to force my beliefs about who and what a person is on them, especially if they are part of an already oppressed and pretty harmless minority dealt this problematic hand in life.
How is it 'unkind'? I'm not harming them. And as a matter of fact they (the militants) are trying to take over the world, in a sense, with help from the mega-powerful PC political movement, starting from kindergarten up. I don't think that's particularly 'kind' to children. Put it this way. When future paleontologists dig up our bones they are going to say 'this femur belonged to a male. This is the pelvic bone of a female'.

''It's not for me to force my beliefs about who and what a person is on them...''
You don't find anything ironic about that statement? Isn't that exactly what many of them and their supporters are doing?
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3234
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by Greta » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:22 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: How is it 'unkind'? I'm not harming them. And as a matter of fact they are trying to take over the world, in a sense, with help from the mega-powerful PC political movement, starting from kindergarten up. I don't think that's particularly 'kind' to children. Put it this way. When future paleontologists dig up our bones they are going to say 'this femur belonged to a male. This is the pelvic bone of a female'.

''It's not for me to force my beliefs about who and what a person is on them...''
You don't find anything ironic about that statement? Isn't that exactly what many of them and their supporters are doing?
Okay, you don't want to cut them some slack and I do. I think that's about as far as we can go here.

The idea that they are taking over the world is laughable. The recent spate of strong anti trans sentiment seems to stem from Cait Jenner putting them on the radar. They were probably better off in obscurity. Now many people are focusing on them and noting what fantastic, easy targets they are for shitting on.

So now the the hunt begins (at least until the next convenient blood lust target distracts the public). Teen suicide for young gender conflicted kids may well be an increasing issue.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6689
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:36 pm

Greta wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: How is it 'unkind'? I'm not harming them. And as a matter of fact they are trying to take over the world, in a sense, with help from the mega-powerful PC political movement, starting from kindergarten up. I don't think that's particularly 'kind' to children. Put it this way. When future paleontologists dig up our bones they are going to say 'this femur belonged to a male. This is the pelvic bone of a female'.

''It's not for me to force my beliefs about who and what a person is on them...''
You don't find anything ironic about that statement? Isn't that exactly what many of them and their supporters are doing?
Okay, you don't want to cut them some slack and I do. I think that's about as far as we can go here.

The idea that they are taking over the world is laughable. The recent spate of strong anti trans sentiment seems to stem from Cait Jenner putting them on the radar. They were probably better off in obscurity. Now many people are focusing on them and noting what fantastic, easy targets they are for shitting on.

So now the the hunt begins (at least until the next convenient blood lust target distracts the public). Teen suicide for young gender conflicted kids may well be an increasing issue.
I don't see what any of that has to do with anything I've written. Are you trying to guilt-shame me? Ok. If it makes you feel better. You are a kind and caring person and I'm just a big meanie who's trying to drive vulnerable teens to suicide. I can't stand cruelty of any description. I don't think they are going to commit suicide because of anything I think. They should be treated with kindness, just like anyone else, but kindness doesn't mean accepting lies or leaving rationality at the door. Actually I prefer to address facts rather than emotional blackmail. Unfortunately, the more the militants push, the more others will push back, including those who really do mean trans people harm. And you are right. Many of them don't appreciate being put on the radar, preferring peaceful lives without intense scrutiny (just like the vast majority of the human population), believing Jenner is doing more harm than good.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6689
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:48 pm

I can feel old school, intellectual feminist Germaine Greer's exasperation here. The interviewer is a complete idiot. It won't be long before there are no more public intellectuals because they are either dead and not replaced, or intimidated into silence and compliance by Political Correctness. No wonder the PC movement is so keen to get into the education systems of the world. Grab children's minds before they are capable of thinking critically. Religion works on exactly the same principle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B8Q6D4a6TM

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3234
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by Greta » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:56 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Greta wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: How is it 'unkind'? I'm not harming them. And as a matter of fact they are trying to take over the world, in a sense, with help from the mega-powerful PC political movement, starting from kindergarten up. I don't think that's particularly 'kind' to children. Put it this way. When future paleontologists dig up our bones they are going to say 'this femur belonged to a male. This is the pelvic bone of a female'.

''It's not for me to force my beliefs about who and what a person is on them...''
You don't find anything ironic about that statement? Isn't that exactly what many of them and their supporters are doing?
Okay, you don't want to cut them some slack and I do. I think that's about as far as we can go here.

The idea that they are taking over the world is laughable. The recent spate of strong anti trans sentiment seems to stem from Cait Jenner putting them on the radar. They were probably better off in obscurity. Now many people are focusing on them and noting what fantastic, easy targets they are for shitting on.

So now the the hunt begins (at least until the next convenient blood lust target distracts the public). Teen suicide for young gender conflicted kids may well be an increasing issue.
I don't see what any of that has to do with anything I've written. Are you trying to guilt-shame me? Ok. If it makes you feel better. You are a kind and caring person and I'm just a big meanie who's trying to drive vulnerable teens to suicide. I can't stand cruelty of any description. I don't think they are going to commit suicide because of anything I think. They should be treated with kindness, just like anyone else, but kindness doesn't mean accepting lies or leaving rationality at the door. Actually I prefer to address facts rather than emotional blackmail. Unfortunately, the more the militants push, the more others will push back, including those who really do mean trans people harm. And you are right. Many of them don't appreciate being put on the radar, preferring peaceful lives without intense scrutiny (just like the vast majority of the human population), believing Jenner is doing more harm than good.
No, I'm not guilt shaming you at all. That is just your paranoia.

You have the option of actually reading my posts if you wish rather than making superficial criticisms.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:09 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I can feel old school, intellectual feminist Germaine Greer's exasperation here. The interviewer is a complete idiot. It won't be long before there are no more public intellectuals because they are either dead and not replaced, or intimidated into silence and compliance by Political Correctness. No wonder the PC movement is so keen to get into the education systems of the world. Grab children's minds before they are capable of thinking critically. Religion works on exactly the same principle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B8Q6D4a6TM

"Don't behave like women" - Like SHE does? LOL

In one sentence she has destroyed everything she ever stood for, as if all women can be so easily characterised by their behaviour.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6689
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:31 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I can feel old school, intellectual feminist Germaine Greer's exasperation here. The interviewer is a complete idiot. It won't be long before there are no more public intellectuals because they are either dead and not replaced, or intimidated into silence and compliance by Political Correctness. No wonder the PC movement is so keen to get into the education systems of the world. Grab children's minds before they are capable of thinking critically. Religion works on exactly the same principle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B8Q6D4a6TM

"Don't behave like women" - Like SHE does? LOL

In one sentence she has destroyed everything she ever stood for, as if all women can be so easily characterised by their behaviour.
Yes, she does actually. You are offended by her wrinkles? She would eat you up. And no doubt you agree with the anti-free-speech arseholes who want to silence her. Pathetic. Not to mention a hypocrite, as all PC tossers are. Women can pick a counterfeit woman a mile off in a snow storm. Men can't (probably because most of them don't 'see' women anyway, just tits, legs, hair, and clothes). This is why they are always getting caught in compromising positions with male prostitutes in dresses. I don't know why it should bother them. According to you, all it takes to be a woman is to say you are one. BTW, neither you nor Greta has countered a single one of my points, so I don't know why you bothered to respond at all. 'I'm a good person. You're not.' doesn't really cut it (but that's more or less the PC/SJW movement in a nutshell). If the SJW movement was genuine, it would have expended some energy protesting for the release of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, and having anti-war rallies. Barely a peep about either. MLK was not an SJW in any way, shape or form. He wanted justice and equal rights; not special treatment. There's a big difference.

Perhaps you will find this more palatable.

Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests