Can a man really turn into a woman?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply

Can a man really turn into a woman?

Gender is fluid, mutable, interchangeable, just a social construct (yes).
2
22%
Gender is fixed, immutable, not subject to change, sumthin' concretely intrinsic to the person (no).
7
78%
 
Total votes: 9

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Dachshund » Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:47 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:49 am



That's a beautiful sob story. Not sure what it has to do with the price of eggs in China, but it's beautiful anyway.

What's even more beautiful is that you decided to preach Russian history to a Russian.

Good thing Vasili was able to persuade his commanding officer to stop, because he would've hat to shoot him otherwise.
The man who "Saved the World" demonstrated that society has sufficient safety mechanisms against human idiocy.

What was the safety mechanism against the Black Death? Idiot :)

Dear Skeptic,


The story was intended to show you that human beings are very capable of destroying "humanity", and i would rate them a greater threat than "nature". Given it is a miracle that we did not succeed in destroying ourselves on 27th October, 1962; and again in the 1980 when a seemingly trivial systems cock-up in the US almost triggered a global nuclear holocaust.


But you are right, the main topic at hand is Postmodern philosophy, and I see you are one of its cheerleaders. I was trying to work out how any reasonably intelligent human being (which is what you appear to be) could possibly be duped into supporting a worldview that even Daffy Duck would find ridiculous, when you solved the riddle for me.The Fathers of Postmodernism: Derrida, Foucault, Lacan and Co. were all Orthodox Marxists and Postmodern theory is deeply rooted in fundamental Marxist precepts. Given that you are (1) Russian and (2) 36 years old, a quick calculation suggests that you were born in the former USSR - a Marxist - communist state (aka "The Evil Empire"). If we hypothesise that you grew up there as a child, the Marxist cultural indoctrination you were exposed to could largely explain your inherent sympathies for loony leftist meta-narratives like Social Constructionism and Postmodernism ? Am I correct "Tovarich" ?


To continue. let me quickly illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of Postmodern philosophical theory for you. I am a scientist by training, so I'll use scientific-type examples to make my points...


As you know, Skeptic, one of the most distinctive hallmarks of Postmodern philosophy is its epistemic cultural relativism. Consider this...


When I try unsuccessfully, to squeeze a tennis ball into a wine bottle, I do not try several wine bottles and several tennis balls before using Mills cannons of induction, I arrive inductively at the hypothesis that tennis balls do not fit into wine bottles. If I judge that tennis balls do not fit into wine bottles, can you show me, Skeptic, precisely how it is that my gender, sex, sexual orientation, historical and spatial location, class, race/ethnicity, etc; undermine the objectivity of this judgement ?


Next...Could you explain the following little pearl of Postmodernist wisdom for me..
.

When the prominent Postmodern philosopher, Laurie Calhoun was asked if it was a fact Giraffes are taller than ants, she replied: "It's not a fact, rather, an article of religious belief in our culture." (? ?)


I'm glad to hear this because the ocean beaches near where I live are full of sharks, so you can't surf them. This is because everyone says its a fact that sharks have razor sharp teeth and extremely powerful jaws and will eat you alive in 2 minutes flat if they spot you in their turf and feel like a tasty snack. But now, - having been enlightened by Postmodern philosophy -, I understand that this is not a fact, merely "an article of belief in our culture", I wont hesitate in future to ignore the "WARNING SHARKS - NO SWIMMING" signs when I'm at the coast. I just jump straight into ocean then paddle out into the Blue Pacific to catch a few curls.


To continue. physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont addressed the same kind of problem from the perspective of science, writing...



"Who could now seriously deny the "grand narrative" of evolution, except someone in the grip of a far less plausible master narrative such as Creationism? And who would deny the truth of basic physics?" The answer was "some postmodernists.


and


"There is something very odd indeed in the belief that in looking for causal laws or a united theory, or in asking whether atoms really do obey the laws of Quantum Mechanics, the activities of scientists are inherently "bourgeois", "Eurocentric" or "masculinist" or "militarist." (I encourage you to read the whole paper by Sokal and Bricmont, Skeptic, you can find it quite easily online. it really is LOL funny, precisely because the dickhead postmodernists they quote are all deadly serious. One stupid PoMo bitch - a genuine professor at some legitimate university in the US is quoted at length explaining why electrons and quarks are not subatomic particles, rather they' are just two male sexist constructs :D :D)



Finally, One of the most disgraceful and embarrassing incidents I have ever had the misfortune to witness was the treatment Charles Murray (an eminent Conservative academic from Harvard, who co-authored the groundbreaking book on Social Policy: "The Bell Curve" with Richard Herrnstein in 1994) received when he arrived to give a speech at an American university last year. When Murray arrived on the campus of Middlebury College, he and a female academic companion were set upon by an angry mob of foul-mouthed, pimply, PoMo students (Social Justice Warriors) screaming insults and threats.A one point the mob of SJWs began to chant repetitively as one...


"Science has always been used to legitimise racism, sexism, classism, transphobism, ableism and homophobia, all veiled as rational and fact and supported by the government and state. In the world today there is no true objective fact."


Kindest Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner) WOOF !! WOOF !!........................(Beware the dog)

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

human beings are very capable of destroying "humanity", and i would rate them a greater threat than "nature"

Post by henry quirk » Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:40 pm

Yep.

Know why?

Nature does what it does without malice, without thought. Nature never chooses, it just does. Nature never overextends itself, and -- sure as shit -- it never targets.

Katrina, as example, wrecked N.O. but it was men who truly pissed on the city.

#

"society has sufficient safety mechanisms against human idiocy"

Not by a long shot. If 'society' were competent in that way we'd have utopia.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: human beings are very capable of destroying "humanity", and i would rate them a greater threat than "nature"

Post by Skepdick » Sat Nov 23, 2019 7:20 am

henry quirk wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:40 pm
Yep.

Know why?

Nature does what it does without malice, without thought. Nature never chooses, it just does. Nature never overextends itself, and -- sure as shit -- it never targets.

Katrina, as example, wrecked N.O. but it was men who truly pissed on the city.
This is the fundamental mental disfunction of humans. Malice is irrelevant when it plays no part in 99% of all deaths.

The "nature never targets" argument is even more bankrupt - if we, humans were to build a system that randomly chooses 150000 people's names out of a hat every day (no prejudice or targeting - just luck), and those people were to be killed without question just because the system said they must die - you would be fucking outraged.

And yet when nature does exactly that, every single day - you turn a blind eye.
henry quirk wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:40 pm
"society has sufficient safety mechanisms against human idiocy"

Not by a long shot. If 'society' were competent in that way we'd have utopia.
If you are going to count every single near-miss as evidence AGAINST our relative maturity, then what chance do we even stand?

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick » Sat Nov 23, 2019 7:23 am

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:47 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:49 am



That's a beautiful sob story. Not sure what it has to do with the price of eggs in China, but it's beautiful anyway.

What's even more beautiful is that you decided to preach Russian history to a Russian.

Good thing Vasili was able to persuade his commanding officer to stop, because he would've hat to shoot him otherwise.
The man who "Saved the World" demonstrated that society has sufficient safety mechanisms against human idiocy.

What was the safety mechanism against the Black Death? Idiot :)

Dear Skeptic,


The story was intended to show you that human beings are very capable of destroying "humanity", and i would rate them a greater threat than "nature". Given it is a miracle that we did not succeed in destroying ourselves on 27th October, 1962; and again in the 1980 when a seemingly trivial systems cock-up in the US almost triggered a global nuclear holocaust.


But you are right, the main topic at hand is Postmodern philosophy, and I see you are one of its cheerleaders. I was trying to work out how any reasonably intelligent human being (which is what you appear to be) could possibly be duped into supporting a worldview that even Daffy Duck would find ridiculous, when you solved the riddle for me.The Fathers of Postmodernism: Derrida, Foucault, Lacan and Co. were all Orthodox Marxists and Postmodern theory is deeply rooted in fundamental Marxist precepts. Given that you are (1) Russian and (2) 36 years old, a quick calculation suggests that you were born in the former USSR - a Marxist - communist state (aka "The Evil Empire"). If we hypothesise that you grew up there as a child, the Marxist cultural indoctrination you were exposed to could largely explain your inherent sympathies for loony leftist meta-narratives like Social Constructionism and Postmodernism ? Am I correct "Tovarich" ?


To continue. let me quickly illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of Postmodern philosophical theory for you. I am a scientist by training, so I'll use scientific-type examples to make my points...


As you know, Skeptic, one of the most distinctive hallmarks of Postmodern philosophy is its epistemic cultural relativism. Consider this...


When I try unsuccessfully, to squeeze a tennis ball into a wine bottle, I do not try several wine bottles and several tennis balls before using Mills cannons of induction, I arrive inductively at the hypothesis that tennis balls do not fit into wine bottles. If I judge that tennis balls do not fit into wine bottles, can you show me, Skeptic, precisely how it is that my gender, sex, sexual orientation, historical and spatial __cpLocation, class, race/ethnicity, etc; undermine the objectivity of this judgement ?


Next...Could you explain the following little pearl of Postmodernist wisdom for me..
.

When the prominent Postmodern philosopher, Laurie Calhoun was asked if it was a fact Giraffes are taller than ants, she replied: "It's not a fact, rather, an article of religious belief in our culture." (? ?)


I'm glad to hear this because the ocean beaches near where I live are full of sharks, so you can't surf them. This is because everyone says its a fact that sharks have razor sharp teeth and extremely powerful jaws and will eat you alive in 2 minutes flat if they spot you in their turf and feel like a tasty snack. But now, - having been enlightened by Postmodern philosophy -, I understand that this is not a fact, merely "an article of belief in our culture", I wont hesitate in future to ignore the "WARNING SHARKS - NO SWIMMING" signs when I'm at the coast. I just jump straight into ocean then paddle out into the Blue Pacific to catch a few curls.


To continue. physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont addressed the same kind of problem from the perspective of science, writing...



"Who could now seriously deny the "grand narrative" of evolution, except someone in the grip of a far less plausible master narrative such as Creationism? And who would deny the truth of basic physics?" The answer was "some postmodernists.


and


"There is something very odd indeed in the belief that in looking for causal laws or a united theory, or in asking whether atoms really do obey the laws of Quantum Mechanics, the activities of scientists are inherently "bourgeois", "Eurocentric" or "masculinist" or "militarist." (I encourage you to read the whole paper by Sokal and Bricmont, Skeptic, you can find it quite easily online. it really is LOL funny, precisely because the dickhead postmodernists they quote are all deadly serious. One stupid PoMo bitch - a genuine professor at some legitimate university in the US is quoted at length explaining why electrons and quarks are not subatomic particles, rather they' are just two male sexist constructs :D :D)



Finally, One of the most disgraceful and embarrassing incidents I have ever had the misfortune to witness was the treatment Charles Murray (an eminent Conservative academic from Harvard, who co-authored the groundbreaking book on Social Policy: "The Bell Curve" with Richard Herrnstein in 1994) received when he arrived to give a speech at an American university last year. When Murray arrived on the campus of Middlebury College, he and a female academic companion were set upon by an angry mob of foul-mouthed, pimply, PoMo students (Social Justice Warriors) screaming insults and threats.A one point the mob of SJWs began to chant repetitively as one...


"Science has always been used to legitimise racism, sexism, classism, transphobism, ableism and homophobia, all veiled as rational and fact and supported by the government and state. In the world today there is no true objective fact."


Kindest Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner) WOOF !! WOOF !!........................(Beware the dog)
*yawn*

Another lame attack based on a cherry-picked Strawman.

Sokal is my people. He games systems - like I game systems, which is the fundamental problem I am trying to point out to you. All man-made systems can be gamed. Philosophy thrives on this fact, but it is not immune to this fact! The exact same Philosophy can be used for moral purposes, or for immoral purposes - then it boils down to "guilt by Philosophical association".

In the spirit of the principle of charity: What is your strongest comprehension/understanding in support of Postmodernism?
You are doing to Postmodernism exactly what "Postmodernists" did to Richard Herrnstein - you are misinterpreting it from the viewpoint of your own prejudices.

If you can't come up with a charitable interpretation of your own - so be it. I am not going to offer you one either.

But I will offer you a clue where to start: Ignore Derida, Focault (and all the other people you have already learned how to mis-interpret and vilify) and tell me what you think about Quine's arguments for ontological relativity ( which is what destroys science's credibility - not Postmodernism). Tell me what you think about Rorty's Neopragmatism.

In fact - you are welcome to ignore Rorty also, and tell me what you think about Pragmatism in general. Try not to forget that Science is ultimately a pragmatic institution.

Pragmatism considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.

P.S The Bell Curve is junk science, but that doesn't really matter to a Pragmatist. You found some pattern, maybe it's valid. Maybe it's not valid. Maybe it's useful in practice, maybe it isn't

A far more interesting question would be so: "If it were useful - what would you use it for?"

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: human beings are very capable of destroying "humanity", and i would rate them a greater threat than "nature"

Post by henry quirk » Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:53 pm

when nature does exactly that, every single day - you turn a blind eye.
nope, never said said, never even hinted at it...you're wrong, flat out, unambiguously
If you are going to count every single near-miss as evidence AGAINST our relative maturity, then what chance do we even stand?
nope, never said said, never even hinted at it...you're wrong, flat out, unambiguously

gaffo
Posts: 3258
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by gaffo » Sun Nov 24, 2019 1:29 am

-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:19 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:09 pm
-1- wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:33 am

And the YYYs are Yes Men.
;-)

ya

and of course the XXXs are Yes Women.

i say yes to women, so i must be an XXX ;-).
I should have thougth XXX meant a winner in tic-tac-toe.

But I fully condone your yes-man-ness to women. Life has become simple, beautiful, and worry free since I leaned the ancient Chinese secret of saying "yes, Honey, you're right" to my girlfriend.

So what if she is not right? I still say it. It's more important to keep the peace than to argue whether Obama was more of a Marxist and less of a Trotskyite or the other way around.

That's funny, in a way, because police never say to perpetrators of crime, "that's right, Honey", instead, they beat them with billiclubs. To have the identical effect: to keep the peace.

I guess each has his or her own idea how to keep the peace, and it's on a scale like autism is, from "yes honey" to "Fuck you asshole, take this on your teeth" and wham with a bull whip.
I'm just glad i lucked out in that my current GF if she asks me if her "butt looked big in these jeans"?, i can say "Yep huge" and she would smile and like the comment. so refreshing for me to like what she likes, I've had big butted GF in the past who hated thier hips and wanted to look boyish.

all of course were white women - striving to be thin when they were not genetically made thin. current gal not being white, is from a culture that is not fixated on being thin, and loves that she is "thicc" (as i do!).

she's is fat, but its a hippy fat - pearshaped. Small top, small waist, huge ass.

the way i like it, just glad she likes it to and i don't have to lie! ;-).

shopping for pants is an all day thing, none fit her. when we find a few brands that do, we stock up and buy all they have!

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9095
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:09 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 1:29 am
-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:19 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:09 pm


;-)

ya

and of course the XXXs are Yes Women.

i say yes to women, so i must be an XXX ;-).
I should have thougth XXX meant a winner in tic-tac-toe.

But I fully condone your yes-man-ness to women. Life has become simple, beautiful, and worry free since I leaned the ancient Chinese secret of saying "yes, Honey, you're right" to my girlfriend.

So what if she is not right? I still say it. It's more important to keep the peace than to argue whether Obama was more of a Marxist and less of a Trotskyite or the other way around.

That's funny, in a way, because police never say to perpetrators of crime, "that's right, Honey", instead, they beat them with billiclubs. To have the identical effect: to keep the peace.

I guess each has his or her own idea how to keep the peace, and it's on a scale like autism is, from "yes honey" to "Fuck you asshole, take this on your teeth" and wham with a bull whip.
I'm just glad i lucked out in that my current GF if she asks me if her "butt looked big in these jeans"?, i can say "Yep huge" and she would smile and like the comment. so refreshing for me to like what she likes, I've had big butted GF in the past who hated thier hips and wanted to look boyish.

all of course were white women - striving to be thin when they were not genetically made thin. current gal not being white, is from a culture that is not fixated on being thin, and loves that she is "thicc" (as i do!).

she's is fat, but its a hippy fat - pearshaped. Small top, small waist, huge ass.

the way i like it, just glad she likes it to and i don't have to lie! ;-).

shopping for pants is an all day thing, none fit her. when we find a few brands that do, we stock up and buy all they have!
Funny how it's ok for men to pick out bits of women's bodies that they either like or don't like (eg huge arses/tits/noses) but all hell breaks loose if women say they prefer men with large penises :?

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sun Nov 24, 2019 12:29 pm

No. A man can make a pretty decent amalgamation of female characteristics, but he will never have enough of the immutable characteristics that make calling someone a 'woman' a distinct enough generalization to keep around; I'm not even talking about the physiological differences that science can't yet breach like the chromosome thing, because I'm speaking of gender expression; In all actuality, we all know the difference between trans women and biological women due to the existential threads of recognition that a subconscious intuition is actively attempting to make us aware of.

You can put the best damn cat costume on a dog that the resources on this planet could build. You can teach it to cover its poop, you can teach it to catch a mouse. But that thing will never be a cat; There will be people who can immediately sniff out the difference.

What I'm saying is that a man can never possess the figurative female soul.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Sculptor » Sun Nov 24, 2019 1:54 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 12:29 pm

What I'm saying is that a man can never possess the figurative female soul.
Since there is no such thing, as assume you mean a vagina?


Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick » Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:54 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 12:29 pm
We all know the difference between trans women and biological women due to the existential threads of recognition that a subconscious intuition is actively attempting to make us aware of.
(...)
There will be people who can immediately sniff out the difference.
And then there are the people who have had sex with post-op trannies on more than one occasion and didn't even know it.

You could be one of them suckers.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by henry quirk » Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:02 pm

*post-op tranny
*deluded liar

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick » Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:09 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:02 pm
*deluded liar
Since you would have failed to uncover 'the truth' all by yourself (clothes off and everything), does that make them 'deluded liars', or does it make you an 'ignorant sucker'?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by henry quirk » Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:14 pm

does that make them *liars, or does it make you a **sucker?
both









*endangered

**dangerous

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick » Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:19 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:14 pm
does that make them *liars, or does it make you a **sucker?
both

*endangered

**dangerous
Buyer's remorse, Henry? ;)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests