A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

[Immanuel Can]

YES, AT LEAST MARX HAD A CONSCIENCE.

Was that when he was draining his family, or parasitizing Engels, or raping Helene, or disowning Frederick, his son, or writing his dogma of death? When was this "conscience" manifest to you?

He basically stated that his prediction of a coming revolution and classless society were "scientific" predictions based on his own adaptation of Hegel's ideas of thesis/antithesis/synthesis version of reality (and the "real is rational" according to Hegel) In that effect, it could also be taken as a warning by Marx to his contemporary elites.

Hegel wasn't "scientific." He used the German word for it, but meant "knowledge," and of a rather gnostic kind, not what you and I call "scientific." Marx knew that. That's why he had to make "dialectics" into "dialectical materialism." He had to get rid of Hegel's "transcendent" elements. But Marx wasn't scientific either; he was essentially relgious and quasi-messianic, aiming at prescriptions, comprehensive prophecies of the future and visions of utopia, rather than merely at descriptive analysis. In any case, he was just wrong...even today's Neo-Marxists have disowned his theories, because taken as he wrote them, they've all been proved wrong by history itself. He didn't even get the descriptive parts right.

Even though he never lifted a finger to help the poor, and hurt the only one he knew, that is not the worst that Marx did. By any fair account, he was a truly contemptable human being, one who we can all plainly see left nothing but misery, disaster and destruction in his wake. His dark equal does not exist among men, in that regard.

So literally you are saying Marx is worse than a serial killer, or than Stalin and Mao,

As an ideologue, yes. They did the actual killing, of course; but Marx gave them and all the others their rationale. Even in ordinary law, inducing or deceiving others into violence is a crime, and one as punishable as actual participation. Without Marx, there could have been no Stalin or Mao...at least not in the form we know them. They might have been bad, or they might have not been: we can't know that. But what we do know is what they actually were, and that Marx gave them their reasons.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The 'gender self ID' bill was unanimously passed here, making it easy to change the 'sex' part on your birth certificate. Science and facts eliminated with a couple of key strokes. Simple.
And speaking of contraditions, these fuckheads can't even make up their minds whether they are talking about 'sex' or 'gender'.
See? Unnecessary complication. Women can no longer have 'women only spaces' because the concept of 'woman' has been erased.
I challenge anyone to be able to get their head around this shit and made concise sense of it. No one can, because it's bullshit from end to end.

[Gary Childress]

YES, AT LEAST MARX HAD A CONSCIENCE.

Was that when he was draining his family, or parasitizing Engels, or raping Helene, or disowning Frederick, his son, or writing his dogma of death? When was this "conscience" manifest to you?

When he made the sacrifice not to follow in the footsteps of his greedy contemporaries. He took a stand, whether mistaken or misguided, it's better to have a misguided conscience than none at all.

He basically stated that his prediction of a coming revolution and classless society were "scientific" predictions based on his own adaptation of Hegel's ideas of thesis/antithesis/synthesis version of reality (and the "real is rational" according to Hegel) In that effect, it could also be taken as a warning by Marx to his contemporary elites.

Hegel wasn't "scientific." He used the German word for it, but meant "knowledge," and of a rather gnostic kind, not what you and I call "scientific." Marx knew that. That's why he had to make "dialectics" into "dialectical materialism." He had to get rid of Hegel's "transcendent" elements. But Marx wasn't scientific either; he was essentially relgious and quasi-messianic, aiming at prescriptions, comprehensive prophecies of the future and visions of utopia, rather than merely at descriptive analysis. In any case, he was just wrong...even today's Neo-Marxists have disowned his theories, because taken as he wrote them, they've all been proved wrong by history itself. He didn't even get the descriptive parts right.

As I've pointed out Marx was likely wrong. But you seem to think that trying to solve a serious problem in a mistaken way is worse than deliberately doing evil and being the one to create, perpetuate and benefit from those problems, can you explain why that is?

So literally you are saying Marx is worse than a serial killer, or than Stalin and Mao,

As an ideologue, yes. They did the actual killing, of course; but Marx gave them and all the others their rationale. Even in ordinary law, inducing or deceiving others into violence is a crime, and one as punishable as actual participation. Without Marx, there could have been no Stalin or Mao...at least not in the form we know them. They might have been bad, or they might have not been: we can't know that. But what we do know is what they actually were, and that Marx gave them their reasons.

Marx was but one voice in the movement for worker's rights, etc. Do you now credit Marx with everything that happened after his death? Was the Czar of Russia more innocent?

You're seriously fucked in the head. You think you're holier than everyone else, you're not dude. You are no more holy than anyone else who helps little old ladies across the street or kisses babies? Because you worship some friggen tribal idol from 2000 years ago you think you're going to "heaven". Good luck, you may even meet Marx there, no one knows for sure. But I give up. Talking to someone as moronic as you are is pointless. You can't even make the most basic moral discernments anymore.

[Immanuel Can]

YES, AT LEAST MARX HAD A CONSCIENCE.

Was that when he was draining his family, or parasitizing Engels, or raping Helene, or disowning Frederick, his son, or writing his dogma of death? When was this "conscience" manifest to you?

When he made the sacrifice not to follow in the footsteps of his greedy contemporaries.

You don't know his bio at all, do you? You think he was some kind of self-sacrificing saint, instead of the unrepentant sponge and ne'er do well that he really was. But you can always pick up a bio and find out...

As I've pointed out Marx was wrong.

Yep. Badly, and disastrously for the world.

Was the Czar of Russia more innocent?

I don't see how two wrongs will help you make a right, but you couldn't make the case that anybody was worse than Marx...even Stalin was only Stalin, and Mao was only Mao, and Pol Pot and Ceacescu were only themselves. Philosophically, Marx was the devil behind them all.

[Gary Childress]

Was that when he was draining his family, or parasitizing Engels, or raping Helene, or disowning Frederick, his son, or writing his dogma of death? When was this "conscience" manifest to you?

When he made the sacrifice not to follow in the footsteps of his greedy contemporaries.

You don't know his bio at all, do you? You think he was some kind of self-sacrificing saint, instead of the unrepentant sponge and ne'er do well that he really was. But you can always pick up a bio and find out...

As I've pointed out Marx was wrong.

Yep. Badly, and disastrously for the world.

Was the Czar of Russia more innocent?

I don't see how two wrongs will help you make a right, but you couldn't make the case that anybody was worse than Marx...even Stalin was only Stalin, and Mao was only Mao, and Pol Pot and Ceacescu were only themselves. Philosophically, Marx was the devil behind them all.

You clearly stated above that you think Marx is more evil than any other human being. I'm picking up where you yourself brought us, dipshit, Christian. Did you forget???? You're a fucking idiot!

And yes, I know Marx's bio and his philosophy, probably better than you do.

[Immanuel Can]

You clearly stated above that you think Marx is more evil than any other human being.

Statistically, he is. Nobody's philosophy ever resulted in more people being robbed, maimed, incarcerated, deported, starved, frozen, tortured and murdered, by any means. And by that, he'd be the number one candidate for the ultimate "Mr. Evil." Everybody else, including Stalin, Mao and Hitler, is miles back of him.

And yes, I know Marx's bio and his philosophy, probably better than you do.

Unlikely. But whatever you say, Gary. It doesn't sound like you know him at all. People have called him all kinds of things: but "man of conscience" or "suffering saint" aren't among them.

[Trajk Logik]

I've gotten misunderstood here by more than one person so it's probably my lack of clarity. The topic is about a contradiction in the woke community. I am not making a case for souls. Nor am I explaining 'gender.' I am not asking people to use that word or whatever concept I intend with it. My point was that a monist, in this case generally a physicalist, has a problem accepting that transpersons have the wrong birth body. I do not have this problem because my metaphysics leaves room for this. I don't think a physicalist's metaphysics does. That was why I brought up my belief, to contrast it with the physicalist position. Not to replace it, but to make it clearer what I think the physicalist problem ought to be with transpersons who say their body is not right for them.

So, why physicalism? Well, because wokism in general goes with a physicalist model. They may not use that term or even 'materialist', but I think generally, with exceptions of course, they are physicalists and also monists. Bringing in the latter is redundant but points to the problem with 'this is not the right body for me.' Who is this me and what are they made of?

What's 'freedom'? What's thought? If we're going to focus on ill-defined words, we could start with those. Though perhaps in another thread.

I'm not woke and I'm saying that gender and biological sex are one and the same. So it's not a dualism vs. physicalism debate. Dualism just unnecessarily complicates things.

Gender and biological sex are so obvious NOT the same thing: check out any definition.
And NEITHER gender nor biological sex are simply binary.

Are you able to accept that the brain and organs of reproduction might not align with the social norms of gender?
Are you able to accept gender ambiguity regardless of the possession of a penis or not?
Are you able to accept the existence of hermaphrodites? Or neuters?
Asexual people?

Is it not bleeding obvious that a person's sexuality is innate, social, genetic, physical and personal, and not easy to unpack with simple philosophical concepts.

Merriam-Webster shows that one of the definitions of gender IS sex:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

If gender has nothing to do with sex, then why is "gender-affirming care" cutting off primary sex organs and changing secondary sex traits (like hormone treatments)? Why is gender opposite or aligned with one's sex instead of one's hair, eye or skin color?

I can accept that the brain and organs (not just of reproduction) might not align with some social norm - like believing your arm is an alien arm and cutting it off using the the saw at your local hardware store (this really happened). Some people's brains make them think that they might be a Sith Lord or Elvis Presley reincarnated. Does that mean we are suppose to believe them without question and address them as "My Master" or "The King"?

If gender is a social construction, then yes I can accept there is gender ambiguity that men can wear dresses, but that does not change their gender/sex. They are just a man in a dress. But a I said before, gender as a social construction is a feature of a society, not an individual.

Yes, I accept the existence of intersexual people, but then they always have more features of one sex than the other and tend to adopt one of the binary identities, not make up their own category as you would expect if genders were actually non-binary or fluid, (again if gender is a social construction) of which they most likely resemble. Also keep in mind that intersex cannot reproduce and are also very rare.

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.

It really doesn't have anything to do with philosophy. It has to do with science. The problem is when people want to make it political/philosophical is when we overcomplicate the issue and end up generalizing, stereotyping people that have nothing to do with their sex (like wearing a dress or make-up; men can wear dresses and make-up and still be men).

[Sculptor]

I'm not woke and I'm saying that gender and biological sex are one and the same. So it's not a dualism vs. physicalism debate. Dualism just unnecessarily complicates things.

Gender and biological sex are so obvious NOT the same thing: check out any definition.
And NEITHER gender nor biological sex are simply binary.

Are you able to accept that the brain and organs of reproduction might not align with the social norms of gender?
Are you able to accept gender ambiguity regardless of the possession of a penis or not?
Are you able to accept the existence of hermaphrodites? Or neuters?
Asexual people?

Is it not bleeding obvious that a person's sexuality is innate, social, genetic, physical and personal, and not easy to unpack with simple philosophical concepts.

Merriam-Webster shows that one of the definitions of gender IS sex:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

If gender has nothing to do with sex, then why is "gender-affirming care" cutting off primary sex organs and changing secondary sex traits (like hormone treatments)? Why is gender opposite or aligned with one's sex instead of one's hair, eye or skin color?

I can accept that the brain and organs (not just of reproduction) might not align with some social norm - like believing your arm is an alien arm and cutting it off using the the saw at your local hardware store (this really happened). Some people's brains make them think that they might be a Sith Lord or Elvis Presley reincarnated. Does that mean we are suppose to believe them without question and address them as "My Master" or "The King"?

If gender is a social construction, then yes I can accept there is gender ambiguity that men can wear dresses, but that does not change their gender/sex. They are just a man in a dress. But a I said before, gender as a social construction is a feature of a society, not an individual.

Yes, I accept the existence of intersexual people, but then they always have more features of one sex than the other and tend to adopt one of the binary identities, not make up their own category as you would expect if genders were actually non-binary or fluid, (again if gender is a social construction) of which they most likely resemble. Also keep in mind that intersex cannot reproduce and are also very rare.

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.

It really doesn't have anything to do with philosophy. It has to do with science. The problem is when people want to make it political/philosophical is when we overcomplicate the issue and end up generalizing, stereotyping people that have nothing to do with their sex (like wearing a dress or make-up; men can wear dresses and make-up and still be men).

Wrong.
It has to do with science, psychiatry, sociology, philosophy, personal experience history and culture.
When a little "boy" has an uncontrollable impulse to play with dolls despite the urging of his parents; to feel unhappy with other "boys", to seek the platonic friendship of girls to want long hair and make-up - science has very little to do with it, and has very little to say to parents who are confused.
Science is learning to identify some features of biology which validate trans, neuter and other sexual ambiguities but its not complete.

So what do you find so scary? DO you think LGBGT+ is somehow a challenge to your composure?

[promethean75]

"When a little "boy" has an uncontrollable impulse to play with dolls despite the urging of his parents; to feel unhappy with other "boys", to seek the platonic friendship of girls"

that wuz me when i wuz like eight, sculp. but i wuzzint tryna be a girl tho... i wuz tryna get in good with the girls in my neighborhood. so i used play with their barbies and strawberry shortcakes and stuff and then i wuz able to put the moves on em, see. *taps forehead* i wuz like a regular don juan bro. my homeboys didn't know what i wuz doing at first but then they were like holy shit that's genius.

remember, this wuz during the 'boys are gross' stage so it wuz everything a guy could do to get good with the girls. you couldn't just hang out with em. you had to work your way in there.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Gender and biological sex are so obvious NOT the same thing: check out any definition.
And NEITHER gender nor biological sex are simply binary.

Are you able to accept that the brain and organs of reproduction might not align with the social norms of gender?
Are you able to accept gender ambiguity regardless of the possession of a penis or not?
Are you able to accept the existence of hermaphrodites? Or neuters?
Asexual people?

Is it not bleeding obvious that a person's sexuality is innate, social, genetic, physical and personal, and not easy to unpack with simple philosophical concepts.

Merriam-Webster shows that one of the definitions of gender IS sex:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

If gender has nothing to do with sex, then why is "gender-affirming care" cutting off primary sex organs and changing secondary sex traits (like hormone treatments)? Why is gender opposite or aligned with one's sex instead of one's hair, eye or skin color?

I can accept that the brain and organs (not just of reproduction) might not align with some social norm - like believing your arm is an alien arm and cutting it off using the the saw at your local hardware store (this really happened). Some people's brains make them think that they might be a Sith Lord or Elvis Presley reincarnated. Does that mean we are suppose to believe them without question and address them as "My Master" or "The King"?

If gender is a social construction, then yes I can accept there is gender ambiguity that men can wear dresses, but that does not change their gender/sex. They are just a man in a dress. But a I said before, gender as a social construction is a feature of a society, not an individual.

Yes, I accept the existence of intersexual people, but then they always have more features of one sex than the other and tend to adopt one of the binary identities, not make up their own category as you would expect if genders were actually non-binary or fluid, (again if gender is a social construction) of which they most likely resemble. Also keep in mind that intersex cannot reproduce and are also very rare.

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.

It really doesn't have anything to do with philosophy. It has to do with science. The problem is when people want to make it political/philosophical is when we overcomplicate the issue and end up generalizing, stereotyping people that have nothing to do with their sex (like wearing a dress or make-up; men can wear dresses and make-up and still be men).

Wrong.
It has to do with science, psychiatry, sociology, philosophy, personal experience history and culture.
When a little "boy" has an uncontrollable impulse to play with dolls despite the urging of his parents; to feel unhappy with other "boys", to seek the platonic friendship of girls to want long hair and make-up - science has very little to do with it, and has very little to say to parents who are confused.
Science is learning to identify some features of biology which validate trans, neuter and other sexual ambiguities but its not complete.

So what do you find so scary? DO you think LGBGT+ is somehow a challenge to your composure?

I really didn't realise you were this thick. I knew you were a vicious misogynist, but not a complete moron.
When a boy wants to play with dolls, he is a boy who likes to play with dolls.
When a girl doesn't like to play with dolls and likes to climb trees instead (which would be me as a child) this is a girl who doesn't like to play with dolls and likes to climb trees instead.
What we (and children) are being ORDERED to believe is that the boy is 'actually' a girl in the 'wrong body' and vice versa. Children are being mutlilated when they are just normal children with nothing 'wrong' with them. Mothers with transhausen by proxy syndrome (and there are plenty of those) are having their children hormone treated and mutilated for extra 'clicks' on Tik Tok.
All you are doing is reinforcing gender stereotypes--that ONLY girls play with dolls, and ONLY boys climb trees. And if children don't fit these stereotypes then they must be the 'wrong gender'.
Keep your rotten, up yourself, self-serving, gaslighting mits OFF children! This has NOTHING to do with science, and EVERYTHING to do with insane political ideology.
What exactly do you think is going to happen when the word 'woman' has lost its meaning (and it's not a mystery because it's happening already)?
We have already seen the result of 'female' rapists being put in women's prisons.
What happens when the police are looking for a violent rapist; a masculine, fully intact MAN who 'identifies' as a woman and has had his birth certificate changed to show his SEX as FEMALE? It would be farcical is it were not so dangerous and scary.
Now, any man can 'self identify' as a woman and do nothing more than 'say' he 'identifies' that way and voila! A shiny new birth certificate completes the job.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with science.
No one is saying that people can't dress as they please. 'Identify' as their particular fetish or mental illness dictates. But don't fucking order an entire population to believe that a dog is a cat and that it will ever be anything BUT a fucking dog.


Just leave children alone and stay out of our fucking changing rooms!
Women have been successfully erased. It doesn't get much more misogynistic than that.


No one is born in the 'wrong body'.




Italian member of women's soccer team. Of course this 'woman' uses the women's changing rooms. Now why would this person want to do that? It's a 'complete mystery' Hands up who thinks this is ok? (Careful you don't make the 'OK' symbol, because that would make you a 'neo nazi', apparently). These are the 'rights' that 'vulnerable oppressed' 'transpersons' are fighting for. Such 'warriors' they are...

soccer.png (113.85 KiB) Viewed 365 times

soccer 2.jpg (25.71 KiB) Viewed 365 times

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If promethean decides he's a 'woman' after all, then he can have his birth certificate changed accordingly and his fetish for exhibitionism will show up in records as a crime committed by a woman. If he was a rapist then it would be the same, ditto serial killer.
This madness needs to stop right now.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I have a feeling that our resident village wokie's wife might be one of those 'transhausen by proxy' mothers. Why else would he be peddling this anti-science bullshit? Either that or he's just a dirty old perv who wants to get into women's changing rooms...

Men don't even have to make an attempt to resemble gender stereotypical women to get into women-only spaces. No one is going to be able to question ANY man going into these places, therefore there will no longer be any such thing as women-only spaces-- something that women fought hard for.
Is this something that is REALLY too difficult for anyone else on here to understand?
The concept of 'woman' is going to be erased forever. That's no exaggeration. We are already being referred to as 'cervix owners', birthers, and other ridiculous and offensive terms.

[promethean75]

now's the time on sprockets when we dance

[Impenitent]

https://mercatornet.com/drag-queens-wea ... -so/80507/

-Imp

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You are so desperate to have easy access to women? Well it's just got a hell of a lot easier. You must be overjoyed.