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

[promethean75]

Not desperate, just lazy. I just refuse to even start tryna get out there and date until I'm in my own crib. I just gotta hunker down and fork out the cash to make it happen. My new plan is to not even fuck with the apartment ads and keep losing money to application fees, but just walk into some random apartment complex, kick open the leasing office door and say I'M A SEX OFFENDER AND HERE'S EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR AN APARTMENT.

Explaining everything to a chick would be relatively easy, especially after she's gotten to know me; it's more difficult to reject me once u get to know me becuz I'm delightfully endearing, see. But I need my own place for any of this to happen.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'Delightfully endearing' man who's permanently single and lives with his annoying, noisy-eating mother. I suppose if delusion makes one's life easier....

[promethean75]

No way man, I'm comin out. In my 50s I will live what I lost in my 30s and 40s.

[Sculptor]

"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..

Ah- I see.
Classic case of a closet-case striking out in hidden jealousy against those with the courage to come out as their true self.
It's never too late if you want to come out as a woman. Just do it!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"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..

Ah- I see.
Classic case of a closet-case striking out in hidden jealousy against those with the courage to come out as their true self.
It's never too late if you want to come out as a woman. Just do it!

No one is trying to stop you from frolicking around in frocks. Just keep out of women's toilets. How hard is that for you?

[promethean75]

Fine. If I must be a woman, I choose Alyssa Farah Griffin. Have u ever seen such a perfect balance of masculine and feminine features.

U gotta see her live on CNN. Pics don't do her justice.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

This is actually really pitiful and tragic. Apparently gay dating apps are being inundated with 'transmen' who 'identify' as 'gay men'.
They no doubt started off as normal little girls who would have grown into healthy straight women. Now they are just depressed, confused and pathetic with ruined health and looks, and gay men are NOT happy about being pursued by these 'faux gay men'. It's not the same as 'transwomen' going on lesbian dating sites. Those men are just donning ridiculous wigs and calling themselves 'women' when they are still fully intact as men. They haven't ruined their health with hormones or had bits chopped off. They are just dangerous predators satisfying a sexual fantasy. What a fucking world we've created for ourselves. Clearly humans 'peaked' a decade or so ago, and the only way onwards is to get more and more bizarre and insane.
This brainwashing of children has to stop. It makes the thalidomide scandal look like a 'tiny mishap'.

'gay man'.jpg

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Samoan fa'afafine know exactly who they are-- and it's not women.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1245434946047713

[Gary Childress]

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.

"Suffering saint" is your term, not mine. I've nowhere used that term. However, I will maintain that there is plenty of evidence that Marx had a conscience. I gave you some very clear evidence to indicate why, but you've chosen to ignore it. I've indicated that I am in agreement that Marx was likely wrong on many levels about many things. You seem more interested in denouncing him than you are in giving similar lip service to people who were his peers in that day and who profited off the misery that they created at the time. Like me, I suppose you're very bigoted in your views and you are judgmental. There's not too much wrong with that in my book, however, your professed hero Jesus might say differently.

[Trajk Logik]

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?

It's more likely that the parents are the one's influencing their children in such a way because they wanted a girl but got a boy, or vice versa, or just wanting attention. Psychiatry informs us that those that either didn't get much attention or received to much attention during their development ends up doing extreme things for attention, or believing that everyone should give them the same undue attention when they are older.

What makes sex so special that we can accept without question that someone claims to be the opposite sex, but if someone were to claim to a different race or species, then that is crazy?

A person with anorexia nervosa can have a distorted perception of weight. "Gender-affirming care" would be like telling an anorexic person to go on a diet - affirming their distorted perception that in unhealthy. Just like lawyers support new laws being created because it gives them more job security, doctors - especially cosmetic surgeons - will support laws which give them more clients, regardless of the mental health of the individual.

A somatic delusion is one where the person believes there is something wrong with their body. Symptoms of a delusional disorder may include:

Feelings of being exploited.
Preoccupation with the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends.
A tendency to read threatening meanings into benign remarks or events.
Persistently holding grudges.
A readiness to respond and react to perceived slights.

These behaviors are exactly what you see when someone's "gender" claims are being questioned.

[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.

"Suffering saint" is your term, not mine.

Of course. But you portrayed him as a sort of "missionary" to the poor. And that's absurd. He was an upper-middle class layabout, who had actually no interest at all in helping anybody, but wanted his bills paid.

Here's a quotation from Marx historian David McLellan's Karl Marx, A Biography (1973, page 326):

During 1867 Marx recognised that Engels had given him 'an enormous sum of money' but claimed that its effect was negated by his previous debts which amounted to £200. The next year, on his fiftieth birthday, he bitterly recalled his mother's words, 'if only Karl had made Capital, instead of just writing about it'.

However, I will maintain that there is plenty of evidence that Marx had a conscience. I gave you some very clear evidence to indicate why, but you've chosen to ignore it.

"Evidence"? No. You attributed to him all kinds of virtues he never had; that doesn't count as "evidence." However, if you have some real evidence of Marx's compassionate and conscientious nature, in defiance of all his biographers, I'll look at it for you.

You seem more interested in denouncing him...

Him? I have almost no interest in him. But his ideas...now there's a real pit of snakes.

...than you are in giving similar lip service to people who were his peers in that day and who profited off the misery that they created at the time.

I addressed that. You ignored that I did.

But all of them together never arranged the deaths of so many people as did Marx. That's beyond comparison. Marx is the greatest promoter of mass murder in history, as evidenced by every single regime that ever took him seriously -- Chinese, Russian, Cuban, Venezuelan, Congolese, Zimbabwean, North Korean, Cambodian, Albanian, Romanian -- and that is just manifest historical fact.

Like me, I suppose you're very bigoted in your views and you are judgmental.

I think not. As for "bigoted," I go by what Marx himself preached, and what history itself has so clearly shown us, and with the facts his biographers agree upon. As for "judgmental," I would merely point Marx to his true Judge, and to the Great Judgment. It is there he will receive what he so abundantly deserves, whether it's a judgment upon the evils I say he did, or a reward for the virtues you say he had.

[Sculptor]

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?

It's more likely that the parents are the one's influencing their children in such a way because they wanted a girl but got a boy, or vice versa, or just wanting attention.

No this is not the case. Most parents find the whole thin confusing and disturbing. You are speaking from ignorance.

Psychiatry informs us that those that either didn't get much attention or received to much attention during their development ends up doing extreme things for attention, or believing that everyone should give them the same undue attention when they are older.

You are now just bullshitting.

What makes sex so special that we can accept without question that someone claims to be the opposite sex, but if someone were to claim to a different race or species, then that is crazy?

What we do is listen and accept. WHy do you think it is up to you to "question"?
WTF do you think you are?

A person with anorexia nervosa can have a distorted perception of weight. "Gender-affirming care" would be like telling an anorexic person to go on a diet - affirming their distorted perception that in unhealthy. Just like lawyers support new laws being created because it gives them more job security, doctors - especially cosmetic surgeons - will support laws which give them more clients, regardless of the mental health of the individual.

A somatic delusion is one where the person believes there is something wrong with their body. Symptoms of a delusional disorder may include:

Feelings of being exploited.
Preoccupation with the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends.
A tendency to read threatening meanings into benign remarks or events.
Persistently holding grudges.
A readiness to respond and react to perceived slights.

These behaviors are exactly what you see when someone's "gender" claims are being questioned.

If someone came along and tried to tell you, you were mad to thing yourself a boy, you would justifiably feeling exploited and paranoid.
So what is YOUR reason for holding a grudge against trans people?


You are so full of your own invention on this matter.

What are you scared of?

[Gary Childress]

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.


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.

"Suffering saint" is your term, not mine.

Of course. But you portrayed him as a sort of "missionary" to the poor. And that's absurd. He was an upper-middle class layabout, who had actually no interest at all in helping anybody, but wanted his bills paid.

Here's a quotation from Marx historian David McLellan's Karl Marx, A Biography (1973, page 326):

During 1867 Marx recognised that Engels had given him 'an enormous sum of money' but claimed that its effect was negated by his previous debts which amounted to £200. The next year, on his fiftieth birthday, he bitterly recalled his mother's words, 'if only Karl had made Capital, instead of just writing about it'.

However, I will maintain that there is plenty of evidence that Marx had a conscience. I gave you some very clear evidence to indicate why, but you've chosen to ignore it.

"Evidence"? No. You attributed to him all kinds of virtues he never had; that doesn't count as "evidence." However, if you have some real evidence of Marx's compassionate and conscientious nature, in defiance of all his biographers, I'll look at it for you.

You seem more interested in denouncing him...

Him? I have almost no interest in him. But his ideas...now there's a real pit of snakes.

...than you are in giving similar lip service to people who were his peers in that day and who profited off the misery that they created at the time.

I addressed that. You ignored that I did.

But all of them together never arranged the deaths of so many people as did Marx. That's beyond comparison. Marx is the greatest promoter of mass murder in history, as evidenced by every single regime that ever took him seriously -- Chinese, Russian, Cuban, Venezuelan, Congolese, Zimbabwean, North Korean, Cambodian, Albanian, Romanian -- and that is just manifest historical fact.

Like me, I suppose you're very bigoted in your views and you are judgmental.

I think not. As for "bigoted," I go by what Marx himself preached, and what history itself has so clearly shown us, and with the facts his biographers agree upon. As for "judgmental," I would merely point Marx to his true Judge, and to the Great Judgment. It is there he will receive what he so abundantly deserves, whether it's a judgment upon the evils I say he did, or a reward for the virtues you say he had.

Suit yourself, your holiness. I gave you common sense insights demonstrating that Marx cared considering the actions he took or didn't take but could have for his own benefit. You're looking for Christian holy piety as evidence of "conscience". Had Marx gone to church and said a few useless prayers to God, do you think that would have made more of an impact on the wealthy elite of the day to share their personal fortunes any more than organizing the working class to protest their plight for themselves? Where would we be today had, Marx just shut up and said a few pious words or become a missionary in Uganda? Think about that Polly Anna.

Like most hypocrites in the church you're more ready to judge others for their mistakes borne of good intent than you are to actually do anything significant to help others help themselves. I may not go to a Christian Church but at least God knows I'm not a fraud pretending to be pious when I'm not. If God has a problem with me for that but gives you a pass for mere lip service, then I really don't care.

[Immanuel Can]

However, I will maintain that there is plenty of evidence that Marx had a conscience. I gave you some very clear evidence to indicate why, but you've chosen to ignore it.

"Evidence"? No. You attributed to him all kinds of virtues he never had; that doesn't count as "evidence." However, if you have some real evidence of Marx's compassionate and conscientious nature, in defiance of all his biographers, I'll look at it for you.

You seem more interested in denouncing him...

Him? I have almost no interest in him. But his ideas...now there's a real pit of snakes.

I gave you common sense insights demonstrating that Marx cared considering the actions he took or didn't take but could have for his own benefit.

Well, Gary, you were clearly making that up.

Nothing that Marx actually did suggested particular beneficence, and contrary to your claim, you provided no "evidence" at all. That you now claim that something you call "common sense" should be substituted for the missing "evidence" is clearly preposterous, since no genuine common sense, or for that matter, historical evidence, would warrant the portrayal of Marx as "missionary" or "compassionate," or even particularly possessed of a functioning conscience. He never even made a living for himself, let alone showed charity to the poor. Even those who, contrary to any good sense at all, maintain that his ideas were good still feel the need to apologize for the kind of man he was. And rightly so.

But as the case is, his person was vile, and as history has shown, his ideas were positively demonic. That's all one can say about Karl Marx.

You're looking for Christian holy piety as evidence of "conscience".

No. I'm just looking for the "evidence" you claimed to offer.

Think about that Polly Anna.

You would mean "Polyanna."

But which is more polyannish? To know the truth about Marx, or to pretend he was some sort of "missionary" or secular "saint" of compassion? One view is certainly deserving of that adjective, but it's pretty clear which one it is.

Like most hypocrites in the church you're more ready to judge others for their mistakes borne of good intent than you are to actually do anything significant to help others help themselves.

Have we discussed my personal activities? I don't know that we have. But either way, though, were I a total hypocrite, that would not make Marx a good man, or Communism not rat poison. It would only mean that BOTH of us were hypocrites, and Communism would still be the bane of humanity that it always has been.

So your assumptions about my moral hygiene don't help your argument one bit. They're just irrelevant.

[Gary Childress]

"Evidence"? No. You attributed to him all kinds of virtues he never had; that doesn't count as "evidence." However, if you have some real evidence of Marx's compassionate and conscientious nature, in defiance of all his biographers, I'll look at it for you.
Him? I have almost no interest in him. But his ideas...now there's a real pit of snakes.

I gave you common sense insights demonstrating that Marx cared considering the actions he took or didn't take but could have for his own benefit.

Well, Gary, you were clearly making that up.

Nothing that Marx actually did suggested particular beneficence, and contrary to your claim, you provided no "evidence" at all. That you now claim that something you call "common sense" should be substituted for the missing "evidence" is clearly preposterous, since no genuine common sense, or for that matter, historical evidence, would warrant the portrayal of Marx as "missionary" or "compassionate," or even particularly possessed of a functioning conscience. He never even made a living for himself, let alone showed charity to the poor. Even those who, contrary to any good sense at all, maintain that his ideas were good still feel the need to apologize for the kind of man he was. And rightly so.

But as the case is, his person was vile, and as history has shown, his ideas were positively demonic. That's all one can say about Karl Marx.

You're looking for Christian holy piety as evidence of "conscience".

No. I'm just looking for the "evidence" you claimed to offer.

Think about that Polly Anna.

You would mean "Polyanna."

But which is more polyannish? To know the truth about Marx, or to pretend he was some sort of "missionary" or secular "saint" of compassion? One view is certainly deserving of that adjective, but it's pretty clear which one it is.

Like most hypocrites in the church you're more ready to judge others for their mistakes borne of good intent than you are to actually do anything significant to help others help themselves.

Have we discussed my personal activities? I don't know that we have. But either way, though, were I a total hypocrite, that would not make Marx a good man, or Communism not rat poison. It would only mean that BOTH of us were hypocrites, and Communism would still be the bane of humanity that it always has been.

So your assumptions about my moral hygiene don't help your argument one bit. They're just irrelevant.

Whatever. Your "moral hygiene" is pretty clear just from who or what you exert the most effort in denouncing in your posts and who or what you don't. I have fewer qualms about Marx than I do with the haughty taughty who orchestrated and maintained the conditions workers were subjected to in the early years of the Industrial Revolution.

But you do you. Maybe you think the rich will donate more at church so you can have an all-expenses paid vacation posing as a poor relief worker in some exotic jungle in Uganda for a few years. (Maybe you can brag to the few tourists who occasionally go there about how you became "tight" with the "locals".) If that's the case, then by all means, knock yourself out.