|
blowfish posted:This is not how biology works. It is specifically not how species work. Science has always had some flexibility in what defines a species. Humans and Neanderthals could, for example, produce viable offspring, yet are classified as different species.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:I get all your points, I just think they're worthless and bigoted. Would you like to request more special privileges so you never have to know what people think of you? Here you are, missing the point yet again. You should perhaps start by enumerating special rights I have claimed for myself (perhaps start with two so you don't overtax your brain while still technically meeting the threshold of "multiple"), and specifically point out in what way they do not or should not apply to other people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:45
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Here you are, missing the point yet again. You should perhaps start by enumerating special rights I have claimed for myself (perhaps start with two so you don't overtax your brain while still technically meeting the threshold of "multiple"), and specifically point out in what way they do not or should not apply to other people. Now you want me to rewrite your own posts so your privileged, inchoate strivings can be parsed! There's no end to the accommodations you request.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Science has always had some flexibility in what defines a species. Humans and Neanderthals could, for example, produce viable offspring, yet are classified as different species. Keyword: some. Humans and big cats can't, for instance. Neanderthals also represent a seperate gene pool from modern humans, so even if you could technically reproduce with a neanderthal you don't get to be a neanderthal by saying words.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Now you want me to rewrite your own posts so your privileged, inchoate strivings can be parsed! There's no end to the accommodations you request. God forbid we debate and discuss in this subforum! Oh the presumptuousness! e: I will graciously start by extending to you the same special accomodations: SedanChair posted:I don't have an actual argument to make, but in my imagination you are the Cis White Male Sexo-Imperialist Oppressor so you must be dumb and wrong in every way while secretly wishing to oppress anyone who is more black or female than you are! suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
What's up thread, I'm a trans person here to uphold the cult of gender.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Because these types of self-definitions are entirely superficial? If you feel that it's so superficial, then what's the harm in accommodating?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Why do we care about gender so much? If anything, we should make one standard english pronoun (if focusing on language) and give all power to the unisex toilet or something. Nobody should be required to care about other peoples genders. Not every cares about gender so heavily, but for some people it's a place of personal comfort. You talk like someone who has always felt like you belonged in the world, and never had to look for a community to belong to that also matches your emotional needs. As for the one standard English pronoun, that's a point we're going to agree on. But language changes very slowly so first we have to make a language more inclusive before we can make it more universal. That said, while you shouldn't be required to care about other people's genders, you are required to treat them with basic human decency which includes making an honest attempt to honor simple requests that mean nothing to you but everything to the person making them. The Kingfish posted:Because these types of self-definitions are entirely superficial? Just because it's superficial to you doesn't change the meaning behind the people making those self-definitions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It also fails to cover every other way in which people could be discriminated against, or more relevantly every other way in which participants of the discussion could be personally attacked or the discussion derailed. It's useless single-issue focus in the wrong place. Your suggested replacement fails to cover anything except the most obvious insults, which is not commensurate to the concept of a safe space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
jivjov posted:If you feel that it's so superficial, then what's the harm in accommodating? Because that would be *grits teeth* polite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Krysmphoenix posted:And what the gently caress is wrong with being a "special snowflake", especially with regards to gender which has been snared by the gender binary for so long? What's wrong with anyone wanting to break out of that and try to self-define themselves? Nothing, but good luck trying to be taken seriously. Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Science has always had some flexibility in what defines a species. Humans and Neanderthals could, for example, produce viable offspring, yet are classified as different species. Hybrids are an accepted phenomenon is biology yes and Neanderthal-human hybrids had quite some trouble breeding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Your suggested replacement fails to cover anything except the most obvious insults, which is not commensurate to the concept of a safe space. 1) Unless you're holding a minority rights meeting in a regressive shithole I don't see why every meeting on random topics should specifically be first and foremost a safe space 2) You are intentionally underinterpreting
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Keyword: some. Humans and big cats can't, for instance. It sounds like a person could at least identify as trans neanderthal, then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Krysmphoenix posted:And what the gently caress is wrong with being a "special snowflake", especially with regards to gender which has been snared by the gender binary for so long? What's wrong with anyone wanting to break out of that and try to self-define themselves? Lichy posted:Nothing, but good luck trying to be taken seriously. As a side note, people self-defining by applying arbitrary or made-up labels with minimal effort is not the same as people self-defining via their accomplishments Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:It sounds like a person could at least identify as trans neanderthal, then. You don't get to be a neanderthal by claiming you are. You need to be in the neanderthal gene pool at which point you don't get to be a modern human anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
blowfish posted:You don't get to be a neanderthal by claiming you are. You need to be in the neanderthal gene pool at which point you don't get to be a modern human anymore. What if they're still transitioning? Who gets to police how someone identifies their species?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
blowfish posted:1) Unless you're holding a minority rights meeting in a regressive shithole I don't see why every meeting on random topics should specifically be first and foremost a safe space 1. Just about everywhere constitutes a regressive shithole when it comes to sexuality and gender. 2. I am not underinterpreting, I'm saying that there is a distinction between saying "everyone be nice" and explaining to be people the specifics of the conduct expected of you. There is a reason for specific rules of conduct because astonishingly, a lot of people need to be told specifics because they don't behave otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:What if they're still transitioning? Who gets to police how someone identifies their species? The gene pools weren't seperate at some point in the past, then barriers happened and they were. Species as a matter of personal identity just doesn't make any sense because personal identity goes away if you stop believing in it while your gene pool or mating ability or other defining feature doesn't. It's like saying you self identify as antimatter. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
jivjov posted:If you feel that it's so superficial, then what's the harm in accommodating? Krysmphoenix posted:Just because it's superficial to you doesn't change the meaning behind the people making those self-definitions. Which is what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:1. Just about everywhere constitutes a regressive shithole when it comes to sexuality and gender. If your meeting is full of retards (heh) who don't understand how to behave you still get to explain to them why they're wrong or to tell them to stop or leave under my rule. If you don't have a meeting full of retards you just saved time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Because it functions to solidify the importance of gender. loving that's what solidifies it? Not the entirety of human history preceding? e: blowfish posted:retards (heh) Your entire contribution in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:loving that's what solidifies it? Not the entirety of human history preceding? Sure, because the past wasn't perfect there's no reason to improve the present. Welcome to nihilism, enjoy your free cookie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Get this: different actions can have same function.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Once again, if you want to ossify the importance of gender in society you're not going to do it more effectively than if you define gender as being strictly binary with no wiggle room in language at all. That's sort of the point of why such norms are being challenged and why language is moving away from that. It's a very conservative stance that requires a colossal amount of effort to end up where you started off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The gene pools weren't seperate at some point in the past, then barriers happened and they were. The earliest protozoa were sexless. Gender barriers happened at some point in the past, but the original biological intent of being able to produce viable genetic offspring has changed with the times as well. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Because it functions to solidify the importance of gender. So wait....is it superficial, or is it of some gigantic importance?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Once again, if you want to ossify the importance of gender in society you're not going to do it more effectively than if you define gender as being strictly binary with no wiggle room in language at all. Gender can be binary(tradition) or non-binary. Adding extra "personal" genders is blatantly regressive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It demonstrably makes trans people less likely to kill themselves. That's pretty important. Cingulate posted:Source? Cause this thread moves way too fast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
jivjov posted:So wait....is it superficial, or is it of some gigantic importance? The distinctions made by people with personal genders between themselves and the traditional genders are entirely superficial. The social construct of gender is of gigantic importance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:The earliest protozoa were sexless. Protozoa are all eukaryotes, and certainly weren't "the earliest"  Even in (actually earliest) prokaryotes there are still seperate gene pools, even though the barriers are less via reproductive isolation itself. You don't need sexes for seperate gene pools, and you certainly don't need genders or self-assigned identities which are only ever relevant for self-aware species having dumb arguments on internet forums.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Gender can be binary(tradition) or non-binary. Adding extra "personal" genders is blatantly regressive. It's the homeopathic principle as applied to language: By further diluting traditional gendered language to include more forms, you eventually reach a point where the original forms cease to exist in a meaningful manner except by lunatics who think that, rather than it just being water, it actually contains the essence of the original principle. In essence it's the slippery slope argument but actually applied to a situation in which the original position is, in itself, completely worthless and worthy of scorn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:language is moving away from that. Citation required.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The distinctions made by people with personal genders between themselves and the traditional genders are entirely superficial. The social construct of gender is of gigantic importance. So if the social perception of gender is so important, and someone's personal identification is so superficial; it stands to reason that it is better for society as a whole if people's gender identities were respected. As it is superficial to indulge the individual, and of social import overall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:The earliest protozoa were sexless. Gender barriers happened at some point in the past, but the original biological intent of being able to produce viable genetic offspring has changed with the times as well. How quickly on average do you oscillate between biology and sociology in your arguments?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:It's the homeopathic principle as applied to language: By further diluting traditional gendered language to include more forms, you eventually reach a point where the original forms cease to exist in a meaningful manner except by lunatics who think that, rather than it just being water, it actually contains the essence of the original principle. Given that the slippery slope argument is supposed to be a fallacy... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Lichy posted:How quickly on average do you oscillate between biology and sociology in your arguments? There are sociology disciplines devoted to intersectionality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Lichy posted:Citation required. The singular they has received massive traction and there are many applications in which language is actually used where it is considered completely normal and non-noteworthy. For example, Facebook uses the singular they for when gender is not specified. I never actually bothered to specify my gender when I signed up, so when I update my profile, it says "Ddraig has updated their profile" Remarkably this has completely slipped under the radar and has not caused massive debates every time it has happened. Almost as if it's... normalized. Several style guides, which even the most prescriptivist of linguists would consider authoritative, have also started to use it. It's here. Get used to it. blowfish posted:Given that the slippery slope argument is supposed to be a fallacy... Indeed it is, and I'd urge you to actually learn what a fallacy is. Hint: It's not what you think it is. Rush Limbo fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Lichy posted:Citation required. As a college gender student committee member, I
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:In essence it's the slippery slope argument but actually applied to a situation in which the original position is, in itself, completely worthless and worthy of scorn. You mean the slippery slope fallacy? Its more walking up the down escalator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:The singular they has received massive traction and there are many applications in which language is actually used where it is considered completely normal and non-noteworthy. but... that's the complete opposite of what people in favour of making every one-person gender identity valid are proposing
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:There are sociology disciplines devoted to intersectionality. None of which matter in the slightest to the evolution and genetics of species.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:25
|
|