Very intriguing that we live in a society that denies biology and promotes body mutalation and mental illness. It was fantastic and eye opening to see the other side of people who have been tricked into mutalate there bodies and the regret and pain they now feel. Incredibly powerful and great documentary
Nobody even gives a shit about trannies except you shut-ins who can't stop obsessing.
I've lived in a liberal major metro area for most of my life and haven't seen more than 5 trannies, ever.
You're over here saving troony twitter pic bullshit like the gay you are. What the frick possessed you to think "you know what? i need to save this troony image" AND repost it?
What's the point, we know what his answer will be based on his politics. He has no interest in examining his own beliefs and will just end the documentary where he started, sounds boring.
>biology and basic science is now alt right propaganda
you see democrats. this is what happens when you defund mental hospitals and give the patients a say on your platform. We used to argue with republicans about taxes and healthcare but now we have pretend to support groomers like while not getting anything we want.
Hey I just said the movie would be boring because you know exactly what will happen and he won't engage his opposition in good faith. I never said whether or not I agreed or disagreed with him. And if I disagree with him I'm automatically a groomer? Frick you.
I guess biological essentialism. I agree there there is biological sex, but I don't think that should enforce our social roles or gender expression.
look man i don't care if you wanna slap chop your genitals and watch cartoon child porn in your home all day. When you decide to be a pedophile in real life and expect people like me, who are just trying to get by, to celebrate the fact that you're child predator. That's where I happily agree with the alt right that you people need to be mercilessly exterminated from this earth.
>but I don't think that should enforce our social roles or gender expression.
Probably Because you're a mentally ill dipshit
2 years ago
Anonymous
Other than how we reproduce, I fail to see any reason why biological sex should enforce social roles. I know it informs those roles, and the majority are happy to fill them, but I don't think it should be a prescription, outliers should be allowed, outliers are expected in any rule.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Our biology should have absolutely nothing to do with how our lives play out. You're either an immature 12 year old or a complete fricking moron
2 years ago
Anonymous
I said our social roles. Our biology obviously affects our lives in many ways, I'm not ignoring it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Biology directly affects social roles. You're contradicting yourself.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I said it informs them, not that it should enforce them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I fail to see how brains or bodies should inform social roles
you're right. we should put babies in ovens and feed them drain cleaner. dipshit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What the hell does that have to do with social roles. I'm not saying we should do whatever we want, and touch fire and drink drain cleaner, obviously that is stupid and harmful. Again I never disagreed with the biological reality of our human bodies, I just don't see why they should ENFORCE gender roles. Again I don't even care if they INFORM gender roles, just let outliers exist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Your biology informs literally everything about you. Your size, strength, temperament, intelligence, interests, attitudes; everything.
So, now, you're born. You appear in this world. And you're a human being, so your mind is really plastic. How should you act in it? What's the best thing for you today, to be happy in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 50 years, 80 years? You don't know. You have no idea. No fricking clue whatsoever. But you know who knows? Society knows. It's not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than literally everything else. And I repeat that, because it bears repeating: Traditional society is the best guide that exists for informing you on how you should act in order to get the outcomes you want in the future.
So, if you're born a man, and you want to be happy at 40, you should act the way that society tells you to act. If you instead choose to act the way society tells women to act, you're gonna be unhappy. It's going to be even worse for women, since male-strategies are much more harmful for women than they are for men. Men can't get pregnant, they don't turn infertile, they don't drop off dramatically in terms of being a desirable partner as they age, etc. It's EXTREMELY STUPID for a woman to act like a man.
But does your little girl know this, when she's born? When she's 5? When she's 10? When she's 20? When she's 30? No. She fricking doesn't. That's why society tells here: Here's what you need to do to end up not a miserable, broken wreck by the time you get old.
That's why you have social roles. That's why you enforce them. Because you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT PEOPLE. You DON'T. You don't give the slightest shit about people's well-being. You're just a disgusting enabler, who will feed your drug-addicted friend more drugs to get them to stop making your life miserable, rather than take the effort to get them proper help.
I genuinely think you and every one of your kind are evil people. Being a good person is hard.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why are so many traditional lifestyle boomers miserable? Society doesn't care about making people happy.
>I agree there there is biological sex, but I don't think that should enforce our social roles or gender expression.
i feel exactly the same way
i think we only really disagree about language and the definition of words, that's all
man > someone of the male sex, not someone who has a traditionally male social role or a masculine gender expression
woman > someone of the female sex, not someone who has a traditionally female social role or a feminine gender expression
>but I don't think that should enforce our social roles or gender expression.
Literally no one gives a single frick what your "social roles" or "gender expression" are. If you want to be a dude in a beard and a dress, fricking go for it, have fun. Cross-dress, be ugly, be a tomboy, be feminine, be manly, be whatever you want. The thing is, you can't mandate that people LIKE or ACCEPT you for it. They still get to treat you how they want, including like a freak.
However, you also are NOT magically turning into a different bioloigical sex by cutting on yourself or wearing different clothes. A man will never be a woman and no amount of sci-fi horror surgery or forcing people around you legally to call you a new name or let you into female spaces will ever mask that fact. This is objective reality. And the only thing trannies need is therapy, institutionalization, and medication so they can be normal. Or just let them kill themselves since transgenderism is a subset of depression so they'll do that eventually anyway.
look man i don't care if you wanna slap chop your genitals and watch cartoon child porn in your home all day. When you decide to be a pedophile in real life and expect people like me, who are just trying to get by, to celebrate the fact that you're child predator. That's where I happily agree with the alt right that you people need to be mercilessly exterminated from this earth.
You post this on a board with dozenal-daily dicky threads.
[...]
Guess you don't understand what fundamental means.
A women can produce children.
If a women has cancer and loses that ability, that doesn't change the fact that her biology is capable of child birth on a fundamental level.
Example:
As a human I'm cable of walking on 2 legs. That makes me bipedal. But if I get a leg blown off, that doesn't exclude me from the definition. Because my genetic make up says 2 legs.
Women=ability to have children
[...]
I can spot ur ugly ass from a mile away.
Thousands of years of evolution has allowed us to spot fake women instantly.
Several XX karyotype/genotype/phenotype women are born infertile. By your definition, either they are not actually women or you create some ad-hoc criteria where a "woman" is whatever you decide is a "woman".
>Several XX karyotype/genotype/phenotype women are born infertile.
No you're actually steering the conversation that way. There's clearly a major difference between individuals with genetic mutation disorders and xy males saying there women. You stupid piece of shit
2 years ago
Anonymous
>individuals with genetic mutation disorders
Are they women? What is a woman? Surely you can give me an answer that objectively determines whether these genetically disordered individuals are women or not. After all, it's a very straight-forward question. Please keep you response limited to these karyotypical/genotypical/phenotypical anomalies.
if they weren't born with GENETIC ABNORMALITY OR DEFECT they would be able to, so the fit the definition, sorry troony. ywnbaw
>if they weren't born with GENETIC ABNORMALITY OR DEFECT
Then they would be able to produce sper, and are therefore men. But they would also be able to produce eggs, and are therefore women. Oh no no no sciencelets, we've arrived at a contradiction!
>What is a woman? Please give me a definition that includes people who are infertile from conception and isn't a useless "a woman is what I say is a woman" ad-hoc criterion.
Adult human female.
a woman is an adult human female
This is a circular definition that fails to apply a clean answer to cases of karyotypic/phenotypic/genotypic defects.
>I'll try whataboutism. That's a good trick.
a person without a y chromosome you clown dumbass. but you don't have to ask what a woman is because you already know. if you didn't know you wouldn't think you're "trans"
So if someone has XX chromosomes but a crossover event that results in an active SRY gene on one of their X chromosomes, or XY chromosomes but an inactive SRY gene, that person is a woman or a man, respectively? This runs counter to how conservatives define women and men.
2 years ago
Anonymous
talk about having your mind wrapped into a pretzel. it's literally: do you have sperm or eggs? sperm, male; eggs, female. that's it. >bu-buth what if neight?
then neither. you're a broken toy. congrats. make sure to put that on your flag.
2 years ago
Anonymous
A woman is a female adult human (adult meaning over the age of 18). I don't know how to make that any clearer. >This is a circular definition that fails to apply a clean answer to cases of karyotypic/phenotypic/genotypic defects
I don't know what any of this means but it's irrelevant to the actual definition of woman. Sounds like a bunch of science shit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I don't know what any of this means but it's irrelevant to the actual definition of woman. Sounds like a bunch of science shit.
Bait
at what point did you realize that you're actually a woman?
>at what point did you realize that you're actually a woman?
I am, as far as I am aware, a bog-standard XY sperm-producing man.
An adult with xx chromosomes. Much like me as the opposite sex, we don't have to "feel" like the appropriate sex trapped in a body.. You're a mentally ill piece of shit you deserve to have your head caved in
>An adult with xx chromosomes.
People with Swyer Syndrome have XY chromosomes yet appear female and have female genitalia. If you passed one on the street, you would assume they were a woman because they look like women. The only way you could determine they were actually a man is by karyotypic testing that the vast majority of the population will never undergo. >Th-that's rare so it doesn't matter!
Your definition of woman still describes some women as men and some men as women, even ignoring the troony question.
>Humans are generally bipedal,
and woman "generally" can give birth
if you point to a woman that became infertile and say she is not a woman because some dude decided to cut his balls off i would say you're moronic
>if you point to a woman that became infertile and say she is not a woman because some dude decided to cut his balls off i would say you're moronic
I would call her a woman. Chudcels wouldn't, because she is not an adult human capable of producing viable eggs.
there's no contradiction. abnormalities and outliers prove the rule >what about this weird thing
doesn't matter to the definition. a woman is an adult human female. which of these do you have a problem with? >adult >human >female
i already know you don't care for adults too much, do you groomer
>abnormalities and outliers prove the rule >Being wrong just proves I'm secretly more right > a woman is an adult human female
This is circular You are presumably defining "female" in terms of standard karyo/geno/phenotypical humans, which excludes about one in a hundred people. >Y-you're a pedo!
Aren't you late to your dicky thread?
Hey anon, do me a favor: What is the definition of a bridge? Look it up or don't, what definition would you give me?
I don't think I could give a fully encompassing definition. Is a series of boats connecting one side of a bay to another such that one can cross on foot a bridge? Is a strip of dirt crossing over a gap a bridge? What if that gap is small?I would say in 99% of cases, I can call something a bridge or not a bridge and there would be little controversy. I would be a fool if I stated I had an obvious definition that settled the other 1%.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>People with Swyer Syndrome have XY >But but but what about people with 1 in a million genetic defects
Hahahahaha transvestites are so desperate they are comparing themselves to physically broken spawns HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
2 years ago
Anonymous
I know reading is hard for alt-right chuddies but >I am, as far as I am aware, a bog-standard XY sperm-producing man.
I have never seen a definition of "woman" that includes the group of people even cuckservatives would consider 'women' that isn't a useless ad-hoc qualification. This is independent of whether you think a typical karyo/geno/phenotypical male taking estrogen and presenting as a woman is a woman. Even if we decide they're not, the definition of a woman is still a complicated discussion for edge cases.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>A bunch of pseudo babble cope
You are such a pathetic piece of shit LMAO transvestites will never be accepted as women and same goes for vise versa
2 years ago
Anonymous
>basic high-school biology is... le pseudo babble cope!
Pathetic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Highschool biology
Maybe for you, 15 year old green haired homosexual. Most adults that aren't mentally ill don't need more than 5 seconds to explain what a woman is
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Most adults that aren't mentally ill don't need more than 5 seconds to explain what a woman is
Are people with Swyer syndrome women? You have 5 seconds.
quoting this many people is an instant disregard. You're clearly an asshurt astroturfer, frick off pedo troon
>Responding to arguments is proof you're wrong. Not responding to arguments is also proof you're wrong
Nice kafkatrap, homosexual.
Is your high school education telling me that two women conceived a child like that anons picture says?
I haven't watched the documentary. I don't care about trans shit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No they're genetic freaks of nature. Next question?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>No they're genetic freaks of nature
Neither man nor woman? Are you implying sex is not a binary? Damn, even I don't believe that. You're more in support of troony ideology that I am.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nah I'm saying it's irrelevant. Like a fricked up goat born with two faces drooling all over the place doesn't need to redefine the entire species. You dumb butthole
2 years ago
Anonymous
It has nothing to do with the documentary. Anons pic has a trans prisoner that got moved from female to male prison after raping and impregnating 2 women. So according to you, a woman raped another woman and impregnated her? And now "she" is in a male prison?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Assumed you were talking about the OP anon. I don't think trans prisoners should be given free reign in opposite-sex prisons.
IQ does not scale for age anon, 11 year olds are still mentally underdeveloped and moronic if you would stop being a groomer you would understand that
moron.
Nah I'm saying it's irrelevant. Like a fricked up goat born with two faces drooling all over the place doesn't need to redefine the entire species. You dumb butthole
So are they a man or a woman or some non-binary option? You have 5 seconds.
Yes, people with Swyer Syndrome are women despite having XY chromosomes.
They are actually capable of giving birth although cannot conceive naturally
Technically it is the presence of a functioning SRY gene that actually makes you male
>Technically it is the presence of a functioning SRY gene that actually makes you male
I'm more inclined to work with this definition. At the very least it narrows your edge cases.
lmao no it's not, IQ has never and will never be repeatable. You can score higher on an IQ test after you've eaten. "IQ" is not a quantity or a measurement, even though it may be presented as such.
moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>get called out for posting something factually untrue >"but but but it's YOU who's the idiot!1!!"
What was the game plan here? shit your pants and hope I go away? lmao
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't know if you're the IQ-denying dumbass or the SRY-denying dumbass. Please clarify.
Theyre a genetically fricked up anomaly. Is a turtle bord with two heads and 6 legs "a totally regular turtle"?
It's a turtle, as you admitted. Who said anything about regular? A person born with swyer syndrome is either a man, a woman, or a non-binary option. Which do you think they are?
Actual moron
Pedophiles like you score below average intelligence for a reason
>I don't know if you're the IQ-denying dumbass or the SRY-denying dumbass. Please clarify.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't deny IQ, it's a classification that can have useful applications. But it is not a measurement of intelligence, nor should it be taken as such. It's much less important than any number of other factors when predicting long-term success.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Theyre a genetically fricked up anomaly. Is a turtle bord with two heads and 6 legs "a totally regular turtle"?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Actual moron
Pedophiles like you score below average intelligence for a reason
2 years ago
Anonymous
IQ is a very good predictor, and I don't think it's complete pseudoscience. However, what that guy you replied to said was partially true. You can get different IQ results if you take the same type of test multiple times. There are days when some may feel tired or don't feel like putting in as much effort.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Eating breakfast the day of the test can result in your IQ score shifting 10 points, yes. All that says is that IQ is a poor method of establishing a total linear order on people. Someone who scores a 130 IQ, regardless of a reasonable range of circumstances, is still going to be more intelligent than someone who gets a 70.
Sorry, I didn't follow through with my point, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. IQ is not something that has to be measured, as it can be inferred from other factors and provides no additional context aside from very basic and surface-level assessments of some select cognitive functions which include pattern recognition and working memory. There's no data you can get from an IQ measurement that cannot be extrapolated through other means which are more accurate and empirical.
>There's no data you can get from an IQ measurement that cannot be extrapolated through other means which are more accurate and empirical.
Feel free to name them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I just mentioned one, which is their postal code. A few more are diet, sleep, income, level of education, etc etc etc. These are all things you can get from a census that will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about someone's cognitive abilities. You can predict IQ within +/-10 points using those factors alone.
2 years ago
Anonymous
IQ is a far better predictor of university success than childhood socioeconomic status.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Except of course that these things overlap strongly. 25% of uni students have a parent with a PhD, and it's like 60% if we're talking about a B.A.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Blatantly incorrect and categorically false. One's postal code remains the most useful and predictive variable when it comes to post-secondary education.
2 years ago
Anonymous
IQ of parents typically predicts childhood socioeconomic status and the IQ of the child as well.
2 years ago
Anonymous
IQ does correlate to these factors, and these factors are good indicators of pattern recognition ability.
But IQ is still useful for measuring how external factors are impacting pattern recognition ability. Which is why you will see studies say, "even controlling for other socioeconomic factors..." etc.
Another thing you can do is measure IQ before and after something, and measure its effects if you have a large enough dataset.
Like, for instance, taking hormones.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm not completely discounting the utility of the assessment itself in certain contexts, but I very much disagree with using it as the defining indicator of intellectual ability. "idiot savants" typically score sub-80 points, and yet possess almost inhuman cognitive abilities in other areas. Edge-cases aside, it's just not as good of a predictive factor and shouldn't be taken as seriously as it is.
2 years ago
Anonymous
In the context of this reply chain though, starting with this image
He just asked a very simple question
and the reply that "IQ is pseudoscience"
Iq is pseudoscience
a more accurate criticism would be "you need a larger dataset", not "you are using IQ in a pseudoscientific way".
IQ is not the problem here, the dataset size is.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>bash kid in head with hammer >iq dropped 9 points >"uhhhh needs a bigger dataset!"
you morons would be asking for a triple-blinded peer-reviewed study to prove that putting water on fire helps put it out, and then refer to grease fires as proof that it doesn't
2 years ago
Anonymous
I agree that there are fundamental problems with giving kids hormones that you don't need a scientific study to determine, but in the context of attempting to use a scientific study to back up your point, a study with a single person is not a good argument.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Were you not the original one who said "iq does not have to be measured"? Or maybe the guy who said "iq is pseudoscience"? You're on the ropes my guy
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, there are like 4 anons going at it right now. I'm the one who thinks it's of less utility than other more quantitative measurements. It's not pseudoscientific by any means, it's just not a very objective measurement.
2 years ago
Anonymous
This is a fair take. IQ tests measure IQ. IQ correlates with life outcomes and with "intelligence", but pretending they're the same thing is reductive.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I agree. Why does everyone seem to think it's either le ebil yt eugenicist rhetoric or the single defining factor which determines a human's worth? I hate it
2 years ago
Anonymous
This is like saying strength isn't real because you typically perform worse when tired than when you're well rested.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>d-debate me
frick off moron
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, people with Swyer Syndrome are women despite having XY chromosomes.
They are actually capable of giving birth although cannot conceive naturally
Technically it is the presence of a functioning SRY gene that actually makes you male
2 years ago
Anonymous
Stop shielding yourself from logic with the bodies of people who are suffering, you evil SON of a b***h.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Bro stop
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is your high school education telling me that two women conceived a child like that anons picture says?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oh so you should have a reeaaalll concise definition of the word "woman" then, I noticed you haven't provided one yet
2 years ago
Anonymous
It has nothing to do with the documentary. Anons pic has a trans prisoner that got moved from female to male prison after raping and impregnating 2 women. So according to you, a woman raped another woman and impregnated her? And now "she" is in a male prison?
>trans prisoner that got moved from female to male prison after raping and impregnating 2 women
Apparently the sex was consensual.
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/07/transgender-woman-who-impregnated-2-inmates-removed-from-njs-female-prison.html >The news of Minor’s transfer comes nearly three months after NJ Advance Media reported that Minor impregnated two women during “consensual sexual relationships.”
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It was consensual
That makes this concept even more moronic. Lol, they straight up housing men with women in prison
2 years ago
Anonymous
"cuckservative" is a term used by actual nazis to refer to, well, cuckservatives, you dumb homosexual child rapist
2 years ago
Anonymous
quoting this many people is an instant disregard. You're clearly an asshurt astroturfer, frick off pedo troon
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This is circular You are presumably defining "female" in terms of standard karyo/geno/phenotypical humans,
that is correct. the standard of female is what a female is. you're saying that a chair with 5 legs isn't a chair because the standard chair only has 4, you sound like a shizo
2 years ago
Anonymous
>A chair is a seat with 4 legs
This seat has 5 legs >Obviously that's still a chair
Your definition is wrong and your corrections are ad-hoc (so therefore useless).
2 years ago
Anonymous
Will changing the number of legs change anything else?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anon you Don't seem to understand one important thing. Humans have one head regardless of the fact that there are ones with 2 heads due to complications in the womb, humans have 5 fingers regardless of the very few cases where some might have 6.
The fact that some humans have some complications that leads to abnormalities doesn't affect the definitions and reailty behind them.
We all know the biological reailty behind a woman the 0.005 that have some abnormalities really don't matter at all and it's not like you actually care about them because in the end a 6'6 hairy 40 yo healthy man according to your ideology is a woman once he says he's one. We're not dealing with intersex people trying to choose a gender, we never did. We're dealing with normal fertile biological men who get hard wearing dresses.
2 years ago
Anonymous
An adult with xx chromosomes. Much like me as the opposite sex, we don't have to "feel" like the appropriate sex trapped in a body.. You're a mentally ill piece of shit you deserve to have your head caved in
2 years ago
Anonymous
there's no contradiction. abnormalities and outliers prove the rule >what about this weird thing
doesn't matter to the definition. a woman is an adult human female. which of these do you have a problem with? >adult >human >female
i already know you don't care for adults too much, do you groomer
2 years ago
Anonymous
Hey anon, do me a favor: What is the definition of a bridge? Look it up or don't, what definition would you give me?
2 years ago
Anonymous
could a bridge be a woman?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This is a circular definition
no it isn't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This is a circular definition that fails to apply a clean answer to cases of karyotypic/phenotypic/genotypic defects.
Defects are statistical outliers that imply a failure in the casting of the mold, not a flaw in the design itself. Defects and anomalies are not rules that establish the definition. We don't define something by the vast minority edge case.
Human beings (homosexual Sapiens) are born with 10 fingers and 10 toes. There are some rare defects, disorders, or conditions where some people are born with no limbs, no fingers, extra fingers, fused toes, etc. But we don't teach these as the rule, because they're NOT. They're mutations or defects in the forming of what should have been a healthy person. They do not change the definition, and their existence does not force us to expand our term to say "homosexual Sapiens are born with between 0 and 20 fingers, and between 0 and 20+ toes" because that makes no sense.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They do not change the definition, and their existence does not force us to expand our term to say "homosexual Sapiens are born with between 0 and 20 fingers, and between 0 and 20+ toes" because that makes no sense.
Isn't that the definition we currently use? As far as I know, if someone is born with 6 fingers on one hand they're not classified as a different species, ergo your definition is correct.
2 years ago
Anonymous
they're identified with a genetic defect
2 years ago
Anonymous
But are they not human? Do they not fall under the classification of homo-sapiens? I don't understand what's so complicated.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Mentally ill people are still people. What's your point.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>As far as I know, if someone is born with 6 fingers on one hand they're not classified as a different species, ergo your definition is correct.
Well, I think you're not really understanding how the concept of "species" works in biology per se, but it's fine enough here. They are the same species because they were born from the same species. Everything inherits the taxonomy from its' parents, no parent ever gives birth to a new species. Speciation specifically happens when one lineage can no longer interbreed with another lineage due to genetic differences. So no matter what mutation a human baby has, they'll still be a human, and their mutation does not need to be folded into "what a human being looks like". Sometimes, very rarely, animals can be born with two heads, but we don't add that to the definition of how to identify them because that would be ridiculous. It's not a useful identifier and it is such a vanishingly small outlier that it's not worth bringing up.
Humans have a set of standard characteristics, and then like every animal, lots of potential for mutation or variation expressed at birth. None of which change the core definition of what a human is. The existence of intersex, hermaphradism, genital mutation, extra chromosome, or other weird shit doesn't change the fact that humans are biologically Male and Female species. It just means sometimes the formation process in the womb goes wrong and produces broken shit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not exactly. Human beings are typically sexually dimorphous, just as they are typically bipedal. But a human whose sexual characteristics do not fall within that binary is still human just as the one missing a leg is. People tend to forget that sex is a bit of an umbrella term for a collection of physiological attributes, and there's not one single defining variable. Chromosomes can tell you a lot but for example, someone with ovotesticular syndrome can have both sets of reproductive organs while having the DNA indicative of a male (or female).
All in all, I think sex is a more nuanced classification than many give it credit for, but it's not superfluous by any means.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>All in all, I think
Nature doesn't care what you think
2 years ago
Anonymous
Maybe not, but you seemed to put a lot of effort into your reply so I thought I'd do you the same courtesy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
None of those genetic disorders change any truths about human reproduction. Most of those people are sterile, or if they are not they produce the gametes of one of the two binary sexes.
And again, none of that has anything to do with changing what the definition of "male" or "female" is, nor can a male become a female or vice versa.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't think I ever said that one could switch sexes. I don't believe that's possible, though individual sexual characteristics like genitalia can be surgically altered to (vaguely) resemble that of the opposite sex.
>By your definition, either they are not actually women or you create some ad-hoc criteria where a "woman" is whatever you decide is a "woman".
Right, they're some kind of broken thing. You may call it a woman to be polite. But you won't be stupid enough to think it can carry your child. Hopefully. And that is what makes them a woman.
>Several XX karyotype/genotype/phenotype women are born infertile
and several indians are born with 3 legs and 6 arms
that doesnt change the fact that humans are bipedals
2 years ago
Anonymous
Humans are generally bipedal, yes. If you point to that Indian mutated freak and say they can't be a human because they are not bipedal, I would say you're moronic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
at what point did you realize that you're actually a woman?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Humans are generally bipedal,
and woman "generally" can give birth
if you point to a woman that became infertile and say she is not a woman because some dude decided to cut his balls off i would say you're moronic
>and he won't engage his opposition in good faith.
How do you engage in "good faith" with someone who says "Gender is a constelation! It's a spectrum of feelings! Can a chicken cry? Can a rabbit commit suicide? I feel like I'm a wolf-gender."?
How do you engage in good faith with someone who says "A woman is anyone who says they are a woman"? and then gets mad or incapable of accepting that circular definitions make you look moronic and get nowhere?
Have you seen the lunatics he interviewed? He interviewed a paediatrician that didn't even want to confirm that Santa Claus wasn't real because that'd mean that the children she's chemically castrating at the age of 4 or above may not be rational enough to know wtf they're getting into. It's fricking insane and I didn't even know who that bearded muppet who made the movie was before stumbling over the clip on youtube.
They are just like when Christgays had all the cultural and institutional power 50+ years ago and had people fired for off-hand blasphemous remarks or implying they were members of a socialist union.
At least the christians had a rulebook they had to adhere to for good PR, these shitheads just ruin peoples lives and then just shout any dissent down to just continue doing dumb weird shit to people who are clearly mentally unwell.
Did they though? I don't buy it. Whoever has cultural/institutional dominance in society will never treat their opposition fairly, and the reason why is they can get away with it.
Ah yes, the Christian nations of Egypt, Sumer, and Mesopotamia which infamously followed a religion from the future thousands of years before it was founded. You must be a scholar or something!
>Egypt, Sumer, and Mesopotamia
Those aren't the modern western civilization we currently live in, nice try though. Actually it was a pathetic try, have a nice day homosexual.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>There is no other civilization than Egypt, Sumer, and Mesopotamia
American education
Are you seething because civilization wasn't created by white people? That's pretty fragile ngl, very effeminate stance. What, are you threatened or something?
2 years ago
Anonymous
oh cool further obfuscation
2 years ago
Anonymous
obfuscation of what? the fact that civilization was neither dependent on Christianity for its inception nor its continued longevity? Seems like a cope to me.
2 years ago
Anonymous
[...]
Are you seething because civilization wasn't created by white people? That's pretty fragile ngl, very effeminate stance. What, are you threatened or something?
>brings up race apropos of nothing when talking about the Christian foundations of modern Western Civilization.
Found the israelite.
2 years ago
Anonymous
ummmm acktually the original post said this: >Christianity gave you civilization. Wokeism will give you collapse.
Unless they changed the spelling of "modern" and "western", I don't see either of those words, just civilization.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oh, do you live in ancient Sumer?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, do you live in Constantine's Roman empire?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I do in fact live in a civilization with its foundational roots originating from those of Western Rome, so yes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Did I ask you if you lived in a civilization with its foundational roots originating from those of Western Rome, or did I ask you if you physically lived in ancient Rome? Because either you're deliberately misinterpreting the question to avoid looking like you're an idiot, or you actually did misinterpret the question and you are an idiot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>did I ask you if you physically lived in ancient Rome?
No, you did not.
But many benefits of that socalled christian civilisation had to be fought against christianity to gain such as female sufferage, modern science or the sexual revolution?
It's what saints did in the Christian Roman Empire. (it was legal to do so, the law was against blasphemers and pagans at times)
It's what a saints did during an Ecumenical Council.
Pic related, it's Santa slapping a heretic in a room full of intellectuals and reputable people.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Again, if you think it's righteous to smite your enemies out of a job for being atheists, don't expect a Diversity Officer to not do the same thing when you tell her you don't like blacks.
>he openly spoke with the people i agree with, but he didnt conform! therefore, he has no interest in deluding his own realy for the first time in a billion years that demands society think boys can be girls and girls can be boys and men can be women and women can be men.. he just.. KEPT ASKING QUESTIONS!! *explodes into crying tears* HOW?????????????????
IQ is a repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable test of pattern recognition abilities and is highly correlated with how well somebody performs in life. You'd have to be a moron to call it pseudoscience. >inb4 some moronic social """""science""""" paper calling IQ some combination of racist/sexist/classist because they're desperate to undermine what it reveals
lmao no it's not, IQ has never and will never be repeatable. You can score higher on an IQ test after you've eaten. "IQ" is not a quantity or a measurement, even though it may be presented as such.
To get an average IQ-score you make the subject take the test multiple times to get an actual estimate. What it measures is general cognitive ability which can correlate to a subject's ability to learn. Why does every room temp IQ chud think it's a gotcha that a test for *cognitive ability* isn't exactly repeatable? Humans aren't PC's you can't just run cinebench and get a repeatable result.
Do you know what factor correlates most strongly with IQ when adjusting for any number of variables? Postal code. IQ is determined by and large by one's socioeconomic background and education. Why are people consistently shocked when parts of the world with highly impoverished and uneducated populations score lower on IQ tests? That's the expected result, you can't subject a group to malnutrition while depriving them of intellectual stimulation and expect their intelligence to thrive.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Poverty leads to diminished intellectual ability therefore IQ is not a measure of intellectual ability because it correlates with socioeconomic status
Anon...
2 years ago
Anonymous
Sorry, I didn't follow through with my point, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. IQ is not something that has to be measured, as it can be inferred from other factors and provides no additional context aside from very basic and surface-level assessments of some select cognitive functions which include pattern recognition and working memory. There's no data you can get from an IQ measurement that cannot be extrapolated through other means which are more accurate and empirical.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why do malnourished and undereducated people have underperforming brains DURRRRR
2 years ago
Anonymous
>anon informs us that poor uneducated people are dumb
Wow, what a revelation.
Then why do I score differently after repeating it? Look I can take a lot of time and intentionally answer poorly to score 80, then I can do it normally with some effort and score 125 then I can just spend some time reading books meant for this and doing some puzzles and go back to various institutions and psychiatric IQ test and score 150+.
This is why this score is not used for anything serious in real life.
>if I intentionally do bad on the test I score low, if I approach it normally I score normally, if I do exercises to improve my mental abilities I do better
This isn't a revelation and you're a fricking moron if you think it is.
Go read at least two highly quoted scientific papers that talk about g-general intelligence quotient to understand what we're even talking about, kid.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What does that have to do with the dumb shit you spouted off like it's some brilliant discovery?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What concession? You stated the obvious like it was profound, and when called out on your moronic statement told me to go read scientific papers as though that anything thing to do with anything.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Please inform yourself on the topic that is discussed before you utter nonsense. Your replies serve no purpose, you're like an angry idiot, there's no reason to be upset, please go and learn about this topic... why do you feel so strong about something that you do not understand/know anything about, beats me.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Please inform yourself on the topic that is discussed before you utter nonsense.
I'm not the one who stated something obvious like it was some sort of profundity. >muh go study more
No, you study more, maybe then you won't make brain dead obvious statements and get defensive when called out for it.
Even if that were true; the individual tests themselves reflect overall ability and a person tends to perform better if they do them again even years later.
And IQ only exists when rightoids want to prove whites are superior to other races but not when the research also says that sub 100 IQ also applies to like 50% of the white population.
He's not the one denying IQ, that's you. Most Americans are below average intelligence, when you start grouping in ethnicities vs population you get a better ratio
That's not the point you moron, he was making a claim that leftists are hypocritical around scientific facts, and so are you fricking /misc/yps all the time too.
lmao no it's not, IQ has never and will never be repeatable. You can score higher on an IQ test after you've eaten. "IQ" is not a quantity or a measurement, even though it may be presented as such.
Do you know what factor correlates most strongly with IQ when adjusting for any number of variables? Postal code. IQ is determined by and large by one's socioeconomic background and education. Why are people consistently shocked when parts of the world with highly impoverished and uneducated populations score lower on IQ tests? That's the expected result, you can't subject a group to malnutrition while depriving them of intellectual stimulation and expect their intelligence to thrive.
I don't deny IQ, it's a classification that can have useful applications. But it is not a measurement of intelligence, nor should it be taken as such. It's much less important than any number of other factors when predicting long-term success.
IQ is a very good predictor, and I don't think it's complete pseudoscience. However, what that guy you replied to said was partially true. You can get different IQ results if you take the same type of test multiple times. There are days when some may feel tired or don't feel like putting in as much effort.
><90 IQ seething
Does anyone who speaks moron want to tell me what these anons meant?
Sorry, did I use too many long words? I could rewrite everything at the 5th-grade level if that would help your oxygen-deprived alcohol-damaged mass of hemorrhaging brain tissue parse it without your handler interpreting for you.
I don't get you, anon. If I'm wrong and so easily disproven, why not just post something that would rebut the points I've made instead of smearing shit all over the place and hooting like an ape?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I was actually mocking your contemptably obnoxious "did I use too many big words" line. It had nothing to do with whatever IQ discussion you were having, homosexual.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oh, I get it! In absence of an intelligent rebuttal, you restored to insulting me personally to save face. How'd that work out for ya bud? Do you feel like you avoided embarrassment?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No is mocking you because are a imbecile
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm the imbecile Mr. ESL? How about you get of Cinemaphile and focus on learning how to write like a human instead of jar jar binks?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Make me MR. Low IQ
2 years ago
Anonymous
A rebuttal to what? You mistook my comment for an argument against whatever IQ thing you were talking about before. Sort your mind.
You do realize that every single research paper on IQ ever has determined that it has little to no correlation with genetics or biological inheritance? How can you extoll the virtues of the IQ test without even being versed in its most basic literature?
IQ is genetic. IQ correlates with IQ of parents. IQ Bell Curves vary by race and ethnicity. Every study of separated identical twins shows IQ is genetic and has nothing to do with family socioeconomic status. You cope. You seethe.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's factually incorrect. You know what correlates with IQ, and all the factors you mentioned (IQ of parents, ethnicity, etc)? Location. Because human beings still congregate among their kin despite international travel and an increasingly globalized world economy. it's really not hard, and the research is there for you to study. If I had to guess, you're operating on an outdated orgy of Cinemaphile jpeg infographics, severely outdated books, and a single study with a sample size of <=100.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I can find a dozen hits on Google that found moderate to strong IQ heritability in the last decade. I guess they didn't cover them in your Women's Lit courses?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Google
Why do I even bother? "hurr durr google says-" shut up you drooling moron, if you think the amount of google hits a search term gets determines its truthfulness then you should probably change your opinion on IQ since yours would be measured around ~60.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Any source found on Google is discreditable because it was found on Google
Are you being dense on purpose or?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Did I say that? Did I ever once say that because a source could be found on google that its' invalid somehow? Or did I explicitly reference the NUMBER of search results relating to a specific term? I'll give you some time to answer since I know you're a bit slow in the brains department.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Only Cinemaphile jpeg infographics, severely outdated books, and a single study with a sample size <=100 say IQ is hereditary
Anon, I can find a dozen studies from the last decade on Google that disagree with you >YOU FOUND THEM ON GOOGLE!? CHECKMATE!
Pls tell me this isn't actually how you "think"?
Intelligence has to be genetic or biological since if its not that means that the only reason you're smarter than a chimp is because the chimp doesn't have the same postcode as you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't really know how to respond to that. You do realize that you can't give an IQ test to a chimp, right? I mean, you can try, but it'd be a lot like me trying to explain to you why your argument is inane and nonsensical.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You dont know how to respond because its a frank statement and you cant figure out how to diffuse or dissasemble it. You have hit a logic wall.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, pretty much. It'd be like if we were having a normal conversation and you decided to hoot like an owl instead of responding to my question. I can't really respond, but does that reflect badly on me or you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>physlicalism >evolutionism
>logic
you make me laff
2 years ago
Anonymous
Except you can actually give IQ tests to chimps, you can do it with a lot of animals. Its the nice thing about IQ, you can actually device tests that aren't just raven matrices and verbal puzzles and shit like that. Chimps even outperform humans on certain tasks like short term memory, by insane margins.
2 years ago
Anonymous
How do you know that an animal's responses to the test are based on stimuli relating to the assessment and not whimsy or random chance?
2 years ago
Anonymous
because individual animals consistently outperform others while specific species of animals consistently outperform others. If it was just random then corvids wouldn't continually outperform other birds in problem solving and memory tests.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why wouldn't they? How do you know that the other animals are even processing the data you present as something that requires a response, instead of just reacting reflexively to what you've shown them? By your logic, giving an amoeba an IQ test is indicative of it being 0 IQ since it can "technically" participate in the test and provide answers.
2 years ago
Anonymous
because of the consistently and differences between the groups. If an animal for example can be taught that operating mechanisms for a reward that's a basic level of intelligence. If you can then make the mechanism very complex and they can solve it without having to brute force it but rather by observing the mechanism and then solving it even when it is a novel puzzle, that shows another levels of intelligence. Even amoebae can solve certain puzzles like learning novel forms of danger, detecting them and avoiding them. They wouldn't be able to do that if they were just aimlessly drifting around.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But scientists and biologists agree that amoeba are not sentient nor conscious. Their reactions to stimuli are not classified as intelligence, so what would IQ be measuring? It'd be like trying to test a wind-up toy, except it's a biological mechanism.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>what would IQ be measuring?
Memory. Even single-cell organisms have a tiny amount of it and we can measure how much they can learn and for how long they retain that information. Turns out its very little and not for very long. A virus meanwhile can't do it on any level and as a result many don't even consider it to be a living thing.
This explains a lot.
Combine a lower than average IQ person with Blockers that make them even more moronic.
Kek
Kinda reminds me of the Stalkers in HL2.
The more operations they get, the more willing they are to get more.
>fundamental capability of reproducing children.
Women after menopause aren't women anymore?
Guess you don't understand what fundamental means.
A women can produce children.
If a women has cancer and loses that ability, that doesn't change the fact that her biology is capable of child birth on a fundamental level.
Example:
As a human I'm cable of walking on 2 legs. That makes me bipedal. But if I get a leg blown off, that doesn't exclude me from the definition. Because my genetic make up says 2 legs.
Women=ability to have children
You know if you fricking losers spent as much time on literally ANYTHING else in your life as much as you do obsessing about trannies, you'd all probably be successful and confident men in your day to day
I can spot ur ugly ass from a mile away.
Thousands of years of evolution has allowed us to spot fake women instantly.
A better way to put it is to say that women are "ordered towards" being the egg producer. That is to say even if they are incapable their biology was ordered towards it anyway just like a human is ordered towards having two legs.
>Your ad-hoc definition is totally useful!
What is a woman? Please give me a definition that includes people who are infertile from conception and isn't a useless "a woman is what I say is a woman" ad-hoc criterion.
A better way to put it is to say that women are "ordered towards" being the egg producer. That is to say even if they are incapable their biology was ordered towards it anyway just like a human is ordered towards having two legs.
This is what I'm inclined to believe but it's still fuzzy around ~0.5-1.0% of the population.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>What is a woman? Please give me a definition that includes people who are infertile from conception and isn't a useless "a woman is what I say is a woman" ad-hoc criterion.
Adult human female.
2 years ago
Anonymous
a woman is an adult human female
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I'll try whataboutism. That's a good trick.
a person without a y chromosome you clown dumbass. but you don't have to ask what a woman is because you already know. if you didn't know you wouldn't think you're "trans"
You know if you fricking losers spent as much time on literally ANYTHING else in your life as much as you do obsessing about trannies, you'd all probably be successful and confident men in your day to day
You'd probably be a successful and confident man if you weren't so hellbent on stopping criticism of the troony menace, which will continue to contaminate all facets of society because morons like you say and do nothing about it.
damn....you're right, pack it up boys, dont bother spreading facts and logic, we literally have zero chance of informing lurkers of truth or possibly changing their minds, this is all LITERALLY POINTLESS.
Just let the trannies go unopposed on the internet, its apparently not real discussion or conversations that influence people, just let trannies have a monopoly of posts on the subject, no one who reads these posts actually comprehends the info and maybe might have a different outlook afterwards
realistically, you're not going to accomplish anything by bashing trans people online. worst case scenario you maybe hurt some feelie-weelies, and then what? what's the endgame here?
Them committing suicide after coming to terms with reality
2 years ago
Anonymous
hahaha do you think anyone cares enough about what you say or think to do something that drastic? You're quite literally a nobody, you're anonymous, and your hate and anger just blend in with the board's general malaise. Why not put that energy into weaving or something?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anon, why do you care what your political enemy thinks? You need to come to terms with some people simply wanting you dead because of what you believe or who you are, and nothing you say will change their mind.
The exchange of ideas shapes cultures, no matter where it happens. There is a ripple effect, always, no matter how small.
Saying that posting on Cinemaphile accomplishes nothing is moronic, because by posting on Cinemaphile you participate in Cinemaphile culture, and eventually, you are shaped by it. And eventually, it spreads.
Gigachad escaped here and is now a worldwide normie meme. Goose is literally me escaped here. pepe escaped here. A fake russian dossier about trump getting pissed on was literally shared by the news.
But yeah, nah, the troony conversation definitely has zero effect on the minds of the lurkers and posters and it defintely is accomplishing nothing and definitely doesnt influence opinions here and outside of the website.
moron
Realistically, you're not going to accomplish anything by defending trannies online. Best case scenario you'll eventually get cancelled too when the line moves and you don't move with it.
So according to you only one opinion is correct and everyone else has to shut up and like it? moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, I just think it's a bit futile to be transphobic on Cinemaphile. Why go out of your way to try and hurt others, unless you're some kind of emotional vampire who feeds off negativity? I can't imagine being mean to someone and deriving pleasure from it, that seems to be completely antithetical to every instinct of empathy and compassion that humans possess. If one truly believed all the horrible things they said about trans people, they'd look at them with pity and not hate.
>an actual text conversation with real people through an imageboard forum is shouting into the void
looks like you lost some iq points from the hrt too.
But if we are shouting into a void, why does it scare you so much?
;^)
2 years ago
Anonymous
it doesn't, you're just shitting up the board fighting an imaginary fight that ultimately doesn't have productive results.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thats why you have to be the opinion police, right? Because it DOESNT scare you? This single thread DIDNT scare you so much that you had to respond to it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're on a board for discussing TV and film, yet you insist on arguing about IQ and gender. This like walking into pizza place and asking for sushi, then when someone says "Hey man, maybe go to the sushi place instead" you reply with something akin to "THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE IF I COULD EAT SUSHI AT PIZZA HUT! STOP POLICING MY FOOD CHOICES!"
2 years ago
Anonymous
>all that bullshit
Yeah maybe if you are ignorant of popular culture and how its been turned into a spear of sexual deviance to corrupt our youth and destroy our society from within. Who the hell do you think you are talking to, some idiot grade schooler?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>food analogy
Look man, I'm sorry your star wars general died for this. I'm sure someone will make another.
You know if those fricking trannies spent as much time on litterally ANYTHING than deluding themselves they are women by obsessively dressing shittily in their clothing with clear male sensibilities, pancaking makeup on their faces, shaving chest hair off their breast implants, getting bone splints in their ankles from wearing womens high heels, barging into conversations and institutions and public spaces and demanding they become the center of atention for no reason other than they are proud they sliced off their penises, they would probably be able to take the proper medication, speak to a psychoterapist and join the rest of society as a functional human being instead of an eyesore screeching abomination on the eyes and earth.
That's not a woman. That a boy with a mental illness.
The question "what is a woman" is still very much a part of political debate and discussion, whether or not anyone remembers the documentary. And that's fine.
Most of the points I see this guy bring up in interviews are things I thought of and knew back in high school when faced with learning about trans stuff and pronoun stuff. Lots of people probably did.
I don't like the idea of putting yourself at the center of a documentary meant to educate people on these topics. The people that do that also tend to be fricked in the head and conflate their work with their own sense of self-worth. He wants to be a political pundit but he's closer to a conservative American version of Michael Moore.
>back in high school when faced with learning about trans stuff and pronoun stuff. Lots of people probably did.
Thanks for letting everyone know you're a dipshit zoomer child
Trans idealogues >solution to gender dysphoria is to drastically lower standards of ethics and science in this one area rather than addressing it like other dysphoria >when external pressure and scrutiny inevitably happens; argue these low standards should not stay in this one area
Face it, the people who invented this ideology were basically doing conversion therapy long before the Christian Right even thought to
>Go to a therapist
What do you think a therapist will do in that situation? They will work on getting them HRT, there isn't any other option if they are trans.
>Abby will never be covered in warm baby oil riding your wiener while you nut balls deep inside her while simultaneously sucking milk from her breasts
Why even live?
You dont need to be either left or right to know if you cant seem to understand whether you're born with a wiener and a prostate or a vegana and a womb and there is no way for you to change it, you're better off dead cause you cant seem to figure the most basic thing in life
gender is all the bullshit surrounding sex. you dont need a penis or XY XX chromosomes to be assigned a gender, for example
- "We fight for the motherland!!!" - assigning female qualities to the concept of a nation. the nation clearly does not have a vegana but it embodies the qualities of a nurturing mother
- "She's a beauty, this ship has been around the world 3 times and back but she never took on water."
- clearly the boat does not have a vegana but we refer to it with feminine pronouns
See any other examples of gendered languages.
sex is biological and determined by your chromosomes.
thats the point. no troony is saying they are genetically female. they are saying they are saying they are female in the same sense you can refer to your car as a she or to your country as a mother. their mental experience is that of a woman to the point they are willing to become a sad joke; walking around in a dress with stubble and wide shoulders. my nation is not a mother but i'll call it the motherland, my boat does not have XX chromosomes but i'll use female pronouns for it. same shit with trannies.
if you want to start policing gender then at least be comprehensive and rational about it. that being said, they are unsettling so i get where everyone is coming from
>they are saying they are saying they are female in the same sense you can refer to your car as a she or to your country as a mother.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
That's just you trying to make up a logical answer to an irrational phenomenon.
If that was the case then why are they cutting their dick off and inverting it to pretend to be a biological female in the futile attempt to "transform" themselves? Actual moron
>their mental experience is that of a woman to the point they are willing to become a sad joke
They have literally no standing on which to claim this. The fact is they only know what it's like to be a male. They have no way of knowing how it "feels" to be a woman.
The idea that they have a "female brain" is belied by the fact that they don't actually behave anything like women. They can fake surface level feminine mannerisms and get all the plastic surgery in the world, but when you take a step back and look at their behavior, they're unmistakably men. Look at the extreme over-representation of trannies in male-dominated fields and hobbies. Look at the wildly aggressive, autistic behavior whenever their delusions are challenged. Look at the rates of violent and sexual crimes.
It's a sickening phenomena, but even then I could just ignore it like I did most of my life. But no, they have to be the center of the national conversation every day. They have to push their sickness onto children and constantly push the boundaries of what they can get away with. They don't just need toleration, they need to have their delusions indulged and be legally privileged above all normal, healthy people. It's just not possible to be neutral towards them.
So if I say that biological males shouldn't compete in physical sports against biological females, the progressives won't come after me for being transphobic since I've clearly defined male and female as sexes rather than genders?
>sex is biological and determined by your chromosomes.
the goal posts have shifted so much that sex is no longer defined by chromosomes according to leftists
Yes, that's why they are on the low part of the model. It's not 100% accurate, just an example of the bimodal distribution of sex, it's not a strict binary, there are outliers.
The highlight of this documentary was that absolutely seething homosexual professor who looked on the verge of losing his shit over questions about basic reality.
Wrong. The first part is what you are, and the other part is what other people perceive you as. You don't have a right to control what other people think of you.
>The first part is what you are, and the other part is what other people perceive you as.
More like those three things, being X, being seen as X and feeling like X.
>Feeling like X
Feeling like something is also important because we aren't just meat and other people. It's body, mind and soul for a reason. What you are born as and what you are don't have to be 100% the same.
The entire debacle over gender is only because zoomers want to frick femboys but they can’t handle the mental anguish of labeling themselves as gay. Obviously trannies are not women though. Just be a man and frick what you want guys, Jesus. Kids these days are obsessed with labeling everything and also simultaneously not labeling them too.
What an amazing retort. I can see you're a real intellectual who values constructive discourse in matters of science. I'm sure you've convinced everyone that your position holds more weight than mine with your brilliant wit.
What's the cope leftwingers use when both white and black poor people in similar situations but the black is still more likely to commit crime and being a violent aggressor?
Because blacks usually commit multiple crimes in addition to the one they were currently charged for
Like possessing illegal weapons, drugs you name it
Everything good Christians claim comes from Christianity actually comes from liberal capitalism. Which is quite uncomfortable for them, because their book tells them that you can only worship one God.
>slapping a blasphemer (legally) who utters nonsense in public is the same as a troony removing your kids, ruining your life, imprisoning you
If it's illegal to slap people under such circumstances don't do it. Obviously.
>one party wants to kill babies, empower women to be prostitutes, put Black person savages in charge of us so they beat us to death in nursing homes when we're older and make us give them all their money, and want to troon out our kids so they have to take hardcore drugs to take anal sex when they're finally progressive and brave >Other party doesn't
Hmmm who should I vote for guys lmao
Kinda funny how progressives want to "progress" back to 3000 years ago where eunuchs and 12 year old boy love was allowed and where moral debates if slavery is moral or not
Watch the documentary here:
Very intriguing that we live in a society that denies biology and promotes body mutalation and mental illness. It was fantastic and eye opening to see the other side of people who have been tricked into mutalate there bodies and the regret and pain they now feel. Incredibly powerful and great documentary
Nobody even gives a shit about trannies except you shut-ins who can't stop obsessing.
I've lived in a liberal major metro area for most of my life and haven't seen more than 5 trannies, ever.
You're over here saving troony twitter pic bullshit like the gay you are. What the frick possessed you to think "you know what? i need to save this troony image" AND repost it?
>This isn't an issue because I don't have to deal with it personally
congrats I guess
It makes libtards like you seethe and that's all that matters
You can leave at any time, troon.
It would not matter if neoliberals were not trying to mutilate and convert kids too.
>Nobody even gives a shit about trannies except you shut-ins who can't stop obsessing
the gaslighting is...immaculate.
trump will never be a woman
Wrong.
What's the point, we know what his answer will be based on his politics. He has no interest in examining his own beliefs and will just end the documentary where he started, sounds boring.
>biology and basic science is now alt right propaganda
you see democrats. this is what happens when you defund mental hospitals and give the patients a say on your platform. We used to argue with republicans about taxes and healthcare but now we have pretend to support groomers like while not getting anything we want.
Hey I just said the movie would be boring because you know exactly what will happen and he won't engage his opposition in good faith. I never said whether or not I agreed or disagreed with him. And if I disagree with him I'm automatically a groomer? Frick you.
>And if I disagree with him I'm automatically a groomer?
What are you disagreeing with him about?
I guess biological essentialism. I agree there there is biological sex, but I don't think that should enforce our social roles or gender expression.
I'm not even trans or a pedophile.
>but I don't think that should enforce our social roles or gender expression.
Probably Because you're a mentally ill dipshit
Other than how we reproduce, I fail to see any reason why biological sex should enforce social roles. I know it informs those roles, and the majority are happy to fill them, but I don't think it should be a prescription, outliers should be allowed, outliers are expected in any rule.
>Our biology should have absolutely nothing to do with how our lives play out. You're either an immature 12 year old or a complete fricking moron
I said our social roles. Our biology obviously affects our lives in many ways, I'm not ignoring it.
Biology directly affects social roles. You're contradicting yourself.
I said it informs them, not that it should enforce them.
>I fail to see how brains or bodies should inform social roles
you're right. we should put babies in ovens and feed them drain cleaner. dipshit.
What the hell does that have to do with social roles. I'm not saying we should do whatever we want, and touch fire and drink drain cleaner, obviously that is stupid and harmful. Again I never disagreed with the biological reality of our human bodies, I just don't see why they should ENFORCE gender roles. Again I don't even care if they INFORM gender roles, just let outliers exist.
Your biology informs literally everything about you. Your size, strength, temperament, intelligence, interests, attitudes; everything.
So, now, you're born. You appear in this world. And you're a human being, so your mind is really plastic. How should you act in it? What's the best thing for you today, to be happy in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 50 years, 80 years? You don't know. You have no idea. No fricking clue whatsoever. But you know who knows? Society knows. It's not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than literally everything else. And I repeat that, because it bears repeating: Traditional society is the best guide that exists for informing you on how you should act in order to get the outcomes you want in the future.
So, if you're born a man, and you want to be happy at 40, you should act the way that society tells you to act. If you instead choose to act the way society tells women to act, you're gonna be unhappy. It's going to be even worse for women, since male-strategies are much more harmful for women than they are for men. Men can't get pregnant, they don't turn infertile, they don't drop off dramatically in terms of being a desirable partner as they age, etc. It's EXTREMELY STUPID for a woman to act like a man.
But does your little girl know this, when she's born? When she's 5? When she's 10? When she's 20? When she's 30? No. She fricking doesn't. That's why society tells here: Here's what you need to do to end up not a miserable, broken wreck by the time you get old.
That's why you have social roles. That's why you enforce them. Because you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT PEOPLE. You DON'T. You don't give the slightest shit about people's well-being. You're just a disgusting enabler, who will feed your drug-addicted friend more drugs to get them to stop making your life miserable, rather than take the effort to get them proper help.
I genuinely think you and every one of your kind are evil people. Being a good person is hard.
Why are so many traditional lifestyle boomers miserable? Society doesn't care about making people happy.
>I agree there there is biological sex, but I don't think that should enforce our social roles or gender expression.
i feel exactly the same way
i think we only really disagree about language and the definition of words, that's all
man > someone of the male sex, not someone who has a traditionally male social role or a masculine gender expression
woman > someone of the female sex, not someone who has a traditionally female social role or a feminine gender expression
>but I don't think that should enforce our social roles or gender expression.
Literally no one gives a single frick what your "social roles" or "gender expression" are. If you want to be a dude in a beard and a dress, fricking go for it, have fun. Cross-dress, be ugly, be a tomboy, be feminine, be manly, be whatever you want. The thing is, you can't mandate that people LIKE or ACCEPT you for it. They still get to treat you how they want, including like a freak.
However, you also are NOT magically turning into a different bioloigical sex by cutting on yourself or wearing different clothes. A man will never be a woman and no amount of sci-fi horror surgery or forcing people around you legally to call you a new name or let you into female spaces will ever mask that fact. This is objective reality. And the only thing trannies need is therapy, institutionalization, and medication so they can be normal. Or just let them kill themselves since transgenderism is a subset of depression so they'll do that eventually anyway.
look man i don't care if you wanna slap chop your genitals and watch cartoon child porn in your home all day. When you decide to be a pedophile in real life and expect people like me, who are just trying to get by, to celebrate the fact that you're child predator. That's where I happily agree with the alt right that you people need to be mercilessly exterminated from this earth.
You post this on a board with dozenal-daily dicky threads.
Several XX karyotype/genotype/phenotype women are born infertile. By your definition, either they are not actually women or you create some ad-hoc criteria where a "woman" is whatever you decide is a "woman".
cope
>Several XX karyotype/genotype/phenotype women are born infertile.
No you're actually steering the conversation that way. There's clearly a major difference between individuals with genetic mutation disorders and xy males saying there women. You stupid piece of shit
>individuals with genetic mutation disorders
Are they women? What is a woman? Surely you can give me an answer that objectively determines whether these genetically disordered individuals are women or not. After all, it's a very straight-forward question. Please keep you response limited to these karyotypical/genotypical/phenotypical anomalies.
>if they weren't born with GENETIC ABNORMALITY OR DEFECT
Then they would be able to produce sper, and are therefore men. But they would also be able to produce eggs, and are therefore women. Oh no no no sciencelets, we've arrived at a contradiction!
This is a circular definition that fails to apply a clean answer to cases of karyotypic/phenotypic/genotypic defects.
So if someone has XX chromosomes but a crossover event that results in an active SRY gene on one of their X chromosomes, or XY chromosomes but an inactive SRY gene, that person is a woman or a man, respectively? This runs counter to how conservatives define women and men.
talk about having your mind wrapped into a pretzel. it's literally: do you have sperm or eggs? sperm, male; eggs, female. that's it.
>bu-buth what if neight?
then neither. you're a broken toy. congrats. make sure to put that on your flag.
A woman is a female adult human (adult meaning over the age of 18). I don't know how to make that any clearer.
>This is a circular definition that fails to apply a clean answer to cases of karyotypic/phenotypic/genotypic defects
I don't know what any of this means but it's irrelevant to the actual definition of woman. Sounds like a bunch of science shit.
>I don't know what any of this means but it's irrelevant to the actual definition of woman. Sounds like a bunch of science shit.
Bait
>at what point did you realize that you're actually a woman?
I am, as far as I am aware, a bog-standard XY sperm-producing man.
>An adult with xx chromosomes.
People with Swyer Syndrome have XY chromosomes yet appear female and have female genitalia. If you passed one on the street, you would assume they were a woman because they look like women. The only way you could determine they were actually a man is by karyotypic testing that the vast majority of the population will never undergo.
>Th-that's rare so it doesn't matter!
Your definition of woman still describes some women as men and some men as women, even ignoring the troony question.
>if you point to a woman that became infertile and say she is not a woman because some dude decided to cut his balls off i would say you're moronic
I would call her a woman. Chudcels wouldn't, because she is not an adult human capable of producing viable eggs.
>abnormalities and outliers prove the rule
>Being wrong just proves I'm secretly more right
> a woman is an adult human female
This is circular You are presumably defining "female" in terms of standard karyo/geno/phenotypical humans, which excludes about one in a hundred people.
>Y-you're a pedo!
Aren't you late to your dicky thread?
I don't think I could give a fully encompassing definition. Is a series of boats connecting one side of a bay to another such that one can cross on foot a bridge? Is a strip of dirt crossing over a gap a bridge? What if that gap is small?I would say in 99% of cases, I can call something a bridge or not a bridge and there would be little controversy. I would be a fool if I stated I had an obvious definition that settled the other 1%.
>People with Swyer Syndrome have XY
>But but but what about people with 1 in a million genetic defects
Hahahahaha transvestites are so desperate they are comparing themselves to physically broken spawns HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I know reading is hard for alt-right chuddies but
>I am, as far as I am aware, a bog-standard XY sperm-producing man.
I have never seen a definition of "woman" that includes the group of people even cuckservatives would consider 'women' that isn't a useless ad-hoc qualification. This is independent of whether you think a typical karyo/geno/phenotypical male taking estrogen and presenting as a woman is a woman. Even if we decide they're not, the definition of a woman is still a complicated discussion for edge cases.
>A bunch of pseudo babble cope
You are such a pathetic piece of shit LMAO transvestites will never be accepted as women and same goes for vise versa
>basic high-school biology is... le pseudo babble cope!
Pathetic.
>Highschool biology
Maybe for you, 15 year old green haired homosexual. Most adults that aren't mentally ill don't need more than 5 seconds to explain what a woman is
>Most adults that aren't mentally ill don't need more than 5 seconds to explain what a woman is
Are people with Swyer syndrome women? You have 5 seconds.
>Responding to arguments is proof you're wrong. Not responding to arguments is also proof you're wrong
Nice kafkatrap, homosexual.
I haven't watched the documentary. I don't care about trans shit.
No they're genetic freaks of nature. Next question?
>No they're genetic freaks of nature
Neither man nor woman? Are you implying sex is not a binary? Damn, even I don't believe that. You're more in support of troony ideology that I am.
Nah I'm saying it's irrelevant. Like a fricked up goat born with two faces drooling all over the place doesn't need to redefine the entire species. You dumb butthole
It has nothing to do with the documentary. Anons pic has a trans prisoner that got moved from female to male prison after raping and impregnating 2 women. So according to you, a woman raped another woman and impregnated her? And now "she" is in a male prison?
Assumed you were talking about the OP anon. I don't think trans prisoners should be given free reign in opposite-sex prisons.
moron.
So are they a man or a woman or some non-binary option? You have 5 seconds.
>Technically it is the presence of a functioning SRY gene that actually makes you male
I'm more inclined to work with this definition. At the very least it narrows your edge cases.
moron.
>get called out for posting something factually untrue
>"but but but it's YOU who's the idiot!1!!"
What was the game plan here? shit your pants and hope I go away? lmao
I don't know if you're the IQ-denying dumbass or the SRY-denying dumbass. Please clarify.
It's a turtle, as you admitted. Who said anything about regular? A person born with swyer syndrome is either a man, a woman, or a non-binary option. Which do you think they are?
>I don't know if you're the IQ-denying dumbass or the SRY-denying dumbass. Please clarify.
I don't deny IQ, it's a classification that can have useful applications. But it is not a measurement of intelligence, nor should it be taken as such. It's much less important than any number of other factors when predicting long-term success.
Theyre a genetically fricked up anomaly. Is a turtle bord with two heads and 6 legs "a totally regular turtle"?
Actual moron
Pedophiles like you score below average intelligence for a reason
IQ is a very good predictor, and I don't think it's complete pseudoscience. However, what that guy you replied to said was partially true. You can get different IQ results if you take the same type of test multiple times. There are days when some may feel tired or don't feel like putting in as much effort.
Eating breakfast the day of the test can result in your IQ score shifting 10 points, yes. All that says is that IQ is a poor method of establishing a total linear order on people. Someone who scores a 130 IQ, regardless of a reasonable range of circumstances, is still going to be more intelligent than someone who gets a 70.
>There's no data you can get from an IQ measurement that cannot be extrapolated through other means which are more accurate and empirical.
Feel free to name them.
I just mentioned one, which is their postal code. A few more are diet, sleep, income, level of education, etc etc etc. These are all things you can get from a census that will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about someone's cognitive abilities. You can predict IQ within +/-10 points using those factors alone.
IQ is a far better predictor of university success than childhood socioeconomic status.
Except of course that these things overlap strongly. 25% of uni students have a parent with a PhD, and it's like 60% if we're talking about a B.A.
Blatantly incorrect and categorically false. One's postal code remains the most useful and predictive variable when it comes to post-secondary education.
IQ of parents typically predicts childhood socioeconomic status and the IQ of the child as well.
IQ does correlate to these factors, and these factors are good indicators of pattern recognition ability.
But IQ is still useful for measuring how external factors are impacting pattern recognition ability. Which is why you will see studies say, "even controlling for other socioeconomic factors..." etc.
Another thing you can do is measure IQ before and after something, and measure its effects if you have a large enough dataset.
Like, for instance, taking hormones.
I'm not completely discounting the utility of the assessment itself in certain contexts, but I very much disagree with using it as the defining indicator of intellectual ability. "idiot savants" typically score sub-80 points, and yet possess almost inhuman cognitive abilities in other areas. Edge-cases aside, it's just not as good of a predictive factor and shouldn't be taken as seriously as it is.
In the context of this reply chain though, starting with this image
and the reply that "IQ is pseudoscience"
a more accurate criticism would be "you need a larger dataset", not "you are using IQ in a pseudoscientific way".
IQ is not the problem here, the dataset size is.
>bash kid in head with hammer
>iq dropped 9 points
>"uhhhh needs a bigger dataset!"
you morons would be asking for a triple-blinded peer-reviewed study to prove that putting water on fire helps put it out, and then refer to grease fires as proof that it doesn't
I agree that there are fundamental problems with giving kids hormones that you don't need a scientific study to determine, but in the context of attempting to use a scientific study to back up your point, a study with a single person is not a good argument.
Were you not the original one who said "iq does not have to be measured"? Or maybe the guy who said "iq is pseudoscience"? You're on the ropes my guy
No, there are like 4 anons going at it right now. I'm the one who thinks it's of less utility than other more quantitative measurements. It's not pseudoscientific by any means, it's just not a very objective measurement.
This is a fair take. IQ tests measure IQ. IQ correlates with life outcomes and with "intelligence", but pretending they're the same thing is reductive.
I agree. Why does everyone seem to think it's either le ebil yt eugenicist rhetoric or the single defining factor which determines a human's worth? I hate it
This is like saying strength isn't real because you typically perform worse when tired than when you're well rested.
>d-debate me
frick off moron
Yes, people with Swyer Syndrome are women despite having XY chromosomes.
They are actually capable of giving birth although cannot conceive naturally
Technically it is the presence of a functioning SRY gene that actually makes you male
Stop shielding yourself from logic with the bodies of people who are suffering, you evil SON of a b***h.
Bro stop
Is your high school education telling me that two women conceived a child like that anons picture says?
Oh so you should have a reeaaalll concise definition of the word "woman" then, I noticed you haven't provided one yet
>trans prisoner that got moved from female to male prison after raping and impregnating 2 women
Apparently the sex was consensual.
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/07/transgender-woman-who-impregnated-2-inmates-removed-from-njs-female-prison.html
>The news of Minor’s transfer comes nearly three months after NJ Advance Media reported that Minor impregnated two women during “consensual sexual relationships.”
>It was consensual
That makes this concept even more moronic. Lol, they straight up housing men with women in prison
"cuckservative" is a term used by actual nazis to refer to, well, cuckservatives, you dumb homosexual child rapist
quoting this many people is an instant disregard. You're clearly an asshurt astroturfer, frick off pedo troon
>This is circular You are presumably defining "female" in terms of standard karyo/geno/phenotypical humans,
that is correct. the standard of female is what a female is. you're saying that a chair with 5 legs isn't a chair because the standard chair only has 4, you sound like a shizo
>A chair is a seat with 4 legs
This seat has 5 legs
>Obviously that's still a chair
Your definition is wrong and your corrections are ad-hoc (so therefore useless).
Will changing the number of legs change anything else?
Anon you Don't seem to understand one important thing. Humans have one head regardless of the fact that there are ones with 2 heads due to complications in the womb, humans have 5 fingers regardless of the very few cases where some might have 6.
The fact that some humans have some complications that leads to abnormalities doesn't affect the definitions and reailty behind them.
We all know the biological reailty behind a woman the 0.005 that have some abnormalities really don't matter at all and it's not like you actually care about them because in the end a 6'6 hairy 40 yo healthy man according to your ideology is a woman once he says he's one. We're not dealing with intersex people trying to choose a gender, we never did. We're dealing with normal fertile biological men who get hard wearing dresses.
An adult with xx chromosomes. Much like me as the opposite sex, we don't have to "feel" like the appropriate sex trapped in a body.. You're a mentally ill piece of shit you deserve to have your head caved in
there's no contradiction. abnormalities and outliers prove the rule
>what about this weird thing
doesn't matter to the definition. a woman is an adult human female. which of these do you have a problem with?
>adult
>human
>female
i already know you don't care for adults too much, do you groomer
Hey anon, do me a favor: What is the definition of a bridge? Look it up or don't, what definition would you give me?
could a bridge be a woman?
>This is a circular definition
no it isn't.
>This is a circular definition that fails to apply a clean answer to cases of karyotypic/phenotypic/genotypic defects.
Defects are statistical outliers that imply a failure in the casting of the mold, not a flaw in the design itself. Defects and anomalies are not rules that establish the definition. We don't define something by the vast minority edge case.
Human beings (homosexual Sapiens) are born with 10 fingers and 10 toes. There are some rare defects, disorders, or conditions where some people are born with no limbs, no fingers, extra fingers, fused toes, etc. But we don't teach these as the rule, because they're NOT. They're mutations or defects in the forming of what should have been a healthy person. They do not change the definition, and their existence does not force us to expand our term to say "homosexual Sapiens are born with between 0 and 20 fingers, and between 0 and 20+ toes" because that makes no sense.
>They do not change the definition, and their existence does not force us to expand our term to say "homosexual Sapiens are born with between 0 and 20 fingers, and between 0 and 20+ toes" because that makes no sense.
Isn't that the definition we currently use? As far as I know, if someone is born with 6 fingers on one hand they're not classified as a different species, ergo your definition is correct.
they're identified with a genetic defect
But are they not human? Do they not fall under the classification of homo-sapiens? I don't understand what's so complicated.
Mentally ill people are still people. What's your point.
>As far as I know, if someone is born with 6 fingers on one hand they're not classified as a different species, ergo your definition is correct.
Well, I think you're not really understanding how the concept of "species" works in biology per se, but it's fine enough here. They are the same species because they were born from the same species. Everything inherits the taxonomy from its' parents, no parent ever gives birth to a new species. Speciation specifically happens when one lineage can no longer interbreed with another lineage due to genetic differences. So no matter what mutation a human baby has, they'll still be a human, and their mutation does not need to be folded into "what a human being looks like". Sometimes, very rarely, animals can be born with two heads, but we don't add that to the definition of how to identify them because that would be ridiculous. It's not a useful identifier and it is such a vanishingly small outlier that it's not worth bringing up.
Humans have a set of standard characteristics, and then like every animal, lots of potential for mutation or variation expressed at birth. None of which change the core definition of what a human is. The existence of intersex, hermaphradism, genital mutation, extra chromosome, or other weird shit doesn't change the fact that humans are biologically Male and Female species. It just means sometimes the formation process in the womb goes wrong and produces broken shit.
Not exactly. Human beings are typically sexually dimorphous, just as they are typically bipedal. But a human whose sexual characteristics do not fall within that binary is still human just as the one missing a leg is. People tend to forget that sex is a bit of an umbrella term for a collection of physiological attributes, and there's not one single defining variable. Chromosomes can tell you a lot but for example, someone with ovotesticular syndrome can have both sets of reproductive organs while having the DNA indicative of a male (or female).
All in all, I think sex is a more nuanced classification than many give it credit for, but it's not superfluous by any means.
>All in all, I think
Nature doesn't care what you think
Maybe not, but you seemed to put a lot of effort into your reply so I thought I'd do you the same courtesy.
None of those genetic disorders change any truths about human reproduction. Most of those people are sterile, or if they are not they produce the gametes of one of the two binary sexes.
And again, none of that has anything to do with changing what the definition of "male" or "female" is, nor can a male become a female or vice versa.
I don't think I ever said that one could switch sexes. I don't believe that's possible, though individual sexual characteristics like genitalia can be surgically altered to (vaguely) resemble that of the opposite sex.
homosexual lover
>By your definition, either they are not actually women or you create some ad-hoc criteria where a "woman" is whatever you decide is a "woman".
Right, they're some kind of broken thing. You may call it a woman to be polite. But you won't be stupid enough to think it can carry your child. Hopefully. And that is what makes them a woman.
if they weren't born with GENETIC ABNORMALITY OR DEFECT they would be able to, so the fit the definition, sorry troony. ywnbaw
>Several XX karyotype/genotype/phenotype women are born infertile
and several indians are born with 3 legs and 6 arms
that doesnt change the fact that humans are bipedals
Humans are generally bipedal, yes. If you point to that Indian mutated freak and say they can't be a human because they are not bipedal, I would say you're moronic.
at what point did you realize that you're actually a woman?
>Humans are generally bipedal,
and woman "generally" can give birth
if you point to a woman that became infertile and say she is not a woman because some dude decided to cut his balls off i would say you're moronic
>and he won't engage his opposition in good faith.
How do you engage in "good faith" with someone who says "Gender is a constelation! It's a spectrum of feelings! Can a chicken cry? Can a rabbit commit suicide? I feel like I'm a wolf-gender."?
How do you engage in good faith with someone who says "A woman is anyone who says they are a woman"? and then gets mad or incapable of accepting that circular definitions make you look moronic and get nowhere?
Have you seen the lunatics he interviewed? He interviewed a paediatrician that didn't even want to confirm that Santa Claus wasn't real because that'd mean that the children she's chemically castrating at the age of 4 or above may not be rational enough to know wtf they're getting into. It's fricking insane and I didn't even know who that bearded muppet who made the movie was before stumbling over the clip on youtube.
?t=57
They are just like when Christgays had all the cultural and institutional power 50+ years ago and had people fired for off-hand blasphemous remarks or implying they were members of a socialist union.
At least the christians had a rulebook they had to adhere to for good PR, these shitheads just ruin peoples lives and then just shout any dissent down to just continue doing dumb weird shit to people who are clearly mentally unwell.
Did they though? I don't buy it. Whoever has cultural/institutional dominance in society will never treat their opposition fairly, and the reason why is they can get away with it.
Christianity gave you civilization. Wokeism will give you collapse.
Ah yes, the Christian nations of Egypt, Sumer, and Mesopotamia which infamously followed a religion from the future thousands of years before it was founded. You must be a scholar or something!
>Egypt, Sumer, and Mesopotamia
Those aren't the modern western civilization we currently live in, nice try though. Actually it was a pathetic try, have a nice day homosexual.
Are you seething because civilization wasn't created by white people? That's pretty fragile ngl, very effeminate stance. What, are you threatened or something?
oh cool further obfuscation
obfuscation of what? the fact that civilization was neither dependent on Christianity for its inception nor its continued longevity? Seems like a cope to me.
>brings up race apropos of nothing when talking about the Christian foundations of modern Western Civilization.
Found the israelite.
ummmm acktually the original post said this:
>Christianity gave you civilization. Wokeism will give you collapse.
Unless they changed the spelling of "modern" and "western", I don't see either of those words, just civilization.
Oh, do you live in ancient Sumer?
No, do you live in Constantine's Roman empire?
I do in fact live in a civilization with its foundational roots originating from those of Western Rome, so yes.
Did I ask you if you lived in a civilization with its foundational roots originating from those of Western Rome, or did I ask you if you physically lived in ancient Rome? Because either you're deliberately misinterpreting the question to avoid looking like you're an idiot, or you actually did misinterpret the question and you are an idiot.
>did I ask you if you physically lived in ancient Rome?
No, you did not.
It wasn't made by Sub-Saharans that for sure
>There is no other civilization than Egypt, Sumer, and Mesopotamia
American education
But many benefits of that socalled christian civilisation had to be fought against christianity to gain such as female sufferage, modern science or the sexual revolution?
>female suffrage
>sexual revolution
>benefits
A blasphemer should be slapped on the face and Christians should make laws to codify this if they're the majority.
Incredibly based.
I know you think that's based, but then you shouldn't expect your enemies to treat you any differently.
It's what saints did in the Christian Roman Empire. (it was legal to do so, the law was against blasphemers and pagans at times)
It's what a saints did during an Ecumenical Council.
Pic related, it's Santa slapping a heretic in a room full of intellectuals and reputable people.
Again, if you think it's righteous to smite your enemies out of a job for being atheists, don't expect a Diversity Officer to not do the same thing when you tell her you don't like blacks.
Strawman.
>he openly spoke with the people i agree with, but he didnt conform! therefore, he has no interest in deluding his own realy for the first time in a billion years that demands society think boys can be girls and girls can be boys and men can be women and women can be men.. he just.. KEPT ASKING QUESTIONS!! *explodes into crying tears* HOW?????????????????
fricking moronic homosexual.
He just asked a very simple question
>80 to 71
So, from too moronic even for the US military (their minimum is something like 83), to bordering on non-functional.
Iq is pseudoscience
IQ is a repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable test of pattern recognition abilities and is highly correlated with how well somebody performs in life. You'd have to be a moron to call it pseudoscience.
>inb4 some moronic social """""science""""" paper calling IQ some combination of racist/sexist/classist because they're desperate to undermine what it reveals
anon engaging with morons is a waste of time
lmao no it's not, IQ has never and will never be repeatable. You can score higher on an IQ test after you've eaten. "IQ" is not a quantity or a measurement, even though it may be presented as such.
To get an average IQ-score you make the subject take the test multiple times to get an actual estimate. What it measures is general cognitive ability which can correlate to a subject's ability to learn. Why does every room temp IQ chud think it's a gotcha that a test for *cognitive ability* isn't exactly repeatable? Humans aren't PC's you can't just run cinebench and get a repeatable result.
Do you know what factor correlates most strongly with IQ when adjusting for any number of variables? Postal code. IQ is determined by and large by one's socioeconomic background and education. Why are people consistently shocked when parts of the world with highly impoverished and uneducated populations score lower on IQ tests? That's the expected result, you can't subject a group to malnutrition while depriving them of intellectual stimulation and expect their intelligence to thrive.
>Poverty leads to diminished intellectual ability therefore IQ is not a measure of intellectual ability because it correlates with socioeconomic status
Anon...
Sorry, I didn't follow through with my point, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. IQ is not something that has to be measured, as it can be inferred from other factors and provides no additional context aside from very basic and surface-level assessments of some select cognitive functions which include pattern recognition and working memory. There's no data you can get from an IQ measurement that cannot be extrapolated through other means which are more accurate and empirical.
>Why do malnourished and undereducated people have underperforming brains DURRRRR
>anon informs us that poor uneducated people are dumb
Wow, what a revelation.
Then why do I score differently after repeating it? Look I can take a lot of time and intentionally answer poorly to score 80, then I can do it normally with some effort and score 125 then I can just spend some time reading books meant for this and doing some puzzles and go back to various institutions and psychiatric IQ test and score 150+.
This is why this score is not used for anything serious in real life.
>if I intentionally do bad on the test I score low, if I approach it normally I score normally, if I do exercises to improve my mental abilities I do better
This isn't a revelation and you're a fricking moron if you think it is.
Go read at least two highly quoted scientific papers that talk about g-general intelligence quotient to understand what we're even talking about, kid.
What does that have to do with the dumb shit you spouted off like it's some brilliant discovery?
I accept your concession.
What concession? You stated the obvious like it was profound, and when called out on your moronic statement told me to go read scientific papers as though that anything thing to do with anything.
Please inform yourself on the topic that is discussed before you utter nonsense. Your replies serve no purpose, you're like an angry idiot, there's no reason to be upset, please go and learn about this topic... why do you feel so strong about something that you do not understand/know anything about, beats me.
>Please inform yourself on the topic that is discussed before you utter nonsense.
I'm not the one who stated something obvious like it was some sort of profundity.
>muh go study more
No, you study more, maybe then you won't make brain dead obvious statements and get defensive when called out for it.
Have you actually personally taken the test and had that much variance, or are you pulling fake numbers out of your ass?
t. Black person
Even if that were true; the individual tests themselves reflect overall ability and a person tends to perform better if they do them again even years later.
The lad got significantly worse.
IQ only exists when leftists want to get a black murderer off death row. Pathetic senpai
And IQ only exists when rightoids want to prove whites are superior to other races but not when the research also says that sub 100 IQ also applies to like 50% of the white population.
He's not the one denying IQ, that's you. Most Americans are below average intelligence, when you start grouping in ethnicities vs population you get a better ratio
Behold the most intelligent blacks
That's not the point you moron, he was making a claim that leftists are hypocritical around scientific facts, and so are you fricking /misc/yps all the time too.
><90 IQ seething
Does anyone who speaks moron want to tell me what these anons meant?
Sorry, did I use too many long words? I could rewrite everything at the 5th-grade level if that would help your oxygen-deprived alcohol-damaged mass of hemorrhaging brain tissue parse it without your handler interpreting for you.
>I em vury smrt
I don't get you, anon. If I'm wrong and so easily disproven, why not just post something that would rebut the points I've made instead of smearing shit all over the place and hooting like an ape?
I was actually mocking your contemptably obnoxious "did I use too many big words" line. It had nothing to do with whatever IQ discussion you were having, homosexual.
Oh, I get it! In absence of an intelligent rebuttal, you restored to insulting me personally to save face. How'd that work out for ya bud? Do you feel like you avoided embarrassment?
No is mocking you because are a imbecile
I'm the imbecile Mr. ESL? How about you get of Cinemaphile and focus on learning how to write like a human instead of jar jar binks?
Make me MR. Low IQ
A rebuttal to what? You mistook my comment for an argument against whatever IQ thing you were talking about before. Sort your mind.
IQ denial is a cornerstone belief of blank slate ideology. IQ is of course genetic and therefore "unfair"
You do realize that every single research paper on IQ ever has determined that it has little to no correlation with genetics or biological inheritance? How can you extoll the virtues of the IQ test without even being versed in its most basic literature?
IQ is genetic. IQ correlates with IQ of parents. IQ Bell Curves vary by race and ethnicity. Every study of separated identical twins shows IQ is genetic and has nothing to do with family socioeconomic status. You cope. You seethe.
That's factually incorrect. You know what correlates with IQ, and all the factors you mentioned (IQ of parents, ethnicity, etc)? Location. Because human beings still congregate among their kin despite international travel and an increasingly globalized world economy. it's really not hard, and the research is there for you to study. If I had to guess, you're operating on an outdated orgy of Cinemaphile jpeg infographics, severely outdated books, and a single study with a sample size of <=100.
I can find a dozen hits on Google that found moderate to strong IQ heritability in the last decade. I guess they didn't cover them in your Women's Lit courses?
>Google
Why do I even bother? "hurr durr google says-" shut up you drooling moron, if you think the amount of google hits a search term gets determines its truthfulness then you should probably change your opinion on IQ since yours would be measured around ~60.
>Any source found on Google is discreditable because it was found on Google
Are you being dense on purpose or?
Did I say that? Did I ever once say that because a source could be found on google that its' invalid somehow? Or did I explicitly reference the NUMBER of search results relating to a specific term? I'll give you some time to answer since I know you're a bit slow in the brains department.
>Only Cinemaphile jpeg infographics, severely outdated books, and a single study with a sample size <=100 say IQ is hereditary
Anon, I can find a dozen studies from the last decade on Google that disagree with you
>YOU FOUND THEM ON GOOGLE!? CHECKMATE!
Pls tell me this isn't actually how you "think"?
Intelligence has to be genetic or biological since if its not that means that the only reason you're smarter than a chimp is because the chimp doesn't have the same postcode as you.
I don't really know how to respond to that. You do realize that you can't give an IQ test to a chimp, right? I mean, you can try, but it'd be a lot like me trying to explain to you why your argument is inane and nonsensical.
You dont know how to respond because its a frank statement and you cant figure out how to diffuse or dissasemble it. You have hit a logic wall.
Yeah, pretty much. It'd be like if we were having a normal conversation and you decided to hoot like an owl instead of responding to my question. I can't really respond, but does that reflect badly on me or you?
>physlicalism
>evolutionism
>logic
you make me laff
Except you can actually give IQ tests to chimps, you can do it with a lot of animals. Its the nice thing about IQ, you can actually device tests that aren't just raven matrices and verbal puzzles and shit like that. Chimps even outperform humans on certain tasks like short term memory, by insane margins.
How do you know that an animal's responses to the test are based on stimuli relating to the assessment and not whimsy or random chance?
because individual animals consistently outperform others while specific species of animals consistently outperform others. If it was just random then corvids wouldn't continually outperform other birds in problem solving and memory tests.
Why wouldn't they? How do you know that the other animals are even processing the data you present as something that requires a response, instead of just reacting reflexively to what you've shown them? By your logic, giving an amoeba an IQ test is indicative of it being 0 IQ since it can "technically" participate in the test and provide answers.
because of the consistently and differences between the groups. If an animal for example can be taught that operating mechanisms for a reward that's a basic level of intelligence. If you can then make the mechanism very complex and they can solve it without having to brute force it but rather by observing the mechanism and then solving it even when it is a novel puzzle, that shows another levels of intelligence. Even amoebae can solve certain puzzles like learning novel forms of danger, detecting them and avoiding them. They wouldn't be able to do that if they were just aimlessly drifting around.
But scientists and biologists agree that amoeba are not sentient nor conscious. Their reactions to stimuli are not classified as intelligence, so what would IQ be measuring? It'd be like trying to test a wind-up toy, except it's a biological mechanism.
>what would IQ be measuring?
Memory. Even single-cell organisms have a tiny amount of it and we can measure how much they can learn and for how long they retain that information. Turns out its very little and not for very long. A virus meanwhile can't do it on any level and as a result many don't even consider it to be a living thing.
The real question is why do you keep lying?
This explains a lot.
Combine a lower than average IQ person with Blockers that make them even more moronic.
Kek
Kinda reminds me of the Stalkers in HL2.
The more operations they get, the more willing they are to get more.
>troons are making themselves even more moronic as well as infertile
I see this as a win win
pottery
>try to become a woman
>become moronic
LOL
With an IQ of 80, they were already moronic.
it's an 11 year old, anon.. he had several more years of still being a moron.
IQ scales for age.
IQ does not scale for age anon, 11 year olds are still mentally underdeveloped and moronic if you would stop being a groomer you would understand that
nature finds a way
>current year + 6
>not wanting a future full of low-IQ bimbo trap gfs (male)
NGMI
>bimbo femboys will soon be a reality
What a time for my funny boner to be alive.
A Woman: is a homosexual sapien with the fundamental capability of reproducing children.
There, I answered it.
Wait... I can produce children. I guess I'm a woman. I think you mean produce and gestate?
Guess you don't understand what fundamental means.
A women can produce children.
If a women has cancer and loses that ability, that doesn't change the fact that her biology is capable of child birth on a fundamental level.
Example:
As a human I'm cable of walking on 2 legs. That makes me bipedal. But if I get a leg blown off, that doesn't exclude me from the definition. Because my genetic make up says 2 legs.
Women=ability to have children
I can spot ur ugly ass from a mile away.
Thousands of years of evolution has allowed us to spot fake women instantly.
A better way to put it is to say that women are "ordered towards" being the egg producer. That is to say even if they are incapable their biology was ordered towards it anyway just like a human is ordered towards having two legs.
>fundamental capability of reproducing children.
Women after menopause aren't women anymore?
So you don't understand what 'fundementally capable' means? Also barren women are exceptions. Rules are not made by exceptions.
>Trans women are exceptions. Rules are not made by exceptions
Based and transpilled, anon! Your ad-hoc definition is totally useful!
Wrong. Trans women are not exceptions because trans women do not exist. They dont even count as exceptions, because they are men. Sorry, try again.
>Your ad-hoc definition is totally useful!
What is a woman? Please give me a definition that includes people who are infertile from conception and isn't a useless "a woman is what I say is a woman" ad-hoc criterion.
This is what I'm inclined to believe but it's still fuzzy around ~0.5-1.0% of the population.
>What is a woman? Please give me a definition that includes people who are infertile from conception and isn't a useless "a woman is what I say is a woman" ad-hoc criterion.
Adult human female.
a woman is an adult human female
>I'll try whataboutism. That's a good trick.
a person without a y chromosome you clown dumbass. but you don't have to ask what a woman is because you already know. if you didn't know you wouldn't think you're "trans"
there's no such thing as trans
>has hysterectomy
>is now a man
>Transvestite cope
If I break a leg off a table, does that redefine the entire definition and notion of what a table is?
Doesn't work. Some women are sterile.
The correct answer is just a person with no Y chromosomes.
You know if you fricking losers spent as much time on literally ANYTHING else in your life as much as you do obsessing about trannies, you'd all probably be successful and confident men in your day to day
Thanks for your worthless opinion, wagie.
>frog poster
shoulda stuck to your usual cartoon child porn groomer
You'd probably be a successful and confident man if you weren't so hellbent on stopping criticism of the troony menace, which will continue to contaminate all facets of society because morons like you say and do nothing about it.
>dude just let society rot and do nothing about it. having conviction about major social issues is useless. just let them win
Arguing about this shit on the internet doesn't actually achieve anything though.
damn....you're right, pack it up boys, dont bother spreading facts and logic, we literally have zero chance of informing lurkers of truth or possibly changing their minds, this is all LITERALLY POINTLESS.
Just let the trannies go unopposed on the internet, its apparently not real discussion or conversations that influence people, just let trannies have a monopoly of posts on the subject, no one who reads these posts actually comprehends the info and maybe might have a different outlook afterwards
realistically, you're not going to accomplish anything by bashing trans people online. worst case scenario you maybe hurt some feelie-weelies, and then what? what's the endgame here?
Them committing suicide after coming to terms with reality
hahaha do you think anyone cares enough about what you say or think to do something that drastic? You're quite literally a nobody, you're anonymous, and your hate and anger just blend in with the board's general malaise. Why not put that energy into weaving or something?
Anon, why do you care what your political enemy thinks? You need to come to terms with some people simply wanting you dead because of what you believe or who you are, and nothing you say will change their mind.
The exchange of ideas shapes cultures, no matter where it happens. There is a ripple effect, always, no matter how small.
Saying that posting on Cinemaphile accomplishes nothing is moronic, because by posting on Cinemaphile you participate in Cinemaphile culture, and eventually, you are shaped by it. And eventually, it spreads.
Gigachad escaped here and is now a worldwide normie meme. Goose is literally me escaped here. pepe escaped here. A fake russian dossier about trump getting pissed on was literally shared by the news.
But yeah, nah, the troony conversation definitely has zero effect on the minds of the lurkers and posters and it defintely is accomplishing nothing and definitely doesnt influence opinions here and outside of the website.
moron
Realistically, you're not going to accomplish anything by defending trannies online. Best case scenario you'll eventually get cancelled too when the line moves and you don't move with it.
So according to you only one opinion is correct and everyone else has to shut up and like it? moron.
No, I just think it's a bit futile to be transphobic on Cinemaphile. Why go out of your way to try and hurt others, unless you're some kind of emotional vampire who feeds off negativity? I can't imagine being mean to someone and deriving pleasure from it, that seems to be completely antithetical to every instinct of empathy and compassion that humans possess. If one truly believed all the horrible things they said about trans people, they'd look at them with pity and not hate.
reality isn't effected by you shouting truth into the void anon.
>an actual text conversation with real people through an imageboard forum is shouting into the void
looks like you lost some iq points from the hrt too.
But if we are shouting into a void, why does it scare you so much?
;^)
it doesn't, you're just shitting up the board fighting an imaginary fight that ultimately doesn't have productive results.
Thats why you have to be the opinion police, right? Because it DOESNT scare you? This single thread DIDNT scare you so much that you had to respond to it.
You're on a board for discussing TV and film, yet you insist on arguing about IQ and gender. This like walking into pizza place and asking for sushi, then when someone says "Hey man, maybe go to the sushi place instead" you reply with something akin to "THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE IF I COULD EAT SUSHI AT PIZZA HUT! STOP POLICING MY FOOD CHOICES!"
>all that bullshit
Yeah maybe if you are ignorant of popular culture and how its been turned into a spear of sexual deviance to corrupt our youth and destroy our society from within. Who the hell do you think you are talking to, some idiot grade schooler?
>food analogy
Look man, I'm sorry your star wars general died for this. I'm sure someone will make another.
I would rather be an incel loser than participate in this pozzed society.
Doesn't seem to have helped you out much.
You know if those fricking trannies spent as much time on litterally ANYTHING than deluding themselves they are women by obsessively dressing shittily in their clothing with clear male sensibilities, pancaking makeup on their faces, shaving chest hair off their breast implants, getting bone splints in their ankles from wearing womens high heels, barging into conversations and institutions and public spaces and demanding they become the center of atention for no reason other than they are proud they sliced off their penises, they would probably be able to take the proper medication, speak to a psychoterapist and join the rest of society as a functional human being instead of an eyesore screeching abomination on the eyes and earth.
hard to forget when the troony obsessed man-children of Cinemaphile can't shut up about it for 5 minutes
That's not a woman. That a boy with a mental illness.
The question "what is a woman" is still very much a part of political debate and discussion, whether or not anyone remembers the documentary. And that's fine.
Sauce?
hope solo, she has nudes
Most of the points I see this guy bring up in interviews are things I thought of and knew back in high school when faced with learning about trans stuff and pronoun stuff. Lots of people probably did.
I don't like the idea of putting yourself at the center of a documentary meant to educate people on these topics. The people that do that also tend to be fricked in the head and conflate their work with their own sense of self-worth. He wants to be a political pundit but he's closer to a conservative American version of Michael Moore.
>back in high school when faced with learning about trans stuff and pronoun stuff. Lots of people probably did.
Thanks for letting everyone know you're a dipshit zoomer child
You're getting old, anon.
That's fine who wants to be young dealing with you twinkle toes homosexuals?
Thank god i am
Imagine going to troony Literature for 3rd period then heading over to holocaust class LMAO
trannies and the rest of the rainbow goblins are a part of satan's army. that's all you need to know
>That jaw
Oh no no no no no
>those hands
>those squared off legs
>those half dozen filters
>the fact that he's squeezing his legs together to hide his penis
it's a straight/normal person thing. you wouldn't get it.
Leftists
>can't explain what a woman is
Rightwingers
>can't figure out any help for people with gender dysphoria aside from telling them to kill theirselves
They should kill themselves, yea
Trans idealogues
>solution to gender dysphoria is to drastically lower standards of ethics and science in this one area rather than addressing it like other dysphoria
>when external pressure and scrutiny inevitably happens; argue these low standards should not stay in this one area
Face it, the people who invented this ideology were basically doing conversion therapy long before the Christian Right even thought to
Go to a therapist who will help you cope with the fact that you will always be a man and maybe give you some schizophrenia meds for good measure.
>Go to a therapist
What do you think a therapist will do in that situation? They will work on getting them HRT, there isn't any other option if they are trans.
Dysphoria is a blank check for Big Pharma. Take them to a therapist that does not commit malpractice.
>Abby will never be covered in warm baby oil riding your wiener while you nut balls deep inside her while simultaneously sucking milk from her breasts
Why even live?
Hard pass
>passing on perfect breasts
The breasts are a 15/10
body is 10/10
face is 5/10
therefore she's a 10/10 built for big goy wiener.
You haven't even seen the nipples or seen them without a bra. Chill out
You dont need to be either left or right to know if you cant seem to understand whether you're born with a wiener and a prostate or a vegana and a womb and there is no way for you to change it, you're better off dead cause you cant seem to figure the most basic thing in life
cool pose drop your panties so we can see your vulva
The left is eating itself and that's a good thing
its simple OP.
gender is all the bullshit surrounding sex. you dont need a penis or XY XX chromosomes to be assigned a gender, for example
- "We fight for the motherland!!!" - assigning female qualities to the concept of a nation. the nation clearly does not have a vegana but it embodies the qualities of a nurturing mother
- "She's a beauty, this ship has been around the world 3 times and back but she never took on water."
- clearly the boat does not have a vegana but we refer to it with feminine pronouns
See any other examples of gendered languages.
sex is biological and determined by your chromosomes.
the motherland isn't a person
a boat isn't a woman
thats the point. no troony is saying they are genetically female. they are saying they are saying they are female in the same sense you can refer to your car as a she or to your country as a mother. their mental experience is that of a woman to the point they are willing to become a sad joke; walking around in a dress with stubble and wide shoulders. my nation is not a mother but i'll call it the motherland, my boat does not have XX chromosomes but i'll use female pronouns for it. same shit with trannies.
if you want to start policing gender then at least be comprehensive and rational about it. that being said, they are unsettling so i get where everyone is coming from
>they are saying they are saying they are female in the same sense you can refer to your car as a she or to your country as a mother.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
That's just you trying to make up a logical answer to an irrational phenomenon.
If that was the case then why are they cutting their dick off and inverting it to pretend to be a biological female in the futile attempt to "transform" themselves? Actual moron
>their mental experience is that of a woman
what on earth does that mean?
>their mental experience is that of a woman to the point they are willing to become a sad joke
They have literally no standing on which to claim this. The fact is they only know what it's like to be a male. They have no way of knowing how it "feels" to be a woman.
The idea that they have a "female brain" is belied by the fact that they don't actually behave anything like women. They can fake surface level feminine mannerisms and get all the plastic surgery in the world, but when you take a step back and look at their behavior, they're unmistakably men. Look at the extreme over-representation of trannies in male-dominated fields and hobbies. Look at the wildly aggressive, autistic behavior whenever their delusions are challenged. Look at the rates of violent and sexual crimes.
It's a sickening phenomena, but even then I could just ignore it like I did most of my life. But no, they have to be the center of the national conversation every day. They have to push their sickness onto children and constantly push the boundaries of what they can get away with. They don't just need toleration, they need to have their delusions indulged and be legally privileged above all normal, healthy people. It's just not possible to be neutral towards them.
all inanimate objects or abstractions
So if I say that biological males shouldn't compete in physical sports against biological females, the progressives won't come after me for being transphobic since I've clearly defined male and female as sexes rather than genders?
>sex is biological and determined by your chromosomes.
the goal posts have shifted so much that sex is no longer defined by chromosomes according to leftists
Well it's informed by chromosomes, vast majority fit male or female but there can be genetic abnormalities and stuff like that.
biological intersexual people are very, very rare
Yes, that's why they are on the low part of the model. It's not 100% accurate, just an example of the bimodal distribution of sex, it's not a strict binary, there are outliers.
The highlight of this documentary was that absolutely seething homosexual professor who looked on the verge of losing his shit over questions about basic reality.
There are two parts to being someone. One part is what you are, consist of. The other part is what you perceive yourself as.
You can be something and you can also BE something.
Wrong. The first part is what you are, and the other part is what other people perceive you as. You don't have a right to control what other people think of you.
>The first part is what you are, and the other part is what other people perceive you as.
More like those three things, being X, being seen as X and feeling like X.
Feeling like X isn't relevant to that calculus at all.
>Feeling like X
Feeling like something is also important because we aren't just meat and other people. It's body, mind and soul for a reason. What you are born as and what you are don't have to be 100% the same.
Some motherfrickers are always trying to ice-skate uphill
This is a woman
This is a human
>featherless biped
Can't argue with science! That's clearly a human.
What's not to fricking get, moron?
>left-wingers looks like chuds
>right-wingers look like söyboys
what the frick is going on
The entire debacle over gender is only because zoomers want to frick femboys but they can’t handle the mental anguish of labeling themselves as gay. Obviously trannies are not women though. Just be a man and frick what you want guys, Jesus. Kids these days are obsessed with labeling everything and also simultaneously not labeling them too.
What an amazing retort. I can see you're a real intellectual who values constructive discourse in matters of science. I'm sure you've convinced everyone that your position holds more weight than mine with your brilliant wit.
Great film it was trending on IMDb for a long ass time lmao. Really exposes the freaks trannies are
You can describe men and woman but what type of gametes their bodies are designed to produce.
Men have bodies that are designed to produce to small gametes (sperm)
Women have bodies that are designed to produce large gametes (ovum).
So yes even if someone has a faulty reproductive system they are still a man or woman.... Even intersex people can be easily fit in this binary.
Only true hermaphrodites would be outside this
What's the cope leftwingers use when both white and black poor people in similar situations but the black is still more likely to commit crime and being a violent aggressor?
Systematic racism?
Societal white privilege?
Internalized slavery?
whuite supremeasy causes the highly civilized and intelligent basketball american to become a violent criminal
White privilege, systemic racism, etc.
What is the cope right wingers use for black people receiving harsher sentences and time for committing identical crimes to white people?
Because blacks usually commit multiple crimes in addition to the one they were currently charged for
Like possessing illegal weapons, drugs you name it
Well there ever be a movie about trans derangement syndrome?
>spend nearly have a decade shoving troony bullshit into our faces
"wHy ArE yOu ReAcTiNg To OuR mEnTaL iLlNeSs??"
Also
>media matters
>counting reactions (like, love, wow, haha, sad, angry)
You deserve to be gassed.
Matt Walsh is a fricking idiot
You will get nothing but collapse with your troony totalitarianism.
Christianity just gave people imperialist wars, priestly pedos and teen pregnancies bro.
Read a history book and do not lie on the internet. Troon.
Catholicism and Protestantism are heresies, Catholicism been so since 1054, formally.
I don't care about your sectarian LARP schizo.
How ignorant
Everything good Christians claim comes from Christianity actually comes from liberal capitalism. Which is quite uncomfortable for them, because their book tells them that you can only worship one God.
That's your brain on memes. Read an actual book
No actual counter argument I see, not really surprising.
What's the point in arguing with someone as ill-informed as you
You mean "I don't have any arguments so I'm just going to call my interlocutor dumb and ignorant instead."
I'm not going to educate you here, you lazy frick. Read something on your own ffs
Come up with some actual arguments or frick off fool.
Nah. Enjoy the collapse
Christianity won't stop a collapse because Christianity is already a ruin itself.
>Christianity won't stop a collapse
Exactly. The disdain for truth has won
Pls tell me this anon isn't trying to equate Chr*stianity with truth?
Captcha is OPXSUX
I did, and I'm not even a believer.
What a moronic reply to what I said.
What you said was a non sequitur in the first place, so there's that
>slapping a blasphemer (legally) who utters nonsense in public is the same as a troony removing your kids, ruining your life, imprisoning you
If it's illegal to slap people under such circumstances don't do it. Obviously.
You could just live life, not obsessed with troonys.
troony if you don't like this website you can go back to Discord.
I mean you could always just go elsewhere
You really need a woman, G
I'm a straight man. If I want to frick it, it's a woman. If I don't, it's a man. Simple as.
>one party wants to kill babies, empower women to be prostitutes, put Black person savages in charge of us so they beat us to death in nursing homes when we're older and make us give them all their money, and want to troon out our kids so they have to take hardcore drugs to take anal sex when they're finally progressive and brave
>Other party doesn't
Hmmm who should I vote for guys lmao
Kinda funny how progressives want to "progress" back to 3000 years ago where eunuchs and 12 year old boy love was allowed and where moral debates if slavery is moral or not
Hitler was right.