What did we think of this film?

An awful lot of troons are seething about it for something locked to alt-right youtube spheres

they are so mad all the time when people say maybe you shouldnt be mutilating your body

They are sticking it to men who pretend to be women and women child abusers, it's right there in the doc.

It seems you want to ignore the child abuser part
>NOOO THE PERSON ISN'T PERFECT SO YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING
It's always the same thing with you, arguing to inaction, he's sticking it to child groomers, good for him, tell him that baby genital mutilation is barbaric and sucking a bloody baby's penis is what israelites do.

>genital mutilation against infants child abuse
"I made up this thing and I'm really angry about it existing in my head"

i don't follow this homosexual and this 'What Is a Woman?' shit didn't enter my sphere until very recently, wouldn't know if he changed his Icon to that last week or a year or two ago when he was in the middle of making the film and would of changed his opinion of it later on/Not showing full context since it seems to be cutting out quite alot of detail and only showing this one teeny tiny Barnygay-like screen shot and all its missing is the KYS. Last bit is 'hows it invalidate his documentary other than doing it himself by being the most uninteresting to listen too/boring looking and amateurish commentary style and probably brain dead as well given i'm not 100% he even understood the joke behind [email protected] threat hes read off recently.

It is abuse why aren't you able to read, you're delusional?

Body == image of God =/= mutilations

>sticking it to men who pretend to be women and women child abusers
Lol just like you stuck it to gays, blacks and feminists? In a few years conservatives will be bending over backwards to appease trannies while screeching about whatever the next thing the left is pushing

i accept your concession

what made you think that was a relevant response?

America has never had a democratic or fair election. These has never been a legitimately earned seat of power in this country. If you think otherwise you are insane.

>I've never met a woman in my entire life
if you can use it in a sentence, why can't you define it?

>essentialist
kek, you sound like the essentialist definition of a homosexual.

The point is that gender doesn't exist and can't serve you as an identity. You're born either male or female. Nothing can change that.

see

You're missing the word "adult" there buddy.

You can call a 6y/o girl a female but you can't call them a woman.

It's not circular, it's based, it has foundations in reality.

You tell me.

>14
I was skinning animals with grandfather since age 10 but it's just not that good of a quantifier with increasingly city-slicking populace. Maybe schools should have trips to the butcher shop along the museum or waste disposal facilities.

I knew you would shift to that argument

No, the reason we have "woman" is to differentiate with "girl." Both are females. One is a woman.
If you want to quibble that the time we choose to call someone an "adult" is somewhat arbitrary, go ahead. No one denies that. What is clear though is that both "woman" and "girl" refer to females of our species.

I proved you wrong. Your screeching means I'm right. Gender doesn't exist and every person is born male or female. Adult females of the human race are called women.

>A woman is a female but a female isn't necessarily a woman
A woman is a female you pretentious dipshit. You will never be a woman if you were born with a Y chromosome , the rarity of intersex births doesn't the basic logic is sexual dimorphism in our species either lmao

If deer could talk they'd call does women

Don't call me a brainlet when you were the one who didn't bother to read the reply chain. The guy you b***hed at was proving a troony wrong. The troony said that "adult human female" can't be a definition for woman because female = woman. The guy you replied to proved him wrong, because not all things that are female are called women. You fricking illiterate.

>A woman is a female but a female isn't necessarily a woman
>A woman is a female
You just repeated me and then you argue against me, are you a woman? Are you fricking dumb? Re-read what I said and also give me the definition of a "mare".

Except we're talking about groups

Group female
-woman
-girl

moron

I guess I should clarify this is in the domain of just humans?
>There is no such thing as a non female human woman
Is a better way to put it.

I'll simplify this for you

I'm on phone and moronic (missed that too) cut me some slack

Go and do your homework Timmy

wow, you're getting close. as if C=A^B but A~B. just stop you're embarrassing.

good job Timmy! as an additional exercise try to think about how not all humans are female and not all females are human. extra marks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(mathematics)

that's a tautology

You forgot the word adult dumbass

No, the reason we have "woman" is to differentiate with "girl." Both are females. One is a woman.
If you want to quibble that the time we choose to call someone an "adult" is somewhat arbitrary, go ahead. No one denies that. What is clear though is that both "woman" and "girl" refer to females of our species.

You're missing the word "adult" there buddy.

they can't and it upsets them because I think deep down they know their ideology is bizarre rationalizations

>"ok, but what if I didn't understand anything you've said and instead asked you to give an essentialist definition again"

>bro what if I just ask what the CONTEMPORARY essentialist definition is instead. is that a less moronic question?

'non-essentialism' would literally just be a seizure

Because trannies go out of their way to isolate and ostracize people so that they're more pliable for grooming. Did you miss my point? If 100% male crossdressers are celebrated a little more in the public sphere then trannies won't have any many grooming targets because those men won't be as vulnerable. Same goes for women too, we should have more women who don't shave in the media so that women don't get gaslit into thinking that their natural body hair is unnatural and is a sign they should trannify. None of this would be necessary if trannies were just killed on sight and we could go back to mere tolerance. But as it is now, we need more safeguards against troony groomers.

That's a fair point. Ideally I agree and I only want tolerance, because I'm against enforced conformity no matter what it's conforming to. I just really hate trannies and groomers and don't want them to have any more opportunities to do what they do. I want feminine men and masculine women to be comfortable with themselves and never ever again fall for this troony cult.

so the idea people figured out the conclusion to questioning what defines sex/gender thousands of years ago, and everything since has been just objectively wrong, isn't relevant somehow?

this is you trying to take an ideological "side" in something that doesn't have any actual sides. interpreting something as a conflict when the solution has already been found and has existed for millennia.

>Also under no circumstance did they believe that some homosexual pretending to be a woman was actually a real woman.
where did i say they did?

>question what makes a rock, a rock
>identify its specific combination of properties and how they're unique to rocks

>question what makes a woman, a woman
>identify its properties
>realize most of them aren't exclusive to women
>realize most of what defines a woman is temperament and cosmetics, which can be applied to animals and inanimate objects to create "a woman"
we are here. the step ancient greeks/romans took was
>realize if there are no characteristics that can't be transferred/recreated, then men and women are basically the same, and men/women can be as masculine/feminine as they want

the funny part is everyone knows you've jerked off to drawn porn.

nice reading comprehension.

that you've jerked off to drawn porn?

where was that implied?

>x attempts to laugh at the assertion that inanimate objects (read: ink and paper) can be made into "a woman"
>cartoon porn

reading comprehension

see

>question what makes a rock, a rock
>identify its specific combination of properties and how they're unique to rocks

>question what makes a woman, a woman
>identify its properties
>realize most of them aren't exclusive to women
>realize most of what defines a woman is temperament and cosmetics, which can be applied to animals and inanimate objects to create "a woman"
we are here. the step ancient greeks/romans took was
>realize if there are no characteristics that can't be transferred/recreated, then men and women are basically the same, and men/women can be as masculine/feminine as they want

so when did you learn that you're moronic?

nobody asked

>cosmetics is the sole aspect that makes a female

where was that said? is it really so difficult to respond to what's actually in posts?

what part are you having difficulty understanding?

so you can't comprehend a single aspect of the idea that ancient greeks/romans went through the run of questioning sex/gender and arrived at a conclusion that refutes every current idea of sex/gender?

>so they definitely didn't entertain that idea.
yea, that's the point. are you just so locked into your "side" that you're unable to comprehend anything else?

you (presumably) said this earlier
>A woman is an individual that identifies herself as someone that belongs to what conforms that group
what the frick does "belongs to what conforms that group" mean?

so you missed the part where ancient greeks/romans said/believed something completely different than that, and, therefore, the person who brings them up will not be the same person who says "you are what you identify as?"

no, because not only is it gibberish, its completely at odds with what i'm saying?

i keep trying to bring up the ancient greeks/romans specifically to refute the entire concept of transgenderism.

but since their ideas are also at odds with your ideas, you interpret this as "defending trannies." because you're moronic.

No, I just interjected into the discussion without reading it. Because you mentioned gender and Greeks in the same sentence, so I just wanted to write the objective truth down, because I happen to know for an objective fact that gender doesn't exist and that idea was never entertained by anyone before 1950. Masculine women were accepted as fully fledged women and feminine men were accepted as fully fledged men. If you're arguing for what I said then good work.

Wrong. Gender is a grammatical concept. Gender only applies to words. Only in 1950 did people start using "gender" to describe living things. The intentional conflation of a grammatical term with a biological term was done to create a modern day cult based on confusion.

I'm asking you what relevance that has at all to the biological and social reality that men are male and women are female. Also why should we care what an ancient culture thinks? Is pederasty good because the ancient Athenians engaged in it a lot?

>they held that males/females could (and would be) as masculine/feminine as they wanted.
no one disagrees. The disagreement is that being feminine does not make you female, and "women" refers to adult females.

>the ancient greeks/romans produced some of the greatest minds in human history. they questioned every aspect of reality and arrived at meaningful/useful conclusions about them.
hahahahahahahaha they sure did.
HAHAHAHAHA

Ancient Greeks and Romans also believed that the gods lived on a specific mountain in Greece and would actively walk among people causing fortune and misfortune. Is that real because the culture also produced some great minds? Are Black folk good because I like some music made by black artists?

What a fricking moronic mindset you have. Shockingly immature too.

you (presumably) said this earlier
>A woman is an individual that identifies herself as someone that belongs to what conforms that group
what the frick does "belongs to what conforms that group" mean?

>i'm moronic
yes, i can see that.

The only thing that makes a woman a woman is being female and human. Stop being moronic.

dude, not saying men can be women. why is that so difficult to comprehend?

>realize most of what defines a woman is temperament and cosmetics
this is what these psychos actually believe. lmao. no wonder they think looking like an ogre in a dress is perfectly normal and understandable.

>realize most of them aren't exclusive to women
Except they are literally essential biological differences that you have to willfully ignore in order to not notice
>realize most of what defines a woman is temperament and cosmetics
The fact all of the cells in your body lack a Y chromosome, you've naturally developed secondary sex characteristics, and the literal bone structure you have are all things we can notice and tell which sex you are. The differences between men and women are not mostly through temperament.

>refutes both sides?
Delusional lmao

There are numerous traits between men and women that can't be transferred and therefore temperament is not the defining factor between what makes a man or woman. That's my point and you can refute it if you like or not.

>women are objects
Based

It's real useful to be able to talk about women as distinct from men.

For example, you may want to frick men, but I don't. So I wanna know if someone's a man or a woman before I meet them for potential fricking. Well, y'know, hypothetically.

>you could ask them if they're a woman?
yeah?

what's the confusion?

Is not having an opinion a kind of opinion?

>when the troony unironically has a stronger chin and less full lips than the chud
is this more insulting to the troony, or to the chud?

brenton tarrant was a fricking chad

the wall is not exclusive to women

the wall is not exclusive to women

>DOOMP IT

but crt and troonyism are already in a school near some of them

>help! i'm being gaslighted!!
you have schizophrenia, my man.

Why are people like you so disingenuous? Always. I don't even think it's out of malice or spite. I do believe you are genuinely mentally ill. Seek help. It must be Hell to live in a delusion 24-7. Don't worry, the trannies and the homos aren't out to convert you! they don't have to.

I know if I were to say I don't approve of that kid, you'd call me a liar. Because I've noticed in your posts that there is no such thing as nuance or context. Everything is black and white. Everything is about taking a side. You have issues.

Exactly what I mean. Your simple autistic brain can only think in black and white, left or right on issues. Also, your belief that everyone hates trannies simply because you do, despite all the trap porn and the lgbt board. You have the mind of a child. You are literally moronic. Stick to /misc/ and cry into the void about how the trannies are gonna take you away or whatever.

In that case, I will make sure to tell every other person on Cinemaphile that a homosexual and his homosexual friends hate trannies, so we are all to do the same. Thank you for letting me know.
moron.

You were the one suggesting that stuff like that doesn't happen at all.

people in general have a problem with confusing what they see regularly on television, the internet, for common occurrence. throw algorithm governed content and a bit of autism into this mix, and you'll have people who literally believe the internet is reality

Nobody asked

Isn't it strange how the demographic for trannies lines up perfectly with the demographic most vulnerable to joining cults?

Trannies literally are out to convert and groom. I'm telling you this as a gay man who has been attacked by them. All trannies are aggressive groomers who literally want to kill LGB people.

there are literally kindergardeners being brainwashed and mutilated

define "minor"
post-puberty teens asking to go through a rigorous approval process to be given a drug that delays the effects of puberty until they're 18 and legally able to seek more permanent treatment =/= kindergartners being castrated and drugs being handed out like skittles
again, problem being that while the first is happening, that doesn't sound scary enough to you, so you have to make up the second part and conflate the two

>into thinking the nefarious troony agenda involves kindergartners being brainwashed and mutilated.
But it does. Both of those things are things YOU PERSONALLY WANT. Why are you acting like they aren't? That's part of the meme. You pretend "No, we don't want anything to do with your kids taking drugs and being confused about their identity by figures of authority like teachers. That would never happen!" meanwhile you literally, unironically, think it's a good thing if the age that kids can take hormone drugs and get surgery is lowered and teachers do plaster their kids' learning space with pride shit, racist anti-white garbage, and encourage them that they probably are gay/trans. You think those are good things, so why act like you don't?

>those things are things YOU PERSONALLY WANT. Why are you acting like they aren't?
because I don't want those things
please at least attempt to not let boogeymen live in your head rent free

>that CRT and troonyism are coming soon to a preschool near them
it is. I'm an education student and we're taught this stuff at uni.

you're taught about troony shit in uni, or you're taught that troony shit will be getting indoctrinated into 8 year olds in uni?
Because there's a pretty massive gap between those two.

>define "minor"

I dont give a shit who the divorce court system favors, it should be someone with a working brain who rejects troonyism

>James does not identify as a girl
except that he does, according to both parents and the court testimony
The dad even admitted in court that James prefers to be called Luna and wear feminine clothing around his house, he just refuses to accept that his son is trans.

I'll grant Luna is a dumb name, but making up this narrative that the kid is being forced when he's specifically asking for this treatment and the dad keeps refusing is a very different story than the one you presented of
>the kid is being forced by the evil court to take drugs against his will

why are you seemingly incapable of being genuine in your arguments? You must always lie and manipulate the truth to make shit seem worse than it is, which ironically just makes your argument seem weaker.
There is a reasonable case to be made against the wholesale expansion of trans rights, but you're not helping that when you can't stick to a sane script and instead start making up bullshit like this

then why bring up in the first place specifically that he doesn't want to and is being forced by the court to take blockers?
He does want to, which is the crux of the issue: the parents are divorced, and one parent is listening to the kid's desires and the other isn't. The court needs to make a ruling parsing the case.
why make shit up? It just weakens your argument and make you look stupid. There's a genuine debate to be had around an issue like this, but when you start off with such a blatant lie, it makes you look foolish

>the kid is being forced
He's being manipulated at a young and impressionable age.

but he's the one who brought it up in the first place

He doesn't. There is literally no such thing as identifying as the opposite sex. That's not a real scenario. It doesn't exist. You are your sex. Claiming to identify as the opposites sex is like saying you identify as a raccoon. That's not real. You're being ridiculous.

he does
you can call him insane if you want, but he still does
your worldview is fundamentally different from his, I realize that autism can make it hard to see things from other people's perspective, but just because you think about something one way doesn't mean other people can't think about it a different way.

He objectively doesn't. You're just wrong, and you were proven wrong. A child cannot identify as the opposites sex any more than they can identify as a cat. If a kid thinks he's a cat, it's because you abused him into saying he's a cat. No kid naturally calls themselves as a cat and no boy naturally calls himself a girl. You are an abuser.

you got proven wrong, anon. he's right. there's no such thing as gender identity. that kid is being abused by his parents.

>but he's the one who brought it up in the first place
That still doesn't change the fact that he is a man and will always be one. People should have explained that what he wants is unrealistic but they don't and he is being abused.

He doesn't. There is literally no such thing as identifying as the opposite sex. That's not a real scenario. It doesn't exist. You are your sex. Claiming to identify as the opposites sex is like saying you identify as a raccoon. That's not real. You're being ridiculous.

If it wasn't obvious before that you're a troony, it certainly is after that post. The "I'm just disappointed that the documentary didn't delve into the oh-so complex question deeply enough" shtick you've been doing in these threads is easy to see for anyone who has been reading them.

>I don't want minors to be indoctrinated and given drugs and conditioned to want to transition! I don't want minors to get surgery and ruin themselves for a meme! I promise!

>Also, lol define "minor"!

Bruh.

>you're taught about troony shit in uni, or you're taught that troony shit will be getting indoctrinated into 8 year olds in uni?
We're taught to validate and respect the children's trans identity. We're encouraged to see boys wearing dresses as a wonderful thing that should be celebrated. Our psychology lecturer started one class by showing us tiktok videos of turbo-liberal fathers who dress their prepubescent children as girls and sing Disney musicals together as wonderful because it "tears down oppressive gender norms" etc

Yes I am getting a worthless degree. I foolishly thought teaching wasn't so far-gone. There may be a few like me who will last a few years teaching without conforming to this new orthodoxy, but mostly future generations will be taught by (overwhelmingly female) teachers who have been encouraged to see "trans kids" as something valid and wonderful that should be celebrated and encouraged.

>so you have to scare yourself into thinking the nefarious troony agenda involves kindergartners being brainwashed and mutilated.
Except that's literally happening , and the argument you're making is a tu quoque btw. Chemical castration of children is absolutely being pushed on them , you can seethe about how everyone who disagrees with you is "far right" and convince yourself everyone you don't like is Hitler all you want.

That doesn't make your denial of reality any less apparent to anyone outside of your insane in group. Even other leftists don't like you anymore but now they're all Nazis too apparently

THe world would be vastly improved by fathers kicking the shit out of educators that try to pull this stuff.

You're replying to a shitposter. The tactic is to gaslight and say "It's not happening! You're a crazy conspiracy theorist if you think it is!" because if they can stigmatize you even thinking the thought, then it can continue to happen without your scrutiny.