Would you a Morph?
>Pros
>You can have sex with literally anyone
>Cons
>If Morph decides to frick with you, there's always the possibility of busting inside a geriatric Mister Sinister
Would you a Morph? >Pros. >You can have sex with literally anyone. >Cons
Who the frick is Morph?
Dollar store Mystique?
He's more like a sparkledog Mystique. Better than her at everything to a comedic degree.
x
In Evolution Mystique could turn into a pack of wolves or a flock of ravens they should've kept that
Changeling was a very early X-Men villain who was covertly recruited by Xavier to join the X-Men as his body double and then died (in a Xavier death fakeout). The animated series adapted him but renamed him Morph since DC had control over the name Changeling at the time.
There's an X-Men character named Mimic who has Morph's powers kind of. Or maybe he has a form of Rogue's? I don't know, there are a lot of shapeshifters/power stealers but I remember Mimic was actually important during Dark Reign
Mimic copies other people’s powers
Shapeshifting is such a busted power and yet they never do anything cool with it.
Hes superior to Mystique because he can replicate powers
He's inferior because he's a guy so having sex with him would be gay.
Morph in this show is Mystique and Rogue combined. He can copy someone's identity and powers as long as it is physical. Honestly? He's OP as hell and makes Mystique look like a joke in comparison.
Weird how they tried to market Morph as "non-binary", but he obviously acts like a dude.
Morph wants to be the contrarian standing out.
How do you act non-binary then? Define it.
That's the fun part, you don't, no matter how much these attention seekers want you to believe they can, you just don't.
So you can’t actually say they aren’t acting like non-binary and the entire complaint is just empty disingenuous whining.
Nah, all non binaries act like their actual sex. I remember one in college that made her semester long essay on women in animation, and loves to draw horse show characters. All while squealing like a little girl.
It's just something that straight women make up so they can run around with flag pins and shit.
>blah blah blah blah here’s my anecdote so there
Very cool story bro wowzers indeed you are the expert here
>loves to draw horse show characters.
that's autism
There's no such thing as acting nonbinary because there's no such thing as being nonbinary. There's two kinds of "nonbinary" people: qwerky straight girls who at most dabble on the pretend lesbian line with kisses, or homosexuals.
So what? Just let them have it. Do you go up to Goth people and say "Your SOUL ISN'T BLACK why should I tolerate you dressing weird and naming yourself Ebony Darkfeather?!"
So what? Let the mass murderers have it.
No, but only because talking to goth girls scares him too much.
The only thing this modern gender noncoformation fad and the goth subculture have in common is that both are a way people find to feel special and be part of a group, but only one can frick up your life for good. And when people get fricked up, society gets fricked up.
>disingenuous
The left can't meme.
Hey, chopdick, let me explain something for your sub-100 IQ. Even if we ignore the surface level postmodern wHaT iS gEnDeR shit and pretend as though "non binary gender identity" does anything except reinforce existing gender roles, the idea that someone is acting "male" or "female" is still valid since you're trying to establish a third option.
If that's too complicated for you, let me break it down un simpler terms. You do not need to know what number comes after 2, just that something is "2" to say it's "2." Like your mental age.
Someone’s mad.
Yeah, you.
Bill Maher posts on Cinemaphile??????
How can they be simultaneously insufficiently non binary in behavior and yet also exist in a context where non binary behavior cannot exist? Do you people not notice the strange logic pretzel you put yourselves in? Surely it's sufficient to say that morph was born male but given their abilities they don't identify as a man or woman the way others might. They're biologically non binary. Logically any behavior they exhibited with that identity and biology would be non binary behavior. I haven't seen the show but unless morph acts like a frat bro I don't see the cause for outrage.
You're 100% correct and arguing about this when the fictional character literally swaps genitalia on a whim is silly
Morph generally acts like a twink but turns into women to tease/arouse Wolverine
The confession the tweet is referring to is Morph turning into Jean to say they love Logan while he's trying to recover from having the metal ripped out of his body by Magneto
Yeah that literally just sounds like how I'd expect an amab who can shapeshift migh act and how that shape-shifting could lead to them not identifying as a man or woman. This is silly, you need a heavy duty set of ideological goggles to get upset over that characterization.
I don’t subscribe to troony logic. Non binary is not a thing. The End
>Non binary is not a thing.
How so?
“Gender” is a made up concept by Americans because they couldn’t say “Sex” on TV. Most languages don’t differentiate the two. There are only two sexes. You cannot “identify” as something other than what you were born as.
>You cannot “identify” as something other than what you were born as.
You CAN, but other people should not be under any obligation to oblige you in doing the same, especially if what you identify as is a non-intuitive category only known to yourself. People these days confuse "personality", "likes and dislikes" and "hobbies" with "sex" and "social role expectations" and roll all that into "gender", but by that definition, there are as many genders as there are people and thus the whole thing becomes null and void again because what you are only describes you, thus not a significantly helpful category.
In order for society to work, there must be certain categories everyone can identify as and be identified by. They have to be broad enough to be applied and recognized in fractions of a second. Thus, job descriptions, uniforms, behavioural standards, law, standardized forms, the whole lot. And that includes the categories "men" and "women" as well, because they are the sexes that need to find each other in order to father and raise the next generation. You can be a butch woman or a feminine man, a tomboy and a macho, and so on and so forth, these are all descriptors of your personality plus your sex. You can even be intersex, if you suffer that unfortunate fate, but that makes you an outlier, not part of a third sex or gender. You were then born with accidentally malformed reproductive organs, you're not a third option where sex is concerned. A eunuch, for example, would also not become non-binary. If everyone starts breaking down categories where they become atomized, indivisible and hyperindividual, then they become useless and we can never say or assume via our inbuilt heuristics anything about anyone, suffering total confusion in every situation because we lack any reference points to comapre it to. We would stop to be able to function as human beings after stopping to function as a society.
>People these days confuse "personality", "likes and dislikes" and "hobbies" with "sex" and "social role expectations" and roll all that into "gender"
Who specifically does this besides gender essentialists? If you were implying trans people felt this way, you should have asked one of us. No your hobbies and personality have no bearing on your gender identity. There are masculine women and feminine women. Masculinity and femininity are heavily socially constructed as well. Any of us could have told you this.
Woopsy I meant masculine women and feminine men haha
I assume you haven't run into those people who call themselves trans but are, as you say, mere gender essentialists, using made up genders and pronouns in an effort to stand out. They are exactly as you describe and there are uncomfortably many in my neck of the woods, so many that it doesn't seem credible that they always identified as trans.
The most ridiculous thing about pronouns was me being asked what I would like to be addressed as after one of them told me their pronouns were "feyself/fen/feyr" or somthing like that. I clocked that "feyself" was analogous to "him-/herself", thus not a pronoun used to address anybody at all. So I told that person that I wanted to be addressed as "you", if feyself wouldn't mind, because I'm not Julius Caesar and do not talk about myself in the third person, nor am I addressed this way. That person briefly hesitated, though I'm not sure whether any epiphany had taken place.
Nope, can't say I've met someone like that even after years of time in the Seattle trans rave scene. Xenogender types sure. People who think your hobbies are gender locked? Only saw that with conservatives and transphobes tbh.
Chud doesn't understand how pronouns work, film at eleven
Explain to me how I'm supposed to address you if you tell me you would like to be addressed by "she/her/herself" or a pronoun that functions the same way. That's a third person pronoun. That's not used for addressing. To address someone, we use "you". To talk about someone, we use the third person pronoun. However, it is rude to talk about people behind their backs, and people don't love it either if you speak for them when they are in the room. So the "preferred pronouns" are a moot point and only serve to annoy and establish that you want special treatment for yourself. Also, often times these made up pronouns lack fully developed paradigms. You'll quickly notice that you need more that just "x/x2/x2self" even in English. For example, the female form only has those three forms, but the male article already has "he/him/his/himself/hisself". And then there's the other personal pronouns. Does a faeself person still refer to faeselves and "myself"? Can I use "yourself" towards them? I have met people where the made up pronoun also replaced "I", so that first and third person singular became the same word... made them sound like low-intelligence cartoon critters like Snarf or Gurgi.
how dumb can you be. how does using a different pronoun confuse you? no one is this stupid. they CAN'T be. You have to be a hate filled little man.
like of all the things you complain about or think is hard to understand - fricking PRONOUNS confuse you??? How??? go to school. it's not hard.
Go back
I define it as not existing. You define it if you think it's real.
You dont. It's not a thing. It's for white girls who want to be part of the LGBT brigade but not commit to doing anything gay
homosexual
You can’t because it’s not a real thing you can act as.
He wasn’t non binary in the og show. The characters referred to him as “he/him”
And now he does. What’s the problem, a character evolving? Oh heavens to betsy, no hecking character development allowed if I have anything to say about it!
The problem is that this show is called X-men 97 and this they/them shit wasn't a thing in 97. It takes me out of it.
>they/them shit wasn't a thing in 97
Mutants weren't a thing in '97.
Giant robots weren't a thing in '97.
Flying asteroid wasn't a thing in '97.
But suddenly someone using pronouns in '97 breaks your immersion. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?
>non-binary wasn’t a thing!
Non-binary as a term wasn’t a thing but genderqueer, which is a precursor to it, was and what we understand to mean to be non-binary has existed longer than your ignorant ass has been around. A cartoon using a more modern word for it is such a dumb pedantic shit to cry about.
>what we understand to mean to be non-binary
Nonbinary is a nonsense term that means whatever the chicks who identify as nonbinary want it to mean.
It’s so telling when all the whining about asexuals, non-binary and trans folk is always about one specific thing.
>How dare you think you as a woman don’t want to frick me!
>How dare you not wanting to be feminine and sexually appealing to me!
>Ahhhhhh you want to cut my penis!/I can’t find you attractive without it giving me weird identity issues!
You people never give a flying frick if a man is asexual, if male sex person identifies as non-binary or if a trans person transitioned from female to man. But the second the sex is reversed the b***hing is nonstop.
Your persecution complex is annoying. Your strawman is poorly constructed. There's a world of difference between whining and pointing out that nonbinary doesn't really mean anything. Well except for "I'm special and interesting, validate me!" Jeez, it's 'bisexual' girls all over again.
>I don’t whine!
>But then immediately continues to whine
There are only two genders/sexes, sweetie. Just because you don't "feel" like a woman doesn't mean you're not one. Newsflash, no one actually can "feel" their gender.
>let’s pretend intersex isn’t a thing because it ruins my argument about biological essentialism and I can’t comprehend what social norms are
Anon is probably perfectly fine with those particular babies getting mutilated so they appear normal.
Intersex is not a third sex, turd. Don't use an actual physical condition to justify your idiotic play pretends.
Anon casually admitting that the basis of sex is in chromosomes.
Hey, moron, "I accept your concession" only works if it's clear your opponent has given up trying to argue. It's not a line thrown when you're cornered.
>it's about sex not gender!
I accept your concession
My pic was not an instruction holy shit you are moronic and butthurt
>>If I keep saying it, everyone will believe I won.
like a typical troony, he just keeps doing anything he can for attention even if it means everyone is mocking him.
Gender identity is flawed because it relies entirely on establishing what a man and woman mentally are in order to subvert them, validating gender roles.
Next talking point please.
>>it's about sex not gender
You're the one who brought up people with fricked up chromosomes.
>Enbies are valid because of intersex people
>Your genetics have nothing to do with your gender identity
Pick 1 and only 1
>enbies are valid because of intersex people
That's not what that anon said, though. They used intersex people as a counterexample to bad claims of biological essentialism.
The problem is that in rejecting the notion of gender identity, intersex is not a contradiction but an exception to a rule. You can say that there's a third swx from this, sure, but not to tie this to an independent gender identity. That's a non sequitur.
>The problem is that in rejecting the notion of gender identity
Who's doing that?
>intersex is not a contradiction but an exception to a rule
It's not a contradiction or an exception, it's a counterexample. It is something that shows that the idea that genetic sex is binary is incorrect which means that a bigender schema based purely on attachment to sex isn't valid.
>we're not the ones typing out angry replies! DILATE! YOU'RE ANGRY! YOU'RE INSECURE! REEEEEEEE!
for someone who doesn't care, you're making a lot of responses about how you don't care
Why would I stop posting when your tears are so yummy?
I think called this way back
what are we on? post number 20?
Anon why did you stop phoneposting
It's not nearly as fun to mock you when it's just one quote
maybe because there's more than one person here who thinks you're a lonely freak looking for attention
>you're lonely and looking for attention!
>he said, begging for more (you)'s on Cinemaphile
Here you go li'l fella
and here's one for you
I don't get what his fixation on phoneposting even is, other than lathing onto a term he heard yesterday and wanting to fit in.
he's just happy people are talking to him instead of running away in disgust
>It's not a contradiction or an exception, it's a counterexample
It's an exception to how genetics normally work. Our biology expects two chromosomes. And even if it wasn't, nothing about anon's original argument changes from "two" to "three." Also, you are mad, gay.
>It's an exception to how genetics normally work
It's not an exception, it's just how genetics work. There are no exceptions to physics.
>Our biology expects two chromosomes
Biology doesn't "expect" anything because it's a physical process and not a mind.
>nothing about anon's original argument changes from "two" to "three"
It kind of does, but I understand if you're too stupid to understand considering you think biology "expects" a certain amount of chromosomes. You can't argue that there are only two sexes and therefore two genders if there are more than two sexes. You also typically have to justify strictly tying sex to gender, but bio essentialists never do that they just assume it a priori.
Anon having an additional chromosome is never good.
>It's not an exception, it's just how genetics work
homie... what?
No. Chromosomes for sexual reproduction have a very specific purpose in how they shape biology in the context of evolution.
>There are no exceptions to physics.
Nobody argued that it was physically impossible you dumbass. That is an entirely different statement that nobody is arguing against. The discussion is whether or not our biology has that as the norm. By definition intersex is an abnormality from how chromosomes normally work.
Swap "chromosomes" with "arms" and you should see how silly your argument is. Yes, it is possible for a human to be born with three arms, but our genetics overwhelmingly support having two, which is the biological norm.
>but I understand if you're too stupid to understand considering you think biology "expects" a certain amount of chromosomes
I'm sorry you were apparently born with nine extra.
>chromosomes have a purpose!
You're anthropomorphizing molecules. Stop that.
>The biological NORM
>It's ABNORMAL
Anon those are not biology terms.
>They're not how chromosomes NORMALLY work
There is no normal or abnormal, chromosomes work the way they do. That you're forced to create a new arbitrary schema to get around the clear counterexamples of your last one is fricking hilarious.
>That you're forced to create a new arbitrary schema
Isn't that everything though?
Depends on a couple of more basic philosophical judgements, but if you're pretending to be a naturalist/essentialist then making up an arbitrary schema is pretty antithetical to your position.
>your position
Hey schizo take meds
>if you, then you
Hey schizo learn english
Not everyone that reacts to your posts is the same person
No part of that post assumes the person being responded to is the one making the essentialist argument.
Please learn English you dumb motherfricker.
No. English is butt ugly language and doesn't deserve respect
>You're anthropomorphizing molecules. Stop that.
No you dumb homosexual, because I don't want to play baby's first nihilism of "durr what if X has no purpose."
I was very explicit in every context I'm referring to when using terms like "equipped to," "supposed to," etc: the context of human evolution and how our bodies facilitate that process.
You are whining about inconsequential language unrelated to that to willingly miss the point. That's bad faith arguing.
>Anon those are not biology terms.
I'm avoiding talking about higher-level terminology and choosing the layman for the benefit of the casual reader, and because I genuinely do not believe you have any grasp of how biology nor language works if you struggle with referring to things "in the context of evolution."
>There is no normal or abnormal
Again, you have yet to actually make an argument. All you're doing is pedantically whining about some word choices you don't like that do not matter, and repeating yourself to feign substantiality. It's desperate on your end.
>That you're forced to create a new arbitrary schema
That's unironically what the "gender spectrum" aims to do you disingenuous homosexual.
>stop anthropomorphizing molecules
>"I didn't! I just said they're supposed to..."
They aren't supposed to anything
They do what they do and don't do what they don't do
Stop anthropomorphizing everything.
>My semantics are inconsequential!
They are THE core element of your argument.
At this point I'm just going to stop reading because you're clearly too stupid to process this conversation.
Yes and internet is supposed to work. And cells aren't supposed to reproduce rapidly and causing cancer. I guess I've just anthropomorphized two stuff oh no!
>I'm going to be moronic and you can't stop me!
Ok.
Ok so when can I frick your mom?
>You can play with wolverine and I can play with morph, why should we be upset?
You sound like a baby since you need a toy to play with
>when I can I be near a mother's vegana
>you sound like a baby
How do u people get dressed in the morning
By wearing my skin ofcourse I'm skelly boy
Yeah he probably is arguing on the internet like a baby too.
meanwhile....
Sounds like your mother lol
I didn't know his mom is also your mom?
Wow that feminism dropped fast didn't it?
Feminism isn't real anon
neither is your brain
Neither is your brain
that's a...good one...where'd you get it?
FROM YA MOM. When i was ramming her up the butthole
you really really REALLY have a small repartee dont you? get off the drugs kid
>I have no problem calling women prostitute when I need to, where's my next meme about the poor women?
Empowering.
giwtwm
>You sound like a baby since you need a toy to play with
Ha, imagine. I bet anon watches cartoons too.
*laughing from atop my stack of graphic novels and animated motion pictures*
What a boogerheaded baby boy!
>They are THE core element of your argument
If my post changes to swap "purpose" and the like to "biological function," nothing about my post changes, but your suddenly evaporates.
>the context of human evolution and how our bodies facilitate that process.
Nta but you've mistaken their critique; they're pointing out that you've taken evolution as a lump sum self guided process. In effect you're treating it like certain economists treat "the invisible hand of the free market" and certain historians "the arc of history", essentializing a series of holistic systems and cumulative outcomes as a singular process selecting for long term advantage and progress. They're saying that you've taken the function of things beyond their organic function and into the realm of symbolic representation. That's why to them chromosomes are one sex characteristic among many, are not defined by "normalcy" and can have outcomes unrelated to a binary model of sex.
>You won, you can have gay morph, wolverine, drake, and as many lesbos
I mean yeah I get that, I just don't want you to be so upset about it. I don't want you to be miserable because I got something nice, that sucks. You can play with wolverine and I can play with morph, why should we be upset?
>they're pointing out that you've taken evolution as a lump sum self guided process.
It is, unless you want to start arguing in shit like evolutionary theism.
>They're saying that you've taken the function of things beyond their organic function and into the realm of symbolic representation.
You give them too much credit. troony is arguing about terms because he can't address the biological function of chromosomes.
If he had any interest in arguing otherwise, he would have inferred a less flowery definition and went from there, but he isn't. He's not talking about evolution or the systems guided wthin, he's looking for an easy out to avoid addressing the point.
>That's why to them chromosomes are one sex characteristic among many
Nobody argued otherwise, but the discussion is about chromosomes and genetics, not sexual selection.
>It is, unless you want to start arguing in shit like evolutionary theism.
Oh jeez, idk where to start now. We need to focus on this for a little I think. No anon, evolution isn't a singular process. It isn't a progressive force or animus. It doesn't select for long term advantage or even really momentary virtue. Frankly it only exists as a social abstraction of disparate organic processes. Evolution is to reproduction what climate is to weather. What you're referring to, this idea of evolution as a power or a progressive process, that's actually new agey Christian science mumbo jumbo.
>, but the discussion is about chromosomes and genetics, not sexual selection.
How are you going to unmoore chromosomes, genetics, sexual selection AND reproduction from each other????
>Oh jeez, idk where to start now
You knew before? That's a surprise.
>Frankly it only exists as a social abstraction of disparate organic processes.
I'm skipping the Tumblr-tier "oh geez I can't even" shit to die inside here.
No, you dumbass, evolution is not arbitrary. Evolution is entirely organic. That is the point - it is the mechanics of how organisms populate the world, specifically without human intervention.
My God, you are literally arguing "evolution is an arbitray construct." That's so stupid I'm calling it here.
>evolution is not arbitrary. Evolution is entirely organic
These are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is an organic occurrence where traits are gained and lost in accordance with successful reproduction strategies; what it isn't is a purposeful force that guides species towards stronger forms like pokemon. There isn't intentionality or planning behind it, there isn't even an "it" outside of human perception.
Lol, yes part of the trans position here is that testosterone leads to male phenotypes and we can see how that plays out with xy people immune to it with female phenotypes. Moreover it was brought up as a retort to someone claiming chromosomes dictated phenotype.
I'm 100% aware. It's a silly hobby, but it's mine. It's like a puzzle.
>These are not mutually exclusive
They are antonyms you dumb frick.
>with successful reproduction strategies
"Success" is a romanticization because it indicates purpose.
You just handed me the argument.
>There isn't intentionality or planning behind it, there isn't even an "it" outside of human perception.
That's true about literally everything you reductionist midwit.
>Lol, yes part of the trans position here is that testosterone leads to male phenotypes
In other words, it's an argument that you're introducing, and a bad one at that. No, pumping your body full of a hormone does not change you into a man/woman.
>They are antonyms
Arbitrary and organic? No, not in this sense they aren't. How could you say they are?
>"Success" is a romanticization because it indicates purpose
>you just handed me argument :3
Uh, what did you think the argument was precisely? Restate it to me...
Anyway, successful in this sense only indicated completed reproduction. Not a guiding externality lol
>it's an argument that you're introducing,
It has been introduced, again I'm confused what you even thought we were discussing now lol
>, pumping your body full of a hormone does not change you into a man/woman.
Ok. But what hormones do do is alter sex characteristics which are the building blocks of sex. By altering them we alter sex. True we cannot fully change sexes yet through hrt alone, but we can objectively alter our sexual phenotypes into what we'd recognize as a trans woman or trans man. The "man/woman" stuff comes into play with gender more than sex. Again if you'd have just asked us what we believed we could have saved you the time.
>How could you say they are?
Arbitrary = human whim
Organic = Derived from nature's systems
It's pretty basic dude.
>what did you think the argument was precisely
You're the one whining about "anthropomorphous terms" or whatever and allegedly my use of them was a fatal crux.
>Anyway, successful in this sense only indicated completed reproduction
Yes, I understand the context.
If you did the same thing after I said, and I quote
>>the context of human evolution and how our bodies facilitate that process.
...We could have saved a lot of typing.
>It has been introduced
...By you. You're introducing it. You can't just bring up something unrelated to what's currently being said and use (you) bringing it up as a support for its relevance.
>But what hormones do do is alter sex characteristics
*Secondary sex characteristics, which don't define a sex, just the potebtial selection of members of a given sex through their signalling of an organisms abilities to successfully pass genetics. Hormone replacement will not make a human switch roles in reproduction.
>Arbitrary = human whim
>Organic = Derived from nature's systems
Ok but my claim was that evolution is a human abstraction of actually existing organic processes and that the anthropomorphizing of evolution was an abstraction of that prior abstraction. So again, in context these are not mutually exclusive and you've mostly reiterated my claim.
>whatever and allegedly my use of them was a fatal crux.
My contention was you ascribing, consciously or unconsciously, guiding progressivism to evolution instead of understanding it as being more like climate. Not advancing to predetermined pinnacle states, but transforming in a series of patterns and cycles.
>You can't just bring up something unrelated
It isn't unrelated. How are they unrelated?
>Secondary sex characteristics, which don't define a sex,
No, all sex characteristics definitionally comprise sex which is a sum of their parts. Secondary characteristics are unique in that we evolved to use them to sensually identify sex in others, but to me that doesn't make them *less* relevant at all. If anything in this context of sex and gender it seems more relevant. But I'm happy to contend all characteristics matter.
>but my claim was that [x] is a human abstraction of actually existing organic processes
That literally describes every label in the sciences, so NOBODY uses "arbitrary" to describe those. Arbitrary and artificial label processes that have a heavy amount of human involvement.
>guiding progressivism to evolution instead of understanding it as being more like climate
I've repeatedly cleared my context to you as that not being the case.
Repeatedly, youve blatantly ignored that because you don't have any other arguments.
>How are they unrelated?
Prove its relevance.
>all sex characteristics definitionally comprise sex which is a sum of their parts
Anon, you listed "beards" earlier. A shaved man can still have kids you dumb frick.
>That literally describes every label in the sciences,
Do you have examples?
>cleared my context to you as that not being the case.
Well then maybe I've been bullish and instigated you, could you just for my edification state that you agreed with me on evolution if that was indeed the case? Because I might owe you an apology!
>Prove its relevance
I feel as though I did so here just recently
>beards
Was shorthand for terminal facial hair, facial and body hair are secondary sexual characteristics.
>can still reproduce
Well that's hardly relevant to it being a sex characteristic isn't it?
>could you just for my edification state that you agreed with me on evolution if that was indeed the case?
I did. Repeatedly. You stupid jackass.
>I feel as though I did so here just recently
No, you didn't.
>Was shorthand for terminal facial hair
I find it fricking rich that you wanted to ride my word choices for so long in a pedantic ramble, and now that you're getting caught using a very stupid example you're revising it to mean a completely different thing.
Go frick yourself.
>Well that's hardly relevant to it being a sex characteristic isn't it?
Well gee golly wee, almost like secondary sex characteristics are barely relevant and you harping on them for so long and weighing them as worth mentioning in the same space as primary characteristics is a waste of everyone's time.
>Repeatedly
Where?
>you didn't.
Can you demonstrate that?
>you wanted to ride my word choices for so long in a pedantic ramble
I said beard instead of terminal facial hair. You've been using language that turns evolution from patterns of reproduction into the free hand of the marketplace quietly guiding all life towards progress.
>almost like secondary sex characteristics are barely relevant
Of course they're relevant, they comprise sex lol. I think I see the issue though, you want sex to be only about reproduction and to strip out the phenotypical component entirely. Unfortunately sex isn't just a category for reproductive capabilities, it also denotes phenotypical expression.
>Where?
There is literally a block of text in
where I copypasted several times.
Here, let me help you because you're literally moronic. Look for the text ">Chromosomes for sexual reproduction" and keep reading. Get a parent to help you when you need it. Keep going unil you get to "you are literally arguing "evolution is an arbitray construct."
>Can you demonstrate that?
Given your first question, I know you won't read it if I do, so I'm going to address something that pisses me off about your pretentious argument style.
The Socratic Method only works if you're willing to engage in the opponent and acknowledge their arguments, letting them dismantle it through their realization that their logic has flaws.
It is NOT for gaslighting your opponent into repeating themselves by asking for information you know is already provided or readily available until they get tired of you doing the online equivalent to a six year old asking "why" over and over.
>I said beard instead of terminal facial hair
You're trying to revise one of the more egregiously stupid examples of secondary sex you listed after it was used to demonstrate something inconvenient to you.
I have been clear from the beginning what I meant.
>into the free hand of the marketplace quietly guiding all life
If "the invisible hand" is a conscious force, then your entire point is irrelevant since I never pointed at there being any conscious decision making.
If I'm not understanding your tangent, and "the hand" is not, then clearly you know the type of system evolution is, understand how inconsequential and unintuitive your whining is (by demonstrating a clear case of how these systems can be easily digestable).
>they comprise sex lol
Oh yeah dude if you stick your facial hair in a chick's boobs she'll get pregnant...
>where I copypasted several times
But that doesn't sound like you agree with me. It doesn't sound like you even understood my claim, since you described it as me calling evolution itself an arbitrary construct. I've called it a social construct from observable organic patterns and claimed abstractions of value and purpose from that social construct are arbitrary constructs.
>Given your first question, I know you won't read it if I do
Take a chance on me
>The Socratic Method only works if you're willing to engage in the opponent and acknowledge their arguments
I've taken you as seriously as I can and asked for clarification where needed while offering the same.
>Letting them dismantle it through their realization that their logic has flaws.
No, most people aren't swayed by logical debate they are a part of. The socratic method is more likely to reveal falsehoods to 3rd parties than it is to convince an interlocutor. This is because Socrates played to crowds.
>beards are stupid
How are beards a "stupid" sex characteristics? They just are one.
>then your entire point is irrelevant since I never pointed at there being any conscious decision making.
I don't think you think evolution is like a dude in buckskin in heaven who etchesketches the next evolutionary stage for species. I do think you think evolution selects for long term advantages towards a progressive arc and that from that process you probably perceive some kind of moral or ethical authority in certain assertions you make. I think the latter is unconscious.
>Oh yeah dude if you stick your facial hair in a chick's boobs she'll get pregnant
Sex isn't solely about reproduction
Also testicles are a primary sexual characteristic but when I put mine on your mom's boobs she called me a bawd instead of getting preggers; what gives?
I know I know. I've got a real slow install process I'm going thru tho and this engages me
>But that doesn't sound like you agree with me
Duuuuuurr.
>since you described it as me calling evolution itself an arbitrary construct.
Anon, you're the one obsessed with "muh arbitrary construct." CTRL+F it. You're the one that tried to conflate that with "organic processes" as "not a contradiction." Shut the frick up and scroll up before typing.
>Take a chance on me
The beginning of that post you're replying to has me doing just that on another point. Conveniently, you ignored it.
I'm done humoring your badgering. If you're going to ask questions, do it for reasons other than to waste everyone's time.
>asked for clarification
You have not.
>No
That's literally the point of how it works, but alright.
>Most people aren't swayed by logical debate they are a part of
This isn't a debate. If it were, I would have clocked you long ago for basing your entire pretense here under an accident fallacy and drilled you harder for obsessing over these strawmen you keep making, instead of humoring the idea that you're here in good faith to have a discussion.
I really hope you do not see this as a debate, because you're shit at it dude. You constantly contradict yourself because you're concerned less with advancing your position and more with all of these cheap annoyances.
Take your next point as a prime example:
>>How are beards a "stupid" sex characteristics
Nowhere in my post did I pass judgment on beards. I mentioned they were stupid as a metric of sex and demonstrated this by pointing out they're inconsequential enough to be removed. I mentioned I used them as the example because it demonstrates how poorly thought out your examples are and how irrelevant thy are.
You did not address that. "Strawman" feels underwhelming: you are inventing an entirely new argument to address that's only related on a surface level, even after the original argument infront of you is explained. Per. Usual. With you.
>Ending on a "your mom" joke
That's sad.
that's a lot of text to say "nuh uh"
Next time I would suggest that you treat these discussions more seriously then, it sounds like you checked out and then grew frustrated that your half baked ideas weren't convincing and that I didn't care much for your tone. Sorry but this was a poor display. I'd say I'm like Barney the Dinosaur explaining why your son is half purple to you, the cuckold
>mentioned they were stupid as a metric of sex and demonstrated this by pointing out they're inconsequential enough to be removed
Really?! Amazing discovery. Be sure to tell your local biology department. Include the stuff about sex not being phenotypical too if that was you as well, that was gold.
>Next time I would suggest that you treat these discussions more seriously then
It really says a lot when you go from "I was mocking you" to "you should take this seriously."
If this were a more professional debate forum, your ass would have been gone when you tried that shit. But it's not. and that's the one thing you can't grasp that makes all of your "muh metaphor" whining even more ridiculous.
It would be wise to heed your own advice here too. You've gone off on so many tangents unrelated to what anyone was talking about that the discussion is tol muddied for an outside. Maybe that was your entire game all along, since you know the closest thing you had to a rebuttal to anyone here was bullshit. Congrats on the intentional deception if that be the case.
>it sounds like you checked out and then grew frustrated
Why would I be invested in debating an opponent that cannot process words in front of them? You have not processed the ability to read basic counterarguments Infront of you.
The thing about debate is that if you want someone to take you seriously and respect you, you have to demonstrate you're worth respecting.
That's something you trannies don't understand about society at large, and why a lot of people hate your demands to be coddled and placated.
>Really?! Amazing discovery
I know, right?
Maybe you should have thought of that and not needed me to point that out to you.
>really says a lot when you go from "I was mocking you" to "you should take this seriously."
Jesus guy give it a rest lol. Yes, I felt it was appropriate to both engage with you seriously and tease you over silly things. This being Cinemaphile I thought the teasing wouldn't upset you. Obviously if your response to all that includes you going like "IF I TOOK THIS SERIOUSLY ID HAVE *WON* HERES HOW" then you have to expect a smarmy response. How could you not? Hopefully you'll develop tougher skin.
>The thing about debate is that if you want someone to take you seriously and respect you, you have to demonstrate you're worth respecting
I don't care about respect? Your feelings are kind of meaningless to me, like I don't want to deliberately upset or offend you but I also don't know you or need approval. The purpose of debate is to discuss ideas, not to discuss debators 🙂
>I know, right
Yes, now go tell your local university's biology department. They'll love it, this needs to be in textbooks or else the trans have won.
>Yes, I felt it was appropriate to both engage with you seriously and tease you over silly things
"Yeah, I knew I was holding a double standard and wasted everyone's time asking them to be serious when I wasn't but... like... I lost so get over it."
>Your feelings are kind of meaningless to me
You're still here dude. You're still here being a pathetic b***h to everyone who calls you moronic. Learn some self-awareness.
>Yes, now go tell your local university's biology department
Just say "go read a book" verbatim so I can cross off my bingo card.
Go read a book
That wasn't me this is
Do you want to try that again troon?
Hey stop samegayging me pinkman!
Anon, I'm a third party that's just been lurking and occasionally commenting as you two go at it, and please understand this:
You look like a complete moron. The other anon is talking way over your head and you're mistaking your confusion for incoherency. There is no worse look than condescending and wrong.
Yeah, you're totally impartial and not here at all.
You're totally not
He's not you I'm me you're me and him but he won't stop samegayging, it's the only way you could have looked stupid and also I'm
Anon the person you're arguing with has no idea what the frick a phenotype is
You're talking on a dead phone
>muh phenotypes
Try to be more subtle when you samegay.
is not arbitrary. Evolution is entirely organic
>These are not mutually exclusive
>Swap "chromosomes" with "arms" and you should see how silly your argument is
Ok now swap "arms" with "chromosomes" and you'll see how silly your argument is. While chromosomes typically come in predictable sets with predictable phenotypic outcomes, both the sets and the phenotypes are not set in stone. Nor are they used as the basis of sex identification, a function carried out by secondary sexual characteristics such as beards, butts and boobs. Chromosomes are rarely tested. They can come with atypical phenotypic outcomes counter to what the chromosomes would otherwise imply.
And please stop doing that inane "well if you weren't talking X and you said Y then you'd sound veeeerrry silly" thing
>Ok now swap "arms" with "chromosomes" and you'll see how silly your argument is.
Okay.
How many arms do most people have?
>While arms typically come in predictable sets with predictable phenotypic outcomes, both the sets and the phenotypes are not set in stone.
My point demonstrated with one word change...
>Nor are they used as the basis of sex identification, a function carried out by secondary sexual characteristics such as beards, butts and boobs
This is so stupid... where do I begin.
(1) Literal sexual function was not the point. As I explained, the point was to demonstrate that humans have a typical biological makeup, undeterred normally by exceptions
(2) Shoulder definition is a tell of testosterone and male biology
(3) Arms are as much of a secondary characteristic as beards you dumb frick. Go to the gym if you want laid.
(4) Beards and butts are moronic secondary select examples to bring up anyway since humans have control over them, unlike the number of extra arms someone has.
>Chromosomes are rarely tested
I am getting sick of trannies trying to pull this crap...
No. Your sex chromosomes are not some magic black box that just has no effect on your body. They are the fricking blueprints for how your body forms. They can mostly be deferred from how your body formed. That's their only function. Holy frick, please go back to 6th grade biology you dumbass.
>And please stop doing that inane "well if you weren't talking X and you said Y then you'd sound veeeerrry silly" thing
I'm sorry you're too fragile to handle people pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Try being less stupid and posting less.
>SEX CHROMOSOMES ARE YOUR BLUEPRINT REEEEEEEEEEE
nobody tell him about testosterone immunity
Nobody tell him about horsepiss
Testosterone is a hormone, not chromosomes you screeching troony.
For the love of God, be LESS confident and MORE curious. They didn't call testosterone a chromosome, they referenced a condition where xy people are not affected by test. Which affects their phenotypic development. For fricks sake you people are dull sometimes
>they referenced a condition where xy people are not affected by test
Okay.
Did anyone argue that having testosterone makes you a dude?
You're arguing with morons that genuinely think that nature never ever fricks up.
>How many arms do most people have
Most people have 2 arms 🙂
So hitting fast forward here; it'd be correct to say "most women have xx chromosomes", it'd be mostly correct for everyday use to say "women have xx chromosomes" and it'd be completely incorrect to assert as a fact that "all women have xx chromosomes"
>point demonstrated with one word change
Can I ask you if you know of any celebrated intellectuals who also used this technique? Like not even political types. Did Plato do this? Did Aristotle? Was anyone ever like "oh yeah, buddha? Super smart guy, one time I told him I wanted to be handsome and rich and he said if i replaced handsome and rich with ugly and poor I would know self contentment comes from within"
Has that EVER happened?
>Your sex chromosomes are not some magic black box that just has no effect on your body.
Please get your info as to how we view ourselves from us. Yes chromosomes are like "blue prints", however they contain more than just "MAN" and "WOMAN" plans. They have all those sex characteristics holistically and by taking hrt you alter your genetic expression. Ie you change blue prints. We don't claim they're vestigial or whatever lol
>and it'd be completely incorrect to assert as a fact that "all women have xx chromosomes"
I was going to go after you for strawmanning again, but I think the circular reasoning is more prudent. If a woman is "somebody with XX chromosomes," yes, you can.
>Can I ask you if you know of any celebrated intellectuals who also used this technique?
My guy, don't pretend to be academic when you tried that "chromosomes are rarely tested" card earlier.
>Has that EVER happened?
I don't know, whiny b***h, did Plato every go after Bhuddah about "muh anthroporphization?"
For frick's sake you pedantic midwit, even The Origin of the Species uses terms that convey some narrative intent. "Struggle." "Preserved."
Plato not Bhudda would have argued about it because they're smart enough to know what a literary metaphor is.
>Yes chromosomes are like "blue prints", however they contain more than just "MAN" and "WOMAN" plans
Literally every single point you make is either trying to change the subject or whining about "muh anthro," this included.
Origin of species uses those terms to romanticize the observed processes, not as an essential part of a semantic argument
>Origin of species uses those terms to romanticize the observed processes
I am doing the same, as I've said several times now
I can give quotes, but you're not here in good faith, so why bother?
>not as an essential part of a semantic argument
Do you even know what that book is, kr are you that ignorant?
>I don't know what a semantic argument is despite making one for the past hour
Hilarious
>Nuh uh you dumb!
Great argument troony
>f a woman is "somebody with XX chromosomes
There are women without xx chromosomes, even without counting trans women. So no, it's inaccurate. It's accurate it say "most women have xx chromosomes" though.
>, but the discussion is about chromosomes and genetics, not sexual selection.
Ok, so sounds like no one that smart really does that move huh? Maybe you should stop and consider why.
>The Origin of the Species uses terms that convey some narrative intent. "Struggle." "Preserved."
Did all biological research conclude after Darwin?
>Literally every single point you make is either trying to change the subject
Specifically, how so? To me, I'm bringing up relevant context and also critiquing a trend towards misunderstanding evolution as a force rather than an undirected pattern of patterns.
>There are women without xx chromosomes
Define "woman."
>Ok, so sounds like no one that smart really does that move huh?
moron, nobody "that smart" challenged The Origin of Species with "you're romanticizing the language."
>Did all biological research conclude after Darwin?
Did anyone imply otherwise? I'm getting real sick of you trying to argue points nobody is making.
We accept Darwin's work regardless of the prose because the concepts he described were true and he stressed that he was being metaphoric.
>How so
You have tried to sidetrack talking about the evolutionary fuction of sex chromosomes to this (unfounded) idea that all talk of biology must adhere to an impartial narrative you willfully disingenuous homosexual.
>Define "woman
As a sex? "An adult human with a combination of primary and secondary sexual characteristics including xx chromosomes, a vegana, breast tissue and expanded hips among others" feels succinct and broad enough for this
>nobody "that smart" challenged The Origin of Species with "you're romanticizing the language.
Actually basically the entire field of biology as practiced today grew out of the disabusing of metaphor and fact found in early research.... ie using improved scientific diagnostics and expanded knowledge pools to break down associations and hypothesis once carried by mental experiments and language.
>anyone imply otherwise?
Yeah, you did. You cited a very out of date book to defend your position and now you're upset that I said the field has advanced beyond your source.
>You have tried to sidetrack talking about the evolutionary fuction of sex chromosomes to this (unfounded) idea that all talk of biology must adhere to an impartial narrative
Impartial? Where does impartiality come into it?
What I've done is substitute your flawed conception of evolution for a more modern one and used that to support my statements regarding other misunderstandings on chromosomes
>including xx chromosomes
Okay, now followup question, Mr Wannabe expert, is that a primary or a secondary sexual characteristic?
>Actually basically the entire field of biology as practiced today
My guy, go pick up The Selfish Gene sometime or try to find a biologist that doesn't use terms like "successful," and stop talking out of your ass.
>Yeah, you did
You're welcome to quote me.
By GOD, you starting to actually address the words on your screen instead of uour schizo headcanons would be a nice change
>What I've done is substitute
You've yet to actually say anything that isn't just whining about tone.
>question, Mr Wannabe expert, is that a primary or a secondary
Primary!
>The Selfish Gene
Again....You're citing some old stuff here lol, like this is better obviously but it's not exactly contemporary. More importantly you're largely taking what are intended to be metaphors as actually occurring events, which is why disambiguation is so important these days. So we could say something "successfully" reproduced it in that it, did that thing, it reproduced. However to then take that language and let's apply it to a human and then infer from the language of success/failure that reproduction is a marker of personal success/failure; what that does is transform an observable process into a moral code predicated on an abstraction derived form the observable process. Not the process itself. Do you follow me ok here? Similarly to imply some ways of life are of less value because they do not reproduce is to do the same thing.
>You're welcome to quote me
Well it's just the post with the origin of Species comment obviously, I said that already.
>actually say anything that isn't just whining about tone
I think I've critiqued literally everything else more than your tone which I've mostly just called silly or other playful things. Remember my buddha joke? That was a good one, come on.
>Primary!
So if they're the primary characteristic, we can infer about a man/woman that can reproduce that their chromosomes....
>Again....You're citing some old stuff here lol
We've reached the typical point in arguing with your kind where you constantly move goalposts while never offering any counterstatements beyond shallow denial.
>More importantly you're largely taking what are intended to be metaphors
The Selfish Gene is not that.
The Selfish Gene is a study of human behavior from a biologkst, told trough metaphors and personification in order to make it palpable to someone unfamiliar to the subject.
Which is exactly what I've repeatedly said I'm doing here. This is an image board, not a scientific journal. Your repeated whining about tone proves nothing except a lack of self awareness on your part of where you're posting and the supposed audience, ironic given how honestly juvenile your posts are.
>Well it's just
Quotes. Now.
>I think I've critiqued literally everything else more
I think you're lying through your teeth, but that's par course for troons.
>I'm dramatizing!
Your argument's core premises are based on the semantics surrounding terms like "normal"
You do not get to be nonspecific with your terms when your argument is semantic
This has already been explained to you
You have failed to do anything except reiterate your opinion
>Ackshually, my genetics are special!
>we can infer about a man/woman that can reproduce that their chromosomes....
I think you must have made a typo here. Regardless, primary characteristics do not exist alone remember? This is a reason why someone with xy chromosomes but an immunity to testosterone is relevant, they develop a female phenotype. Some don't even know this occurred to later in life.
>where you constantly move goalposts
From what to what?
>never offering any counterstatements
>>More importantly you're largely taking what are intended to be metaphors as actually occurring events, which is why disambiguation is so important these days. So we could say something "successfully" reproduced it in that it, did that thing, it reproduced. However to then take that language and let's apply it to a human and then infer from the language of success/failure that reproduction is a marker of personal success/failure; what that does is transform an observable process into a moral code predicated on an abstraction derived form the observable process. Not the process itself. Do you follow me ok here? Similarly to imply some ways of life are of less value because they do not reproduce is to do the same thing.
Please respond to that :]
>Quotes. Now.
Lmfao
>even The Origin of the Species uses terms that convey some narrative intent. "Struggle." "Preserved." There, it was never hidden from you good Golly
>think you're lying through your teeth
How so?
>think you must have made a typo here.
You're welcome to point it out.
Nope? Just going to leave it at that?
Okay.
>Regardless, primary characteristics do not exist alone remember?
Primary. Characteristics. Determine. Which. Role. An. Organism. Fills.
Secondary. Characteristics. Signal. Mating. Potential.
You. Stupid. homosexual.
>they develop a female phenotype
They're still a man you dumb frick.
>FrOm wHaT tO wHat
You went from asking for "smart" minds to wanting something modern to wanting... I can't even figure out what you're asking for beyond Dawkins other than "newer."
The pattern is set. You will keep shouting for "newer" but never give an acceptable criteria, to fulfill some linguistic tone requirement I have explicitly said I am NOT doing.
>Please respond to that :]
I already did.
>Chromosomes for sexual reproduction have a very specific purpose in how they shape biology in the context of evolution.
>I'm referring to when using terms like "equipped to," "supposed to," etc: the context of human evolution and how our bodies facilitate that process.
>You are whining about inconsequential language unrelated to that to willingly miss the point
>I'm avoiding talking about higher-level terminology and choosing the layman for the benefit of the casual reader
>If my post changes to swap "purpose" and the like to "biological function," nothing about my post changes, but your suddenly evaporates.
>My God, you are literally arguing "evolution is an arbitray construct."
You. DENSE motherfricker.
>here
Okay.
Now what about that quote implies research ended at Darwin?
>You're welcome to point it out.
I wasn't shaming you, just alerting you that I had to make an inference. Settle down. I think you forgot to make it a rhetorical question snd didn't say what.
>Primary. Characteristics. Determine. Which. Role. An. Organism. Fills.
You mean reproductive role? Sure, loosely speaking this is correct.
>Secondary. Characteristics. Signal. Mating. Potential.
A simplification but, yeah basically correct!
And both together comprise your sex, you got it.
>asking for "smart" minds to wanting something modern to wanting
I...no I didn't, I said that to mock whoever it was (wasn't it you?) that said "replace chromosome with arm" as an argument. What I wanted was to demonstrate how facil the argument was, I didn't divert from it though.
>You will keep shouting for "newer"
Not really, I don't think I ever did except in reply to you bringing centuries old and then decades old material. Mostly I've kept to the arguments themselves while chiding your use of those things. You can cite whatever you like, obviously if I see fault with it I will demonstrate that fault lol that's not a trick its an argument
>I already did
This is just the post where you did the arms vs chromosomes thing? I replied to that
>are literally arguing "evolution is an arbitray construct
Evolution is a social construct based on observable patterns, anthropomorphized evolution as a moral principle and/or guiding progressive force is arbitrary abstraction.
>quote implies research ended at Darwin
I understand you're very literal, but please try to comprehend I wasn't literally suggesting you believed Darwin was the end of all research. Itd be silly to say Darwin in 2024 is the last word on evolution. My point was that you were citing Darwin as a reason why anthromorphic language was appropriate for evolution and then using that language to frame an arbitrary value system. Which is silly, we are past Darwin. I was mocking you and your unconscious implication.
>wasn't shaming you, just alerting you that I had to make an inference
Oh, shut the frick up with this limpdicked "I wasn't doing X, [does X anyway]" shit.
>You mean reproductive role?
What other "role" could it be possibly talking about.
You're such a petty little homosexual that you're trying to be so pedantic about something that literally anyone with a basic understanding English can infer. Knock that shit off.
>yeah basically correct!
>And both together comprise your sex
No, you dumb homosexual. Secondary characteristics do not contribute to the immediate act of reproduction. A woman with a flat ass is still a woman, and a man wothout a beard is still a man.
What part of that basic concept are you STILL struggling with?
>I ...no I didn't
>>Can I ask you if you know of any celebrated intellectuals who also used this technique?
>>Has that EVER happened?
Shut the frick up.
>What I wanted was to demonstrate how facil the argument
And yet you pretended to not understand the "humans have two arms" argument.
>Durr durr I was just mocking!
No, you wanted to follow through with that argument to whine about Darwin.
>>Did all biological research conclude after Darwin?
>Mostly I've kept to the arguments themselves
You should really proofread your posts so you don't say stupid shit like this after trying to revise your pedanticisim as "I was just mocking/trolling/whatever I didn't mean to agitate you!"
> I replied to that
You didn't reply to it or my demonstration of your illogic. You rambled unrelated to the point like you've done every time you've had no argument. The point of the arms was to counter "untested chromosomes," you went off on a tangent about phenotypes. Even here, you're looking at a section of text talking about tone and me being explicit about my contexts, and going tHis iS aBoUt tHe aRmS iSnT iT.
>Evolution is a social construct
Holy frick, I'm moving on before I have a hernia from your stupidity.
>limpdicked "I wasn't doing X, [does X anyway]" shit.
No, you should be less sensitive to calm assertions and stop thinking about my penis.
>What other "role" could it be possibly talking about
A lot
>Secondary characteristics do not contribute to the immediate act of reproduction
The act of reproduction, to be specific reproductive capability, is not the sole determinant of sex. Sex is also phenotypical.
>shut the frick up
Go warm up some milk and calm down lol
>And yet you pretended to not understand the "humans have two arms"
I understood it, it's a bad argument. You shouldn't reply to someone's argument with an immediate simile or any kind of substitution, all you do is ruin your ability to respond to each other and begin shadowboxing. It's better to actually address the argument as presented than to come up with a new sillier one that you use to backdoor your conclusions. This is why you don't see anyone intelligent doing that really.
>You should really proofread your posts so you don't say stupid shit like this after trying to revise your pedanticisim
They're compatible statements lol, im mostly replying to you dryly but I have indulged openly in mocking you here and there. I wouldn't say I trolled you though lol
>the arms
It wasn't a good argument dog lol idk how to put it any other, it was a stinker, a real turd.
>stop thinking about my penis.
troony, stop stealing comebacks from your gradeschooler Discord friends.
>A lot
Nice nonanswer. Oh, yeah, it's talk of evolution and genetics. Clearly it could mean film casting roles...
>Sex is also phenotypical.
No it isn't. Stop asserting as a oremise what you set out to prove.
>calm down lol
I'm mad because I've been talking to a brick wall.
You're not an intellectual. You're a wannabe provocateur. You don't understand any of the shit you arguing about, your enire gimmick is to be annoying, then tone police when people run short of patience.
The problem is that I can still demonstrate that you're full of shit while still wishing you wisely commit suicide.
>I understood it, it's a bad argument
No, you didn't.
Your counterargument was "but arms aren't used for sex." That was literally your counterargument to a point that humans have a typical genetic makeup.
Want me to start dumping quotes, or are you going to get off your pedestal?
>They're compatible statements
Of course they are.
The caveat is that you're a hypocrite who has no argument.
It's pathetic as frick to go for hours railing on the use of metaphoric language only to turn around and go "oh a while back I wasn't being literal" as a coverup for making a bad argument. It's bad form to whine about "metaphors," ask for usage of them from intellectuals, then when given examples try to handwave the thing with "it's all a social construct anyway" (making your entire presence here shitting up the thread a complete waste of time since you're whining about a language construct being used in an alleged social construct. It baffles me you missed that).
Goddamn, moron, get your head out of your ass.
>the arms
I called it.
>>Even here, you're looking at a section of text talking about tone and me being explicit about my contexts, and going tHis iS aBoUt tHe aRmS iSnT iT.
Do you watch Breaking Bad? I'm Saul talking about laundering to you, Pinkman.
>stop stealing comebacks
Stop stealing my cum, back off.
>No it isn't
Well this is the real nut of it isn't it? You don't believe sex is phenotypical. Is there a source you would prefer to receive contrary information from or can I just give you general links?
>That was literally your counterargument to a point that humans have a typical genetic makeup.
Uh, no. It wasn't. I said that stuff about most humans having 2 arms but not all humans. And I said that arms aren't chromosomes and you'd do better to talk about chromosomes in particular instead of using comparisons.
>Do you watch Breaking Bad? I'm Saul talking about laundering to you, Pinkman
>do you watch breaking bad
>I'm Saul
>do you watch breaking bad
>I'm Saul
>I'm Saul
>do you watch breaking bad
I can't tell u how happy I am you said that and then I read it omg
Also that wasn't my samegay, this is
>You don't believe sex is phenotypical
It's like you have to prove your argument, or something...
>Is there a source you would prefer to receive contrary information
My guy, you had a steoke between asking me to prove you wrong and asking if there would be a good source I would accept. "Not my job" to the former, and to the latter, I'll be as explicit/good faith/accepting without a confirmation bias as you have been.
>Uh, no. It wasn't
troony...
chromosomes typically come in predictable sets with predictable phenotypic outcomes, both the sets and the phenotypes are not set in stone. Nor are they used as the basis of sex identification, a function carried out by secondary sexual characteristics such as beards, butts and boobs.
Stop.
>I can't tell u how happy I am you said that and then I read it omg
I can't tell you how happy your family will be when you stop embarassing yourself. Also, point given.
>It's like you have to prove your argument, or something
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10943/#:~:text=Phenotypic%20sex%20refers%20to%20an,secondary%20sex%20characteristics%2C%20and%20behavior.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation_in_humans
Where would you like to go from here?
>text=Phenotypical
You did not read your source. You're just grabbing shit off of google and hoping its relevant.
You know how I know? Because anon is talking about genotypical sex (as described in the link). You never pointed out this technicality, because it either didn't cross your mind, or you know about it, knew that the definitions given are loose enough to include "gender," and wanted to intertwine the contexts when convenient to avoid anons rejecting the notion of gender equating to sex and thus doubting your source (since nobody, you included, would read the study)
Admittedly if that the case, it would have been a clever avenue if you were serious about debating instead of "muh metaphors," but that assumes you know what you're talking about, and thus that hand is misplayed.
>Wikipedia
L-O-fricking-L.
>anon discovers that genotypical sex is a thing hours and hours after being shown that testosterone-immune XY humans have veganas
hilarious
>You never pointed out this technicality, because it either didn't cross your mind, or you know about it
He struggled with phenotype anon, I wasn't going to keep drowning him. And I'm sorry but yeah the concept was brought up lol
and even if it was brought up by name, do you think that guy would've comprehended it any better? Do you? I dont.
You need to stop samegayging too dude.
Protip: do not have your self-fellatio post immediately go all-in on a fringe argument you want to make.
You forgot to remove one of the (you)s in
.
>it can't even parse a Cinemaphilex screenshot
I'm not sure what I was expecting
I can parse it, I'm just chastising him for being sloppy about it.
>I can parse it
clearly not
the dashes are that user's posts (my posts)
the bold red lines are posts that reply to me
you've shown yourself to be pretty fricking slow but this is sad
Anon, everyone has access to MSPaint these days.
But you double posted in haste to mine and left a (you) to a post that's continuing an ongoing coverstion.
>you made those dashes and lines with paint!
lmao
anon
I posted:
I am not the person you have been arguing with, I am the occasional commenter laughing at you.
You need meds.
>>you made those dashes and lines with paint!
>lmao
Why are you trying to convince people that it takes haxxor skills to add a couple lines to a screenshot?
Yeah, no troony. You've been here since at least
.
My first post itt was
You don't even need to do that if you just phonepost. When you get on desktop, no (you)s will be there.
>going full schizo and trying to profile posters
I told you I'd been lurking, following the argument, and occasionally commenting to laugh at you
Anon the fact that you think bringing up phenotypes in this argument is strange or unique is exactly why I'm laughing at you.
to reiterate:
>I'm a third party that's just been lurking and occasionally commenting as you two go at it
We're about to hit autosage and thank fricking god
cope, seethe, touch grass, etc., etc.
and for the love of god get some fricking reaction images. This is a comics and cartoons image board. At least pretend that's what you're here for.
>I told you I'd been lurking, following the argument, and occasionally commenting
You're the homosexual who was trying that whole "I'm not mad" routine long before this discussion. At least change your posting style you obvious tourist.
Well hang on a moment I have a distinctive writing style I think, that other anon doesn't even sound like me. I didn't think that was part of your theory lmfao
Oooohhhh, ok. Wikipedia is "shit" so sex isn't phenotypical.
And im.samegayging
And you're Saul Goodman
>calling someone a tourist on the Cinemaphile board
>when you can't detect samegay, post no image macros, aren't discussing x-men in any capacity, and can't parse Cinemaphilex's UI
I was shitposting about afroduck when you were still a twinkle in your daddy's balls.
>post no image macros
Lemme stop you right there: how many people here have tried to post an image in every post they make?
I only have porn, selfies, animal gifs and self care infographics on my phone tbqh
Wait no I also saved this because it was legit like "oh she me for real" moment. Here have a cartoon comic 1/2
It's so good, she's literally me with acrylics and a bill for her implants (imagine paying!)
2/2
Also, slow down on the damage control. It makes it too obvious.
So to clear in this exchange, you spoke to someone who kept changing the goalposts and also deliberately hid information or did not actually have that information which means their argument was flawed. Anyone who said you were misunderstanding and looked silly was just that same person pretending to be another person to troll you. And you made no mistakes, your arguments were flawless even if you did deliberately hold back some of your serious debate power.
Is that what you think happened?
>Anyone who said you were misunderstanding and looked silly was just that same person pretending
No, but if someone who goes off and start parroting an argument that only he made, and he's only here to fellatiate one guy, late into the discussion after he starts losing ground, it looks pretty sus, don't it?
Or it looks like that argument is known to be correct and easily cited, like something you'd find in a textbook or wikipedia
Anon, Wikipedia is shit. Don't start with "muh sources" either. Go try to spend a couple years editing that shit and you will hate it.
>Or it looks like that argument is known to be correct and easily cited,
troony, I...
Your entire premise was to conflate what your source gives to be genotypical sex verses phenotypical sex, and hope that the ambiguity isn't caught while using sources that give gender as an equally valid source. That is a very specific and context-dependent motte-and-bailey argument.
>Your entire premise was to conflate what your source gives to be genotypical sex verses phenotypical sex
I'm sorry to say that you being confused about the difference isn't the same as that being the core of their argument
I'm not confused by your argument dude. Quite the opposite. Since that's not what you took the time to set up, the reveal is too detached from what you were arguing about or when I entered to be relevant.
I'm sorry, anon, you've gone so deep inside your own headcanon as to what's in this thread that I simply can't follow.
You're a samegay troony, she's a samegay troony, he's a samegay troony, IM A SAMEgay troony; ARE THERE ANY OTHER SAMEgay TRANNIES I SHOULD KNOW ABOUT
>Your entire premise was to conflate what your source gives to be genotypical sex verses phenotypical sex
Oh, no it wasn't. How did u arrive at this conclusion?
I told u I'm u not him I'm me u idiot stop sametrooning
I guess he thinks the thick lines are the poster's and not the replies to the poster
It's the dotted lines that are the poster's
This is because he has brain damage
I do worry we've been mean to someone genuinely mentally deficient but I'm just gonna hope it's a silly kid who grows out of this stuff.
also
>no mention of the tabs
this site is fricking dead
>prove sex is a phenotype
Do you watch Law and Order SVU? I'm Iced T explaining drugs to you, The Judge.
Do you watch Rick and Morty? I'm Rick Sanchez explaining nihilism to you, Morty.
>do you watch SVU
I do occasionally when I'm at my geriatric mothers' and she's watching it
Ice T never explains shit to anyone, he's always the idiot having things explained to him even though he really should understand them seeing as he's a long-time officer in the special victims unit. Then he makes a really really stupid analogy to make sure his dumb ass has got it straight.
So yes, you are definitely Ice T in SVU
Shit, I don't watch law and order at all. It was just funny to me. I guess I really am iced t and that other guy was slipping Jimmy. Im.so fricked in the head
>Biological essentialist reduced to desperately trying to enforce an arbitrary enshrinement of a specific phenotype to the exclusion of others
How incredibly sad
You lost many posts ago
You lost when you were born incel
If exceptions keep happening fairly regularly then it can’t be a real rigid binary. It’s just pure cope to insist it is.
By your logic psychopaths and pedophiles should be allowed to do what they want to because they "happen fairly regularly"
You didn’t think this through very well, did you.
>"there are only two sexes"
>no there aren't
>"ok but there are only two normal sexes and the others are exceptions"
>there's no such things as exceptions to physics, things exist or they don't
>"SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S OK TO MOLEST KIDS!?!?!?"
Oh frick I should've read this discussion through more
queer and people with disorders always existed and will always exist. get mad.
btw this thread should be full of gay stuff instead of weirdos talking about "woke bad cuz i say so"
I'm not mad. Why should I be mad. You sound more mad by your bait post.
>I'm not mad. Why should I be mad
????
Hi Peter griffin here. Bill maher is a comically unfunny gen x comedian who has drifted out of relative obscurity for younger generations and into the realm of parody. Bill's constant demand to be seen as clever and edgy have led this uniquely atheist libertarian to making endless complaints about kids these days, wokeness and cancel culture. His poorly named podcast "club random" has been widely mocked for its inane conversation, strange bartender setting and meandering political discourse. If someone is comparing you to Bill maher and club random, they're saying "look at this, he's trying too hard to make his complaints sound intellectual and his cleverness sound edgy"
troony so "not mad" he's having a schizo roleplay meltdown over some literally who comedian or whatever.
No, I was explaining a meme using another meme to keep it convivial.
>Unfounded argument because if gender is a spectrum, then you need to quantify what a man/woman
Not necessarily, we could apply the same evidence based approach we used for non binary people here as well. Just as non binary behavior is defined by those who identify as such, we can safely begin defining man and woman as genders by observing the behaviors of people who identify with them.
This isn't postmodernism, this is actually old school modernism I'm laying out. Just applied to modern topics.
go to /lgbt/. it's a whole board for you to wallow in your nonsense
>swx pests and groomers with disorders always existed and will always exist. get mad.
>btw this thread should be full of pedo stuff instead of weirdos talking about "love bad cuz i say so"
>Regularly
Your perception of it happening is from a selection bias.
You are mentally ill, and will never be a woman.
have a nice day.
>time to demonstrate my mental stability
"Hey you, have a nice day!"
>why am I so unloved?
>they/them shit wasn't a thing in 97
It was but it was considered offensive. Strange how that became accepted by queers.
No. it wasn't. It wasn't a thing even in 2007.
>No. it wasn't. It wasn't a thing even in 2007.
I'm a grandpa. Calling someone them was used in a derogatory way because they were man or woman but acted like the other. Drag queens were referred to as them all the time as far back as at least the 80s with derision.
No they were called 'it', larper. Also, there's a difference between drag queens and transvestites. Most people didn't give a shit about the former and were disgusted by the latter.
Using they/them as a singular pronoun is bad English and leads to problems when reading a story. Not that anyone reads books nowadays
>Also, there's a difference between drag queens and transvestites. Most people didn't give a shit about the former and were disgusted by the latter.
Bullshit. Only people in those communities think there's a difference. To anybody else, they're all just gays in women's clothing.
funny, herd them called the following. 'Freaks, drags, ladyboys, queens, tomboys, sissys, homosexuals.' and afew others usually reserved for hard gays. eather you lived in the most sheltered no-where podunk or your a frickin' liar.
shut the frick up homosexual and get strung up by your own hand
So... There's no Cons, I guess.
You should put as a Con waking up by Morph's side and looking at this hideous white face. I doubt he would be okay on not showing his "real face" during all time you're having a relationship with him.
It's all about not letting words offend you and use them however you want, anon.
moron the original show was already about how Morph completely lost sense of who he was
The rebranding into nonbinary stuff makes complete sense and you guys are drones who can't think for themselves
If you had Morph's power and your own sense of self made no sense to you anymore you would definitely get confused about it, your gender, and pretty much everything else. This "own up to it" attitude is perfectly normal, and it's actually better this way. I wouldn't stand it if the homosexual spent his time complaining about it.
So my point is shut the frick up you insufferable wienersuckers
There was zero indication in the original series that Morph was anything other than a man who could shapeshift nor did he ever seem particularly gay or androgynous to me. In the new show his voice is noticably more 'catty'/bitchy/effeminate and he wears the more ambiguous white non-human looking face that he first got in the comics in Age of Apocalypse and didn't used to wear in the cartoon. The whole makeover is obviously a heavyhanded attempt to shoehorn in something that was never meant to be there. Also the idea that just because you gain the ability to shapeshift after hitting puberty you would suddenly no longer identify with the sex you grew up as doesn't make sense. Disney is hellbent on making Wolverine bi when he's always been a lady's man.
>when he's always been a lady's man.
Because gays like Wolverine and want to frick him. That's literally it. Loads of gay men saw the old X-Men films just to see topless Hugh Jackman.
Understandable.
You are clearly autistic and don't understand what "non-binary" means.
It's stupid in real life, but it's not stupid here. It's literally the same thing as being a jaded frick when you're for all intents and purposes immortal, or literally 90% of writing of capeshit trying to make you understand that having powers that radically change the premise of your own existence makes you behave very differently than an average human. That's the entire point. Here the point is that, for someone who has purposefully been stolen their identity, and that can transform into any person around them, you are bound to have extreme identity issues that you will have to cope one way or the other. Here morph chooses to accept it and deal with it by labeling their identity as non-binary. It makes sense.
But to you it never will, because you are blinded by /misc/ shit and you're a drone.
>The whole makeover is obviously a heavyhanded attempt to shoehorn in something that was never meant to be there
You are angry that characters evolve and that writers find new ways to develop their struggles with their own reality. That's on you, not on anything else. This is perhaps the only recorded instance of a cartoon that probably has earned the right to use something like this, because it 100% makes sense for a character like Morph. But again, you're nothing but a drone and have lost the ability to dream a long time ago.
This pronoun non-binary fad didn't exist until a couple years ago. You and I both know you weren't educated on it until relatively recently and yet you decided to make it your whole personality for oppression points. You get mad at others because they dont want to drink the kool aid and play your moronic LARP that you dont even truly believe in. This is why normal people cant stand you autistic fricks. Just shut the frick up and live your life.
>you made it your whole personality
holy projection, batman!
>you get mad at others because they won't drink the kool-aid
I genuinely do not give a shit what people want to call themselves, I accommodate what people ask for because that's how people exist in polite society.
>normal people can't stand you autistic fricks!
You are in a small minority of people that get angry about this shit. In fact you are a small minority railing against another small minority. Most people do. not. fricking. care.
>Just shut the frick up and live your life....unless you're living it in a way that requires me to consider you in any capacity, then you have to change or I'll throw a hissy
kk
>unless you're living it in a way that requires me to consider you in any capacity
Literally yes homosexual. If you want to LARP as a woman, fine, but just stay the frick away from my wife and kids. For some reason the separation part is the part autists like you dont get.
>me considering you and doing anything for you bad
>you considering me and doing whatever I ask of you good
Thank you for dropping the mask and just outright saying "I'm an inconsiderate c**t but I demand you consider me"
Have you considered Sea-steading? You wouldn't have to consider anybody's feelings except your own, you wouldn't have to pay taxes, and nobody would be able to tell you how to raise your kids!
I'm sure there's only a small chance you'd die horribly without society.
NTA but what part of complete strangers wanting the freedom to not associate with you is so hard to grasp? You're either an intense narcissist or moronic.
You don't get to pick and choose what parts of society you participate in. It's a package deal. You're free to go live in the Canadian wilderness or on the open sea if you want to be a man alone.
Also it's really funny that you're trying to squirm out of the fact that you're the one throwing a tantrum about other people asking to be called a different name and you're the one demanding other people change how they act to soothe your tantrum. The open hypocrisy is astounding.
I will not associate with you. You will not associate with me nor my family unless you suffer the consequences. There is nothing you can do to change this.
>suffer the consequences.
Lmao anon stop larping that's embarrassing you have serious small man energy. You're definitely not married and don't have kids and you probably don't even tell the waitress when you orders wrong.
Not that anon, but there's a difference between picking a different name and wanting different pronouns. You want to adjusts all kinds of words in the English language to function the way YOU want them to function and are surprised everyone else isn't immediately going YOUR way.
>You don't get to pick and choose what parts of society you participate in
Funny how troons never think this applies to them when they want in women's spaces...
>I support your right to be yourself, just stay away from me
>*angry autistic rambling*
Mental illness
>I...I support your right to be yourself, but YOU MUST NOT BE YOURSELF WHILE I AM IN EARSHOT
>I will now complain that you exist for hours online because I support you
lmao
If you live in the US you have no choice but to associate with me. You pay taxes into the system we both use, you engage in the same economy, hell there's a non-zero chance we might have passed in the street.
If you wish to disassociate from society you can go live on the ocean with the libertarians
>people are trying to DESTROY LANGUAGE by
>*checks notes*
>asking to be called "him" or "them" instead of "her" on an individual basis
>why are you surprised I'm throwing a temper tantrum?
I'm not surprised, just disappointed.
>If you live in the US you have no choice but to associate with me.
Nope. Seethe forever about it. You will never be a woman.
buddy it's pretty clear who's the one seething
You will never be a woman. You will never come near my family.
Women, much like your family, are worthless, so I'm not seeing the downside.
>You will never come near my family.
Can't get near what doesn't exist, anon.
Just like your womanhood?
nice strawman
>people are trying to DESTROY LANGUAGE by
nope, you're using "people" wrong. I've decided on a new definition of people and you have to use it. Language evolves, you Chud.
are trying to DESTROY LANGUAGE by
>>*checks notes*
to be called "him" or "them" instead of "her" on an individual basis
Why are trannies so disingenuous?
You gays advocate for a lot more than that, and even in your strawman you're still admitting that you want to redefine what a man/woman is.
>>You are in a small minority of people that get angry about this shit.
You never know which way things swing
NTA but Peru classified it that way so they could classify sex reassignment surgery and gender affirming care. They aren't bigots or mistreating trans people
sure the troonys will freak anyway because they're being called "mentally ill"
I dont think they did, it's how it's classified in France too. A lot of them were just glad they could transition and get the care they need.
sure they did. That's why they had to unclassify it as mental illness in the first place. The trannies didn't like being called mentally ill
Well it was how it was classified in France until 2009 and there weren't protests or anything they were just finally able to provide care without having it go through their programs for treating chronic illness and the move was applauded by trans groups but it was a long time ago. Every country moves at its own pace. Peru is hoping to catch up.
sounds like they're complaining to me
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/rita-panahi/lefties-losing-it-dylan-mulvaney-silent-after-peru-classifies-trans-people-as-mentally-ill/video/acbf74cd6e61131d98c5783ad52c8cdb
I suppose it's because you don't really talk to people in person and get all your information and opinions from online.
We're online now, you dumb shit. Yes, the three trannies you hang with agree with you. what about the rest of the world?
>sky news
>opinion
>lefties losing it! dylan mulvaney!
touch grass
https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/05/15/peru-trans-people-mentally-ill-supreme-decree/
Here's where NO news except anon's own opinion counts because uhhhhhhhh
anon opinion pieces submitted to rags are not news
no, "thepinknews," a clear clickbait portal, is also not news
That you can't tell the difference between news, tabloids, opinion submissions, and literal clickbait is disturbing.
and YOUR evidence is UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
evidence of what?
I have no idea what you homosexuals were arguing about or why, I just saw you post an opinion piece from a tabloid pretending it was legitimate news and called you a moron
>I just jumped into a conversation I know nothing about to pretend I'm right. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
fricking clown
Yes, anon
You can't tell the difference between news, tabloids, and ads, but I'm the clown.
Read a book.
you just said you have no clue what anyone of us are even talking about. You said you jumped in just to call people names like a 2 year old.
>YOU MADE FUN OF ME BECAUSE I DID SOMETHING STUPID
Yes, welcome to Cinemaphile
Get out
What was the stupid part? you said you weren't even following. Not making a lot of sense here. It's almost like you're just full of shit
>what was stupid?
Oof, maybe go see a doctor about that short-term memory loss my guy. Early onset dementia is serious business.
YOU SAID YOU WEREN'T FOLLOWING THE CONVERSATION YOU moron
short term memory loss AND acute illiteracy!
You might be having a stroke.
>what's yer offer
lol I don't care about your argument that is apparently about whether other online gays are mad about a change to peruvian medical semantics
Flop and flounder all you like, we can all see that you are literally incapable of differentiating between news and tabloids and opinion subs and ads. It's hilarious and sad.
>I-I don't care about your argument
>now here's 50 more posts about how I don't care.
meanwhile, STILL not seeing anything beyond your own bullshit that anyone is fine, so I'll just go with all the troony freaks I see being butthurt about being called psychotic yet again.
I accept your concession
Dogshit posts like this are why I hate trannies.
>I hate trannies because they mog me on Cinemaphile
Ah frick it. Tired of playing. We all know you were following things and just had no real response so
back to
your evidence that the trannies are fine with being called mentally ill is only your own homosexual opinion since you provided nothing else and I'm not surprised that the troony can't go beyond his own demented imagination to respond to anything
go back to /lgbt/ with your degeneracy. they still fall for this kind of shit there
>read a book
>touch grass
you got all the stock phrases lined up. still waiting for your "news" about how all the trannies are fine with this.
dude, you haven't seen the outside of your basement in five years. who are you kidding?
Thats a major oversimplification. Are you maybe learning this stuff second hand? Yes, there is internal debate over this topic both within trans groups and medical groups. But no, it's not accurate to claim that trans people as a whole want to be stricken from the DSM and its not accurate to claim being trans is in and of itself a mental illness.
The basic contention is that gender dysphoria is the mental illness that is treated through transitioning. This was the prior model that is now under some reevaluation. Dysphoria is the distress trans people feel from suppressing their gender identity and living in a body counter to their own desires. It leads to depression, dissassociation, drug use, the works. But it's been shown many times over to be reduced if not eliminated through transitioning. So someone can be trans and not feel dyphoria anymore. Being trans alone doesn't cause any kind of mental distress or demonstrable delusion, it just seems to be how some people are and has been for a long time.
Personally I support this model and think it represents the cleanest fusion of protecting civil rights and taking a medical framework to treat the psychological issues used to undermine said civil rights. It's logically consistent and easily proven through studies.
The country’s health ministry reportedly claimed following the decree’s announcement that it was the only way it could “guarantee full coverage of medical attention for mental health.”
morons never read the articles they claim support their opinion.
You see this a lot with how news is reported. A few years back there was a giant scandal because Harvard's LGBTQ research were doing resources for families and expanding into research for accommodation for infants and everyone flipped and screamed "TRANS INFANTS" because no one realized that same department handles helping the medical and therapeutic (including PT and developmental) care side of intersex cases and people with natural hormonal imbalances and research was lacking in terms of how those things could effect during early development and be treated.
I have a genuine question, how could someone who is born without any genitals be binary? like he needs to choose to be a guy or a gal every day because otherwise he's featureless.
>he whole makeover is obviously a heavyhanded attempt to shoehorn in something that was never meant to be there
The issue it's that this already existed since 2006 on exiles, so they're just taking things that have existed for more than a decade in comics.
No, the issue is that they're retroactively applying traits from his comic namesake and bandwagoners like
are treating it as if it were always the case.
The real case is that the character was solely created to die because killing the only Native American member of the team in the first episode was problematic. It didn't have more though put into him than that.
So if anything, by using his comic origin, they're correcting the idea that white straight men are expendable.
He was Changeling with a different name, not an OC.
The Llewalds even posted some draft script page on Twitter that shows he was originally named Changeling. They had to go with Morph because DC owned the name trademark at the time.
That script also says Changeling/Morph is in his early 20s, with that unfortunate face.
>heavens to Betsy
have a nice day
Is it really character evolution when it comes out of nowhere and isn’t actually developed to? For all intents and purposes, we’re stepping back into the world of the original X-Men animated series maybe at most a couple of months later yet from go Morph’s entire identity has been radically shifted from when we last saw the character to the point of adapting the Exiles Morph’s appearance and suddenly being nonbinary. All of this happened completely offscreen and with no actual dive into a character that’s supposed to be one of the main characters. That isn’t good character writing
He became non binary after being left for dead, mentally tortured, etc. This is unintentionally based.
>a life altering traumatic event has a character go through a process of self-discovery
Wow so controversial
More like, the reason many people become queer is trauma, not something they were born with.
>He wasn’t non binary in the og show. The characters referred to him as “he/him”
It's hard to define a character that's red shirt in the first episode.
I personally have no real connection with morph and I watched the show as a kid.
marketing screw up
The more you think about it. The more you realize the number of non-binary shapeshifters is basically a token gesture that honestly goes against everything transgenders try to push tbh. The reason the shapeshifter is non binary is precisely because of the ability to shift between a biologically male and biologically female body often down to the voice.
Now, if gender hinges on moving past the conditions of your birth and basing it on your own sense of identity.. well, do the math here. The NB shapeshifter is as "cis" as possible when you think about it, their gender is directly tied to their birth condition. Like, it's the assigned at birth non-binary
Transgenders isn't a word.
And no, not really.
Number 1 shapeshifters are fictional characters, they're useful devices for exploring gender and sex but don't exist as a counterpoint to trans people.
Number 2 trans people readily identify with shapeshifter characters because of the shared experience of gender non conformity, body transformation and gender exploration
And 3 trans people explicitly take hrt and undergo surgery to alter their biology as much as possible to match their gender identity. They go as far as allowed by technology essentially. You don't really think if the Sex-Swapper 4000 was invented that trans people would dismiss it do you? No, they'd hop in and get Sex-Swap 4000ed
But moreover like, isn't all this obvious? To me it is. So why try to shoehorn all this stuff about trans people disliking shapeshifters when it's patently silly? Do you just like shapeshifters, hate trans people and need some way to reconcile these things? That's weird! Like what you like and settle down
No actual sexist trans people don't. But the pretenders likely do.
Oh and
>Transgenders isn't a word
It is you just wrote it down.
>No actual sexist trans people don't. But the pretenders likely do
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean lol and don't you go frindle on me. You know perfectly well I'm just pointing out you've misused the English language. Mistakes like this are diamond dozen, irregardless you literally need to watch your back so this don't happen again twice.
I'm not even that poster lol
>you've misused the English language
Welcome to 2024 every does that
Ok? So, like, what lol? What's your point buster? Fine, that OTHER guy made incorrect points and made up a word. You were just being a good boy and sticking up for him, and I don't know what YOU meant by "sexist trannies" vs "pretenders"
Sheesh
Oh I also don't think your statement about being cis applies here unless said shapeshifter is born in a state that is biologically sex neutral and androgynous. That's a rarer trope but it does exist. Even in that circumstance though all you've done is invent a "cis" non binary individual, ie you just did transformers, crystal gems, asari and every nb person who does not take hrt irl. To me this isn't a gotcha.
I wouldn't totally say it's a "gotcha" but it does feel shapeshifter has become the ideal token NB, the "black lightning guy" of gender
I'm willing to accept that, it's definitely tropey and stereotypical. But so are cape comics in general you know? I don't think it's terribly egregious even if I'd want to see some trans characters with non gender related powersets, and vice versa tbh. I think you need to go through a few black lightnings before you get your miles morales out there, and even then I'd be very happy for a static shock. Maybe that'll be morph.
>desu
You have some sort brain damage?
How new are you to Cinemaphile friend
The term tbh has become so much demented that I feel like I'm dying when I read those.
You're working under the impression that you have to slowly make progress in order to introduce a character that people will accept, when all anyone ever had to do was make a cool character that people liked and no one would care if they were happier shapeshifted as a woman or taking dicks as a dietary supplement.
This type of slow tokenization of existing characters just pisses off fans, you've seen what happens when someone puts on a new uniform, now you've made someones self-insert a gay that wears dresses.
When Loki started wearing dresses no one cared, that's just how homie was rolling.
Everyone fricking loves Blade and Power Man, they don't need electric magic Black tropes.
You are making everyone hate you because you force this shit where it doesn't belong, not because people hate you by default out of some inherent bigotry. Even the few that actually do, would have been willing to ignore it if it didn't literally frick their favorite cape dude in the ass.
>everyone hates static shock and morph!
lol wat
Yeah wait wtf? I fricking adored static shock as an isolated white kid. He was my gateway to the dcau and no joke I learned what racism was from the show. It's so rare for "very special episodes" to leave any kind of mark, but I remember the episode with Ritchie's c**t maga dad genuinely made it click in my child brain what racism is. It was educational to me as someone with no irl exposure to black people as a kid and it was a good show on its own about a plucky hero. I feel like I'm not capturing it right but I share your confusion, static shock was an icon of the dcau! How could you hate him? Did you hate green lantern as well? Piccolo?!
I'm the anon you responded to in both cases and I'd agree with this. Admittedly this is why I typically view mental illness as the big thing comics need to stay away from because it's always fricking weird as hell for me when they tackle something like PTSD and then the big triumph comes when they essentially do the equivalent of redeploying a shellshocked vet. Like, you had a lot of action movies do the whole "traumatized soldier goes back to action" but even in something like Rambo it was always made clear that shit wasn't helping him mentally.
That's part of a greater factional dispute. The trans faction believes that male and female are real things, they are one and want to be the other. The NB faction believes that male and female are arbitrary social constructs that you can change the same way you change your favorite sports teams.
The reason they are on the same side is although they are opposed to each other they have a common enemy in the chuds and the chuds are a greater threat. In a chudless world they would be at war with each other.
What about trans and gay chuds?
Well I'm a gay chud (bi) and I don't know what you are referring to because it could be many things.
Trans nazis and homofascists mostly.
You just misused english yourself. So your argument against
is gone.
>Trans nazis and homofascists mostly.
Well you have your self interest gay/trans and than the belief that society can really only function in something with values similar to the nazis. That's my belief. This forces you into a position where basically no one is on your side completely.
I also don't think the Nazis were right about everything. You might have heard that there some German institute for sexual research headed by a israelite named Magnus Hirschfeld who's worked they burned down. In that case they were wrong. Modern hormonal theory is based on his research. How the hell were they supposed to know that? They made their best call and it was wrong. That's how all ideology works.
Are you schizo? Where was I arguing aboiut chromosomes in that post twat.
It's also worth mentioning that the Magnus Hirschfeld horminial theory was basically a less insane version of "nonbinary". His idea was that masculinity/femininity were a result of hormones and because you could get more or less it was non-binary. Ever see a woman with a really manish face who also happens to behave more manish? Higher level of testosterone in the uterus. Ever notice gays have more feminine faces? Lower level. He sort of invented trans science by trying to figure out how to alter people's hormones doing scarey stuff like grafting testicle skin from a high t guy onto a low t's balls.
Obviously this goes against social constructivists who are just wrong. It's true environment plays a certain role but anyone who thinks it plays all or majority role is nuts.
>social constructivists
You are just making up words as you go
There are people who use terms like that to describe what they believe or the general sphere of that type of where their beliefs are. I am not here to give you lectures on every word you may or may not know. If you want to know what it refers to use the power of the internet to learn. You can even go to reddit to ask them to spoon feed you and they will.
>go to reddit
No. How about you shall go to reddit? Why? Just because I said so.
>Magnus Hirschfeld
I rate him 14/88, would burn books.
I'm as liberal and woke as you can be on this site but that's just what nonbinary means. "I'm more or less exactly what my gender would imply me to be but I just don't feeeeeeel like a man/woman." It means nothing honestly. They just feel like a regular person that's ever so slightly more annoying to talk to. At least do some non gender conforming shit. Wear a skirt, put on some nail polish or something.
>"I'm more or less exactly what my gender would imply me to be but I just don't feeeeeeel like a man/woman."
This. How do you even FEEL like a man or a woman? Who does that? Who wakes up in the morning saying "OH HOW MANLY I FEEL TODAY!", certainly not me, but I refuse to call myself nonbinary for a feeling for which I have no reference point. It would be like seeing a colour your eyes can't perceive. You're on the inside of your body, you can only feel like yourself.
Your rant hasn't solved the issue that neopronouns are utter nonsense, underdeveloped, and people who insist on them use them in nonsensical ways because they themselves do not grasp what they are saying.
Nobody is addressed by neopronouns. They replace the third person singular. People saying they want to be addressed by their neopronouns don't notice they want to be addressed like Julius Caesar.
No, I see what HE is saying. HE is right. Pronouns are easy to understand. I'm using them right now to talk about HIS post.
How do you then address a person that tells you "I would like to be addressed by the pronouns fae/faer/faeself"? Do you notice that they apparently swapped their third person pronoun replacement with the second person?
I'd tell HIM, HE needs to grow the frick up
Ah, but which of the three pronouns proffered to address ___ would you use in place of "you" then? Fae? Faer? Faeself?
Which reminds me of the time I had one such person in a seminar ____ preferred "zero pronouns". In place you would use a pronoun, when referring to me, just say nothing. Thank you". I never spoke a word to that person and you can already see how annoying talking about ____ would get.
>would you use in place of "you" then
NTA, but you just described it. In quoted.
You monster.
The first and third are direct objects outside of the subject, the second threats it as a subject. Him, he, him in that order.
Ah, but you are tasked to address this person to ____ face with one of the designated pronouns. Do you say
>"Hello Whattchumacallit! It is nice to see fae here?"
>"It nice to se faer here!"
or
>"It is nice to see faeself here!"
Which one is it? These pronouns were explicitly profferred as addresses, even though normally, the correspondingly constructed regular pronouns are not used that way. You run the risk of committing a misgendering, one of the gravest offences. You have to get it right, anon. Which is it?
>>"Hello Whattchumacallit! It is nice to see you here?"
>>"It nice to see you here!"
>or
>>"It is nice to see yourself here!"
Wow, so hard.
That's not even a gender thing. Most people in English would say an inpersonal "you" there regardless of whom they were addressing.
You're not getting. The person literally told me: "I would like to be addressed with fae/faer/faerself"
The pronouns this replaces are third person pronouns not used for address. Pronouns patterned like third person pronouns were demanded to be used as second person pronouns. And it's far from the only time I've seen that. Again, they also get used for first person pronouns by certain people. It breaks all rules for their personal enjoyment and causes nothing but confusion because they themselves don't seem to understand what they are saying.
Yeah, you're right. I didn't get it.
That's pretty moronic of them.
It's you.
Second person pronouns are always you
They aren't gendered in English
Only third person pronouns are gendered in english
Again:
>I would like to be addressed with "fae/faer/faerself"
precludes the use of "you".
"You" is the pronoun used to address someone. Third person pronouns, after which "fae/faer/faerself" are patterned, are not used for address.
>I would like to be addressed with "fae/faer/faerself" precludes the use of "you".
No it doesn't, the same way "I would like to be addressed with he/him/himself" doesn't preclude the use of "you"
You are a genuinely stupid person and you are repeatedly embarrassing yourself
A gay dude
>busting inside a geriatric Mister Sinister
>con
Its true, there's only two types of nonbinary
>coping mtf troony using it to repress
>straight woman who decided being a libra wasnt special enough
Best thing to do is just politely ignore them and hope they grow out of it or that someone eventually invents a cure
Oh frick. I'm losing weight right now - quickly, how do I dedicate my weight loss to fat shaming?
Damn. Now that's a reason to get behind losing weight!
vinny from jersey shore?
that doesn't look like 120 pounds
There is no con. I would take their hand in marriage and be a loving partner. As long as they turn in into a pregnant asian woman ever night for sex.
What are the chances of Logan/Morph becoming a thing? Twitter loves it.
None. DeMayo already confirmed it's one-sided.
most people who identify as non binary have personality disorders. It's automatically a red flag
My friend recently adopted this shit and I havent the heart to just cut him off, hes become fricking annoying and cant even keep his pronouns accurate himself but will constantly stop others to let them know they fricked up and has told me it upsets him, and he makes a big deal about Morph being non binary saying "Its sad that people have an issue with him being non binary" like he constantly fricks it up, but still gets upset when its done to him. Its so aggravating I just dont even want to be around him anymore.
You fricking spastic, you have CHOSEN to adopt this language for yourself, you did not get offended at this shit for the last 30 years of your life, you are making yourself upset over nothing and feeling attatched to characters you didnt give a frick about before this and the only reason you like them is because they have this shit slapped on them. This shit is so "first world problem" it hurts.
>I hate my friend now
Cool story, butthole. You want a medal?
This shit is so tiresome
>No it
>No we
>No I
>No me
>No that
All pronouns my ass.
jej'd at that shit, it's so painfully obvious that the entire point of the genderqueer "movement" is to include vapid narcissists into the LGTBBQ lobbyist group.
I wonder what they'll try next, probably more legit mental illnesses seeing as having a disorder is hip now.
>Its sad that people have an issue with him
>HIM
A lot of non binary people accept multiple pronouns beyond the gender neutral they. He/they, she/they and "any pronouns" are all commonly used by nb people. This isn't irony so much as you just being unfamiliar with something.
not that anon but that strikes me as even more silly. Even if you want to say your gender isn't the standard it's still specifically something. to just pick different random pronouns to describe it makes the use of pronouns themselves meaningless
That would hold if those pronouns were random. I don't think they are. typically they indicate aspects of how that person sees themself. Logically if gender is a spectrum then the "man" and "woman" gradients would be smaller than the indeterminate "non binary" gradient. Saying you go by "he/they" points towards someone who does not hold themselves to be a man, but is not so distant from it that they'd refuse to be called it outright. You could argue the utility of that, but the logic is sound.
What
>You are making everyone hate you
Lol this argument is silly. You compare support for trans people now vs in 2000 and again in 1980 and then 1960 etc and then you try and tell me that nonsense. People hate trans people for reasons well in excess beyond "they're in my media", the hate predated any media representation and declined with media representation.
A transphobe will hate trans people basically no matter what excuse they need. And frankly that's born out by this. The characters you're talking about are often written by cis allies, which is a nice gesture from our pov but what it isn't is trans people directing their representation. That is to say that you're claiming trans people incite their own bigots by having media representation offensive to those bigots; when so often those characters are not made by trans people and those bigots are bigoted beyond wanting politically correct media.
>what
Learn to write
>bigot
>bigot
>bigot
>bigot
>bigot
You really need to learn to write.
>You compare support for trans people now vs in 2000 and again in 1980 and then 1960 etc and then you try and tell me that nonsense
Anon they are not bound by reality
They are firmly in the camp that their beliefs, whatever those happen to be, must be the majority.
It's pretty fundamental cult stuff, and basically every single aspect of socialization online has co-opted cult tactics to build cultural bubbles.
>They are firmly in the camp that their beliefs, whatever those happen to be, must be the majority.
You are doing the same
>That is to say that you're claiming trans people incite their own bigots by having media representation offensive to those bigots;
It's not offensive, it's obnoxious to force your representation on an existing character. If you made Batman take dicks and wear dresses, a lot of fans would not like that.
Comic fans have a high tolerance for legbutts, but when you say "oh btw Iceman was always gay and loves taking dicks now" you've made a mortal enemy out of whatever autists have been self-inserting as him for the last couple of decades.
And we live in a type of hyper-politicized entertainment, so any time we see an existing character suddenly become gay/black/female we know it's more of the ESG bullshit we're tired of.
If you want representation, ask those homosexuals at Marvel to make an original character people actually want to read about, and make them a transblack otherkin indigo child self-insert JUST FOR YOU.
>it's obnoxious to force your representation on an existing character
Anon, do not be such a baby. You are no longer a child. Fictional characters in the pulp mold are enjoyable because of how many different interpretations they can support without buckling. One interpretation does not necessarily come at the expense of another. A gay batman would not erase all other straight batmen. Trans joker would not undo gay for batmen joker. Relax. You can opt out of those interpretations easily enough by not consuming those stories. And if those stories are popular with others, who are you to throw a fit?
Furthermore comic book nerds don't have a "high tolerance" of queers. They have a high amount of queers, period lol. And they would like some characters too please.
>If you want representation, ask those homosexuals at Marvel to make an original character people actually want to read about
You're a fruit loop is what you are; you were just told that this is already the state of affairs and that you as an individual are just triggered over the results. What can I do about that? Get you a binky? Should I let you suck on my teat? Obviously Trans people want well written reps, but that doesn't mean we instantly get them nor does it magically turn superhero comic books into a perfect vehicle for introducing your bitter ass to the idea of trans people
I explained why i didn't want them to turn existing characters into tokens, and you wrote all that when it could be condensed into: "bro just don't care".
I guess that's the only winning move, i won't pay for any of this shit, and i can barely get myself to read/watch it even if it's free.
You won, you can have gay morph, wolverine, drake, and as many lesbos as you want in your dead medium.
>Anon, do not be such a baby.
Says the one who has a mental breakdown over established characters NOT sucking wiener and demanding they be changed
Where did this happen? Or is it just easier for you to imagine that it did?
>Logically if gender is a spectrum then the "man" and "woman" gradients would be smaller than the indeterminate "non binary" gradient.
Unfounded argument because if gender is a spectrum, then you need to quantify what a man/woman is, and if you're removing those definitions to redefine that then it's impossible to do that.
Welcome to postmodernism and why I want that shit to die out.
>then you need to quantify what a man/woman
how strictly one conforms to the arbitrary societal norms that have become attached to those terms
boy that was easy
Sadly by this logic transgenders aren't valid because nothing like gender exists.
Now when are we going to destroy morality? I can't wait
>Sadly by this logic transgenders aren't valid because nothing like gender exists.
That doesn't follow at all.
Gender obviously exists as a social construct made up of the properties and behaviors that have been associated with said constructs.
I'm not sure you understand how logic works.
>social constructs are real
>something that is made up in someone's head is real
LOL you are fricking moron
>concepts don't real!
lmao
>I just won't buy it!
Ok.
>concepts don't real!
Ok then show me the picture of the concept itself, not someone doing it. I'll wait.
>the arbitrary societal norms
Define those instead of giving a circular definition
Morph should've been more like his exiles counterpart
>uses they/them pronouns
Hard pass. At least they didn't change Mystique into a nonbinary.
No they changed her into a dad
No because Morph would absolutely turn into something really gross or unflattering during sex for a laugh. But if I punch him in the face, suddenly it's a "hate crime"
Yuck, Why did they force political propaganda , it should just be cool meta battles
You know this is the odd rare instance where morph being nonbinary would make sense but I don't recall him being ever uneasy with calling himself a man. Is there any instance recorded where that was the case? Or at least somewhere he reaffirmed that he feels non-binary?
I don't get why Morph is nonbinary. It's usually high school girls who want to be unique who identify as nonbinary. I'd like to see more male, he's dreamy.
>I don't get why Morph is nonbinary.
because when you can change your gender on the fly; you eventually dont give a frick
Morph is a an adult. Not giving a frick would be just being in his base human form. All this nonbinary stuff screams that he's insecure and immature about his own identity.
But, let's be honest. This is just injecting nobinary bullshit into a show that would be better off without it. Morph was written out of the show for a good reason. It's only a matter of before you people decide to frick up Mystique too.
Take your meds now.
You people are legit sick.
Don't let the door hit your prolapsed sphincter on the way out.
>It's only a matter of before you people decide to frick up Mystique too.
Uhm sweaty, ackshually Mystique and Morph are trans!
Why Bill? Just why?
>All this nonbinary stuff screams that he's insecure and immature about his own identity.
That's how I see him in the show. He's traumatized by being experimented by Mr. Sinister but for the most part acts like the younger brother of the group which without Ice man on the show fits the role.
If gay Morph means no gay Bobby I'll take it.
That picture looks like he's melting.
>I don't get why morph, someone that's basically a ken doll until they transform into a man or women, and someone that is comfortable presenting as either a man or woman, is non-binary!
Then you're pretty fricking stupid, huh?
No anon, he keeps refering to Morph as HE, as in, my friend keeps fricking it up himself and identifying Morphe as a HE/HIM, and yet gets upset when people do it to him.
Yes, these people have a mental illness, I am convinced of it now where I wasnt before.
>No anon, he keeps refering to Morph as HE
Bitch, was I talking to you?
he doesn't want to be called gay so he decided to renounce his gender so he'd be considered straight
What the show didn't really explain beyond one scene is that Morph sticks with the blank puddy look because his original look is deformed. The sunken eyes thing is how he normally looks; having to get rid of them to appear as he did pre-death is a transformation. He'd rather just not be associated with that and his connection to Sinister so he modified his identity entirely.
Morph should date iceman
Also he should get his telepathic powers he had in the comics
>professing your love to a straight man
Oh, boy. Here we go again...
>b-b-but some authors confirmed wolverine is bi
Doesn't matter. Wolverine's attraction goes heavly towards women and the only man he was paired with was Hercules (in another reality), a masculine man, which is something Morph clearly isn't.
>gayshit
Deleting this from my drive when I get home. They just can't help themselves.
The original cartoon never had gayshit smut pandering like this
wtf
No,
>Was born a man
>Looks like a cancer patient when not morphed
>Probably had wolverine aids now
Wasn't born a man.
I-800-Come on now
You can complain but black face Morph was born genderless.
HAI LOGAN R U READY 4 MY CONFESSION TEEHEE UWU ^_^
I'm supposed to be calling that thing a woman? kek
Is that a burn victim?
8 trillion variations of ONE (1) joke
cope harder, your kind are dying out and there's nothing you can do to stop it 😉
Nice bait satan I'll bite it
>Hugh Jackman is gay
>there was already a precedent for Logan becoming gay in another universe
Realistically can they push Logan/Morph shit even further? The main criticism of S1 is that it only had hetero couples.
>The main criticism of S1 is that it only had hetero couples.
This is your brain on Twitter. You should rope it up in every universe homosexual.
Logan is gay now, chud. Deal with it.
>Alt timeline
Yeah ok man.
>Alt timeline
Just like Alan Scott
Yeah I know, I know many such cases
It's character assassination, and when they're done with him he'll be just as unwanted as nigthor, spider-monkey, and nu-Laura.
I'm sure your butt buddies on twitter and discord will love it, everyone else will just stop buying gayverine books. Guys generally don't want to read about a 5'6 manlet getting blasted in the ass while trying to look tough, or Elliot Paige would already be on the credits for Wolverine LULZ.
>Hugh Jackman is gay
He just likes old hags, anon.
And Singer's parties. Sure.
NTA, but i read the blinds. Too many times does it bring up that he's gay. Like Chris Pine
No, because mutants are a threat to humanity and should be exterminated.
>You're the one throwing a tantrum about other people asking to you to say the world is flat and you're the one demanding other people change how they act to soothe your tantrum.
Cool story bro.
This entire theead has turned into you crying because people don't want to participate in your roleplay.
>YOU'RE CRYING
he said, wiping away his tears
Nothing says newbie like not knowing why you would delete and repost after forgetting >
Why don't you post 50 more r/Cinemaphile reaction pics to really tell us how not-mad you are?
>Nothing says newbie like not knowing why you would delete and repost after forgetting >
"I'm so mad I deleted my post to reformat it because... uhm.... I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK OF ME AND YOU'RE A newbie!"
>make error in post
>repost it correctly
>YOU'RE SO MAD THAT I WILL NOW PHONEPOST
so if posting a lot of replies is what makes you mad, what does that make you?
we're not the ones screaming how "we don't care' really we don't, really please believe me this isn't bothering me. I won the argument"
>we're not the ones screaming we don't care
I don't think anybody here is screaming, it's text after all, but you certainly seem upset
>NO U
I accept your concession
really?
okay
we're not the ones TYPING how "we don't care' really we don't, really please believe me this isn't bothering me. I won the argument"
the guy mad because people won't use his version of words is jumping on technicalities
Anon, take a step back and read your posts. They're angry and insecure, teying to pretend otherwise.
>I-I was just shitposting the whole time I don't really care.
SOMEbody didn't dilate btoday
Anon, you're so assblasted that all you're doing is repeatedly saying "I'm not mad you are" and trying to justify fricking up a typo while being so insecure that you cared enough to correct it.
You've lost any argument you were trying to hold.
>Screeching
I accept your concession
Nothin says "mogging" like doubleposting to say you're winning an argument.
It'll be nice when polgays move on to the next disney property so we can talk about XMen 97 in peace
yep, then you can discuss all the ways you want to frick Morph in peace. Tally Ho
Morph has the same physical appeal as Mystique (shapeshifting into literally any woman you want for sex and intimacy) but instead of wanting to assassinate world leaders or go dancing they just want to chill with some beer and play video games
Morph is the perfect partner.
why couldnt morph just morph into magneto to undo that EMP blast?
heh, fricking dumb writers.
His powers don't work like that. He can only mimic physical abilities.
Try as he might. Morph will never be as gay as them.
xaviers expressions during that bar scene made me laugh so much.
he made the gayest looking faces.
Everytime Xavier's head moved I expected him to lean in and kiss Magneto
thinly veiled /misc/tard thread I see
>Wolverine's gay now
Man, he just plowed every woman he wanted for decades, now he wants bussy.
We've yet to see Logan reciprocate or even acknowledge Morph's feelings. Morph telling him as Jean that he loves him while he's in a coma doesn't exactly mean they're now in a committed relationship.
It's probably just a thing that every gay and lesbian goes through where they crush hard on someone that will never reciprocate.
but morph can fully turn into a female, not only just change the outside appearance.
honestly, im jealous. id definitely would go gay for morph.
>pound a brewski and shoot the shit with your bro
>he turns into the hottest girl on the planet for a quickie
>back to hanging out
Seems pretty nice to me tbh
ITT: Perfectly normal "women" upset that we aren't celebrating mental illness
How many veganas are we talking about?
>go into Xmen thread
>transphobia
i thought xmen was about accepting people WTF
Growing is realising that Xmen are wrong and you should murder everyone
Shut up Magnus.
Has there been an edit of that meme of Logan looking at Jean but with Morph edited on it instead of her?
Valid and canon.
This board is literally just tumblr-lite. Complete with actual genuine sjws and trannies.
o ok merci pour ta contribution
Feel free to leave any time
You'll never fit in
This one is for you, Morph!
What the hell is going on here?
It's not gay when it's a genderless shapeshifter
I fricking hope morph dies (again)
>chuds ruin another x-men thread
Can't you homosexuals go back to being mad about Stellar Blade or something? This show deserves better discussion.
>Perverts shit up another IP with groomerism
>”OMG why are bigots so heckin mean to us!?”
the hate for asexuals and non-binary people is real af. Good thing we're gonna get less of it when all the boomers die off. a better world is just a dead generation away guys, don't give up that fight queens.
>Morph can change into the Hulk
>Huge size/strength difference
What’s his ceiling? Can he cosmic?
According to showrunners he can only do physical skills, and in a lower level (if he and Quicksilver compete, Quicksilver would still outrun him).
The other pro is that unlike Mystique, you won't get savagely murdered by him afterwards.
so... did a modern writing team get ASSIGNED to do 90s nostalgia, and decided to make it as 2024 as possible, just out of spite?
Everything but the spite part is true.
What the frick
I thought Morph was the Jean Grey who kissed Logan for a time.
I realized Logan can smell Morph by a mile, so it was probably the real Jean Grey anyway.
>You want to take me back, why?
>So, we can go bowling? Shoot some hoops!?
>Or is it love your after
What would Logan had said if he wasn't freaked out by sudden Morph turning into Jean?
>I thought Morph was the Jean Grey who kissed Logan for a time.
If you're talking about the Genosha massacre episode, Morph can only use physical powers and Jean was using her psychic powers clear as day.
Now, I know Morph being raging homosexual may be a shock to people. But there was a lot of big hints over the course of the show.
No, it wasn't making a erection joke while he thought he was watching Wolverine shower.
No, it wasn't turning into Jean to confess his feelings to Wolverine.
In fact, it's the fact that in every scene Morph's in, his clothes are actually just apart of the transformation.
Think about it, everytime he changes into the likes of Magik, Hulk, or Jean in the show, the clothes also change. This massive homosexual has been walking around bare naked 24/7, knowing full well, pretending to wear clothes.
>Would you a Morph?
You'd be gay not to.
this board/thread is more funny than any cartoon i've seen recently tbh
Get fricked Silk
>Notice nobody is talking about phenotypes, we're talking about intersex and genetics.
hahaha holy shit
one final gift from this thread
Point given.
Bruh dead ass 0 of those were mine and I'm the one you called pinkman
I love how you all try this shit. Yeah, it wasn't you who made a bad post at the beginning, you're just a late byatander!
No, dude. In that post you're alleging, you're very clearly alluding to typing
, and from basic reading comprehension, also
and
, so why not
?
No those just weren't my posts. Those ones u linked this time were tho
The last one harps on "bio essentialism," which I made an effort to quote twice in
.
So, you did type at least one of the posts in them. The one I said. All to try to muddy the topic by pulling the definition of sex into another context nobody was talking about.
You'll accuse me tricking u again I'm sure but thats my mistake, that last one is not me just the others
Also bio essentialism is a common phrase in these kinds of discussions anon...
fricking.
amazing.