Homo Sapiens are a dimorphic species of mammal. We reproduce by combining small and large gametes. Males have sperm, females have ovum. Homo Sapiens cannot change sex.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
Cultural Marxists encourage abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, “carrier women,” drugs, miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. This is a reflection of what the Cultural Marxists preach: white reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.
Steersman, this is one of your typically sophist arguments. To carry your argument to its (il)logical conclusion would be nonsensical.
Every human ever born was physiologically intended to be either a small gamete producer = XY, or a large gamete producer = XX. The fact that the potential may be affected by age, surgery, accident or genetic mutation doesn't affect the reality of dimorphism.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
Cultural Marxists encourage abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, “carrier women,” drugs, miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. This is a reflection of what the Cultural Marxists preach: white reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.
What I have a problem with is your assertion, Mr. Steersman, that my ovaries must still be in working order for me to be a woman. I assure you that even though I’m well past menopause, I am very much still a woman. I didn’t all of a sudden grow a penis and testicles and my breasts didn’t shrink away to nothing.
🙂 Depends on how you define "woman" -- there's no intrinsic meaning to the word, as with most if not all words. We can define them any way we wish -- pay them extra.
However, the standard definition for "woman" -- the one that most "women" and feminists have bet the farm on -- is "adult human female". And "female", according to those standard biological definitions I quoted above, means "produces ova". If a person isn't producing ova on a regular basis then they don't qualify as females -- nor as women if you go by that definition.
But IF you want to redefine woman otherwise THEN you might be able to keep your "woman" card at menopause. For example, using the definitions that Colin Wright & Emma Hilton had published in the UK Times (below), we might say that "woman" is defined as "an adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality". Which would include "women" who've reached menopause.
See their definitions for the sexes:
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
🙂 But sorry Pearl, it really isn't "sophism". The standard biological definitions are, in fact, foundational to all of biology. And they stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either or two types, that those with neither are thereby sexless:
See:
Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
There really isn't any "wiggle room" there. You either define "woman" such that the term isn't joined at the hip with "female" -- maybe, "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality"? -- or you accept "women" lose their "woman" card at the onset of menopause.
You might have some interest in a conversation I'm having with "SCA" on the topic:
And I'm NOT arguing against sexual dimorphism. But that doesn't mean that everyone is on one side or the other on any given trait -- many people can be in the middle, or entirely outside any given binary.
As with "male" and "female" which are not exhaustive categories. The same way that Christianity & Islam might comprise a binary of religions, but there are those who are neither Christian nor Muslim, who are a-theists.
Standard biological definitions accept that there are many members of many species who are neither male nor female. Might help the conversation if more were to at least consider that scientific perspective.
What I'm saying, what the biological definitions are saying is that to qualify as a female, as an adult human female, one MUST have functioning ovaries. Which, of course, NO transwoman has or will EVER have. Ergo, those transwomen are not nor will ever be adult human females, AKA women. They are males and men if they still have their nuts attached, and sexLESS eunuchs if they don't.
In neither case are they entitled to play in women's sports, those designated for the sole use of adult human females (nominally speaking at least).
There are men, women and the confused. Those of us who are men or women should tolerate and accept the confused but not be forced to embrace their confusion.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
Cultural Marxists encourage abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, “carrier women,” drugs, miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. This is a reflection of what the Cultural Marxists preach: white reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.
Confusion reigns supreme. How can someone believe you can't say you're black when you're white but you can say you're a woman when you're a man? It's a topsy turvy world right now. Everyone has their own truth. The fact based world is over. Sheesh.
I am a short, unathletic white woman. Can I identify as a member of the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team and demand that I be accepted as such? If not, why not?
Should dogs be allowed to compete in the Kentucky Derby? Dogs and cats are the same: mammal, four-legged, hairy, bilaterian, tail-equipped pets. Horses and dogs, pretty much the same as well. https://youtu.be/VrzqXFR9oYk?feature=shared ("Cat wants a new bottom" Nickelodeon Catdog)
Absolutely not. It is an insult. I've never cared for the meat market of the beauty pageants. As a trans widow, I can tell you, these dudes are seeking exactly the limelight of displays like this. They gather narcissistic fuel and amplified affirmation. It will lure confused teen boys into this world, when they've already been watching hypno-sissy porn. Jordan Peterson is right. It is not beauty and pornography is not for a healthy brain. For your information, an older woman whose husband is suddenly galavanting out "dressing" has now contacted me about how trapped she is, how she has no choice, she put her life into this marriage. This is the reality.
The transpest generates fresh hell like this insanely oxymoronic question every day.
Should women have their prostate examined? Now that men are parasiting on women's scarce medical resources to have OB/GYNs participate in their sexual fetishes and examine their bonus holes, and the medical "profession" is going along with it… Sure, why not?
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
Cultural Marxists encourage abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, “carrier women,” drugs, miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. This is a reflection of what the Cultural Marxists preach: white reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.
Someone is looking to be reported. Then they can say they were censored.
All I can say in reply is
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
Jesus Of Nazareth aka God.
"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
Nope. Not in the world in which live. Men who want to dress up and pretend to be women can, of course do so, as can women who want to pretend to be men. But they cannot do so in classrooms where impressionable children can be indoctrinated with biological lies instead of truths (spoiler alert: there are only two genders - no amount of hand waving and foot stamping changes that). Further, they cannot/should not/ must not enter their fantasy world and demand that everyone else share it with them.
Women and girl athletes and beauty queens and ballerinas and bathroom-users are not men and men do not belong in those categories. Ditto men and boy athletes and models and dancers and bathroom users.
Homecoming QUEENS are foolish objectifications of absurd community stereotypes and are part of an archaic patriarchy BUT they are girls/women not boys/men, If you want that sort of thing, at least get your head out of something as idiotic as Lamarckian Genetics and look at things from a Lense of reality, not politically-based delusion.
Confusing and distorting the world of children, especially through the Lense of psychosexual distortion can have permanent distorting impact on the child so exposed. But that seems to be what the manipulators want.
I don't. And you shouldn't, either, in my opinion.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
Cultural Marxists encourage abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, “carrier women,” drugs, miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. This is a reflection of what the Cultural Marxists preach: white reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.
But I think you're unclear on the concept that "sex" and "gender" are two entirely different kettles of fish, if not different species from different genera -- fish and fowl.
You might least reflect on what the late great Justice Anton Scalia had to say on the topic:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
Is the "Miss Universe" contest for those who are feminine -- whether they're sporting dicks or not -- or is the contest for those who are female (nominally at least)?
"Gender" has not acquired that use in general parlance, just among a group of extreme activists. The rest of us still use "gender" synonymously with "sex."
A major part of the problem is that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin has entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for both sex and gender.
See this tweet by evolutionary biologist Colin Wright:
CW: "1/ Most confusion about "gender" results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
However, I rather doubt you can say that Merriam-Webster, Justice Scalia, and the British Medical Journal -- not to mention many other equally credible sources -- qualify as "extreme activists":
No doubt there's a lot of antiscientific claptrap under the umbrella of "gender". But there IS some merit in using "masculine" and "feminine" as two halves of a "gender spectrum" of different "personality traits". Sort of like the reddish half and the bluish half of the colour spectrum.
But using "male" and "female" as labels for those traits tends to muddy the waters. As does using " 'gender' synonymously with 'sex' " -- gender, defined as personalities, is an entirely different kettle of fish from sex, defined as functional gonads of either of two types.
You DO recognize that personality traits are different from sexes? That some personality traits are more common to one sex than to the other?
You might take a look at some standard definitions for the sexes -- there's nothing at all there about personalities:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Yes, you have identified the ways that people have started redefining gender en masse over the last few years so that anyone paying attention will end up with a confusing list of competing definitions. A social contagion has taken over masses of young people, and many previously respectable institutions like Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, and (I'll take your word for it) the British Medical Journal, have chosen to place ideology ahead of biological science, free thought, and free expression. Even the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics have been captured. This wave of gender ideology has taken over nearly all American universities and many public and private institutions.
Until 5 minutes ago, 99.999% of us used 'sex' and 'gender' nearly interchangeably. Yes, we more often used the word 'gender' for the grammatical sense. When we talked about the roles that society traditionally assigned to men vs. women we used the phrase 'gender roles.' Much ink has been spilled in the last 50 years about how these have, and have not changed.
Yes, I understand that 'masculine' and 'feminine' are perfectly useful and understandable descriptors for different personalities. That is in fact my point. Liking dark colors, feats of strength and speed, "rough and tough" environments, extreme sports, inter alia, are aspects of personality. They do not determine sex. Whether our chromosomes produced a body that was designed to create large slow gametes or small motile gametes is what makes us sexed bodies. There are only two kinds that can produce one of the two gametes that combine to reproduce the species. There are genetic anomalies (intersex, etc.) that result in humans who still either produce one of the two types of gametes, or none at all. There is no spectrum of sex.
If you choose to describe people in terms of masculine vs. feminine there are certainly degrees to which someone's personality might fit society's archetypes for each, but many people who are still of either the male or female sex do not have easily categorizable personalities along those lines. There's a massive range of personalities possible within the male sex and another range within the female. I differ with the ideologues in that I do not believe each variation of woman (or man) is a separate, non-woman (or non-man) gender. Instead of saying, "Men are tough, with deep voices, do not express 'soft' emotions, like football, walk tall and confident, and drive big trucks, so if I don't fit that I must not be a man. I must be trans gender or non-binary or bumblefuck gender," I'd love for men to just have more freedom to be whoever they are and still be called men.
When you say "we used the phrase 'gender roles' " and "I understand that 'masculine' and 'feminine' are perfectly useful and understandable descriptors for different personalities" you're still basically accepting that sex and gender are entirely different kettles of fish.
Try thinking that ALL that "male" and "female", as sexes, MEAN is having different types of gonads, functional or otherwise. Though standard biological definitions, the ones I've quoted above, are based on the functional variety. And try thinking that ALL that "gender" MEANS, at best, is different personality types, some of which of may be more common in males, and some more common in females, but that none, or very few, are unique to either sex.
You might try reading a very good essay at 4th Wave Now, co-authored by Colin Wright who's been featured here, that has a nice graph of those personality differences by sex:
The problem with "gender ideology" is the insistence -- by the more dogmatic, intellectually dishonest, or scientifically clueless of its devotees -- that sex and gender are identical, that changing one's gender is the same as changing one's sex. Which is more or less exactly what you're saying those "99.999% of us" are doing. So who is most responsible for the transgender clusterfuck?
I could just as soon said "sex roles" or "sex role stereotypes." I think we are agreeing on nearly everything except maybe the semantics of 'gender.' I am a big fan of Colin Wright's work and have followed what he has to say. I am rather skeptical of the figure of only 28% overlap in personalities between male and female, as I think the definitions of 'masculine' and 'feminine' are highly subjective. I don't believe in a real, indefinable, yet innate 'gender identity' separate from personality. I believe in the male sex, the female sex, and a range of personality traits that overlap but not completely.
CD: "I could just as soon said 'sex roles' or 'sex role stereotypes.' "
You say po-ta-toe, they say po-tat-oe. If everyone is referring to the same phenomena by different words then what's the problem? What is needed is a thesaurus, a translation from the two languages or terminological systems. The English say "cat & dog", the French "chat & chien". Just realize the language that's being spoken.
But those "sex roles" and "stereotypes" are NOT any part of what it means to be male and female, at least by the standard biological definitions. They just CORRELATE, to a greater or lesser extent, with our sexes. For example, heights correlate with our sexes, but height isn't part of the definitions for the sexes. See my Lies, Damned Lies, & Statistics for some details on that idea.
CD: "... skeptical of the figure of only 28% overlap in personalities ..."
The 4th Wave now article has a couple of links in the beginning to articles that discuss different interpretations; see:
Gets pretty convoluted pretty quickly and generally outside my salary range. But kind of get the impression that that figure in 4th Wave Now is a composite, an amalgamation of different traits, though I don't follow the rationale or process. However, I think they're saying that some traits show that 28%, many others show less. For example, the averages for intelligence are pretty much the same, though there's some difference in the "spreads", in the standard deviations.
CD: "I don't believe in a real, indefinable, yet innate 'gender identity' separate from personality."
Kind of think you're missing the point: in the lexicons of SOME people, gender & gender identity is more or less synonymous with personality types, with masculinity & femininity. "Cat & dog" versus "chat & chien".
The problem is generally that some psychologists & others insist on saying sex and gender are synonymous -- which is what you're saying 99.999% of us have been doing up until yesterday:
"Others have argued that biological and sociocultural factors are typically intertwined, and thus the distinction between the terms sex and gender should be abandoned (Yoder, 2003)."
Which is flat-out contradicted by the biological definitions for the sexes by which ALL that "male" and "female" MEAN is "produces sperm" and "produces ova" -- period. Absolutely NOTHING else is part of those definitions, nothing else is required to qualify as members of those categories:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
No wonder the whole issue is such a dog's breakfast and a clown show -- people using entirely different definitions, and many not even realizing that that is what is happening. Something out of Abbott & Costello's Who's On First:
But do YOU realize that, by those biological definitions, the sexes themselves are entirely separate from the personality traits that are more or less typical of the sexes, that merely correlate with our sexes?
Homo Sapiens are a dimorphic species of mammal. We reproduce by combining small and large gametes. Males have sperm, females have ovum. Homo Sapiens cannot change sex.
This madness needs to stop now.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
Cultural Marxists encourage abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, “carrier women,” drugs, miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. This is a reflection of what the Cultural Marxists preach: white reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.
https://nordicresistancemovement.org/what-is-cultural-marxism/
.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Not all members of Homo Sapiens can produce either sperm or ova. Actually, about a third of us, at any one time, can't; ergo, sexless.
HTH ... 😉🙂
Steersman, this is one of your typically sophist arguments. To carry your argument to its (il)logical conclusion would be nonsensical.
Every human ever born was physiologically intended to be either a small gamete producer = XY, or a large gamete producer = XX. The fact that the potential may be affected by age, surgery, accident or genetic mutation doesn't affect the reality of dimorphism.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
Cultural Marxists encourage abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, “carrier women,” drugs, miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. This is a reflection of what the Cultural Marxists preach: white reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.
https://nordicresistancemovement.org/what-is-cultural-marxism/
What I have a problem with is your assertion, Mr. Steersman, that my ovaries must still be in working order for me to be a woman. I assure you that even though I’m well past menopause, I am very much still a woman. I didn’t all of a sudden grow a penis and testicles and my breasts didn’t shrink away to nothing.
How the 'Grift Right' Gimps for the Left . . . Steven Crowder almost became Mel Gibson and Kanye West by accident . . .
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
🙂 Depends on how you define "woman" -- there's no intrinsic meaning to the word, as with most if not all words. We can define them any way we wish -- pay them extra.
However, the standard definition for "woman" -- the one that most "women" and feminists have bet the farm on -- is "adult human female". And "female", according to those standard biological definitions I quoted above, means "produces ova". If a person isn't producing ova on a regular basis then they don't qualify as females -- nor as women if you go by that definition.
But IF you want to redefine woman otherwise THEN you might be able to keep your "woman" card at menopause. For example, using the definitions that Colin Wright & Emma Hilton had published in the UK Times (below), we might say that "woman" is defined as "an adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality". Which would include "women" who've reached menopause.
See their definitions for the sexes:
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
So which definition do you prefer? Truth or consequences; your call ... 😉🙂
Evolution is heterosexual.
Fuck you and your Jewish god, you kikesucking Zionist ass-whore.
🙂 But sorry Pearl, it really isn't "sophism". The standard biological definitions are, in fact, foundational to all of biology. And they stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either or two types, that those with neither are thereby sexless:
See:
Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
There really isn't any "wiggle room" there. You either define "woman" such that the term isn't joined at the hip with "female" -- maybe, "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality"? -- or you accept "women" lose their "woman" card at the onset of menopause.
You might have some interest in a conversation I'm having with "SCA" on the topic:
https://substack.com/profile/21792752-steersman/note/c-40476732
And I'm NOT arguing against sexual dimorphism. But that doesn't mean that everyone is on one side or the other on any given trait -- many people can be in the middle, or entirely outside any given binary.
As with "male" and "female" which are not exhaustive categories. The same way that Christianity & Islam might comprise a binary of religions, but there are those who are neither Christian nor Muslim, who are a-theists.
Standard biological definitions accept that there are many members of many species who are neither male nor female. Might help the conversation if more were to at least consider that scientific perspective.
Evolution is heterosexual.
Fuck you and your Jewish god, you kikesucking Zionist ass-whore.
So All this means...what? Men can be women?
Because THAT is the topic.
What? How do you reach that conclusion?
What I'm saying, what the biological definitions are saying is that to qualify as a female, as an adult human female, one MUST have functioning ovaries. Which, of course, NO transwoman has or will EVER have. Ergo, those transwomen are not nor will ever be adult human females, AKA women. They are males and men if they still have their nuts attached, and sexLESS eunuchs if they don't.
In neither case are they entitled to play in women's sports, those designated for the sole use of adult human females (nominally speaking at least).
Evolution is heterosexual.
Fuck you and your Jewish god, you kikesucking Zionist ass-whore.
"How do you reach that conclusion?"
By reading what The Topic is.
There are men, women and the confused. Those of us who are men or women should tolerate and accept the confused but not be forced to embrace their confusion.
Fully agree!!!
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
Cultural Marxists encourage abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, “carrier women,” drugs, miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. This is a reflection of what the Cultural Marxists preach: white reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.
https://nordicresistancemovement.org/what-is-cultural-marxism/
.
Confused, yes. Mentally ill, yes. Am I cautious around mentally ill people in free, open society, yes.
Confusion reigns supreme. How can someone believe you can't say you're black when you're white but you can say you're a woman when you're a man? It's a topsy turvy world right now. Everyone has their own truth. The fact based world is over. Sheesh.
They are stepping further and further away from what it means to stand for feminism and they don’t even realise it.
Actually not just feminism, but Reality.
both
Feminism: A Jewish Psyop to Demonize White Women . . .
http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-psychological-operation-to-blame-white-women/
I am a short, unathletic white woman. Can I identify as a member of the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team and demand that I be accepted as such? If not, why not?
I am, too! Let’s be Globetrotters together! 🤩
Should dogs be allowed to compete in the Kentucky Derby? Dogs and cats are the same: mammal, four-legged, hairy, bilaterian, tail-equipped pets. Horses and dogs, pretty much the same as well. https://youtu.be/VrzqXFR9oYk?feature=shared ("Cat wants a new bottom" Nickelodeon Catdog)
The only differences between kosher and halal are...
#1...in kosher slaughter, the rabbi must fellatiate all the male animals, this has a calming effect... for the rabbi...
#2...in halal slaughter, the imam must lick the anus of the animal, this makes the imam slightly more agitated...
Absolutely not. It is an insult. I've never cared for the meat market of the beauty pageants. As a trans widow, I can tell you, these dudes are seeking exactly the limelight of displays like this. They gather narcissistic fuel and amplified affirmation. It will lure confused teen boys into this world, when they've already been watching hypno-sissy porn. Jordan Peterson is right. It is not beauty and pornography is not for a healthy brain. For your information, an older woman whose husband is suddenly galavanting out "dressing" has now contacted me about how trapped she is, how she has no choice, she put her life into this marriage. This is the reality.
You Have GOT to be kidding me! There are a lot of Insane people running around.
If you were not Born with Fallopian Tubes and a Uterus, no matter What The Voices say...You are not a woman.
The transpest generates fresh hell like this insanely oxymoronic question every day.
Should women have their prostate examined? Now that men are parasiting on women's scarce medical resources to have OB/GYNs participate in their sexual fetishes and examine their bonus holes, and the medical "profession" is going along with it… Sure, why not?
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
Cultural Marxists encourage abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, “carrier women,” drugs, miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. This is a reflection of what the Cultural Marxists preach: white reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.
https://nordicresistancemovement.org/what-is-cultural-marxism/
Sexual Fetish is as good a term as any to describe transgender activism as any.
"When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything."
GK Chesterton
I know its often used/misused(?) that doesn't mean it doesn't describe what we're talking about in this thread.
Evolution is heterosexual.
There are cases of Asexual reproduction, but exception that proves the rule, comes to mind.
Go fuck yourself with your faggot Jew god . . . kikesucking zionist ass-whore . . .
Someone is looking to be reported. Then they can say they were censored.
All I can say in reply is
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
Jesus Of Nazareth aka God.
"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
Gen. 12:3
Good Luck With that.
Nope. Not in the world in which live. Men who want to dress up and pretend to be women can, of course do so, as can women who want to pretend to be men. But they cannot do so in classrooms where impressionable children can be indoctrinated with biological lies instead of truths (spoiler alert: there are only two genders - no amount of hand waving and foot stamping changes that). Further, they cannot/should not/ must not enter their fantasy world and demand that everyone else share it with them.
Women and girl athletes and beauty queens and ballerinas and bathroom-users are not men and men do not belong in those categories. Ditto men and boy athletes and models and dancers and bathroom users.
Homecoming QUEENS are foolish objectifications of absurd community stereotypes and are part of an archaic patriarchy BUT they are girls/women not boys/men, If you want that sort of thing, at least get your head out of something as idiotic as Lamarckian Genetics and look at things from a Lense of reality, not politically-based delusion.
Confusing and distorting the world of children, especially through the Lense of psychosexual distortion can have permanent distorting impact on the child so exposed. But that seems to be what the manipulators want.
I don't. And you shouldn't, either, in my opinion.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
Cultural Marxists encourage abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, “carrier women,” drugs, miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. This is a reflection of what the Cultural Marxists preach: white reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.
https://nordicresistancemovement.org/what-is-cultural-marxism/
I still can't believe that headlines like this are a thing in 2023. 🥴🫠
I wonder if you had a man would he agree that there’s no “right” or “wrong” answer?
In a sea of endocrine mimics who's to say that xx and xy are all that determine phenotype?
"transwomen" -- compound word like "crayfish" which ain't:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trans_woman#Usage_notes
But I think you're unclear on the concept that "sex" and "gender" are two entirely different kettles of fish, if not different species from different genera -- fish and fowl.
You might least reflect on what the late great Justice Anton Scalia had to say on the topic:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
Is the "Miss Universe" contest for those who are feminine -- whether they're sporting dicks or not -- or is the contest for those who are female (nominally at least)?
"Gender" has not acquired that use in general parlance, just among a group of extreme activists. The rest of us still use "gender" synonymously with "sex."
A major part of the problem is that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin has entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for both sex and gender.
See this tweet by evolutionary biologist Colin Wright:
CW: "1/ Most confusion about "gender" results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
1. Synonym for sex (male/female)
2. A subjective feeling in relation to one's sex
3. Societal sex-based roles/expectations
4. Sex-related behavior
5. Personality traits"
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1234040036091236352
However, I rather doubt you can say that Merriam-Webster, Justice Scalia, and the British Medical Journal -- not to mention many other equally credible sources -- qualify as "extreme activists":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1 (see the Usage Guide);
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
No doubt there's a lot of antiscientific claptrap under the umbrella of "gender". But there IS some merit in using "masculine" and "feminine" as two halves of a "gender spectrum" of different "personality traits". Sort of like the reddish half and the bluish half of the colour spectrum.
But using "male" and "female" as labels for those traits tends to muddy the waters. As does using " 'gender' synonymously with 'sex' " -- gender, defined as personalities, is an entirely different kettle of fish from sex, defined as functional gonads of either of two types.
You DO recognize that personality traits are different from sexes? That some personality traits are more common to one sex than to the other?
You might take a look at some standard definitions for the sexes -- there's nothing at all there about personalities:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
Yes, you have identified the ways that people have started redefining gender en masse over the last few years so that anyone paying attention will end up with a confusing list of competing definitions. A social contagion has taken over masses of young people, and many previously respectable institutions like Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, and (I'll take your word for it) the British Medical Journal, have chosen to place ideology ahead of biological science, free thought, and free expression. Even the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics have been captured. This wave of gender ideology has taken over nearly all American universities and many public and private institutions.
Until 5 minutes ago, 99.999% of us used 'sex' and 'gender' nearly interchangeably. Yes, we more often used the word 'gender' for the grammatical sense. When we talked about the roles that society traditionally assigned to men vs. women we used the phrase 'gender roles.' Much ink has been spilled in the last 50 years about how these have, and have not changed.
Yes, I understand that 'masculine' and 'feminine' are perfectly useful and understandable descriptors for different personalities. That is in fact my point. Liking dark colors, feats of strength and speed, "rough and tough" environments, extreme sports, inter alia, are aspects of personality. They do not determine sex. Whether our chromosomes produced a body that was designed to create large slow gametes or small motile gametes is what makes us sexed bodies. There are only two kinds that can produce one of the two gametes that combine to reproduce the species. There are genetic anomalies (intersex, etc.) that result in humans who still either produce one of the two types of gametes, or none at all. There is no spectrum of sex.
(CONTINUED)
If you choose to describe people in terms of masculine vs. feminine there are certainly degrees to which someone's personality might fit society's archetypes for each, but many people who are still of either the male or female sex do not have easily categorizable personalities along those lines. There's a massive range of personalities possible within the male sex and another range within the female. I differ with the ideologues in that I do not believe each variation of woman (or man) is a separate, non-woman (or non-man) gender. Instead of saying, "Men are tough, with deep voices, do not express 'soft' emotions, like football, walk tall and confident, and drive big trucks, so if I don't fit that I must not be a man. I must be trans gender or non-binary or bumblefuck gender," I'd love for men to just have more freedom to be whoever they are and still be called men.
When you say "we used the phrase 'gender roles' " and "I understand that 'masculine' and 'feminine' are perfectly useful and understandable descriptors for different personalities" you're still basically accepting that sex and gender are entirely different kettles of fish.
Try thinking that ALL that "male" and "female", as sexes, MEAN is having different types of gonads, functional or otherwise. Though standard biological definitions, the ones I've quoted above, are based on the functional variety. And try thinking that ALL that "gender" MEANS, at best, is different personality types, some of which of may be more common in males, and some more common in females, but that none, or very few, are unique to either sex.
You might try reading a very good essay at 4th Wave Now, co-authored by Colin Wright who's been featured here, that has a nice graph of those personality differences by sex:
https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-child-is-born-in-the-wrong-body-and-other-thoughts-on-the-concept-of-gender-identity/
And if you want or need a primer on the statistics involved, see my post on the topic:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics
The problem with "gender ideology" is the insistence -- by the more dogmatic, intellectually dishonest, or scientifically clueless of its devotees -- that sex and gender are identical, that changing one's gender is the same as changing one's sex. Which is more or less exactly what you're saying those "99.999% of us" are doing. So who is most responsible for the transgender clusterfuck?
I could just as soon said "sex roles" or "sex role stereotypes." I think we are agreeing on nearly everything except maybe the semantics of 'gender.' I am a big fan of Colin Wright's work and have followed what he has to say. I am rather skeptical of the figure of only 28% overlap in personalities between male and female, as I think the definitions of 'masculine' and 'feminine' are highly subjective. I don't believe in a real, indefinable, yet innate 'gender identity' separate from personality. I believe in the male sex, the female sex, and a range of personality traits that overlap but not completely.
CD: "I could just as soon said 'sex roles' or 'sex role stereotypes.' "
You say po-ta-toe, they say po-tat-oe. If everyone is referring to the same phenomena by different words then what's the problem? What is needed is a thesaurus, a translation from the two languages or terminological systems. The English say "cat & dog", the French "chat & chien". Just realize the language that's being spoken.
But those "sex roles" and "stereotypes" are NOT any part of what it means to be male and female, at least by the standard biological definitions. They just CORRELATE, to a greater or lesser extent, with our sexes. For example, heights correlate with our sexes, but height isn't part of the definitions for the sexes. See my Lies, Damned Lies, & Statistics for some details on that idea.
CD: "... skeptical of the figure of only 28% overlap in personalities ..."
The 4th Wave now article has a couple of links in the beginning to articles that discuss different interpretations; see:
https://sfonline.barnard.edu/eight-things-you-need-to-know-about-sex-gender-brains-and-behavior-a-guide-for-academics-journalists-parents-gender-diversity-advocates-social-justice-warriors-tweeters-facebookers-and-ever/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-personalities/201904/sex-differences-in-brain-and-behavior-eight-counterpoints
Gets pretty convoluted pretty quickly and generally outside my salary range. But kind of get the impression that that figure in 4th Wave Now is a composite, an amalgamation of different traits, though I don't follow the rationale or process. However, I think they're saying that some traits show that 28%, many others show less. For example, the averages for intelligence are pretty much the same, though there's some difference in the "spreads", in the standard deviations.
CD: "I don't believe in a real, indefinable, yet innate 'gender identity' separate from personality."
Kind of think you're missing the point: in the lexicons of SOME people, gender & gender identity is more or less synonymous with personality types, with masculinity & femininity. "Cat & dog" versus "chat & chien".
The problem is generally that some psychologists & others insist on saying sex and gender are synonymous -- which is what you're saying 99.999% of us have been doing up until yesterday:
"Others have argued that biological and sociocultural factors are typically intertwined, and thus the distinction between the terms sex and gender should be abandoned (Yoder, 2003)."
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Future-of-Sex-and-Gender-in-Psychology%3A-Five-to-Hyde-Bigler/ed0684c86058e9983a0e71f07d38333fae66096b?p2df
Which is flat-out contradicted by the biological definitions for the sexes by which ALL that "male" and "female" MEAN is "produces sperm" and "produces ova" -- period. Absolutely NOTHING else is part of those definitions, nothing else is required to qualify as members of those categories:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
No wonder the whole issue is such a dog's breakfast and a clown show -- people using entirely different definitions, and many not even realizing that that is what is happening. Something out of Abbott & Costello's Who's On First:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg
But do YOU realize that, by those biological definitions, the sexes themselves are entirely separate from the personality traits that are more or less typical of the sexes, that merely correlate with our sexes?
Dr. Boghossian, have you seen Triggernometry's Neil Tyson episode? Thoughts?
Evolution is heterosexual.