• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

BBC makes education films for small kids that claim there's over 100 genders. Imagine being forced to pay the government to make this shit.

Jan 9, 2018
892
1,344
405
Beyond the practical result I've already criticized (that this kind of teaching, far from being about self-acceptance, leads directly into normalizing extraordinarily harmful things, from chest binding to hormones and mutilating surgeries), there remains the simple observation that multiplying sex into an astrological "spectrum" of genders doesn't help anyone. It implicitly teaches that the basic, given cases (male, female) require some kind of perfection to attain to "cis". In other words, if you're a boy but not overtly masculine enough, perhaps you're really a femme-boy-whatever, and not just a boy. This slicing and dicing means children take themselves apart even more than before, rather than the truly inclusive case of simply recognizing that being male or female is all you need for membership in your sex, without subgroups vying for some kind of purity. It's deeply regressive and all who promote is are wolves in sheep clothing, they absolutely never should be allowed around children or families again.
 
Last edited:

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
6,189
7,901
625
feel like gender fluidity exacerbates many body dysmorphia issues. people "feel male" so they will alter their body to attain some ideal "male body" which itself is a problematic narrative perpetuated by a patriarchal society.

if the goal is eliminating the gender dichotomy, it seems like physically changing bodies to reflect that dichotomy is a one step forward two steps backward situation. gender binary being "illusory" unless it is used as inspiration to physically change your body, that's a nonsense set of beliefs. ironically many gender fluid types seem to only reinforce the old tropes, embracing them as truly validating, while also simultaneously condemning them.

if more of an emphasis was on acceptance, not just social acceptance of others but acceptance of yourself, we would all be in a lot more healthier place.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: crowbrow

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
1,882
2,095
375
Of all the intelligence we have as humans, of all of the energy we spend on passionately fighting for our causes; in this genders, we forget that we have one common enemy. He wins every battle, steals our life-force in the night and cannot be stopped. Yet, we allow this demon, this serpent and this silent monster to occupy our thoughts, influence our decision and leave us running terrified when the chips are down. His name? Death.

We are the only species, in the known universe, with the abilities that we posses. Descended from the Gods themselves, made of matter contained within the brightest stars and possessing enough power to hold back nature herself. What do we do with these gifts? Do we stop Death in his tracks? Nahh, lets talk about how a wang don't make you a man.
 

triplestation

Member
Dec 23, 2008
21,922
3,397
1,290
NYC
i dont get how we're still talking about genders in 2019 like a bunch of dumb cavemen

im a CT471 section 159-M class Y and i love hard plastics
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,148
2,910
670
Canada
I am more surprised that video editing software has gotten intuitive enough that you can literally make educational films with your cock. I am glad to see the software was inclusive enough to include black men.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
No, your blatant prejudice is yours, no matter how much you project and obfuscate.

My points stand, and you are doing an excellent job of proving them with every post you've made in this thread.

Time for you to deflect and tell me how I don't understand all the complex nuance, how dictionary definitions are subjective (lol) and double down on some more new-age loon-think. It's ok, everyone else is wrong. You're the only one who can see the truth, and anyone who challenges what you say must be a simpleton or insincere.

Glad we had that talk.
I'm the one saying let people identify as whatever they want, while others insist there's no such thing as multiple genders, and I'm the prejudiced one?
I post a definition representative of the one people use to create this whole mess in the first place, while also admitting it's flawed and doesn't actually solve the underlying problems, and you think I'm somehow defending it?
I've stated multiple times that having tons of gender labels causes problems (which agrees with almost everybody in this thread) and I'm the only one who can arrogantly see the truth?

You're trying way too hard to be angry.


My initial post simply states that the words "gender" and "sex" don't mean the same thing, and that this is just another way to help people feel comfortable; which is incredibly obvious, given that the article in the OP exists in the first place. It's literally just a semantic argument: These two words don't mean the same thing, even though some people think they do.
This could not be more simple to understand, but some of you guys are too busy being pissed off at nothing.

I've been repeating myself over and over again because posters don't read the threads, and instead just want to target specific sentences. If somebody wants to post an objective definition of gender that somehow proves it's identical to sex, and that all of the people who claim otherwise all over the world - the reasons for this very thread's existence - are all wrong and the differentiation of gender is all just some mass-hysteria or hallucination or something, then I'll be happy to learn a lesson and admit I was wrong.

Or feel free to just recognize that two entirely separate words with entirely separate etymologies and roots, and entirely different interpretations across entirely different sciences across entirely different cultures of the world may actually not mean the same thing. I'll be happy to see that too.

But no, you're right. It's probably just me. :messenger_sad_relieved:
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,548
10,208
980
If you need 4 paragraphs to explain how you're right and the person challenging you is wrong, it might be an idea to check if the challenge revolves around lengthy projection and obfuscation.

Also, don't employ fallacies such as projecting emotion onto your challenger or assuming they haven't read things simply because they weren't part of the challenge raised. Logically, those are not things you can possibly know for certain and talking as if you do shows a fondness for narratives when facts are absent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
925
1,359
395
I'm the one saying let people identify as whatever they want,
while others insist there's no such thing as multiple genders,
The two are not mutually exclusive.

Evidently, people can identify as "whatever they want". It's their right. They need not permission from me or anyone else. Identify away. But that doesn't necessarily mean that which they're identifying as has any basis in reality.

You seem to be struggling with this distinction.

(…)

My initial post simply states that the words "gender" and "sex" don't mean the same thing, and that this is just another way to help people feel comfortable; which is incredibly obvious, given that the article in the OP exists in the first place
.

The problem is that, even though a noble goal on the face of it, helping people feel comfortable should not come at the expense of truth.

It's literally just a semantic argument: These two words don't mean the same thing, even though some people think they do.
No, it's not just semantics.

There already was a term other than sex that conveyed the idea of expressing one's libido: sexuality.
Sex and sexuality are indeed separate and there isn't a univocal relationship between the two.

But by coining the term Gender, whose meaning no one on the other camp can be brought to successfully define, the implication is suggested, that there is just as much factuality behind biological sex as there is behind gender and that the two should therefore be treated as being on equal footing for all intents and purposes.

Until they're ready to do the 101 work of presenting an objective definition, they shouldn't be taken seriously because no serious debate can ever proceed without first establishing the meaning of the term, You cannot argue about the existence of something which you can't even properly define.

(…)

If somebody wants to post an objective definition of gender that somehow proves it's identical to sex, and that all of the people who claim otherwise all over the world - the reasons for this very thread's existence - are all wrong and the differentiation of gender is all just some mass-hysteria or hallucination or something, then I'll be happy to learn a lesson and admit I was wrong.
No, sir.
The people making the claim 100 genders exist, the burden is on them to provide a definition, not on me. The people making the claim that gender is different from biological sex, they too have to meet the exact same burden. First, they must define the term and then they must provide the evidence.

Please note that I have not claimed gender is the same thing as biological sex, or that the idea of 100 different genders existing is false. Had I made such claims, I would aso be under the obligation to define the term. The burden of proof would also be on me.

Is this finally clear?

Or feel free to just recognize that two entirely separate words with entirely separate etymologies and roots, and entirely different interpretations across entirely different sciences across entirely different cultures of the world may actually not mean the same thing. I'll be happy to see that too.
Yes!
But you still have to first define the feakin' meaning you're using the word for!

But no, you're right. It's probably just me. :messenger_sad_relieved:
It seems to me it's getting increasingly clear it is indeed the rather poor quality of your arguments that's the problem here.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
The problem is that, even though a noble goal on the face of it, helping people feel comfortable should not come at the expense of truth.
Alright, I read your whole response, but this is the only part I haven't already covered. Or rather, I did cover it, but you've repeated the important part.
The sheer irony of this that the people bitching about lots of genders are doing so because they're uncomfortable with the idea. They claim it's simply untrue because it clashes with their notions of what the words mean.

Meanwhile, other people insist the opposite is true. The word has been successfully defined, as I've already posted, but it simply makes people uncomfortable so they don't accept it.
Whether somebody is uncomfortable with the definition or not is irrelevant. It's the definition being adopted, regardless of one's personal feelings on the matter. To the people who have adopted it, it is an objective definition.

You are correct that the burden of proof lies on creating concrete definitions for each of the 100+ genders. I don't know if that's actually happened or not, because I hardly follow this kind of thing, because it's exceptionally rare in my neck of the woods. But even when definitions and labels are provided, like "Gender fluid," and "non-binary" and whatever else has cropped up in the past few years, even those make people uncomfortable to the point of insisting there's no such thing. The idea that comfort should not interfere with truth is laughably ironic, since the people who hold steadfast to the idea that only two genders (or whatever you want to call it) exist are doing so solely because they want to remain comfortable. Denying there's a diversity among people is a direct opposition to obvious truths.

The choices on the table at this point are to simply continue denying it and getting mad at all of the changes unfolding, or to acknowledge that whatever you think it means is irrelevant, and it's time to adopt a new definition. It's not going away.
Maybe a new word can be created instead. If insisting that "gender" means "sex" is so vastly important, then we can just call it "Sex = gender," and the reflection of sexual norms can just be called "Sploinker" or something. The word is also irrelevant. In the world we live in, the simple fact is that sex does not equal gender. For better or for worse, that's just how it is.

And so we return to my original point: Attempting to identify a gazillion types of people to accurately label every possible situation for the way a person thinks is not a very good idea. But to deny those people exist is factually untrue. If we absolutely must insist on labels, having a ton of labels is a better option than having only two. The labels exist solely to provide some comfort for people. Educating students about the myriad of possibilities is a better idea than assuming no such myriad exists. It's nothing more than a way to make kids feel comfortable with themselves, and it's not inherently a bad thing.

All of the problems that have stemmed from the new-age gender-theory can more accurately be described as sex-related problems, because the word "sex' has a far more objective definition than "gender." If you want to insist that "gender" means "sex," then so be it; you can call gender-expectations whatever you want. That's still just a semantic argument. The root cause of the issues is tied to chromosomes and genitalia, not whatever word you decide to call them. And if the problem is more in line with getting mad when a trans person says "I identify as 'she' instead of 'he,'" then either just man up and call people whatever the hell they want to be called, because it's a stupid thing to be mad about, or continue on your day using whatever language you prefer, as is your right. If the person is so sensitive that they create an uproar when you say a wrong word, they're not worth your concern anyway.
 
Last edited:

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
925
1,359
395
Alright, I read your whole response, but this is the only part I haven't already covered.
Rather unsuccessfully, I'd add.

The sheer irony of this that the people bitching about lots of genders are doing so because they're uncomfortable with the idea.
You are asserting this. This is a claim you're making.
Provide evidence that's the case.
You cannot read minds, so spare me the Lady Lafayette tent, tens bucks a session number you seem to be trying to pull off here.

They claim it's simply untrue because it clashes with their notions of what the words mean.
As I said before, I am not making such claim. Please address that sort of reply to the appropriate replier.

Meanwhile, other people insist the opposite is true. The word has been successfully defined, as I've already posted, but it simply makes people uncomfortable so they don't accept it.
If I recall correctly you acknowledged the definition is both self-contradictoty and non-objective. Would you be backpedalling here?

Whether somebody is uncomfortable with the definition or not is irrelevant.
Discomfort is not the issue here, though. Accuracy and reliability are.
It's noteworthy, though, that you think making people feel less uncomfortable was such a noble goal just a moment ago, but it now seems to be the least of your concerns.

All discomfort is equal, but some types of discomfort are more equal than others, I suppose. You're catering to your target audience, I would imagine.


I
t's the definition being adopted, regardless of one's personal feelings on the matter. To the people who have adopted it, it is an objective definition.
Oh, look! Someone who doesn't know what objective means!
"It's objective to them".
Please.

You are correct that the burden of proof lies on creating concrete definitions for each of the 100+ genders. I don't know if that's actually happened or not, because I hardly follow this kind of thing,
One could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
On second thought, though _

because it's exceptionally rare in my neck of the woods. But even when definitions and labels are provided, like "Gender fluid," and "non-binary" and whatever else has cropped up in the past few years, even those make people uncomfortable to the point of insisting there's no such thing.
You do struggle with basic concepts.

Just because someone defines and asserts doesn't mean their definitons are reasonable and their assertions truthful. What about this basic distinbction don't you get?

The idea that comfort should not interfere with truth is laughably ironic, since the people who hold steadfast to the idea that only two genders (or whatever you want to call it) exist are doing so solely because they want to remain comfortable.
I've already told you I am not making such assertion.
Twice, now.
Cut back on the Brie, will you?

And would you mind not counting on a Tu Quoque logical fallacy?
Your case is already poor, without you having to make it even worse.

Denying there's a diversity among people is a direct opposition to obvious truths.
Strawman fallacy.
No oen here is, certainly I'm not, making the case there's no diversity among human beings when it comes to sex. Please have the bare minimum of intelectual honesty.

The choices on the table at this point are to simply continue denying it and getting mad at all of the changes unfolding, or to acknowledge that whatever you think it means is irrelevant, and it's time to adopt a new definition.
Appeal to Popularity Fallacy.

You're really outdoing yourself.
Are you bent on running the full gamut of Logical falalcies?


It's not going away.
Maybe a new word can be created instead. If insisting that "gender" means "sex" is so vastly important, then we can just call it "Sex = gender," and the reflection of sexual norms can just be called "Sploinker" or something. The word is also irrelevant. In the world we live in, the simple fact is that sex does not equal gender. For better or for worse, that's just how it is.
Your capacity for missing the point is startling.

1. You would still need to define "
Sploinker".
Sploinker".
2. You would still need to show it comports with reality, by providing evidence.

If you don't believe objective reality exists, just come forth and spell it out.

And so we return to my original point: Attempting to identify a gazillion types of people to accurately label every possible situation for the way a person thinks is not a very good idea. But to deny those people exist is factually untrue.
What a silly remark, in what already amounts to something of a forum career in silliness.
I'm not denying these people exist. I'm asking for an objective definition and evidence in support of the claim that those definitions comport with reality.

I realize so far you fare rather poorly in those two camps.
Should I abandon all hope?

If we absolutely must insist on labels, having a ton of labels is a better option than having only two. The labels exist solely to provide some comfort for people.
No, they exist to accurately describe reality.
Truth is of no importance to you, that much you've made abundantly clear.

Educating students about the myriad of possibilities is a better idea than assuming no such myriad exists.
The burden of proof is first and foremost on those who first claim 100 differnet genders exist. That's how this works.

(…)

All of the problems that have stemmed from the new-age gender-theory can more accurately be described as sex-related problems, because the word "sex' has a far more objective definition than "gender."
You first need to establish gender exists, after having defined it, that is.
First, you provide an objective definition. Then you provide the evidence.
This is how we go about establishing what's true.

Maybe you'd rather watch tea leaves spin or stare at the constellations?
Is that your preferred method?

If you want to insist that "gender" means "sex," then so be it;
I'm not making that claim.

With each post, the level of your arguments seems to be going down.
But do carry on.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
Man, you're taking being literal to an extreme here. I can't parse out every single detail about what the hell people are talking about, because I don't entirely understand it myself. All I know for sure is that these new definitions are taking over. I also know that there's more to the human mind than simple binaries.

Too many quotes, so I'll just reply in bold.


You are asserting this. This is a claim you're making.
Provide evidence that's the case.
You cannot read minds, so spare me the Lady Lafayette tent, tens bucks a session number you seem to be trying to pull off here.
Come on, dude. This entire debacle of a thread is because people disagree with other people's definitions of things. If this kind of thing didn't make people uncomfortable, there wouldn't be any reason for an article on such a thing.

As I said before, I am not making such claim. Please address that sort of reply to the appropriate replier.
That's why I made a point of not using the word "you." You already said that you don't necessarily disagree with the point, so I made it pretty damn clear that I'm not singling you out.


If I recall correctly you acknowledged the definition is both self-contradictoty and non-objective. Would you be backpedalling here?
No. You find a reason to argue over nothing, yet again.
You asked for a definition. I successfully posted one. It's not the best definition, but it's the one they went with. Thus, I've succeeded in posting it; and they've succeeded in their own minds of establishing one, regardless of whether other people find it inconclusive.



Discomfort is not the issue here, though. Accuracy and reliability are.
It's noteworthy, though, that you think making people feel less uncomfortable was such a noble goal just a moment ago, but it now seems to be the least of your concerns.
Different types of discomfort require different levels of concern. A person being harassed, bullied, and made to feel like a freak is a vastly different level of discomfort than somebody having a problem with using whatever words somebody wants to be called. Accuracy is important, I agree. I've already said MANY times that I don't think the plethora of labels is a good idea.


All discomfort is equal, but some types of discomfort are more equal than others, I suppose. You're catering to your target audience, I would imagine.
Wrong. Firstly, I don't have a target audience. I'm a fan of treating people equally, which includes prudes and bigots, my favorite people, and anybody in between.
Not all discomfort is equal, as I said above.



Oh, look! Someone who doesn't know what objective means!
"It's objective to them".
Please.
I do know what objective means. See, this is what I'm talking about. It's like you're unable to see the nuance between me talking about my own feelings versus me explaining what others may think. Even if I thought there were only two genders, I'd at least try to see what the hell other people are talking about, but it's like you have no concept of how to empathize with different opinions. How many times do I have do I have to use the word "they" instead of "me" before you understand the difference?


Just because someone defines and asserts doesn't mean their definitons are reasonable and their assertions truthful. What about this basic distinbction don't you get?
Again, lol. What part of 'It's good enough for them,' do you not understand? It doesn't matter whether you agree with it, or if I agree with it, or if anybody agrees with it. It's what they're going with.


Cut back on the Brie, will you?
I don't know what this means. I know you're probably talking about Brie Larson, and I know some people don't like her, but I don't follow celebrities and their publicity scandals, so I don't understand the reference.


And would you mind not counting on a Tu Quoque logical fallacy?
Your case is already poor, without you having to make it even worse.
Again, I didn't mention you. Again, a large part of this problem stems from the misconception that the word "gender" is equivalent to "sex," which it's not. Again, because people are unable to wrap their minds around such a distinction, discomfort appears. There's no logical fallacy at play.


Strawman fallacy.
No oen here is, certainly I'm not, making the case there's no diversity among human beings when it comes to sex. Please have the bare minimum of intelectual honesty.
Again, not "you."
Here is one from page 1 so there you go. No straw men were harmed in the making of my post.


Appeal to Popularity Fallacy.

You're really outdoing yourself.
Are you bent on running the full gamut of Logical falalcies?
I'm not appealing to popularity because I'm not saying I agree with it. I've said numerous times that I want the entire opposite of many gender-defining terms, which is anything but popular.
You can list off all the fallacies you want, but you're still just arguing against something I'm not saying.



Your capacity for missing the point is startling.
Likewise.

1. You would still need to define "
Sploinker".
Sploinker".

2. You would still need to show it comports with reality, by providing evidence.
They have provided evidence. People just don't like it.
Here are some explanations...
Here's some more information...
Here are some more...
And some more...
All found with a quick Google search.

There's just as much explanation and evidence in those as any other shit people decide to believe. Why this bothers people more than any other idea is beyond me.... unless it's because of comfort levels.




If you don't believe objective reality exists, just come forth and spell it out.
Of course I do. That's why I'm not denying that many genders can exist.


What a silly remark, in what already amounts to something of a forum career in silliness.
I'm not denying these people exist. I'm asking for an objective definition and evidence in support of the claim that those definitions comport with reality.
I didn't say you're denying them. :messenger_tears_of_joy: Again, I didn't use the word "you." I'm not targeting you.
I was referencing my first post in the thread which caused all these people to dogpile me, even though I actually agree with what almost everybody is saying. Nuance, dude. Nuance!



No, they exist to accurately describe reality.
Truth is of no importance to you, that much you've made abundantly clear.
Yes, they exist precisely for that purpose. That's why there's so damn many of them. They're attempting to explain every possible instances of every possible combination of persons.


The burden of proof is first and foremost on those who first claim 100 differnet genders exist. That's how this works.
100 is overkill, but plenty have been defined, as I showed above. That's the proof they need to justify their points.
I've been trying really hard to avoid analogies, but dammit...
It's kind of like religion. Religion is a complete crock of shit, but it's good enough for literally billions of people. Objectivity doesn't matter in that regard, because definitions they've created are good enough for them. This follows a very similar vein of thought. Gender is at least observable, though, so it at least has some semblance of a basis in reality.



I'm not making that claim.
Fuck. I did use the word "you" there. My bad. That wasn't my intention.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
4,572
3,841
440
Of all the intelligence we have as humans, of all of the energy we spend on passionately fighting for our causes; in this genders, we forget that we have one common enemy. He wins every battle, steals our life-force in the night and cannot be stopped. Yet, we allow this demon, this serpent and this silent monster to occupy our thoughts, influence our decision and leave us running terrified when the chips are down. His name? Death.

We are the only species, in the known universe, with the abilities that we posses. Descended from the Gods themselves, made of matter contained within the brightest stars and possessing enough power to hold back nature herself. What do we do with these gifts? Do we stop Death in his tracks? Nahh, lets talk about how a wang don't make you a man.
It's the me, me, me culture of attention deficit morons. You know you got trouble when there's a big meeting at work with 150 people in the company conference room and half the young people are staring at their phone or sending each other Snapchat photos.

Funny. I don't see too many of the older managers, directors and VPs doing that. They are sitting there watching the presentation.

Hey everyone! Stop what you're doing right now, stand up straight and look at me right now!

It's about 8:30pm and I'm going make a bowl of yogurt with a sliced banana.

Now please comment, like or donate to my Patreon page because I'm a lazy fuck and I need people to reply or else I feel like a loser. I need recognition.


Thanks............ (and don't forget to donate!)

Oh, don't forget to stop by next week when I explain why I'm not a man. But a biological being of anti-feminine traits. It's not the same. I'll explain why because I assume you care about it so much in life.
 
Last edited:

Derekloffin

Member
Jun 17, 2013
523
144
465
So they weren't "born this way"?
Even assuming there is zero genetic influence on homosexuality (as I recall this says there may be some genetic influence just not a causal gene), that does not mean that homosexuality is learned behavior. For example twins have different finger prints despite being genetically identical and that is because there is factors other than genes which can decide this sort of thing.
 

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
925
1,359
395
Man, you're taking being literal to an extreme here. I can't parse out every single detail about what the hell people are talking about, because I don't entirely understand it myself. All I know for sure is that these new definitions are taking over. I also know that there's more to the human mind than simple binaries.

Too many quotes, so I'll just reply in bold.
You replied the way you did and now I can't quote you without having to manually dig each graph buried deep in the text.
 
Aug 29, 2018
1,407
1,966
405
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
Well, they are the most understandable and realistic.

Male and Female. Trans is already covered since trans-women are women etc is the commonly accepted situation.
Neither. Gender Neutral covers this in an "I don't know" sense and Non-Binary covers it in a "I am not one of those basic two" sense.
Undecided. Gender-fluid and Gender-queer cover that. You can change between genders or you not sure where you are, or will end up, in terms of gender.

So yeah I think that even with the most deepest of deep gender conversations everything is basically covered in those 6 categories.

Once you go outside of that basic one or the other, neither, fluid/undecided listing you are REALLY getting creative and it all becomes a bit meaningless.

Abimegender - a gender that is profound, deep and infinite.
Adamasgender - a gender that refuses to be categorized.
Affectugender - a gender that is affected by moodswings.

That's just 3 of the A's. :)

I like "Anongender". A gender that is unknown to both yourself and others. So it's basically gender-neutral but extra special.

Biogender - A gender that feels connected to nature in some way.
Collgender - the feeling of having too many genders simultaneously to describe each one.

Get. Ready.

Demi-vapor - continuously drifting to other genders, feeling spiritually transcendental when doing so. :)
Genderblank - a gender that can only be described as a blank space. When gender is called into question all that comes to mind is a blank space.

Let's make sure the kids are taught these two.
Heliogender - a gender that is warm and burning.
Hydrogender - a gender which shares qualities with water.

Another favourite that evolves from the previous 2 quite nicely:
Venngender - when two genders overlap creating an entirely new gender, like a Venn diagram. :)

Check it out:

Xumgender - Never being satisfied with your gender due to constant self-doubt or identity issues, causing one to compulsively search and seek out something that fits as perfect as possible-to find "the gender" or "the one truth" - though one will never be found due to one's neurotype, because words will never be able to describe it, and/or its own properties paradox itself. This frequent anxiety and doubt even causes this gender to feel imperfect to the individual.
Do they want a reincarnated Hitler, because this is how you reincarnate Hitler.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Human mammals reproduce sexually with a male and female partner. The male and female each contribute an essential part to the formation of offspring.

What does a third, fourth, etc etc gender contribute to the reproductive process? Is there a Z chromosome that is passed on to produce more of these non-binary genders? Is there a hidden mode of sexual reproduction that non-binary genders are able to engage in beyond the male-female mode? I'm just a stupid conservative who hates science, so I was hoping the enlightened ones on this board could help me understand the biology behind these claims.

The proper term is "gender expression", meaning "expression of traits associated with the male or female gender". Gender expression doesn't mean "go ahead and express your unique snowflake self with a made-up gender".
 

Saruhashi

Member
Oct 2, 2018
1,179
2,745
485
Human mammals reproduce sexually with a male and female partner. The male and female each contribute an essential part to the formation of offspring.

What does a third, fourth, etc etc gender contribute to the reproductive process? Is there a Z chromosome that is passed on to produce more of these non-binary genders? Is there a hidden mode of sexual reproduction that non-binary genders are able to engage in beyond the male-female mode? I'm just a stupid conservative who hates science, so I was hoping the enlightened ones on this board could help me understand the biology behind these claims.

The proper term is "gender expression", meaning "expression of traits associated with the male or female gender". Gender expression doesn't mean "go ahead and express your unique snowflake self with a made-up gender".
I know that and you know that but I think for kids growing up now, especially young lads, they are being bombarded with ideas like toxic masculinity etc.
Then, just like other cults, what follows is an offer of some form of escape from that "original sin" or a way to "be better".

It surely can't take much for young boys to realize that all everyone seems to be doing is talking shit about men.
A young lad sits down to play what should be a fun game of Ms Monopoly (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ms-monopoly-hasbro-launches-new-board-game-that-gives-more-money-to-women-players-than-men/) and gets told basically "fuck you the girls get a head start you little male privileged shit".

So how long before they are fucking begging for a way out?
Maybe you're non-binary, or gender neutral? Maybe dress a bit differently and act a bit differently and you can be the one getting the "leg up".

You can even see it starting to affect girls too with this hysteria around TERFs and "white women voted for Trump" nonsense. How long before it's just easier to "identify" as one of the other 100+ genders?

It's getting to the stage that "male" and "female" are coming with a lot of baggage. Especially when it comes to conversations about "privilege".

Telling kids that there are 100+ genders is odd and I wonder what is the point or if they even realize what they are doing?

Feels like taking your kid to a "100+ flavors" ice cream place and then kind of passive-aggressively having a go at them because they want to pick vanilla or chocolate.
What!? There's 100 flavors here and you just want to go with "privileged Strawberry" and "toxic Vanilla"!?
Wow, OK kid. I saw this amazing kid on the YouTubes and ZE was trying "buzzword berry blast with pseudo-scientific sprinkles and woke sauce".
But you do you... I guess... privileged little Vanilla Boy...
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
I know that and you know that but I think for kids growing up now, especially young lads, they are being bombarded with ideas like toxic masculinity etc.
Then, just like other cults, what follows is an offer of some form of escape from that "original sin" or a way to "be better".

It surely can't take much for young boys to realize that all everyone seems to be doing is talking shit about men.
A young lad sits down to play what should be a fun game of Ms Monopoly (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ms-monopoly-hasbro-launches-new-board-game-that-gives-more-money-to-women-players-than-men/) and gets told basically "fuck you the girls get a head start you little male privileged shit".

So how long before they are fucking begging for a way out?
Maybe you're non-binary, or gender neutral? Maybe dress a bit differently and act a bit differently and you can be the one getting the "leg up".

You can even see it starting to affect girls too with this hysteria around TERFs and "white women voted for Trump" nonsense. How long before it's just easier to "identify" as one of the other 100+ genders?

It's getting to the stage that "male" and "female" are coming with a lot of baggage. Especially when it comes to conversations about "privilege".

Telling kids that there are 100+ genders is odd and I wonder what is the point or if they even realize what they are doing?

Feels like taking your kid to a "100+ flavors" ice cream place and then kind of passive-aggressively having a go at them because they want to pick vanilla or chocolate.
What!? There's 100 flavors here and you just want to go with "privileged Strawberry" and "toxic Vanilla"!?
Wow, OK kid. I saw this amazing kid on the YouTubes and ZE was trying "buzzword berry blast with pseudo-scientific sprinkles and woke sauce".
But you do you... I guess... privileged little Vanilla Boy...
We cannot deny nature for very long until it rubber-bands back (usually with violence and overdramatic expression). Feast upon the fallout after puritanism (with prohibition being the last big "win" for them) to see how this will go. yes there is confusion but it can only last for a while longer.

I do agree that both men and women are "looking for a way out" and are stumbling through gender with a great deal of confusion and coming to incorrect conclusions about themselves as a result.

Males have an unfathomable propensity for enduring hardship, even multi-generational hardship. Western men in particular are more disposed toward going it alone (though men need socialization, too), which is where things are headed anyway. All of our cultural mythos and shared heritage praises the sacrificial lamb, the noble warrior, the king who commands with justice, the inventor who brings forth an idea, the pioneer who conquers the savage and the wilderness (these tropes are both historical and archetypal).

What will remain as "real men" retreat is an oversaturated market of so-called "soy boys" who are little more than playthings for malicious women, while the vast majority of normal women become dissatisfied with what's available on the market. My sons will be chased by women by the time they're old enough, if I raise them decently enough, that is how far things will swing back.

An environment of confusion forces individuals to seek clarity. The mob will continue being the mob.
 

Hudo

Member
Jul 26, 2018
2,118
2,094
400
But gender fluidity is not the whole picture, though? There are at least 3 more aggregate states! Gender solid, gender gas and gender plasma. Where do those fit in? Where are all the Twitter-experts on this when you need them? Hiding all in Zoe Quinn's bathroom?

Also, binary genders? That's so 1940s. We're already at quantum level, my friends! Wherein you put your gender through a Hadamard gate and achieve gender superposition, meaning that you are every gender at once until someone actually looks at your privates. And if you happen to travel with company, don't forget to leave your Tensorproducts at home, so your opinions and views spread equally (without offering a choice) among your peers!

My fucking god... why do some of those people have to be so vocal and forceful about all of this? Why can't they just...live like they want to and let other people just live as they want to as well. Why are there almost always some people who feel forced to play missionary? I feel for all those who are actually LGBTQ people now, maybe even living in a country where it's illegal and/or even life-threatening to do so (openly). All those militant assholes are doing, is making it harder for everyone. So fucking short-sighted and simple-minded.
 
Last edited:

Stilton Disco

Member
Aug 22, 2014
4,664
951
600
UK
I came to a realisation recently about all this.

All this 'gender identity' stuff is the modern equivalent to all the other fasion trends we'd normally get each decade. Punk, hippies, grungers, emos, new romantics, greasers, beatniks, mods, all had the same kind of rebellious rejection of conventions, youth focus and attitudes towards their being 'the future'.

The difference is, this time it's not based on shared experiences, philosophy, a reaction to hardships or expression of freedom, its just vapid, shallow narcissism.

In the 80's a girl dressed in leather with a bubblegum pink mohawk that would sleep around, swear and spit constantly was just a punk. An individual, yes, but a part of something bigger than themselves, and still obviously a normal girl apart from their tastes.

Now they're their own unique singular collection of genders, pronouns and oppressions, united with others only in their shated labels, but divided against every other label even if they're a part of the same overall trend.

It's why there's no new music trend to go with it like there always was in the past. You can't have music when you've got no soul, and this generation sure as hell doesnt have one of those.
 
Last edited:

KojimaLovesMiyazaki

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
14,458
23,232
1,400
Australia
I came to a realisation recently about all this.

All this 'gender identity' stuff is the modern equivalent to all the other fasion trends we'd normally get each decade. Punk, hippies, grungers, emos, new romantics, greasers, beatniks, mods, all had the same kind of rebellious rejection of conventions, youth focus and attitudes towards their being 'the future'.

The difference is, this time it's not based on shared experiences, philosophy, a reaction to hardships or expression of freedom, its just vapid, shallow narcissism.

In the 80's a girl dressed in leather with a bubblegum pink mohawk that would sleep around, swear and spit constantly was just a punk. An individual, yes, but a part of something bigger than themselves, and still obviously a normal girl apart from their tastes.

Now they're their own unique singular collection of genders, pronouns and oppressions, united with others only in their shated labels, but divided against every other label even if they're a part of the same overall trend.

It's why there's no new music trend to go with it like there always was in the past. You can't have music when you've got no soul, and this generation sure as hell doesnt have one of those.
The difference this time around is that it stems from a religion: intersectional feminism. It’s not just a fashion statement; it’s the outward expression of a mind virus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeresJohnny

Breakage

Member
Mar 3, 2014
6,015
2,454
565
Pure hubris. A country like Britain can't indulge in the luxury of destroying its societal norms and still expect to be at the forefront on the world stage.
This latest initiative from the BBC isn't surprising. It's just another example of how culturally degraded this country has become since the so-called "revolution" in the 1960s.
 
Last edited: