Nice try, but you don't know what you're talking about.I don't think "science" means what you think it means, when scientific organizations explicitly disagree with how JK frames sex and gender and the interplay between them. Que the pivot to claiming science is now overrun with SJWs, so now science is whatever anyone wants to say it is.
Not all women menstruate. For example, (post) Menopausal women do not menstruate.Women menstruate. Why is this so hard? Why do you want to pervert language and bastardize it?
Women menstruate. Is that not a factual statement?
Once again ignoring the entire argument because he doesn't understand reductio ad absurdum.
The fact that menstruation is specific to being female does not and has not changed, even slightly.Not all women menstruate. For example, (post) Menopausal women do not menstruate.
Also language changes as our knowledge about ourselves and our world changes. Biology is a fascinating subject.
They still did menstruate at one time.Not all women menstruate. For example, (post) Menopausal women do not menstruate.
Also language changes as our knowledge about ourselves and our world changes. Biology is a fascinating subject.
And over time it'll lead to problems if people misclassify their birth.Biology is a fascinating subject.
First off, you can stop the strawmaning as I stated your claim of what upsets "you" about Ree was reasonable. I too take issue with someone creating websites that harass and bully people and mass harassment on social media.Prey tell, how does the general discourse around here lead you to believe what I mentioned ree does, and has recently done, show to be the same outside the confines on this forum?
This. The whole trying to frame this place as the same as the other is a total farce.
You have no argument, You have indoctrination.Once again ignoring the entire argument because he doesn't understand reductio ad absurdum.
I spelled it out pretty damn clearly, and as usual you have nothing to say but deflect deflect deflect.
So Trans Rights should be different from everyone elses? What about Human rights? Why can't we all be treated the same? I can't go into a womam's locker room because I have a Penis. I cant play sports against women because I have a penis. This is basic level fairness. Same should apply to anyone else. People can play dress up and do all this other stuff to make themselves happy but violating OTHER people's rights is a no go.This is such a silly strawman. No one disagrees on any matter of science or biology, the only debate is over how to treat people and where they're allowed to go. Those aren't medical concerns they're social and you know this.
I don't know why everyone retreats to this "I'm just a humble scientist" routine, do you really think that convinces anyone?
Again look, if you don't think trans people have rights, then you probably aren't going to be asking the question "Does she support trans rights?" But that was the question that was asked and that's what I answered, dude.
She's not the only transphobe, fine, that's really not something we have to litigate.
For a more specific consequence: males are dangerous to women in a way that females simply aren't statistically, to the point where the question "is this person actually male" when assigning someone to a women's prison is absolutely critical to get right and not obfuscate.And over time it'll lead to problems if people misclassify their birth.
For example, when governments send out census surveys wanting to know who and how many people live in a house, they are tabulating that data for long term planning.... schools, hospitals, and very likely services related to people born men or women.
If people are born one sex and classify themselves as another because they see gender/sex boxes as interchangeable, it muddies the waters as to the real number of people who have innies or outies.
The argument is you can go into the women's locker room if you want to.So Trans Rights should be different from everyone elses? What about Human rights? Why can't we all be treated the same? I can't go into a womam's locker room because I have a Penis. I cant play sports against women because I have a penis. This is basic level fairness. Same should apply to anyone else. People can play dress up and do all this other stuff to make themselves happy but violating OTHER people's rights is a no go.
Then tell me why one thing I said was false. I'll wait.You have no argument, You have indoctrination.
Transmen mentstruate. Is that not a factual statement?Women menstruate. Is that not a factual statement?
I saw a few pc performance vids on YouTube if it can help, I decided to go with the ps5 version even if I have a 3070 and 5600x cpu and didn't want to possibly have to deal with a possible poor performance at launchI guess I should ask in here then, if I pick this up and have a 3080, am I good to go to play it on max settings at 1440 P? I doubt 4K will work.
As for them, not wanting to cover it, I think it’s stupid, but ultimately, I’m still going to use their videos. Unlike them I can separate moronic aspects of decisions made, or things said, and make use of the product. Similar to how I don’t give a shit what the author of these books has to say about any of her views, and still enjoy this game.
Which is bullshit because that's not why the rule was implemented in the first place. People of the SAME biology use tbe same room. You don't habe Urinals in women's bathroom for a reason.The argument is you can go into the women's locker room if you want to.
All you got to do is make a stand you feel like a woman.
Yeah. On Ultra (RT off) I was getting 60+ fps. Inside hogwarts though, it'll be a stuttery mess regardless.I guess I should ask in here then, if I pick this up and have a 3080, am I good to go to play it on max settings at 1440 P? I doubt 4K will work.
As for them, not wanting to cover it, I think it’s stupid, but ultimately, I’m still going to use their videos. Unlike them I can separate moronic aspects of decisions made, or things said, and make use of the product. Similar to how I don’t give a shit what the author of these books has to say about any of her views, and still enjoy this game.
I forgot to address your second statement. Again, you are being reductive and dishonest. My statement that "many people on here have become the exact thing they hate" and other similiar statements are directed at specific individuals. I don't like to generalize and stating that I am trying to frame Neogaf, as a whole, as the same as Ree is just incorrect. I believe there are many reasonable people on Neogaf and as a whole, its a great place to beThis. The whole trying to frame this place as the same as the other is a total farce.
There are more species of animals that do not menstruate than there are those that menstruate yet we classify some as female. In science things are classified and reclassified all the time as knowledge expands. The fact that we classified XX chromosome as female and XY as male yet we have people who present differently than the chromosome would suggest. There are XXX, XXY and various combination of chromosomes than originally thought.The fact that menstruation is specific to being female does not and has not changed, even slightly.
Alex is not covering the game:
Cowards confirmed
We are talking about humans here.There are more species of animals that do not menstruate than there are those that menstruate yet we classify some as female. In science things are classified and reclassified all the time as knowledge expands. The fact that we classified XX chromosome as female and XY as male yet we have people who present differently than the chromosome would suggest. There are XXX, XXY and various combination of chromosomes than originally thought.
Transmen mentstruate. Is that not a factual statement?
Some women do not menstruate. Is that not a factual statement?
The phrase "people who menstruate," more precisely includes the group that use birth control than does the phrase "women." Is that not a factual statement?
And again ALL OF this is editorial shit, it's not science, so your initial position that the disagreement was scientific is clearly bullshit.
Are you saying people with chromosomal abnormalities aren't human?We are talking about humans here.
What level do you have to be to unlock that spell?Once again ignoring the entire argument because he doesn't understand reductio ad absurdum.
I spelled it out pretty damn clearly, and as usual you have nothing to say but deflect deflect deflect.
That's exactly what's going on here.lol, okay, let's just dehumanize
By that logic ("it's more accurate!") then you must surely support using the term "people who wear female-associated clothing" instead of "women" when we're talking about "transwomen"? It's certainly more accurate.
Sexual developmental disorders have absolutely zero to do with "trans" identity and no biological connection whatsoever, as pointed out plenty of times even just above your post. And they are not some third category, just actual rare deformities.Are you saying people with chromosomal abnormalities aren't human?
Not all women menstruate, women with XXX chromosome do not.They still did menstruate at one time.
Language is changing, it always does.Language should change naturally, not with forced agenda. Well, it does as well, with gaslighting and totalitarian tactics.
Nobody is stripping away at her agency, in the same way a Trans Man is not stripping away at my agency just because they identify as a man. My life is not affected in anyway at all by someone identifying as a man.Once again, JK Rowling did nothing wrong. She stood up as a women from ideologues stripping her agency by taking away "woman" to perverse the language to "people that menstruate" considering that after menopause you don't, amirite? So what does that make her then? "Post person who once used to menstruate."
Indeed.Fucking lunacy.
Its the ignorance that gets me.Are you saying people with chromosomal abnormalities aren't human?
JK was speaking in the context of herself. As soon as she said, "we used to call it/us women" they attacked her for not adopting their Orwellian newspeak. So yes, they are stripping away her agency. As we should call them "people who wear female-associated clothing."Not all women menstruate, women with XXX chromosome do not.
Language is changing, it always does.
Nobody is stripping away at her agency, in the same way a Trans Man is not stripping away at my agency just because they identify as a man. My life is not affected in anyway at all by someone identifying as a man.
Indeed.
Nobody is being ignorant. Other than "people who want to strip and relabel shit and obfuscate langue oh and may or may not birth and menstruate or ride a Harley."Its the ignorance that gets me.
Jesus fucking christ....Some women menstruate, some don't. Some transmen menstruate. Her statement never had anything to do with science, she was taking umbrage with inclusive language that she felt was overly precise and wordy.
It's more similar to people arguing over Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays than anything resembling a scientific point.
They haven't declared a boycott like their parent site Eurogamer has, it's just Alex and John raising their hands saying they won't be the ones covering it. I get the feeling Alex and John don't want to risk their status with the REE crowd, hence their caginess.So, have DF announced them boycotting the game or just radio silence? Need to know if I should unsub from their YouTube channel.
1) "People" is not generally considered dehumanizing, and in fact by AP style considerations is considered a preferred way to humanize groups.lol, okay, let's just dehumanize by breaking every single piece of biology down and stripping them from "women" even though certain things are specific to women.
Most contexts don't really benefit from being overly precise in your language like that. But some might. This is, again, an editorial conversation.By that logic ("it's more accurate!") then you must surely support using the term "people who wear female-associated clothing" instead of "women" when we're talking about "transwomen"? It's certainly more accurate.
This is crazy talk. Rowling was the one objecting to someone's use of language here. No one is forcing anyone to excise the word woman. Rowling just didn't like someone being more precise when referring to issues specific to menstruation.Of course, the lifeblood of trans politics is this double reversal where they fight every day to strip actual women of their own language (eg. invading midwife groups and forcing the term "birthing people" instead of women or mothers) while--at the same time--insisting that the term "women" must be applied to the trans males or they'll die from the pain of it all. In other words: females no longer use the term "women," only the trans can claim it
Well, apparently no one from Digital Foundry has any knowledge about what is happening game, only whether they're not personally covering the game.Saying I’m not covering the game to my knowledge leads me to believe they don’t choose the games they do performance videos on.
This could very well be out of their hands, and I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If it was truly about being afraid of the Reee crowd, then they would’ve never touched Cyberpunk.
I will repost this for you because you don't seem to understand.1) "People" is not generally considered dehumanizing, and in fact by AP style considerations is considered a preferred way to humanize groups.
2) It's not specific to women, because transmen also menstruate, even if they are a relatively small percent of those that do.
3) It doesn't include all women, many women do not menstruate.
And no one is being attacked for using the phrase women, it's just that this editor chose not to because they were referring to something specific to menstruation rather than womanhood broadly.
Most contexts don't really benefit from being overly precise in your language like that. But some might. This is, again, an editorial conversation.
This is crazy talk. Rowling was the one objecting to someone's use of language here. No one is forcing anyone to excise the word woman. Rowling just didn't like someone being more precise when referring to issues specific to menstruation.
This is again like how some people CHOOSE to say Happy Holidays in order to be more inclusive, and that that in no way constitutes a "War on Christmas," nor does it mean you are not allowed to say "Merry Christmas" anymore.
Oh, because clearly we are all objecting to them being called "people"... not objecting to them being called menstruators or "people who menstruate" in awkwardly dehumanizing formulations. C'mon son.1) "People" is not generally considered dehumanizing, and in fact by AP style considerations is considered a preferred way to humanize groups.
Guess what? Those "transmen" are in fact women, in every case. So it is indeed specific to women.2) It's not specific to women, because transmen also menstruate, even if they are a relatively small percent of those that do.
This is crazy talk. Rowling was the one objecting to someone's use of language here. No one is forcing anyone to excise the word woman. Rowling just didn't like someone being more precise when referring to issues specific to menstruation.
1) "People" is not generally considered dehumanizing, and in fact by AP style considerations is considered a preferred way to humanize groups.
2) It's not specific to women, because transmen also menstruate, even if they are a relatively small percent of those that do.
3) It doesn't include all women, many women do not menstruate.
And no one is being attacked for using the phrase women, it's just that this editor chose not to because they were referring to something specific to menstruation rather than womanhood broadly.
Most contexts don't really benefit from being overly precise in your language like that. But some might. This is, again, an editorial conversation.
This is crazy talk. Rowling was the one objecting to someone's use of language here. No one is forcing anyone to excise the word woman. Rowling just didn't like someone being more precise when referring to issues specific to menstruation.
This is again like how some people CHOOSE to say Happy Holidays in order to be more inclusive, and that that in no way constitutes a "War on Christmas," nor does it mean you are not allowed to say "Merry Christmas" anymore.
Transwomen are only allowed the label "women" now, while those biological... things... over there shall be called "people who menstruate" (even though the mental gymnastics in here tried a gotcha by saying they don't after menopause, hurr durr) ... mind blown. I know.Oh, because clearly we are all objecting to them being called "people"... not objecting to them being called menstruators or "people who menstruate" in awkwardly dehumanizing formulations. C'mon son.
That's because Transmen are femaleTransmen mentstruate. Is that not a factual statement?
AmenorrheaSome women do not menstruate. Is that not a factual statement?
Birth ControlThe phrase "people who menstruate," more precisely includes the group that use birth control than does the phrase "women." Is that not a factual statement?
It clearly is.it's not science.
Thanks for posting this. Distancing himself from this game sounds like a wise move. And if they ultimately cover the game it's water under the bridge.So. Just had a private conversation on Twitter with Linneman. He actually messaged me. I won't post the transcript but take my word for it. So basically what he told me is that he hates Harry Potter and that's why he won't cover it. But it will be covered. Juts not by him. They don't have the game yet. He also told me that someone he believed to be a person from Resetera showed up at his doorstep and that made it personal for him. He dislikes the place as much as we do actually. They somehow got a hold of his address.
Then tell me why one thing I said was false. I'll wait.
Once again:
No one is challenging whether women generally menstruate, and no one ever was. But no one would suggest womanhood is defined by menstruation, so the two aren't interchangeable.
Transmen mentstruate. Is that not a factual statement?
Some women do not menstruate. Is that not a factual statement?
Thus, the phrase "people who menstruate," more precisely includes the group that use birth control than does the phrase "women." Is that not a factual statement?
And again ALL OF this is editorial shit, it's not science, so your initial position that the disagreement was scientific is clearly bullshit.
So why the fuck do they still partake in that community? Stockholm Syndrome?So. Just had a private conversation on Twitter with Linneman. He actually messaged me. I won't post the transcript but take my word for it. So basically what he told me is that he hates Harry Potter and that's why he won't cover it. But it will be covered. Juts not by him. They don't have the game yet. He also told me that someone he believed to be a person from Resetera showed up at his doorstep and that made it personal for him. He dislikes the place as much as we do actually. They somehow got a hold of his address.
Thanks, this should probably be added to the OPSo. Just had a private conversation on Twitter with Linneman. He actually messaged me. I won't post the transcript but take my word for it. So basically what he told me is that he hates Harry Potter and that's why he won't cover it. But it will be covered. Juts not by him. They don't have the game yet. He also told me that someone he believed to be a person from Resetera showed up at his doorstep and that made it personal for him. He dislikes the place as much as we do actually. They somehow got a hold of his address.