/baw/ General Discussion Archived Board plus4chan home [baw] [co/cog/jam/mtv] [coc/draw/diy] [pco/coq/cod] [a/mspa/op/pkmn] [Burichan/Futaba/Greygren]
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 389194)
Password  (for post and file deletion)

Currently 0 unique user posts.

  • 08/21/12 - Poll ended; /cod/ split off as a new board from /pco/.

File 139171337691.jpg?nsfw - (149.13KB , 519x693 , _.jpg?nsfw )
389194 No. 389194
Realistic statue of man in his underwear at Wellesley College sparks controversy.
>"This highly lifelike sculpture has, within just a few hours of its outdoor installation, become a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault for many members of our campus community
>If the statue was at any other college it would already have been decorated and dressed in any number of different "outfits" with pictures of it all over the web. At wellesley they sign a petition.
>Disturbing to learn the young women at Wellesley are working hard at developing their commitment to censorship.
>to the Art Department at Wellesley, I am so sorry for you.
Basically an art department makes a statue that's supposed to engender feelings of worry and empathy in people as they see a sleepwalking man in danger of freezing to death. It seems that the empathy thing only works on actual humans not tumblr whales, because instead of feeling an instinct to help a bunch of sociopaths declare that the statue is raping them with its closed eyes. Also apparently the word "trigger" is common vernacular for anything that slightly bothers you now, not a specific medical term for people suffering from PTSD.

Tumblr: The University: The Game
Expand all images
>> No. 389196
>Wellesley College
Is shit. This is widely known and accepted, they are ridiculed and ignored for it.

Shit Wendys Sayyoutube thumb

They say "check your privilege" seriously, also "scare quotes".

At one point Wellesley chicks (it's an all girls school) protested for a full week because they didn't get to enter a candidate in the sexiest college guy contest.
>> No. 389199
File 139172320367.png - (385.03KB , 672x757 , 1391716779001.png )
>a person cant decide whether to have sex until 16
>but they can decide what gender they want to be at 6
>> No. 389200
I fail to see the relationship between those two points.
>> No. 389202
this is A Dumb Post
>> No. 389203
File 13917251102.jpg - (163.30KB , 1062x594 , eCT8vEx.jpg )
>> No. 389204
>equating realizing one's gender expression (or comfortable range of gender expressions) to consenting in an act that potentially has long term life and death ramifications

the reason sex at a young age is bad is not unethical in that children are incapable of knowing anything about themselves. it's because we want to give them time to experience life long enough to make big and potentially permanent decisions for themselves. if this were an issue of "letting children opt into gender reassignment surgery" you may have a case, but this is primarily about personal identity, not genitals. and what the hell is wrong with a straight male child dressing and acting like a girl for a while, anyway? even if he finds out he doesn't recognize himself as a girl, i don't see the problem of having made sure.

>> No. 389205
>"decide what gender they want to be"

just like how one can decide to be/not be homosexual, right?
>> No. 389206
Homosexuality and transsexuality are complex ideas, I seriously doubt a 6 year old understand what it means let alone the difference between feeling like a transsexual or a straight person. I'm not the guy above, and I'm totally fine with LGBT, just... hold off on permanent decisions until later ffs.

How do you even test homosexuality for 6 year olds, ask them if the prefer anal sex, or fellating another boy?
>> No. 389207
>I seriously doubt a 6 year old understand what it means let alone the difference between feeling like a transsexual or a straight person
i assume you meant cis person
if that's the case
then you don't really know what being trans is
which is fine i guess, it gets buried under a lot of garbage from the special snowflakes but
>> No. 389208
No, I meant straight, as in attracted to the opposite sex. The cis-trans bullshit implies people who are "cis" are comfortable with their sexuality while people who are "trans" are not. It also completely shits on gay and lesbian people because they're not covered in the classification, it completely shits on the gender-sex difference, and of course it pisses off chemistry majors.

Lets leave this particular mistake buried in the 90s where it belongs.

>then you don't really know what being trans is
Feel free to expand on this.
>> No. 389209
File 139173037946.png - (24.29KB , 110x126 , balddespair.png )
>Anyone in any walk of life giving a shit about gender.
>> No. 389210
okay. let's do the accepted explanation of cis/trans gay/straight talk

physical expression of gender (which is not always as simple as male or female) is one thing. this gender thing is not so straightforward. example: some people with XY chromosomes physically express as female. there's a whole spectrum/bunch of non-binary examples that make things more complex than guy or gal.

cis is where you emotionally/mentally/physically identify with and feel like and identify as the same gender your body physically expresses itself.

trans is where it's the opposite.

this is a spectrum.

straight is usually given with respect to your identity. if you identify as a female and are interested in men (typically this refers to physical attraction) you're considered straight, regardless of physical expression.

you're gay if you're attracted to the same gender (usually physical expression) you identify as.

there's a spectrum here, too.

there are so so so many examples of people that fall outside of even these sort of rudimentary spectra. the most common are usually what people go by to explain everyone, but we miss people with our incomplete language.

please correct me if i'm wrong, anyone.
>> No. 389211
i have no idea what the fuck you're talking about or why you're presenting "trans" and "straight" as opposites
i would prefer to hold off on engaging you until you elaborate a bit more on...mostly everything that you're typing.

i've run out of pictures of slowpokes with question marks around them to indicate confusion. this board moves really slowly.
>> No. 389216
>It also completely shits on gay and lesbian people because they're not covered in the classification
That's because it's not a classification system about what you're attracted to.

They're not included in the P-Q Linquistic classification system, either.
>> No. 389219
Just wanted to add, I hate the terms "gay" and "straight" because not only do they carry unfortunate implications with the language (a misbehaving child can be yelled at by a drill instructor and thus "scared straight", which implies among several other examples that "straight" is thus the preferred state, and any deviance is wrong) but you run into problems when you add gender identity in the mix.

For example, what do you call a physical woman with the mental/emotional preference of a male (a trans woman) who is sexually attracted to men? Straight? Gay? Most people would say straight because most people only seem to think it depends on whether the genitals involved match or not, which is a stupid way of thinking caused by the terminology. To extend this further, what if she then has surgery to become physically male? Does she become gay? Was she always gay? Don't even try to figure out what would happen if this hypothetical person were a hermaphrodite or gender-neutral.

See, it's ridiculous, confusing, and altogether pointless in modern society to define things this way. Personally, I use "androphilic" and "gynephilic". Do you like men, or do you like women? The term has nothing to do with what sex/gender YOU are, which is why scientists use these terms instead of the others.
>> No. 389222
that definition is a trans man, first of all--i'm not sure why anyone so opposed to the gender they were assigned at birth that they'd go through the social stigma of identifying otherwise would continue to call themselves by whatever term they were trying to get away from (although i'm sure there are some people out there who do, and that's their call)

secondly, a trans man who is attracted to men is generally considered gay by people who aren't huge douchebags
on account of being a man who likes men
>> No. 389228
File 13917478123.jpg - (81.90KB , 500x512 , matrix.jpg )
Alright but don't get mad at the corrections.

>physical expression of gender (which is not always as simple as male or female) is one thing.
That's sex, not gender.
Sex is determined by a set of biological features such as chromosome number or shape of genitals, parts of it can be surgically altered in a process called "sexual reassignment surgery".
Gender is determined by a set of social features such as child rearing, housework, bringing home the bacon and so on, if someone asks you "what gender are you?" they're really asking "where in my preconcieved notions of what men/women do you want to fit?".

>this gender thing is not so straightforward. example: some people with XY chromosomes physically express as female.
That's called a disorder and it is not defining in any way, that's what makes it a disorder. Although note that it's called "intersexed" not "intergendered".

t. guy shooting for a MSc in integrative biology

Some comments (didn't read much of the argument in this thread):
Do remember that even two genuinely tolerant persons run the risk of pissing off each other because they are speaking different languages. So relax when talking to each other and kindly explain what you believe the words mean, because in this day and age the vocabulary is changing too fast and with too many unofficial inputs for there to be an easy understanding between two people.

The reason for the confusion is that although sociology calls itself a "social science" it doesn't really use the scientific method and is not organized enough or held to the same standards as the sciences.
So to fix this problem, sociologists are trying to invent a new vocabulary to bring some order to what is a very confusing discipline... it goes without saying that there hasn't been much success.
It doesn't help that sociologists aren't even consulting any of the disciplines they're borrowing diction from (geometry/chemistry/history etc) so it just causes a massive amount of confusion in that sense, both in the academic community and among the general public, politicians, lawmakers...

If you want to fight each other, ok, but don't do it over a misunderstanding.

>> No. 389247
If I may contribute a personal opinion to this, the real crux of this debate is actually what we are allowing other people to decide to do with their own bodies. As a male who identifies as male and who has always been attracted to people who identify as female and have always been comfortable in my own skin (however accurate that is to the nomenclature), I have no right to tell someone who does not feel like they are the gender they physical appear to be that they have to be that gender. I can't ever really be inside their head, really understand what they feel about it (though research has shown that neurological differences do present in people who feel this way, you just need a CAT scan or similar to determine that for certain). If a person where to feel this way, go through the necessary steps to appear as what they feel like as possible, and then proceeds to act creepy to members of any gender, that doesn't mean that their feelings of displacement are wrong, it means that their actions towards others are wrong, and should be educated against, though this scenario is actually incredibly rare as I understand it.

What this boils down to is an argument over whether we as a society can define what people can do with their own lives and bodies. And the only time intervening in these matters is remotely acceptable is when the choices of an individual infringe upon the rights and physical well-being of others.
>> No. 389260
>If you want to fight each other, ok, but don't do it over a misunderstanding.
>> No. 389272

>What this boils down to is an argument over whether we as a society can define what people can do with their own lives and bodies. And the only time intervening in these matters is remotely acceptable is when the choices of an individual infringe upon the rights and physical well-being of others.

Y'know, I think there's another highly-debated sociopolitical issue that this line of thinking applies to...
>> No. 389274
nope. not mad at all. i like having my opinions adjusted by better information than i've garnered. thanks!
>> No. 389279
File 139182855835.gif - (237.76KB , 500x282 , 1385671853416.gif )
Yeah it's funny how individual rights all kind of sound the same regardless of socio-political issue
>> No. 389284

Way to miss the entire point by picking nits over one sentence. This is why unambiguous language is important. Most people tend to think in concrete terms, not ideal ones; or what IS not what MIGHT BE. The term "transsexual" is simple enough at face value, but it implies only a condition, not a direction. When used as a modifier before a gender pronoun, there is no rule that says whether it means "trans to" or "trans from". I understand what you're getting at from a psychological point of view of the person describing themself; but my entire point was that this can be confusing for others when they encounter unfamiliar terminology without being familiar with the sociological norms associated with using it.

As I had stated before, the terms "gay" and "straight" are used by almost all people (with no malice or derision) solely based on the physical sex of the two involved. This isn't because they are mean, but because they are ignorant. "Gay" means "penis-plus-penis" to most people, and "lesbian" means "vagina-plus-vagina"; the gender of the people involved doesn't figure into it at all.

Shall we invent a new term to describe an individual person's preferred gender identity that doesn't also depend on their own current physical sex and/or a possible future surgical alteration thereof? Because I don't like it, either.
>> No. 389285
i didn't miss any points? i answered your question.

also "but it's haaaaard" isn't really a valid argument for...anything. like a lot of both of those posts consist of how ~confusing~ trans terminology is and i'm not sure what the point behind it is other than you just kind of complaining. is that the point i'm missing?

(p.s. all trans stuff is rendered 200% more simple if you just respect their identity. they identify as male? ok. think of them as a man. boom. all terminology problems solved. wow. magic.)

(p.p.s. sorry for being kind of an ass, i spent like 2 hours earlier teaching a very right-wing friend Baby's First Gender Lesson, and frankly i already have a very low patience level when it comes to you)
>> No. 389302
"this term is confusing because i haven't encountered it a lot, so everyone using it should change it to another word i would complain about not understanding immediately, because i refuse to learn anything."

here, i will help. trans means "on the opposite side" (it is a latin root, not short for "transitioning" or something like that). man means someone who feels and presents as male, who should be thought of and treated as male. therefore transman means someone who feels and presents as male but their physical sex is/was opposite to what they present as. what they present as is more important than whatever their genitals look like. you don't need to know what a conversation partner has in their pants in order to interact with them. this term exists mainly for people to identify themselves to other members of the transgender community and is not really for cis people to use to refer to trans people. for all intents and purposes, to you, a transman is just a regular man.

do you understand? if someone looks, acts, and wants to be referred to as a man, you treat them as a man. same for women.
>> No. 389304
File 13918944039.png - (1.76MB , 750x750 , slowpokeandsealofapproval.png )
This is A Good Post.
>> No. 389308

A furry artist I follow did a comic recently about the whole pronoun issue (as it relates to their personal life experience):


Safe for work, I assure you.
>> No. 389309

why do care so much about how other people present do you seriously expect us to believe you talk to people other than your own mother
>> No. 389310
File 139190716151.png?spoiler - (117.08KB , 1107x1328 , The Big Central Code Program Exeterminarium.png?spoiler )
What matters here is that we need to make an evil supercomputer that has us all wear one of a handful of white, silver, and black suits, refers to us by number, and declares identity as being insignificant beyond its relevance to determining what duties one would be suited for assignment to. I have, fortunately for humanity, already begun bringing the entirety of modern science to bear on this problem.
>> No. 389311
No, that's a horrible post, just look at this
>man means someone who feels and presents as male,
Man is gender, male is sex. People like that guy are just confusing the fuck out of everybody.
>> No. 389317
How the fuck you gonna get bent outta shape about man/male distinction(especially since "presenting as [opposite sex]" is a completely legit thing to say???) and not even touch on how they said someone needs to look like a man/woman to be treated like one? I'm sure they didn't mean it like that, but fact remains, you gonna nitpick, do it right.
>> No. 389319
Did you mean:
>Man is gender, male is sex. People like that guy are just confusing the fuck out of [me personally, because I am dumber than a box of rocks].

Or maybe?
>Man is gender, male [can refer to both sex and gender]. People like that guy are [using English correctly, but since I am a petulant cis manchild, I don't want gross "transgenders" to refer to themselves as a gender I belong to!!! YUCK].
>> No. 389322
also, fucking sick burn, jesus christ
>> No. 389326
>talking about cars
>someone calling the bugatti veyron a truck
>"its not a truck"
>"why are you nitpicking?!?!?!"
This isn't nitpicking, it's kind of important. If you don't know the difference and aren't using it properly you don't really have a place in the discussion.

> "presenting as [opposite sex]" is a completely legit thing to say???
After hormone therapy or SRS.... see
>> No. 389331
God, some of you people are such fucking assholes to each other.

I think >>389228 is the only person who said something actually unambiguously true, here, seeing how basically everyone who follows is misunderstanding each other and raising Hell for it. Also: Bea, Slowpoke, do you really have to give each other an off-topic circlejerk over petty insults? It makes plus4 look really bad when you get people doing that kind of pubescent garbage on the front page. Mods should consider bans over posts that are inflammatory and add nothing.

Also, this is already heading for: "you're a cis man, so everything you say is automatically wrong", which is what every single gender discussion basically devolves into. Which is hilariously hypocritical, considering the entire point of being transgender is as a rejection of traditional gender norms, and yet there you go assigning a stereotype based solely on a person's gender.

I think we should just stop, now. As much as I enjoy laughing at a dick-measuring contest, except instead of dicks it's how unprivileged you are on a scale from straight, rich, white, cis male to a homeless trans cripple with paralyzing jock-itch, it's not very productive.
>> No. 389334
>Also, this is already heading for: "you're a cis man, so everything you say is automatically wrong"

>> No. 389335
>talking about cars
>someone casually refers to a Toyota 4Runner as a van in a long and fairly helpful post
>"wow it's not a van it's a fucking SUV, post disregarded"
While it may be technically true, plenty of people refer to SUVs as vans in conversation(around here at least, may be a regional thing), no one is confused by it and everyone understands what the person is talking about, and raising hell about it ACTUALLY kind of makes you an asshole.
>Also: Bea, Slowpoke, do you really have to give each other an off-topic circlejerk over petty insults?
lmao, it was one short saged congrats over a quality diss. Ease up little buddy.
>> No. 389338
>plenty of people refer to SUVs as vans in conversation
In casual conversation ok, but when we're in an argument about the terms we should make an effort to use more formal definitions.
>> No. 389339
Then would you prefer to follow Candlejack's example and use terms like "androphile" and "gynephile" for the rest of the thread?

No one misunderstood anything, you just jumped in and tore up a post over the dumbest fuckin issue I've ever seen. We're not Bad Sci-Fi Movie Robots, we're capable of understanding and conversing without having to use medical terms, Christ.
>> No. 389342
>Then would you prefer to follow Candlejack's example and use terms like "androphile" and "gynephile" for the rest of the thread?
Sure, why not.

Stop being so mad over this.
>> No. 389344
File 139192196256.png - (201.24KB , 512x352 , slowpokeandthesenuts.png )
I'm not mad, I just think you're a dumbass.
>> No. 389346
>Which is hilariously hypocritical, considering the entire point of being transgender is as a rejection of traditional gender norms

Um, no, it's not. It doesn't have anything to do with rebellion or challenging gender norms. Many trans people fit well within established gender norms of their psychological gender, they are not rebels in the least.

You're not wrong because you are cis man, you're wrong because you make statements that are false. It's just sort of easy to tell when a poster is a cis man without any first-hand experience with trans people because they say the same wrong things every time they enter a discussion and then get defensive about it.
>> No. 389350
>considering the entire point of being transgender is as a rejection of traditional gender norms

youre framing this as a choice people make for political reasons which is really really really not the reason why trans people are trans.
>> No. 389352
>the entire point of being transgender is as a rejection of traditional gender norms


do you believe that mental illnesses are a choice too?
>> No. 389355
File 139195564426.gif - (402.19KB , 300x169 , fuck your shit.gif )
do you believe that trans people are mentally ill?
>> No. 389356

I wonder what compels a man to go on the internet and try to speak at length about subjects he knows nothing about.
>> No. 389357

>> No. 389358
kind of, if we use the term mental illnes to refer to an error state that needs to be corrected
a mismatch between hardware (sex) and software (gender) generally results in adverse psychological effects in the individuum, not every problem is caused by society
sex reassignment surgery exists because trying to cure the ailment from the other end is basically brainwashing (and thus undesirable to non-assholes)

try harder next time, amateur
>> No. 389360
File 139196381851.jpg - (83.90KB , 740x740 , vomit overflow.jpg )
Please leave...

IDK what you're talking about but I like the cut of your jib.
>> No. 389361
>Please leave...
They're kinda right though. I wouldn't use "mental illness," but for a lot of trans people, it's definitely some sort of disorder, and is acknowledged by the medical community as one.

To my understanding, "gender" comes about from the way hormones and the brain develop in utero. In almost every case, when they develop "correctly," for lack of a less potentially offensive word, you end up with a male brain in a male body or a female brain in a female body. Occasionally though, something diverges from the norm, and the brain develops as female while the body develops as male, or vice versa. This is an actual physical difference that can be seen in brain scans.
This is why a 6 year old AMAB is capable of determining whether or not she feels like a girl. It's not just cause she likes Barbies. It's because she has a female brain, regardless of what her body looks like.

Furthermore, this can have actual medical side effects, such as "phantom limb"-like feelings when the body is lacking the parts the brain believes it should have.

So while I'm not gonna say this is the only definition of trans or the only way to be trans, it's most certainly one way, and it most certainly is a medical condition.

Apologies for any misinformation or incoherence, I don't claim to be an expert and also I just woke up, so.
>> No. 389362
As a trans person, I much prefer talking about it in terms of a medical disorder. My brain does not match up with my body. Even if we had some sort of cure for it on the brain end, it would be ethically problematic. So the only viable treatment is at the body end.

I really wish it could just be talked about and acknowledged like some ordinary medical disorder. I think the reason a lot of people have a problem talking about it in these terms is because there exists a huge stigma against mental illness as well, which is also bullshit.
>> No. 389363
hey, I'm not the one claiming that being trans is just "rebelling against tradition" (aka something you can decide to stop doing)
>> No. 389364
File 139196828631.jpg - (90.15KB , 329x600 , Henry-VIII-kingofengland_1491-1547.jpg )
>To my understanding, "gender" comes about from the way hormones and the brain develop in utero.
No that's still sex, gender is entirely social.

If in 100 years it becomes fashionable again for men to wear makeup, pantyhose and corsets, men who do that will be cis not trans.

See why people keep insisting on using terms properly?
>> No. 389365
womp womp
this is where i feel like we'll keep talking over each other. as previously stated, we all clearly have different nuances and strictness with our choice of language here.


I think the question I want to ask then is... does there, then, exist a gender identity that speaks to an innate preference toward masculinity and/or femininity in some non-specific sense? taking the assumption that by gender we mean the cultural roles and and attributes that we separate as masculine and feminine, if we were to create a culture where gender acquisition and expression were entirely fluid and adaptable, would there still be a male and female gender identity? i think one could develop, but it wouldn't be as strict with positive or negative judgment toward any roles/expressions taken.

i honestly don't know, though. i haven't thought about this enough.
>> No. 389368
>No that's still sex, gender is entirely social.
I disagree, for this reason:
>If in 100 years it becomes fashionable again for men to wear makeup, pantyhose and corsets, men who do that will be cis not trans.
Which shows (operating under the definitions that I use and see used, i.e., sex is the physical, gender is the mental, to make it simple) that gender roles have absolutely no bearing on actual gender. Men can wear makeup and dresses and be pretty and still be men, in both gender and sex. Women can wear slacks and button-up shirts and shave their heads--and shave nothing else--and still be women, in both gender and sex.

In the definitions I see used in the trans community, as well as the definitions I use, "gender" refers to what you are mentally. Hence, you know, why the terms "cisgender," "transgender," and "agender" make sense linguistically.
>> No. 389369
>if we were to create a culture where gender acquisition and expression were entirely fluid and adaptable, would there still be a male and female gender identity?
Reminds me of the question about whether bisexuality is the "default" state, and if there were absolutely no stigma concerning homosexuality, would everyone be bi?
I personally think individual identities would still exist in both hypotheticals--there would still be males and females in yours, and still be straight and gay people in mine, but obviously I can't really prove that.
>> No. 389370
an then there are those that would throw all kinds of wrenches into the works of such an ideal since they make a living pitting groups against each other.
>> No. 389371
not just a living. half-baked and downright unhealthy ideas take hold simply because sometimes they work.
evolution of ideas, mate.

but yeah. it blows. i didn't want to suggest that the sort of hypothetical world where people were accepting of gender fluidity was inherently stable. just that it would be one i'd like to live in and explore...
>> No. 389372
And it just seems to be getting more caustic and worse, thankfully I found a few people on twitter that could give a toss about that kinda thing and like the idea of "treating a person as a person" which I follow. They've given me some confidence that something may actually come of my book series too, I'll know more once I finish the prologue and let them look over that whole piece.
>> No. 389373
Does that mean that according to your views, people like >>389362 are using the term "gender" incorrectly?
>> No. 389374
its becoming increasingly clear that your only brush with gender studies+trans issues was your 9th grade bio book circa 1997.
>> No. 389376
So if you put on a skirt, you would feel as if you were a woman trapped in a male body, because society thinks skirts should only be worn by women? Is that how this works?
>> No. 389378
File 139198366944.jpg - (19.21KB , 230x300 , suicide booth.jpg )
Hard to say since the entire spectrum would be equally viewed as acceptable terms like "trans" or "cis" would be next to useless, we're kind of heading towards that society (or so one hopes), by the time we're in space it shouldn't matter.
There's few novels that explore such societies so I'm always on the lookout for them ever since Brother's Price blew my mind.

Doesn't use gender at all that I can see... ok bea I love you too... no that's not how it works, societal expectations come first not the clothes.
>> No. 389379
>no that's not how it works, societal expectations come first not the clothes

Yes, so if you wear skirts, you are trans, because you defy social expectations of masculinity and wear things designated for women only. That's literally what you said. This should make perfect sense in your world because I am just rephrasing what you already said. If it sounds fucking stupid to you when I say it, maybe that's because....... it is... ??? You have no idea what you are talking about, please hang your head in shame
>> No. 389381
Did I just finish saying that's not how it works?

WTF is wrong with you?
>> No. 389383
But it's the way you implied it works with >>389364
>> No. 389384
File 139199143878.jpg - (77.42KB , 1000x667 , derpface.jpg )
No I didn't brohime, the clothes are an example of how fashion influences gender concepts.

The feeling of being the opposite gender appears in people first regardless of what they're wearing, it doesn't originate from what you wear. Only later do transgender people start changing their wardrobe or appearance in general, and it's up to them if they really want to do that.

tl;dr it's the other way around, stop being dense
>> No. 389386
File 139199461494.jpg - (25.70KB , 250x300 , Dunce.jpg )
you're literally arguing against your own posts. you are now making the same kind of point slowpoke made in >>389361, which you disagreed with and made an embarrassingly stupid post to refute it. in your quest to admonish people for semantics in a discussion where "gender" clearly means "psychological sex," it's you who tripped over your own nitpicking feet and landed on your face, and now you have no idea what is going on.

in academic papers dealing with this subject, "gender" and "psychological sex" (or a number of other variations) are used interchangeably, by the way. which one is used typically depends on the writer and how many letters they want to use, and "gender" is used most often. nobody uses the term "sex" without a modifier to specify that we are dealing with the brain. so not only are you splitting hairs over synonyms, you are also demanding that we use the one nobody but yourself uses, precisely because it is confusing?
>> No. 389387
File 139199544542.jpg - (80.24KB , 645x536 , femaleprivilege.jpg )
I have to dig for change so I can put $5 gas into my car to make it to community college, she plays video games and gets $22,000+

Fucking kill me...
>> No. 389388
I didn't disagree with his point, I disagreed with his usage of the word gender. See the WHO definition here >>389365. Actually I'll copy it down for you so you don't have to click.

"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

Some examples of gender characteristics :

In the United States (and most other countries), women earn significantly less money than men for similar work
In Viet Nam, many more men than women smoke, as female smoking has not traditionally been considered appropriate
In Saudi Arabia men are allowed to drive cars while women are not
In most of the world, women do more housework than men

>> No. 389389
That's not "female privilege" it's a privilege of all attractive people. Boytoys probably earn more from their "mommies" or whatever it's called.

I guess the internet just lets her reach a wider audience.
>> No. 389391
File 139199768031.png - (7.08KB , 337x134 , 1391996758001.png )
In fact here are the earnings from a MALE player.
>> No. 389392

using sexism for fun and profit is my Ideal
>> No. 389395
File 139199833449.jpg - (38.13KB , 450x357 , whiteknight.jpg )
Hey sexy I'll buy you a tablet if you show me your bra strap!
>> No. 389398

hell yea
>> No. 389399
Supply and demand.
Horny dude wants to see a girl in her home wear from the comfort of his own basement. Girl supplies.
>> No. 389408
>other men are giving away money for shallow reasons
>it's the woman's fault

yeah man she totally used her female mind control powers on those poor helpless dudes, it totally wasn't their decision, nope, MISANDRY YO

>> No. 389409
Also note this >>389391

Who the fuck are Obaid and Amhai? They're just giving out tens of thousands of dollars to random people.
>> No. 389412
File 139204772381.gif - (1.98MB , 254x209 , doesthismakeyouhot.gif )
>> No. 389419
Portlandia LGBTQ communityyoutube thumb
>> No. 389420
File 139205859893.jpg - (91.04KB , 1000x800 , haha neck.jpg )
>> No. 389430
Some people just have that much money to waste, and you have to waste it on something or someone. I tend to find people with that much throwing around money sometimes have very little idea of what to do with it or that it won't make anyone love you
>> No. 389661
File 139256060888.jpg - (18.01KB , 428x469 , 1341980859762.jpg )
>DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science
>removed from women a powerful instrument of choice
>Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them.
>But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice.
this is some funny shit
>> No. 389662
I don't see how giving actual arguments to MRAs is in any way funny, unless you just want to watch the world burn.
>> No. 389663
I want to specifically see it burn in all sorts of pretty colors, so i guess I'd better get to coating everything in metal powders.
>> No. 389664
File 139257206375.jpg - (181.14KB , 1680x1050 , fry_suspicious.jpg )
Nobody's gonna listen to the crazy radfems anyway, if they do, just respond with "read some barbara kay!"

The real meat of this story is that the author is not really a consistent feminist or liberal..... but she does have two kids..... I really hope her husband gets a paternity test on them, methinks she doth protest too much.
>> No. 389666
>> No. 389714
File 139274793183.jpg - (141.53KB , 800x450 , british as fuck.jpg )
>handles of their guns were too big
>complained to senior staff but were ignored
>pay-out of $117,000
>> No. 389720

a victory for tiny people everywhere
>> No. 389721
you shall all now be given axes and helmets instead.
>> No. 389722
File 139275594225.jpg - (32.39KB , 350x285 , 1322673861985.jpg )
best post on +4 award
>> No. 389733
no, that's still the horse guy in the /baw/ Secrets thread.
thanks for reminding me of him though.
i love that post so much.
>> No. 389735
File 139277431559.png - (2.94KB , 79x74 , negative.png )
>> No. 389736
File 139277700537.jpg?spoiler - (105.01KB , 799x460 , oddjob.jpg?spoiler )
>>you shall all now be given axes and helmets instead.

Or Axe helmets. The helmets you throw to kill enemies.

No....that will be too heavy....BETTER IDEA!
Replace the helmets with bowler hats!

There! I have just transformed a bunch tiny people into an army of Oddjobs. You're welcome.
>> No. 389737
you got fucking owned, nerd
>> No. 389744
haha im
actually pretty fucking distressed about people on tumblr with absurd plant/fairy/ghost pronouns
im actually quite bothered by this
>> No. 389745

its garbage. its trash. put everyone who does such a thing in the trashcan.
>> No. 389746
y'know, it started (by it i mean my experience with this new trend) with the bunny/fairy pronouns. and that was horrible, but i mean, i've seen furries/otherkin try to co-opt the trans movement in other ways, so while it pissed me off a lot, it was in a "oh, this trash again" kind of way.
but then they just started getting more and more fucked up and i just saw someone using GHOST PRONOUNS (boo/boos/booself) and i am having a fucking meltdown.
i'm actually really upset about this. i'm usually as kind of vacantly cheerful as my namesake and just kind of brush most things off but this is legitimately upsetting me.
what fucking justification could they have to try and pass this off as not 100% disgusting.
>> No. 389747
it's the lack of awareness that i find so distasteful. you can do whatever idiotic stuff you want that makes you happy but if you compare something completely fabricated to something that's prejudiced, physically verifiable, and ... well... real... you have my extreme ire.

it's like watching kids break into an explosives lab and pretend to be scientists. they're likely to burn the whole fucking place down and a part of me wants them to do it all on their own before any of the actual people show up and get hurt, too.
239 posts omitted. First 100 shown. [Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

Delete post []
Report post