Is this what society has come to?

[caLLous]

Oh look, another video shared by @Job that was posted to /r/The_Donald, the cesspool of reddit.

 

[Job]

So are interested in what he says or where the video ended up.

 

[caLLous]

Tell the group what's wrong with what he said.

 

[Job]

Another term added to the list of 'I dont like what your saying so I'll just context it as an attack on my minority privilige'.
Its going to be interesting how far this kind if shit can run before the world just says...'Oh fuck off'.
Warsi...she is such a fucking chancer like kahhhhn.

Tory peer accuses Hancock of 'whitesplaining'

 

[Wij]

Fucksake:


View: https://twitter.com/memoreejoelle/status/1101950848962310146

 

[DaGaffer]

Fucksake:


View: https://twitter.com/memoreejoelle/status/1101950848962310146

“The Ultimate Nut”...name checks out.

 

[Moriath]

Fucksake:


View: https://twitter.com/memoreejoelle/status/1101950848962310146

She saying you can turn someone away cause they have something in their pants you dont like?

lol

man these people. Next they will be saying you cant refuse to sleep with someone.

 

[Wij]

She saying you can turn someone away cause they have something in their pants you dont like?

lol

man these people. Next they will be saying you cant refuse to sleep with someone.

Male ‘lesbians’ in kinda rapey shocker.

 

[DaGaffer]

Apparently not fancying a go on someone who’s nether regions look like a David Cronenburg outtake makes one shallow and transphobic; fair enough.

 

[Wij]

Apparently not fancying a go on someone who’s nether regions look like a David Cronenburg outtake makes one shallow and transphobic; fair enough.

It's not just that. Most of these 'lesbians' who give advice about the 'cotton ceiling' are fully intact males who have no intention of having surgery.

 

[Scouse]

More twitter storm. Nobody ever rose to prominence by saying stuff that the majority finds shocking and ridiculous, ever eh?

Reaction here is to ignore > move on.

 

[Yoni]

Unfortunately young impressionable postpube teens read this shite - it makes me really quite angry...... no one has to sleep with anyone whether based on gender OR sexuality :/.

 

[Gwadien]

Unfortunately young impressionable postpube teens read this shite - it makes me really quite angry...... no one has to sleep with anyone whether based on gender OR sexuality :/.

I think older generations like to think that lots of kids read this, but -why- would they? Contrary to popular Millennial hating belief; role models have barely changed in terms of what they are in the past 20 years, the difference is that the exposure is hyped up being recognition.

 

[Scouse]

Unfortunately young impressionable postpube teens read this shite - it makes me really quite angry...... no one has to sleep with anyone whether based on gender OR sexuality :/.

I don't think it'll be s big problem for most yons.

"I just don't fancy you"
"Why"
"Because I just don't - and that's all the explanation I need to give, sorry."

 

[Wij]

‘Femaleness is the urge to be a vessel for another’s desire’:

We Are All Female Now

 

[Moriath]

I think older generations like to think that lots of kids read this, but -why- would they? Contrary to popular Millennial hating belief; role models have barely changed in terms of what they are in the past 20 years, the difference is that the exposure is hyped up being recognition.

The big problem is access to platforms that over inflate the opinion of a view to look like popular or majority opinion.

 

[Gwadien]

The big problem is access to platforms that over inflate the opinion of a view to look like popular or majority opinion.

Yep.

Outraged people find outrageous posts then retweet them, then try to pretend that it's a popular thought.

 

[Scouse]

‘Femaleness is the urge to be a vessel for another’s desire’:

We Are All Female Now

I didn't bother reading the headline, figured it'd be tiresome so I skipped to the end. I might actually go back and read the whole thing:

I feel like your book is trying to answer the question of why we even have gender at all.

Right, what actually is it? People will tell us that sexuality is socially constructed, race is socially constructed, beauty. Most things are probably socially constructed. Even if that’s true, what is it? It belongs to a category of things called socially constructed things. That means the thing that makes it gender can’t be the fact that it’s socially constructed. There has to be something that differentiates it.

Gender performativity has been mainstreamed and made more or less interchangeable with social construction. It emphasizes gender’s habits and behaviors, so it does shed a little more light. But it still doesn’t really explain why gender is gender as opposed to something else.

I am asking for a different paradigm for gender studies generally and I think this new theory would have downstream benefits if taken as a new paradigm.

So what is gender to you now after all of this?

Gender is the expression of someone else’s sexuality.

Gender is a mechanism for getting the right people to desire you.

Exactly. And without that component, I don’t think you can make it make sense.

On the face of it I quite like the last couple of lines.

At least people are having a stab at making sense of all this bullshit eh?

 

[DaGaffer]

I didn't bother reading the headline, figured it'd be tiresome so I skipped to the end. I might actually go back and read the whole thing:


On the face of it I quite like the last couple of lines.

At least people are having a stab at making sense of all this bullshit eh?

Reads like someone desperately trying to normalise their own kinks tbh.

 

[Wij]

It reads like Christian submissive-wife doctrine and rape-fantasy wrapped up in woke language.

Being a woman is about wanting to be an object of desire.

Therefore anyone who doesn’t define themselves by others desires isn’t really a woman.

You can’t seriously defend that shit can you?

 

[Scouse]

I've only read the end....?

 

[Wij]

Didn’t you just say today that science finds the truth not fluffy metaphysical guff?

Female is defined by having the larger gametes.

(But women can obviously be whatever they want outside of that and don’t need men to tell them how they have to behave in order to still count as a real woman)

 

[Scouse]

Still stuck unable to separate sex and gender Wij.

Are we not bored of this yet?

 

[Wij]

Still stuck unable to separate sex and gender Wij.

Are we not bored of this yet?

Still unable to separate science and woo?

Which bit of the word female isn’t already taken to mean one of the two sexes? When he’s defining ‘female’ that’s ok because women are just happy to give up that word and become ‘menstruators’ or ‘cervix-havers’?

 

[Scouse]

Still unable to separate science and woo?

Clearly, when scientists say sex is not binary and we kinda acknowledge that but wanna say that really it is...

...but it ain't.

 

[DaGaffer]

Clearly, when scientists say sex is not binary and we kinda acknowledge that but wanna say that really it is...

...but it ain't.

1.7%. How about, just for once, we base definitions on the 98.3% rather than tie ourselves in knots because of what is, in effect, a bit of biological whataboutery? In practical terms, sex is binary for the vast, vast majority of people. You can make allowances for that 1.7%, ensure help and assistance where necessary, but you don't build general policy around them. For me, this is the sensible dividing line between a Caster Samenya (intersex through no fault of her own, natural genetic advantage) and some twat who puts on a bit of lippy because he fancies an athletics medal.

 

[Scouse]

1.7%. How about, just for once, we base definitions on the 98.3% rather than tie ourselves in knots because of what is, in effect, a bit of biological whataboutery?

Nope.

1.7 percent is is about 128 million people. In the UK it's around 1.2 million.

And their general ask (if you take the sporting and the rest of the utter bullshit the conversation generally gravitates to aside) is a tiny ask from the rest of our population but a massive difference to them. And it's a tiny ask that hardly any of us would ever have to do anything for.

In a supposedly civilised society that's fuck all.

It's not biological whataboutery - it's simply a better organising of society based on scientific reality. Giving a fuck about a minority in a way that costs us little and gives them lots.

"Biological realities are complicated" - says that guy (and, science in general).

Do we just disregard science now because we find it unpalatable nonsense or do we realise that it hardly affects us - even less than the horrendous effects of accepting homosexuals - and move on?


How about not just for once, but constantly as we move forward as a culture, we base definitions on how we understand the world to actually be, rather than cutting out huge numbers (though small proportions) of people in the name of simplicity?

 

[Scouse]

some twat who puts on a bit of lippy because he fancies an athletics medal.

1) Sporting bullshit.
2) I bet the tiny number of twats that might be doing that are doing it right now because transgenderism is a new thing. And it'll pass.

I don't know why we get hung up on sport. Like it's some be-all and end-all of the argument against accomodating minorities.

(Well I do. It's being used to justify prejudice.)

 

[DaGaffer]

Nope.

1.7 percent is is about 128 million people. In the UK it's around 1.2 million.

And their general ask (if you take the sporting and the rest of the utter bullshit the conversation generally gravitates to aside) is a tiny ask from the rest of our population but a massive difference to them. And it's a tiny ask that hardly any of us would ever have to do anything for.

In a supposedly civilised society that's fuck all.

It's not biological whataboutery - it's simply a better organising of society based on scientific reality. Giving a fuck about a minority in a way that costs us little and gives them lots.

"Biological realities are complicated" - says that guy (and, science in general).

Do we just disregard science now because we find it unpalatable nonsense or do we realise that it hardly affects us - even less than the horrendous effects of accepting homosexuals - and move on?


How about not just for once, but constantly as we move forward as a culture, we base definitions on how we understand the world to actually be, rather than cutting out huge numbers (though small proportions) of people in the name of simplicity?

The vast majority of those people don't even notice they are atypical. It only came up in the article you linked because of sport and a blood test.

 

[Wij]

We aren’t even talking about intersex people. You are just throwing out a distraction.

Even so we are placental mammals. There are two sexes. It is binary. Even those who count as interesex can in 99% of cases be reliably sexed even though their secondary sexual characteristics are atypical. To say sex is a spectrum is scientific nonsense. Woo.

So. Is ‘an urge to be a vessel for another’s desire’ a definition of female that makes sense to you? Do your female friends think ‘yep. That’s what I am.’?