[video=youtube;WtftZPL-k7Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtftZPL-k7Y&lc=z23pg1yhgs3affp4j04t1aokgcymzzlctuaodsxlcdabbk0 h00410.1532473865614822[/video]
The guy who does the interviews is the one I agree with. That second beached whale he interviews is the downfall of our country and the world if people continue to produce kids like HER. 48:58 mark is another cuntbucket whos mentally ill and im sure another hypocrite for the record books. To be fair, she looks like a hippie who took one too many cocks in her ass to "stay a virgin" but hey, im not judging. She musta been pissed that she thought cocaine would heal all wounds, but not in her anus!
The other shining light here was the last guy he finished the interview with. He was confident, articulated well and was always calm and no hypocritical bullshit came from his mouth. Truly a product of good parenting.
I also agree with the main thing though. Do what you want but when you start trying to IMPOSE onto others you will get fucked up. Don't play with fire and all's good. Be a tranny, be gay, be bi, be pansexual, be a flying panda monkey with porn tentacles and **** smile coming out of your ears... but dont tell me to call you certain things and if i dont you find that offensive. Thats pussy shit.
Also, i think the fact that everyone who wants to be identified as something new is just an overly sensitive and were raised to think like a privileged little child the rest of their lives. Everything is about them "me r offended" "stop offending" "how dare you". Its scary that there are people out there like this. Just live and **** what others think. Not a hard concept.
And sorry, Riker... but there are only two genders. Youre confusing identity and gender Over complicating things like that whale that was interviewed.
[video=youtube;WtftZPL-k7Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtftZPL-k7Y&lc=z23pg1yhgs3affp4j04t1aokgcymzzlctuaodsxlcdabbk0 h00410.1532473865614822[/video]
The guy who does the interviews is the one I agree with. That second beached whale he interviews is the downfall of our country and the world if people continue to produce kids like HER. 48:58 mark is another cuntbucket whos mentally ill and im sure another hypocrite for the record books. To be fair, she looks like a hippie who took one too many cocks in her ass to "stay a virgin" but hey, im not judging. She musta been pissed that she thought cocaine would heal all wounds, but not in her anus!
Very good job at discrediting anything you have to say on the topic.
I also agree with the main thing though. Do what you want but when you start trying to IMPOSE onto others you will get fucked up. Don't play with fire and all's good. Be a tranny, be gay, be bi, be pansexual, be a flying panda monkey with porn tentacles and **** smile coming out of your ears... but dont tell me to call you certain things and if i dont you find that offensive. Thats pussy shit.
They are factually the same thing. There was a time when gender and *** were referred to as the same thing. Over time, the concept of identity relating to *** became more and more prominently recognized, and the word gender was attributed to that.
There is one context where gender is synonymous with ***, and one where it is not. That is simply fact.
No it's not. Because I've never seen anyone who supports the concept of non-binary act like everything you do is reflective of your gender identity. In fact, it's people who aren't supportive of such a concept that I've seen more attuned to this paradigm. People who support the concept of non-binary have behaviors they quantify with gender, and those they don't.
I bolded the mistake you made which betrays your agenda.
Gender is a subtext for our communication and relationship with each other as a society. *** is a subtext governing our gender and perceptions of it. By attempting to replace *** with gender and bring the subtext of gender to the front of many social situations and exiling it from others, confusion is created, as well as an obsessive-compulsive need to label behaviors within the over-arching theme of gender.
Like I said, you're going to find this behavior in people who insist that men have to "act like men" and women have to "act like women" than people who support the concept of non-binary. And that's likely because those people don't rigidly assign behaviors to either *** as much as binary people do, who insist that men have to be masculine and women have to be feminine.
No, Gender is not independent of ***. Females have a different neurological structure from males. Females have a very different metabolic system from males.
As a man, one of the best weight loss strategies is actually to strength-train. Male muscle mass is dominated by what are called 'fast twitch' muscles, which burn large amounts of calories even while idle. Our bodies kick over into kitosis very quickly and begin devouring visceral fat rather early.
Women, on the other hand, develop 'slow twitch' fibers. These mucles are more efficient and rely on oxygen to produce their energy. Women generally have much more endurance than men, but will not lose weight unless they go into extreme starvation or do cardio routines.
The strength held by an average man competes with many professional female builders. Even when they roid out and take testosterone supplements, it just doesn't compare. It's not fair - but it's the way it is. Men developed to be aggressive. It's in our blood to, in the presence of women, move toward the threat and engage it. Our bodies developed to survive such demands, and so men are the meat shields with the high peak strength and overall larger size.
That is our role as it relates to women, and it underwrites the entire fabric of our society. The effect may be subtle and in the background - but it is there. Women dominate the endurance sports and running lengths. You see women out there running marathons all the time while men toss weights or each other around.
Women ultimately choose which men get to 'live on' in the way of a future generation - assuming we have not descended into complete barbarism, where one simply rapes the woman of his choosing (which is another part of why men must be aggressive - civility only prevails when those who would violate it are give a swift attitude adjustment). Place a woman in front of a group of men and watch what happens. They will generally attempt to show off and compete with each other. Why? Because they want the chance to show what they are about to the girly in hopes she likes what she sees in them.
*** underwrites gender, gender underwrites how people interact with each other.
By trying to pretend as though there are people outside of this spectrum of communication, it creates noise in the system with absolutely no practical or biological meaning.
These...are fictional women....these are drawings...what the **** are you blabbering about?
They don't necessarily have to have belief in the roles themselves, just not adhere to them. Say there's a country in the world and you're expected to do things a certain way based on your skin, the 1st way, "Silly Way," if you're white, and the second way, "Serious Way," if you're black. You never decided for things to be so, but to refer to the concept of not falling under either, you'd need a word that acknowledges it.
There's more than just XX & XY. The statement is about more than biological ***.
You're playing by a different dictionary or something. *** is the fact that you're female itself. Gender is the baggage that comes along with it such as expectations to be polite or speak in a soft voice or whatever. Can you, as a guy, walk into the public caked up in makeup and not get odd stares?
The bold is my point. Saying there's a baggage that comes along with your chromosomes, dictating how you should act is sexist. Read my post again. That baggage, is called "social role". Asigning social roles based on *** is sexism itself. So saying you're a woman, because as a male you can't wear make up and you want to wear make up, is sexist. The underlined is a cultural problem, not a logic one. And identifying as non binary wouldn't change the fact that, based on this culture, i would look weird with make up.
Gender and *** are not the same thing in this context.
The thing is, EVERY possible gender does have social constructs beneath them because the things we use to represent gender identity, i.e., the differences between masculine and feminine(as well as the concepts of masculinity and femininity) are social constructs. There are no gender identities or roles that operate without social constructs beneath them.
Again, this is simply factually incorrect.
The concept of being non-binary doesn't deviate from social constructs however. You can't deviate from social constructs because they permeate our lives as social creatures. The concept of being non-binary deviates from the idea that one HAS to follow social constructs based on their biological *** rather than whatever they simply feel comfortable in. As I mentioned before, masculinity and femininity are both social constructs. Non-binary doesn't mean you reject that masculinity or femininity exists, it means that anyone can be masculine, anyone can be feminine, or neither if that's what they feel comfortable doing regardless of their biological ***.
This is just complaining that gender is complicated. Which is hardly a valid argument against the concept of non-binary. Any kind of sociological concept, whether it be race, sexuality, gender, ethnicity, nationality, whatever, is gonna be a complicated topic. Just because you can't handle it doesn't make it a bad thing.
There's a huge dissonance in your statements and it's probably due to nonbinary being a broad term, but I can't overlook it because the two are very contradictory. One side doesn't approve of society defining them by how they dress, and the other side is saying "define me" but as "this additional gender."
The difference between pansexuality and bisexuality is that bisexuals are typically only attracted to cisgendered people, and while they are attracted to both biological men and women, they have a preference between the two and like one of them more than the other, or more frequently than the other.
Pansexuality means one doesn't have any preference between biological men or women, and aren't just attracted to cisgendered people.
Pansexuality doesn't deny the authencity of transsexuals because:
A) Bisexuality simply isn't commonly used to apply to transsexuals
B) The validity of transsexuals doesn't depend on the question of "Would people **** them or not" in the first place.
This argument already fails. You're defending the concept of not separating "***" and "gender" with an argument that only works if it's already accepted that "***" and "gender" are the same thing. Also, you say that biological *** is a social role, which in of itself makes no sense as something being a social role means that what defines it and what determines can vary between societies and from culture to culture. Biological *** is the same regardless of what culture or society you're in. Something that's biological cannot be a social role/concept.
Separating gender and *** is the exact opposite of this. Separating *** and gender means that you're separating the social aspect(gender) from the biological(***), giving people the freedom to do whatever they feel comfortable regardless of their biological ***. That is the opposite of sexism as you aren't limiting people's behaviors or attitudes to their biological ***.
Transsexual people do not deny that they are biologically their biological ***. That's the exact opposite of transsexuality. Transsexuality operates on the principle that one's psychological and emotional state may be more attuned to the body of the opposite biological ***, hence why they identify as transsexual in the first place.
You literally limit people's attitudes and behaviors to their biological ***, and then say it's sexist not do so. This is probably some Grade A trolling.
@bold: your reading comprehension is that of a 5 yr old. Read my post again, because you didn't understand ANYTHING i just said. I said exactly the opposte.
Damn, i'm actually mad at you for not reading correctly what i posted.
- You don't need to change your gender to act according to a certain role, or do something you want to do. Saying that you don't feel identified as neither of both gender, or don't feel identified by a gender, is saying that gender comes along with a social role, and you don't feel identified with it.
Do i need to use apples to explain it to you?
If a non binary, says that he/she doesn't feel identified with being a man, or a woman, he's saying:
-Being a man means acting like this, Being a woman is acting like that... and i don't like it.
The BOLD is the definition of sexism. USE YOUR BRAIN, AND READ before you post such a shame of a post like your last one.
@bold: your reading comprehension is that of a 5 yr old. Read my post again, because you didn't understand ANYTHING i just said. I said exactly the opposte.
All of you are stupid, this thread oozes confirmation bias. All these new labels for genders are super dumb, everyone just do what you want to do and behave how you want to behave and get over yourselves. Fuuck anyone who says you shouldn't just be yourself. I identify as myself
The thing is, EVERY possible gender does have social constructs beneath them because the things we use to represent gender identity, i.e., the differences between masculine and feminine(as well as the concepts of masculinity and femininity) are social constructs. There are no gender identities or roles that operate without social constructs beneath them.
I'll start here since it seems to be the most important segment that the others depend on. The outward appearance of ALL genders may have expectations attached to them, but these are often undesired stigmas to any unorthodox gender. I think it's very, very injudicious(yea I used a thesaurus, bite me) to say all genders have social constructs simply because an odd looking guy will receive treatment accordingly despite him advocating against that treatment. The basis of his treatment isn't his gender but a reaction to how he deviates from the established & stereotypes fueled by ignorance rather than an understanding of the man's gender.
To throw an example more comparable to what you wrote, I'll use your own words.
The concept of being non-binary deviates from the idea that one HAS to follow social constructs based on their biological *** rather than whatever they simply feel comfortable in. As I mentioned before, masculinity and femininity are both social constructs. Non-binary doesn't mean you reject that masculinity or femininity exists, it means that anyone can be masculine, anyone can be feminine, or neither if that's what they feel comfortable doing regardless of their biological ***.
See, if said nonbinary person is someone who believes they're neither(Red), that outlook is probably not going to be reciprocated. There are NO societal norms for this person, so they'll just fall under one of the 2 existing genders, a stereotype, and/or none if the onlooker doesn't like assuming. What that person personally identifies as isn't what's deciding how they're represented to others, so it has no actual social constructs of its own.
Gender is more than expression. You yourself asserted that social constructions are a part of it.
You must be registered for see images
Given the definition and my reasoning for for why obscure genders don't have social constructs of their own, can you really say either statement is objectively false?
The concept of being non-binary doesn't deviate from social constructs however. You can't deviate from social constructs because they permeate our lives as social creatures.
Some subcategories attempt(agender, androgyne, etc) & you can in the right crowd. Additional genders describe additional ways of how people perceive themselves &, like I said, even if they can't escape social constructs, it's not as though the social constructs belong to what they identify as.
The concept of being non-binary deviates from the idea that one HAS to follow social constructs based on their biological *** rather than whatever they simply feel comfortable in.
At that point, why not just say genders are bullshit and don't need to be followed? Instead, they've added additional genders, which go against your statement since the concept of gender itself requires these social expectations that they want to break from.
This is just complaining that gender is complicated. Which is hardly a valid argument against the concept of non-binary. Any kind of sociological concept, whether it be race, sexuality, gender, ethnicity, nationality, whatever, is gonna be a complicated topic. Just because you can't handle it doesn't make it a bad thing.
I agree. But in that context of "is it a problem," the complication is worthy of mentioning. The idea of a multitude of genders is being sold to the general population and family, not rocket scientists or economists.
The bold is my point. Saying there's a baggage that comes along with your chromosomes, dictating how you should act is sexist. Read my post again. That baggage, is called "social role". Asigning social roles based on *** is sexism itself. So saying you're a woman, because as a male you can't wear make up and you want to wear make up, is sexist. The underlined is a cultural problem, not a logic one. And identifying as non binary wouldn't change the fact that, based on this culture, i would look weird with make up.
But that baggage is induced by the cultural problem, not the person who says they're nonbinary. A nonbinary person, like I am doing right now, would just be acknowledging that the baggage exists as a necessary part of discussing how they relate to it. I agree with you on the blue text. The person described still isn't anymore sexist than the environment he's in though, so not sexist according to the population that would shun him.
Damn, i'm actually mad at you for not reading correctly what i posted.
- You don't need to change your gender to act according to a certain role, or do something you want to do. Saying that you don't feel identified as neither of both gender, or don't feel identified by a gender, is saying that gender comes along with a social role, and you don't feel identified with it.
Do i need to use apples to explain it to you?
If a non binary, says that he/she doesn't feel identified with being a man, or a woman, he's saying:
-Being a man means acting like this, Being a woman is acting like that... and i don't like it.
The BOLD is the definition of sexism. USE YOUR BRAIN, AND READ before you post such a shame of a post like your last one.
All of you are stupid, this thread oozes confirmation bias. All these new labels for genders are super dumb, everyone just do what you want to do and behave how you want to behave and get over yourselves. Fuuck anyone who says you shouldn't just be yourself. I identify as myself
This is what I mean when I write that it makes more sense to just say genders are bullshit. What's the purpose of creating another obscure gender if you can ditch the social expectations altogether and be yourself? Your stance is an easily accepted one. It disregards people that still subscribe to rationalizations based on their genders though.
I bolded the mistake you made which betrays your agenda.
Gender is a subtext for our communication and relationship with each other as a society. *** is a subtext governing our gender and perceptions of it. By attempting to replace *** with gender
No one is replacing *** with gender, people are distinguishing them. Hell, in two sentences right before your strawman, YOU distinguish between *** and gender, and continue to do so within this post. That is non-binary.
and bring the subtext of gender to the front of many social situations and exiling it from others, confusion is created, as well as an obsessive-compulsive need to label behaviors within the over-arching theme of gender.
Gender is not independent on *** because *** is biological and gender is socially and psychologically derived. *** is fixed, and cannot be changed. Gender is not, and can change with time and choice.
Females have a different neurological structure from males. Females have a very different metabolic system from males.
As a man, one of the best weight loss strategies is actually to strength-train. Male muscle mass is dominated by what are called 'fast twitch' muscles, which burn large amounts of calories even while idle. Our bodies kick over into kitosis very quickly and begin devouring visceral fat rather early.
Women, on the other hand, develop 'slow twitch' fibers. These mucles are more efficient and rely on oxygen to produce their energy. Women generally have much more endurance than men, but will not lose weight unless they go into extreme starvation or do cardio routines.
The strength held by an average man competes with many professional female builders. Even when they roid out and take testosterone supplements, it just doesn't compare. It's not fair - but it's the way it is. Men developed to be aggressive. It's in our blood to, in the presence of women, move toward the threat and engage it. Our bodies developed to survive such demands, and so men are the meat shields with the high peak strength and overall larger size.
Women ultimately choose which men get to 'live on' in the way of a future generation - assuming we have not descended into complete barbarism, where one simply rapes the woman of his choosing (which is another part of why men must be aggressive - civility only prevails when those who would violate it are give a swift attitude adjustment). Place a woman in front of a group of men and watch what happens. They will generally attempt to show off and compete with each other. Why? Because they want the chance to show what they are about to the girly in hopes she likes what she sees in them.
*** underwrites gender, gender underwrites how people interact with each other.
By trying to pretend as though there are people outside of this spectrum of communication, it creates noise in the system with absolutely no practical or biological meaning.
[/QUOTE]
Uhhh there is no pretending. In your example of "put a group of men in front of women and they'll start trying to impress her more than each other," that only works for straight men. There are people, such as gay men, asexual men, or even something as simple as men in a relationship that would betray your example.
Your example is also fucked on the fact that different genders can have the same effect depending on the man. For example, one man will see a feminine woman, and that gets him going. Another will see a masculine woman, and that will get him going, while they would have no interest if they switched places.
This is why *** is associated with gender, but also independent. Not only will you find people of the same *** and different gender, but different combinations of *** and gender mean different things to people, and can be irrelevant to others.
You're quickly wearing on what little patience I have for you.
Damn, i'm actually mad at you for not reading correctly what i posted.
- You don't need to change your gender to act according to a certain role, or do something you want to do. Saying that you don't feel identified as neither of both gender, or don't feel identified by a gender, is saying that gender comes along with a social role, and you don't feel identified with it.
Nope. It means that people can go "I am a man, but I want to act feminine." Or, "I am a woman, but I want to act masculine." Or, "I am a man, but I want to act masculine when I feel like acting masculine, and I want to act feminine when I feel like acting feminine." And anywhere in between. Non-binarism doesn't deny the concept of biological ***, or deny that a person is their biological ***, it just means a person's identity is not JUST their biological ***.
The BOLD is the definition of sexism. USE YOUR BRAIN, AND READ before you post such a shame of a post like your last one.
I'll start here since it seems to be the most important segment that the others depend on. The outward appearance of ALL genders may have expectations attached to them, but these are often undesired stigmas to any unorthodox gender. I think it's very, very injudicious(yea I used a thesaurus, bite me) to say all genders have social constructs simply because an odd looking guy will receive treatment accordingly despite him advocating against that treatment. The basis of his treatment isn't his gender but a reaction to how he deviates from the established & stereotypes fueled by ignorance rather than an understanding of the man's gender.
To throw an example more comparable to what you wrote, I'll use your own words.
See, if said nonbinary person is someone who believes they're neither(Red), that outlook is probably not going to be reciprocated. There are NO societal norms for this person, so they'll just fall under one of the 2 existing genders, a stereotype, and/or none if the onlooker doesn't like assuming. What that person personally identifies as isn't what's deciding how they're represented to others, so it has no actual social constructs of its own.
For one thing, I didn't say a non-binary person is someone who believes they are neither male or female or masculine or feminine. I said that a non-binary person is someone whose masculinity and femininity is independent of their biological ***.
Also, this part of your post seems to hinge on the idea that every societal norm in the world depends on *** and gender, when that isn't the case. Person A drops his wallet, and Person B picks it up and hands it to him. What part of this depends on the gender of either? Or a cashier giving the customer their change. Or a bus driver picking up a passenger. Or a mechanic handing the customer their bill. I can go on forever. And yes, you can have gender and *** come into play during these encounters in some way(like one person flirting with the other or what pronouns are used), but ultimately, none of these encounters depend on *** and gender. You don't have to be either *** or any particular gender to experience any of these things, and life is full of experiences like this.
This argument only holds up if every single encounter in the world is based on *** and gender, and that's not the case.
Gender is more than expression. You yourself asserted that social constructions are a part of it.
You must be registered for see images
Given the definition and my reasoning for for why obscure genders don't have social constructs of their own, can you really say either statement is objectively false?
Okay then let's try this. Can you give me an example of a gender that doesn't have a social construct behind it in some way, shape, or form?
At that point, why not just say genders are bullshit and don't need to be followed? Instead, they've added additional genders, which go against your statement since the concept of gender itself requires these social expectations that they want to break from.
You seem to be confused on what they are saying. Gender does not have to be bullshit. What's bullshit is the idea that a person has to follow a particular gender, that it's decided for each individual what their role and expression must be aside from them being able to do what they want.
Also, the reason gender is a social construct isn't because it depends on social expectation and acceptance, it's because it operates on concepts that are fully defined by societies. Specifically, masculine and feminine. Meaning that while a person might not recognize your gender as valid, it's still a social concept because what underlies it are, and it's not determined solely by biology.
Riker.... Are you transitioning and failed to mention it to us? You sound like the whale in the video. I feel like next youre going ti start telling us we are violent towards you because we are using the wrong pronoun to describe you. The people you are defending are trying to IMPOSE onto others their lifestyle choices. Basically calling us criminals if we mislabel them. Gender and *** are the same. Point blank simple.
Riker.... Are you transitioning and failed to mention it to us? You sound like the whale in the video. I feel like next youre going ti start telling us we are violent towards you because we are using the wrong pronoun to describe you. The people you are defending are trying to IMPOSE onto others their lifestyle choices. Basically calling us criminals if we mislabel them. Gender and *** are the same. Point blank simple.
Alright I'll try to break this down simply for you. ***=biological aspects that determine male and female; gender=aspects that are independent of biological aspects of male and female(***), but are socially associated with those aspects.
Having a penis=biological male=***; males don't wear dresses=social behavior associated with males=gender.
Gender is pretty much anything that you would associate with biological ***, but isn't an actual part of biological ***. So while a society wouldn't associate dresses with the male biological ***, a man isn't actually bound by his biology to not wearing a dress. Gender also includes psychological associations with *** like gender roles, sexuality, and that goes into people who are trans.
Nonbinary means that a person doesn't believe that people have only two options with their gender. Meaning, nonbinary acknowledges that gender and *** aren't the same thing, and that a person doesn't have to do masculine things just because they are male.
Nonbinary=if you're a man and you want to wear a dress, wear a dress. If you're a woman and you want to wear a man's jacket, wear a man's jacket.
Gender being a social construct is evident by the fact that in different cultures, you'd have different gender roles. For example, in some Middle Eastern countries, one aspect of gender there is that women don't drive, while there's no such gender role in America or England. In Japan and Scotland, there are male clothing items that would be considered feminine in America or Mexico. If gender was biological/not a social construct, you would not find differences in gender roles across different cultures. Every country would have the exact same gender roles for all of history.
This. Riker, youre either pandering to these crazies or you happen to be one yourself. The whole world isn't gonna sit here going through a dialogue with random people they meet to find out the proper pronoun to use or else they "offend" the other person. **** that. You can be the privilaged slave to them. But dont throw that shit on us. Ive never seen such sissiness in my life. I wouldnt be surprised if you were a female this whole time. Not because its an insult, but because women are more emotional. Which you seem to be all the time.
The concept of "acting feminine" or "acting masculine" is asigning a social role to a biological ***, and it's sexism. If your heads can't comprehend that simple fact, then i won't bother with you anymore.
