DrugsBunny

Are you having a medical emergency? You did cite the Nashville shooting, before I ever mentioned it. *facepalm* I'd say you deserve a towering trophy and a shiny medallion for your unrivaled lack of wits, but wearing a medallion may draw a stark contrast against the orange safety helmet that you surely require (not to mention a choking hazard). Ooof, this might be a bit embarrassing for you, but this is why we have a linguistic distinction between "neo-nazis" (the term I used) and the Nazis you are referring to... Are you going to pretend that ideological tennants from the original Nazis haven't survived to this day? Is anyone who simply refers to these ideological successors a "suckered idiot"? ?? It's amazing to me how thoroughly committed you are to iredeemably disgracing your own credibility, all done with the most pompous veneer of political astuteness that couldn't fool a saliva-dripping lobotomy patient... Oh, pardon me, I stand corrected; thank you @Danioover9000. ___________________________________________________ @integralYou can call me intolerant of broader intolerance, but you'd also have to pretend that's a bad thing.

The narrative was never manipulated, it literally originated from online neo-nazis lol. The only people who use this meme are people who got it from their favorite alt-right content creators who perpetuated the meme to them. You probably watch Tim Pool don't you. You just sound deranged now. No it is not feasible for such a surgery, but if it were possible to perfectly match a biological females anatomy via surgery, your position would demand that you still call them a fake woman, which is just absurd and closed-minded. Their misery is not something I take solace in. In my mind it makes no sense how a person could deny the irrefutable truths I have presented, regardless of how their pitiable circumstances may skew their biases. No need, there are far worse ailments one could suffer beyond the incessant reminders of human stupidity I am inundated with by these people.

Yikes, my dude... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Clown_World It's sad when you've resorted to citing the notorious Nazi dog-whistle meme. How appropriate, as you take the L, you inadvertently reveal your unflattering political allegiances, as anybody can clearly see the contemptible origins of this meme you've referenced 2 times now by clicking the rationalwiki.org link. Nobody is pretending the difference is not there... You literally read me clearly stating that the difference is obviously there, it's just not a difference that warrants rejecting the preferred gender identity. You keep refusing to acknowledge the fact that there exist biologically ordained females who cannot give birth, this does not make them a fake woman. We're basically in 99% agreement, except you insist on throwing in "BTW, you're not a real woman" which serves no purpose apart from being a juvenile asshole. That's literally your whole position. "I acknowledge you have gender dysphoria, and you are a trans woman, but you're not a REAL woman". My position is the same, except there is literally no purpose in throwing in the last part, none whatsoever. Actually explain to me what purpose is there in throwing that in? Just because it's "true"? It's only true if you reject the natural evolution of language, as an arbitrary whim based on ideological stubbornness, there's no other purpose. If you actually provide one I'll delete my account. Making excuses for coming off as an edgy 14 year old despite being like 40. Haha, I'd imagine Leo would read this even in spite of his transphobia wishing that his political allies had more wits to present your perspective, because you've really done a disservice to your cause.

@Roy Such powerful ignorance, it's quite impressive actually. Honestly my good man, you'd be seriously devastated by the brutal epiphany of how bafflingly fucking stupid your perspective is if the divine revelation ever magically occurred to you. There is no "belief" whatsoever involved in my position, which is as follows: As a society we should attempt to glean the highest amount of utility from language as is conceptually possible. Linguistic utility can simply be considered the usage of language which sufficiently accounts for all varieties of people, so long as this inclusivity does not affront the unadulterated truth. Thankfully with trans people, such a solution is very feasible. Sex and gender are two distinct things, not because somebody said so, but because it indisputably serves the highest utility to acknowledge the distinction between the anatomical male/female binary vs the "man" and "woman" gender roles. Sex refers strictly to your physical anatomy (ie. facial hair, penis/vagina, breasts), whereas gender refers to how you express yourself in relation to the commonly associated traits of the male/female binary (ie. clothing, femininity/masculinity, vocal tonality). Gender dysphoria is a valid condition that severely threatens the quality of life for many people suffering from it, as it is a scientifically substantiated affliction, bearing no semblance of likeness with the asinine concept of "transracialism" (the obscure, entirely unsubstantiated concept regarding the presupposed fictional phenomenon of "racial dysphoria"), therefore people with this socially devastating affliction should be accommodated with our use of language and our social expectations regarding gender. Because not all people can comfortably conform to rigid gender roles and the imposing social expectations therein, the terms "man" and "woman" provide the most societal utility when they are regarded as social categories which allow for appropriate usage in reference to any person who identifies with the respective gender role of their choice. Because sex and gender are not the same thing, a biologically ordained 'female' suffering from gender dysphoria can adopt the "man" gender role, or vice versa, and our societal accommodation of such people is a practical, feasible and morally appropriate application of our linguistic utility. Words change, language evolves, just deal with it. It may make you uncomfortable to acknowledge that trans people are valid, but try to recognize this is only a product of your closed-mindedness and your primitive inclinations to dehumanize people who don't conform to your bigoted expectations. Again, nobody is denying that cis women and trans women are two distinct varieties of women. Of course they are different. The only thing I'm saying is, you're seriously kidding yourselves if you think it makes sense to call Blaire White (a deplorable self-hating transphobe, who is only used as an example because they pass exceptionally well) a man because technically they were born with a penis. That would be such an absurd and contrived example of ideological stubbornness.

This grown man has just been reduced to the pitiful "umad bro?" retort. What are you like 40? What an embarrassing defense mechanism, yikes... ?? The fact that you've managed to fictitiously concoct a false memory of me calling you "rapist" and "schizophrenic" is reason enough to write you off as at least one of those things. You're definitely a transphobe, you literally used the Nashville shooting as evidence that trans people pose a threat to society, when I pointed out the statistics on this graph you said "Yes, most are not trans but the fact that even 1 shooter was trans means trans people can commit violence too", which is, without jest, in all seriousness, the stupidest thing I've ever seen posted on this forum.

For someone at your speed, explaining why your post serves as an inflammatory catalyst is probably best achieved by an obnoxious meme formatted JPEG, since verbally conveyed concepts are often beyond your comprehension. I've only stated that the transphobe community isn't sending their brightest in you, which your consistent inability to form coherent sentences seems to validate. Roy's got black friends, trans friends, disabled friends, blind friends and even albino friends! Such a popular guy, nevermind that by "friends" he simply means any person who regards him with a status marginally above house plant. So much winning, especially within the genetic lottery, what an IQ! Did you come up with that "attack helicopter" argument all by yourself? You must be the envy of your neighborhood with your certified 'forum moderator' credentials.

I imagine you thought it would be easy to berate me based on my livelihood, but sadly, as someone at least 10 years younger than you (if that's you in the profile pic) am working fulltime processing Medicaid claims for healthcare providers, that is, until my programming credentials reach marketable standards, then I will be a programmer. Why can't you respond to the actual substance of the discussion here? You think being able to give birth makes you a woman, but plenty of biologically ordained "women" cannot give birth? Are we just supposed to cast them aside as "fake" women along with these degenerate trans women? You can always point to biological traits that make trans women distinct from cis women... Nobody is denying the existence of these traits.. Nobody is saying cis women are the same as trans women... Just seriously inept.

Do what you will. Transphobes will always come up with all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify their bigotry and the fact that I am even engaging with you is a regrettable blight on my integrity. You've been graced with my infallible corrections yet are too proud to even engage with the actual subject matter, sheepishly deferring to trivial side matters that are conveniently more suited for your level of comprehensive abilities.

So concisely put, I applaud you, although this very simple idea remains far too complicated for the likes of @Roy and @JJfromSwitzerland to comprehend. Can you imagine that? Being so immersed in right-wing lunacy that you can't tell the difference between these two qualities of identity....

My dude actually thinks that some little boy wants a pink icing donut instead of a blue one, and immediately a ravenous onslaught of indoctrinated communists rushes to their front door, wielding the nearest pair of rusty gardening shears to be used as a haphazard castration device so the kid's dismembered appendage can be hoisted up as a trophy of trans rights and displayed in a museum. You can do better than this. You heard it here first, a trans woman will never be real woman because a real woman can give birth, we have found the universal standard that defines womanhood! But oh wait, seems we've forgotten that there are plenty of biologically ordained "women" who cannot give birth, guess we can just cast them aside as "fake" women along with the icky trans ilk. Such easily refuted nonsense. You can always cite the existence of biological traits that distinguish a trans woman from a cis woman, nobody is denying these traits exist, NOBODY... I can't even, so pitifully inept.. This is just pure copium, my guy.. There is absolutely no data or indication whatsoever that suggests society will cede ground and regress to right-wing prejudice, every trend imaginable unambiguously indicates a persistent shift towards leftist social preferences. How can you even argue this? I suppose you can, it just requires an embarrassingly weak grasp on reality and society in general. To be frank, I'm having trouble believing you have friends period, let alone so many that more than 1 of them are trans. For what it's worth I don't believe these trans "friends" of yours are cis women, they are trans women. Both varieties are "real" women, why this strong insistence to linguistically invalidate them? It's just juvenile unwillingness to include them in what can obviously be considered a socially constructed category. This is just getting sad... I saved the dumbest shit you said for last, this is just wow, powerful stupid. Trans people have existed forever. The recent "obsession", whether you agree with trans rights or not, is undeniably the source of right-wing fervor. You think liberals just randomly decided that trans people warrant the highest summit of political focus? The fact that we are even discussing this is a consequence of right-wing culture war fear-mongering. We get it you're uncomfortable with trans people, but lets not deny reality and pretend that the left is why this is even an issue right now..

I think it's unfathomably juvenile to pay heed to some childish vow to "ignore responses". That was all your pledge, not mine, yet you don't even adhere to it. You can't see the passive-aggression in your response to my interaction with this moderator, essentially acting as a WWE fanboy in the audience clamoring "Go, @Roy! Hit him again!" You need not worry, both of us are doomed for the inevitable ban from this sub-forum eventually. Myself because I am too impatient and unsympathetic towards bigotry, thus my tone often strays from what's considered appropriate, and you because Leo's warnings directing you not to post tabloid quality drama-bait drivel seem to be present too great of a challenge for someone with your unique disadvantages.

Another one of Leo's henchmen lackeys who doesn't know what gaslighting means, just copies Leo's blind usage of the term to mean anyone who disagrees with you. You've also shoehorned the word "blackmail" in where it doesn't belong. Can we even trust that you actually know what dysphoria really means? You essentially equate being trans to wishing you were a helicopter and your reflexive defensive retort is to assert that don't care how many trans people kill themselves, you will never cede ground to the indoctrinated horde of leftists who would prefer you acknowledge the distinction between gender dysphoria and "transracialism". The "insane non-truth" that a medically recognized mental affliction with endless compendiums of scientific merit behind it may actually be significantly distinct from the comically obscure, outright asinine and entirely made-up condition of "transracialism". Nobody made any significant argument for trans rights, just said this is an absurd comparison, and this sends you into a frothing tailspin of seething hatred. This is just a right wing bigot's inability to acknowledge the difference between gender and sex. Nothing new here, easily refuted child's play. If someone gets a surgery to correct their eye-sight, does this mean they are still blind when the surgery affords them new sight? You were born blind, and no surgery can change this (even though it can)? Do you think being a man or woman is some quality that is assigned to your soul, and nothing you do can change this, even though everyone around you treats you as the gender you transitioned to and can't even tell you had switched genders? It's obvious man and woman are fluid social constructs designed around the binary of male and female sex archetypes but not necessarily strictly correlated to it. Pure stupidity, pure bigotry on full display, doesn't even need refuting, just take a look at the lowly ilk of simpleton whose approval you've captured.

Funny how a mod here equates having gender dysphoria to the obscure, non medically recognized, imaginary and entirely impractical fictional phenomenon of racial dysphoria. Wanting to change superficial qualities about yourself is not the same as having gender dysphoria. Such a silly cesspool of low IQ drivel this forum has turned into.

Creating an entire thread just to discuss whether a person would subject themselves to the unnerving social stigma and bigotry associated with trans people just for some petty fad is beyond asinine, outright insensitive and frankly indicative of a very weak grasp on reality and social situations in general. /thread

So weird.. since you initiated the interaction, to which I responded once and ignored your responses... I'd imagine a festering pile of roadkill would have more self awareness. I don't mind having a laugh at the cognitive failings of our disadvantaged friend here, but I do resent being cast in the same regard as them. Take a closer look and it is visibly obvious who the catalyst is. You'll have to excuse that I won't sit idle while being misaccused of some juvenile nonsense. _____________________________________ Keeping the thread on topic, I do think there may be a tinge more nuance to the controversy here than I initially gave credence to. I won't say 100% he is a malicious predator, but I will say certainly this is an egregious moral failure nonetheless. It's simply not possible to be unaware that this act would evoke an adverse reaction. If this is an actual cultural incongruity rooted in Tibetan tradition then I suspect the people who came up with this had impure motives from the get-go.

The fuck are you talking about? I never posted here since Page 3 a week before you said this. Bruh where does Actualized find these people? No surprise you'd defend this pedo.

We're on the Actualized forum, so I can't post a picture of a hot woman with a penis, although please imagine I had. ? ? Would it really be intuitive to call such a person a man? I would intuitively call her a woman, and the penis would just be incidental. I will acknowledge that you can also take a less "passing" trans woman with male genitals, and you may think they're a man, but this scenario can be considered akin to mistaking butter for margarine, jam for jelly, alligator for crocodile etc.. Just because a word invites you to assume it's something other than what it is, to me, does not present much reason to defer to intuition rather than social inclusiveness. Obviously if you're mistaken then you will use the wrong word, but I'm talking about the societal inclination to move towards inclusive definitions that make this possibility less likely.

In this instance it would simply be a woman with male genitals. I understand why this seems to be an affront to linguistics, but under my hypothetical idealization, this scenario would not be such an offense to modern sensibilities. I will make a concession however, because I stated that no linguistic utility would be lost, but that would depend on subjective moral inclinations towards trans inclusion, which from a utilitarian standpoint is the objectively correct inclination, although most people aren't necessarily inclined morally to defer to such inclusion. For this oversight I will afford @Thought Art some contrition, as I was unsympathetically and brazenly self-assured in rejecting the ideological undertones of such a statement. Understand that I intentionally use lofty expressions of self-assuredness to bolster the perceived authority of what I deem to be crucially important social leanings. As I see it, situations like this warrant additional effort in framing the opposing perspective as utterly devoid of credibility, hence the tone I had taken above. When the rare instance of my concession is necessary, this approach of calculated condescension backfires of course. I'm only invested in social outcomes that are best for everybody, and my tone is a calculated effort to most effectively persuade people to my perspective. ???

You seem to have discarded the original context of the argument you were responding to, all while capturing the misguided adoration of our uninformed friend @Yimpa no less. Such a silly place this forum can be. I see your facepalm bid and raise you one fervent *eye-roll* and a prolonged *sigh* of impatience. @Carl-Richard Before I explain the subtle contextual shift that led to this confusion, I'll also point out that it's unlikely you'd see a person's genitals as part of their "immediate appearance" (in your words, which were edited after I responded). At least I would hope not. Remember the initial argument you responded to was my position that there is no linguistic necessity in using the words "man" or "woman" to identify physical sex (anatomy). My only position is that no linguistic utility would be lost by reserving "man" or "woman" solely for gender expression, so it would be hypothetically ideal that we use these terms as such. You asserted your inclination to call someone a man based on their appearance, to which I responded within the confines of the hypothetical idealization I had presented, which seems to be the source of the confusion. You'll see in my original remark I had already stated that we still use the terms "man" and "woman" in regards to sex (ie. genitals), although it would be ideal for this inclination to go out vouge. So long as the distinction between sex and gender is acknowledged (which thanks to the low IQ of conservatives this isn't always a given), it would undeniably be more efficient to reserve these terms solely for gender, instead of having two subtly distinct definitions for "man" or "woman", because "male"/"female" can independently suffice for sex. In such a context where we reserve the ideal terms solely for gender, any appearance based inclinations to identify someone as a "man" could have, by definition, only taken place on a gender related basis.

Lmao, alright I'll take the L on that one. "It was rather dense." You have to admit that definitely invites me to jump the gun there.

@Leo Gura What a reach. Yeah I'd be in a hurry to get rid of me also if I had to oppose someone as objectively on point. Can I ask what precisely you take issue with? I genuinely don't see anything too abrasive here.

*sigh* My dude you're making me feel so alone in having this apparently and surprisingly uncommon ability to decipher the not-so-subtle difference between ideological interpretation and unbiased objectivity. I'm at work right now, but I'll still grace you with my infallible corrections while I debase my integrity as an employee by addressing this unfortunate haplessness. The reason it's not ideological to say that the terms "man" or "woman" provide no linguistic utility towards descriptions specifically of sex (distinct from gender) is because these terms are simultaneously used towards describing gender, which as a matter of incontestable fact, obfuscates the otherwise clear meanings of "man" and "woman". In terms of what is or is not ideological, the preceding remarks are the only claims I have made in that respect. Of course nothing about that is ideological. Seems that you simply regard me as an ideologue and reject any objective statement I make due to your own biases. The lack of self-awareness has me in stitches. ?? Here's the main difference between us. If I deem something to be irredeemably stupid, I will let it be known unabashedly that your perspective warrants no respect and my use of language will accurately reflect the sentiment, whereas with you, you'll express the same sentiment, as you have here in calling me dense, but you won't commit to the tonal implications of your debasing remarks. Instead you'll pussyfoot behind this subdued personability of forced etiquette that serves as plausible deniability from the abrasiveness of your words. I will at least afford you the upfront courtesy of a genuine demeanor that sincerely reflects my regard for you and your perspective, so as not to obscure the potentially unflattering temperament my words may incidentally evoke. As far as I'm concerned, your backhanded condescension is far more of an affront to rational sensibilities than my upfront condescension should ever be considered. The truth is, the merit behind my expressed argument was apparently beyond your comprehension, which is surprising to me but perhaps it shouldn't be. Being one of Leo's moderators is kinda like being a US police officer; you can't be a complete imbecile, but if you're too intelligent you will be intentionally disqualified from eligibility.

My facepalm has reached metaphysical proportions. Thank you for providing such an easily refuted counter-example. Of course you can refer to people as men or women by appearance, I'm only saying that doing so would be your interpretation of their gender expression, not their sex. Nothing I said has been invalidated. We have so many examples of transphobes like Ben Shapiro calling trans people (who still have their original genitalia) by their preferred gender pronouns ACCIDENTALLY, and then haphazardly "correcting" themselves to intentionally misgender them by calling them the pronouns associated with the biological sex. This is because you would reflexively assume someone's man/woman status based on their gender expression, not their sex.

This is where I'll correct you, these concepts are actually very very simple. What is sex? An archetype of anatomy that has a strict male/female binary. What is gender? A spectrum of expressions associated with the sex binary (ie. the way you dress, speak, emote etc..). What is a man? In the context of gender, a man is simply anybody who sincerely identifies as one. Colloquially there is still usage of the words "man" or "woman" that pertains to sex, not gender, in which case a man would be an adult with male physiology, but this definition is pretty out of vouge and for good reason. There is no utility to be derived from the words "man" or "woman" in a non-gender related context, as they are merely used interchangeably with male and female, which does not serve any real utility, but rather obfuscates it You can see why I make a distinction between male/female and man/woman right? The former serves its main purpose in describing biological sex whereas the latter gives utility in describing gender expression (regardless of how we use them colloquially). Therefore we can exclusively reserve the terms man/woman for gender expression, which means the question "What is a woman?" can definitively be answered simply as "anyone who identifies as such". This is absolutely not an ideology, this is an incontestable assessment of linguistic utility, and any insistence otherwise is a clear ideological bias. The idea that the questions you pose are actually complicated suggests that there is some elaborate male/female archetype one must conform to in order to qualify as being a man or woman. This narrative, while not necessarily bigoted in itself, plays into the hand of prejudiced hegemon, so obviously I'd rather not let such statements go unchallenged. If that's your impression despite how innocuous my response was I'd imagine you already sought to disregard the substantive merit of my position right off the bat.

This is such an unfortunate default position lent merit only by uncritical groupthink. Men or women who are comfortable being masculine or feminine and fulfilling their default gender role in a traditional way should do that, and if that's not their easiest expression of gender then to hell with the rigid conformity. This is such a silly narrative which you certainly have no objective data to support, but if you're looking to make the likes of Jordan Peterson proud, then I suppose you're on the right track.