|
|
Post by cat on Nov 17, 2024 22:02:48 GMT
I think they're sensible distinctions. CIS/trans, gay/straight.
I don't think any of this risks infant/mother bonding per se. If there's no mother, or rather, woman, in the picture, then someone's gotta rise to the task. This is getting a way from gender as a construct, which you seem to agree with. I don't agree at all that our gendered behaviour mirrors that of animals, though. Were we to apply gendered behaviour to animals, then we are socially constructing them as gendered. Animals don't have gender roles.
I think the confusion is using sex and gender interchangeably. The species of each animal, mammals, do things that only they can. Female animals breastfeed their young because they have the biological parts for it. That's not a gender role. Only we have gender roles because we use them to impose behaviours and limits on each other.
I bring up that trans women are especially at risk of violence due to over representation in the sex trade. I'd have to see the study to make sense of the numbers, as most of the studies and material I've read is North American-based.
The elephant in the room, though, is how any of this applies to Rachel Levine. It's been a while, but her government position was the catalyst to all of this. I see nor have I heard evidence suggesting that her job performance was compromised, least of all due to mental health issues connected to being trans.
And we disagree, because by consenting to hat label, I am accepting the premise of gender ideology. I will not do that. Fact, as animals, human males cannot feed infants. And you keep swapping sex with gender. All sexually reproducing animals, including humans, display sex specific behaviour. Us humans refer to this in ourselves as "gender" and here we get to the tricky leftist language. It is an equivocation fallacy here. "gender" in this context is a euphemism for sex. It is not the human concept of "Gender" Some species of birds dance and display to attract a mate. Only the male does this. This is a sex specific behaviour. This is not behaviour determined by the Avian Patriarchy, nor the result of any kind of conscious choice. Breast feeding is sex specific behaviour. Thus feeding infant mammals is a sex role. We don't impose these "gender roles" we observe sex roles and incorporate that into our understanding of the World. All "Gender"o r "Gender roles" are are societal expressions of biological sex and the issue that people have is assuming that these are prescriptive in humans, when they are not. And you didn't actually bring up sexual violence against trans people due to their sex work, you brought that up as a refutation of the dangers of trans women to actual women. Well, it's not a label that would apply in all contexts. It bears no announcement. I think the mere existence of trans people bears an opposite. I.e., you're not trans, therefore, you are... But I get it. For me, personally, this and other terms are the language of my vocation. For many people, these are just discussions and debates they can leave at any time. I'm sure plenty of people will move on as sure as they find the next fashionable issue to pick a side and rail against its opposite. For me, I have work to do when the dust of "being seen" settles and people move on to shinier pastures. I disagree that sex and gender are interchangeable. I was born in 1985 and I've only ever thought of sex as biological. I'm sympathetic to the extend that I've seen intake forms and paperwork going back decades that ask for sex with the word "gender", but I think neither are leftist terms or distinctions. If anything, it's science because science relies on the distinctions. I understand our conversation is casual, but research does not do euphemisms, nor should it. Frankly, the rigor required appeals to me. I don't even like slang. Breast-feeding animals is a sex role; it's biological because females produce milk. Gender roles as expressions of biological sex change with advents in technology and social norms. Can a man feed children? Sure, with a bottle, as can women who don't want to breastfeed because humans have manipulated workarounds against the inconveniences of breast-feeding and nursing. Far as I know, breast milk remains the gold standard, but it's not necessary to the survival of babies for them to be breastfed. Animals breastfeed their young, but out of biological necessity. It's not social pressure, whereas amongst humans, insisting on the breastfeeding of babies by the mother is social pressure because there are alternatives now. I don't recall why I brought up trans people. I know for a fact they face disproportionate risk of harm because of overrepresentation in the sex trade. Whether that was why I brought it up in the first place or not, it's still true. What's missing, in my opinion, is the link from biology to crime. It's the same with men; men aren't biologically predisposed to crime either. No one is. Biology doesn't fill prisons. |
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Nov 17, 2024 22:09:48 GMT
Well, I guess you can use that to decide if you want to vote for..... errr ummm..nevermind.. too late! ![[laugh]](http://storage.proboards.com/6870873/images/kPFtBpkwzwpFTaSmbFWI.gif) |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 18, 2024 4:31:53 GMT
And we disagree, because by consenting to hat label, I am accepting the premise of gender ideology. I will not do that. Fact, as animals, human males cannot feed infants. And you keep swapping sex with gender. All sexually reproducing animals, including humans, display sex specific behaviour. Us humans refer to this in ourselves as "gender" and here we get to the tricky leftist language. It is an equivocation fallacy here. "gender" in this context is a euphemism for sex. It is not the human concept of "Gender" Some species of birds dance and display to attract a mate. Only the male does this. This is a sex specific behaviour. This is not behaviour determined by the Avian Patriarchy, nor the result of any kind of conscious choice. Breast feeding is sex specific behaviour. Thus feeding infant mammals is a sex role. We don't impose these "gender roles" we observe sex roles and incorporate that into our understanding of the World. All "Gender"o r "Gender roles" are are societal expressions of biological sex and the issue that people have is assuming that these are prescriptive in humans, when they are not. And you didn't actually bring up sexual violence against trans people due to their sex work, you brought that up as a refutation of the dangers of trans women to actual women. Well, it's not a label that would apply in all contexts. It bears no announcement. I think the mere existence of trans people bears an opposite. I.e., you're not trans, therefore, you are... But I get it. For me, personally, this and other terms are the language of my vocation. For many people, these are just discussions and debates they can leave at any time. I'm sure plenty of people will move on as sure as they find the next fashionable issue to pick a side and rail against its opposite. For me, I have work to do when the dust of "being seen" settles and people move on to shinier pastures. I disagree that sex and gender are interchangeable. I was born in 1985 and I've only ever thought of sex as biological. I'm sympathetic to the extend that I've seen intake forms and paperwork going back decades that ask for sex with the word "gender", but I think neither are leftist terms or distinctions. If anything, it's science because science relies on the distinctions. I understand our conversation is casual, but research does not do euphemisms, nor should it. Frankly, the rigor required appeals to me. I don't even like slang. Breast-feeding animals is a sex role; it's biological because females produce milk. Gender roles as expressions of biological sex change with advents in technology and social norms. Can a man feed children? Sure, with a bottle, as can women who don't want to breastfeed because humans have manipulated workarounds against the inconveniences of breast-feeding and nursing. Far as I know, breast milk remains the gold standard, but it's not necessary to the survival of babies for them to be breastfed. Animals breastfeed their young, but out of biological necessity. It's not social pressure, whereas amongst humans, insisting on the breastfeeding of babies by the mother is social pressure because there are alternatives now. I don't recall why I brought up trans people. I know for a fact they face disproportionate risk of harm because of overrepresentation in the sex trade. Whether that was why I brought it up in the first place or not, it's still true. What's missing, in my opinion, is the link from biology to crime. It's the same with men; men aren't biologically predisposed to crime either. No one is. Biology doesn't fill prisons. Thats fair, but life isn't science. The activist insisting men can be women isn't calling me "cis" for the purposes of correct scientific labelling. Its ideological and I refuse it. And gender and gender roles are not the same thing. While insisting women breast feed is indeed social pressure, that isn't what we are talking about. Gender and gender roles are labelled because they are observed sex specific behaviours. They are not things society has decided. And there is no link between biology and crime because "crime" is a social construct. Men are more likely to engage in violent crime because men are more aggressive and less fearful of violence. This is an evolutionary survival trait. You brought up trans victims of sexual violence in response to me saying that they were largely autogynophiles, which is a paraphilia, which is a high risk for sexual offending. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Nov 18, 2024 4:38:16 GMT
And we disagree, because by consenting to hat label, I am accepting the premise of gender ideology. I will not do that. Fact, as animals, human males cannot feed infants. And you keep swapping sex with gender. All sexually reproducing animals, including humans, display sex specific behaviour. Us humans refer to this in ourselves as "gender" and here we get to the tricky leftist language. It is an equivocation fallacy here. "gender" in this context is a euphemism for sex. It is not the human concept of "Gender" Some species of birds dance and display to attract a mate. Only the male does this. This is a sex specific behaviour. This is not behaviour determined by the Avian Patriarchy, nor the result of any kind of conscious choice. Breast feeding is sex specific behaviour. Thus feeding infant mammals is a sex role. We don't impose these "gender roles" we observe sex roles and incorporate that into our understanding of the World. All "Gender"o r "Gender roles" are are societal expressions of biological sex and the issue that people have is assuming that these are prescriptive in humans, when they are not. And you didn't actually bring up sexual violence against trans people due to their sex work, you brought that up as a refutation of the dangers of trans women to actual women. Well, it's not a label that would apply in all contexts. It bears no announcement. I think the mere existence of trans people bears an opposite. I.e., you're not trans, therefore, you are... But I get it. For me, personally, this and other terms are the language of my vocation. For many people, these are just discussions and debates they can leave at any time. I'm sure plenty of people will move on as sure as they find the next fashionable issue to pick a side and rail against its opposite. For me, I have work to do when the dust of "being seen" settles and people move on to shinier pastures. I disagree that sex and gender are interchangeable. I was born in 1985 and I've only ever thought of sex as biological. I'm sympathetic to the extend that I've seen intake forms and paperwork going back decades that ask for sex with the word "gender", but I think neither are leftist terms or distinctions. If anything, it's science because science relies on the distinctions. I understand our conversation is casual, but research does not do euphemisms, nor should it. Frankly, the rigor required appeals to me. I don't even like slang. Breast-feeding animals is a sex role; it's biological because females produce milk. Gender roles as expressions of biological sex change with advents in technology and social norms. Can a man feed children? Sure, with a bottle, as can women who don't want to breastfeed because humans have manipulated workarounds against the inconveniences of breast-feeding and nursing. Far as I know, breast milk remains the gold standard, but it's not necessary to the survival of babies for them to be breastfed. Animals breastfeed their young, but out of biological necessity. It's not social pressure, whereas amongst humans, insisting on the breastfeeding of babies by the mother is social pressure because there are alternatives now. I don't recall why I brought up trans people. I know for a fact they face disproportionate risk of harm because of overrepresentation in the sex trade. Whether that was why I brought it up in the first place or not, it's still true. What's missing, in my opinion, is the link from biology to crime. It's the same with men; men aren't biologically predisposed to crime either. No one is. Biology doesn't fill prisons. Face it, trans people are the new n-words. |
|
|
|
Post by pathfinder on Nov 18, 2024 6:57:40 GMT
"An alleged sexual assault in 2017". Alleged. Just more dumbass phony accusations coming from the dems.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal1 on Nov 21, 2024 14:57:51 GMT
Bump!
|
|
|
|
Post by pathfinder on Nov 22, 2024 17:22:41 GMT
The more I learn of this he SHOULD withdraw his nomination.
Being a whore-dog is gonna open him up for blackmail.
Trump can find someone better.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 22, 2024 17:31:58 GMT
Yeah, he's not even going to make it to the approval process, let alone through it. He's gonna withdraw like Gaetz.
I'm not real broken up about it either. He's not the most qualified individual and I don't like what I hear about his "character". Bad guy. Unqualified guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐕 🐈⬛ Molly on Nov 22, 2024 17:37:46 GMT
The more I learn of this he SHOULD withdraw his nomination. Being a whore-dog is gonna open him up for blackmail. Trump can find someone better. He shouldn’t have been nominated in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by DalekFred on Nov 22, 2024 17:40:44 GMT
The more I learn of this he SHOULD withdraw his nomination. Being a whore-dog is gonna qualify him as your type of president. Don't back out now! |
|
|
|
Post by winterssuicide on Nov 22, 2024 18:01:03 GMT
A bruised thigh? We're debating whether a bruised thigh invalidates someone for office? ![[roll]](http://storage.proboards.com/6870873/images/sApACcwmmoAHtJysrJor.gif) I guess I better get my own sexual assault defense prepared. I certainly bruised a couple thighs in 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by brokedickdog on Nov 22, 2024 18:15:15 GMT
Bump what? An accusation. Not a conviction. Pete Hegseth is a great pick. He will lead a team that will remove wokeness from the military. Wokeness has become pernicious and has caused great harm to our armed forces. He will likely be confirmed. If not, somebody like him will be. It is absolutely necessary. A major housecleaning and restructuring. If you don't like that is just too bad. ULTRA MAGA |
|
