Feminists going full retard.

[TheDemonLord]

which is well and good until those "men" decide that they actually want cock IN them (decidedly female trait - even dykes buy plastic cocks), or, perhaps, "they were born in the wrong body"

having a "typically male body" (and F your I: adipose fat is more prevalent in women, not that there aren't fat men, just that the actual genetic expression shit leans that way. fat men are a disgrace to the species.) doesn't mean you'll identify as a male...

and then you get hermaphrodites, which scientifically, physiologically cannot be lumped into either, a DNA test could prove which is biologically more apt...BUT...

Sure, there are exceptions - but the occur at about a 1-2% rate when compared to the rest of the population.

Jordan Peterson (who was on the YT vid I posted) has another somewhere, where he talks about (from a Psychologist PoV) the Masculine traits and the accuracy of them - but for the life of me I can't find it.

If you are interested - there is a good video (it's in Norwegian, so you'll have to have the Subtitles on for it) that discusses this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

[Akzle]

Sure, there are exceptions - but the occur at about a 1-2% rate when compared to the rest of the population.

making them...? irrelevant? unimportant?

more, i'd suggest they occur at a higher rate, but go unrecognised cos men feel the societal pressure to be "manly" men, and so probably don't bother asking their doctor if it's normal to enjoy wearing silk panties.

the "traditional" gender roles are based on nignorant christian bullshit, and largely -negative- stereotyping, women, rather than nurturing/compassionate are called weak, rather than receptive are "easily mislead".
...where more pagan ideas embraced the yin and yang, the mother earth (rather than the sky father), and probably most importantly. didn't let women out of the cave to start developing stupid ideas about equality.

[yokel]

making them...? irrelevant? unimportant?

more, i'd suggest they occur at a higher rate, but go unrecognised cos men feel the societal pressure to be "manly" men, and so probably don't bother asking their doctor if it's normal to enjoy wearing silk panties.

the "traditional" gender roles are based on nignorant christian bullshit, and largely -negative- stereotyping, women, rather than nurturing/compassionate are called weak, rather than receptive are "easily mislead".
...where more pagan ideas embraced the yin and yang, the mother earth (rather than the sky father), and probably most importantly. didn't let women out of the cave to start developing stupid ideas about equality.

What a load of shit, the words 'man' and 'woman' were around long before 'gender'

'gender' roles come about because of human behaviour, human behaviour is the result of human male and female sexual biology.

[yokel]

The NatGeo article isn't just about transgender kids, in fact Avery Jackson (the child on the cover) is the only transgender child they feature.

A doctor in the field gives the best explanation of gender and sex, not some conspiracy theorist who thinks it's part of a globalist agenda.

It's a ........intersex it's that simple.
That "doctor" is full of shit, probably a pedophile.

How much medical attention with theses mentality ill people need.

Do you not think letting a kid believe that they're born in the wrong body is going to fuck them up?

It's Gatorade on crops level of thinking.



Perhaps I've been born on the wrong fucking planet?

[bogan]

Depending on your PoV, of course.



This is predicated on the notion that the actions of modern Feminists are inline with this Core value, and that this core value remains unchanged.

It is my contention that this is not the case.



At what point does it become adequate? I've discussed issues with numerous Feminists - I can count on one hand the ones who were reasonable. The 'few crazy academics' are sadly not the few, they are the Majority. 40 or so years ago, these were indeed the crazy and radical feminists, now - they are the mainstream feminists.

I can post up some more Academic Feminists doing some truly insane things in order to preserve their narrative. At what point do you concede that maybe there is a rotten core that has corrupted the ideology?



I don't doubt that not all want inequality in their favour. Some demonstrably do, the rest however either:

a: don't consider Men as having an issues (because Patriarchy and privledge)
b: Consider that Men do have issues, but Womens issues are clearly more important (because muh vagina)
c: accept that Men have issues but pay lip service to them or blame men entirely for them (because Feminism has never actively tried to shut down conferences about Male suicide rates....)



When I say they don't work as hard - I mean that they work less hours, often take part time jobs, generally are absent from roles that have an intense physical element to it or a danger element to it.

This is not a Strawman - This was born about by my contention of one of the central tenants of Modern Feminism (The Wage Gap) is complete BS as it is presented by Feminism. That the claim that this 77c on the dollar is due to Sexism when in actuality it's due to life choices that women (on the majority) make vs Men.

The data shows that for women under 30, working the same hours, in the same field as men get (cue drum roll) paid the same. I did read an article that showed in some fields (especially those where Salary negotiation was common) that men tended to earn a little more - and this was theorized to be due to men being more aggressive negotiators.)



When something like 70% of the social scientists describe their political leanings as Left wing, and you are dealing with political topics, it is almost impossible to remove that Bias, especially when dealing with subjects of Morality - essentially because the publishers a priori position is never validated. This is compounded when the peer reviewer (given the near 70% prevalence) is also likely to hold the same a priori position. This is the perfect example of an Academic Echo Chamber.

Article on this

Actual scientific paper on this.



I think you are stretching that very very thin, I can't think of 2 candidates who on paper were as good as each other, I can think of a few who were close, but when we did the tech assessment there was a very clear difference (which is why we do a Tech assessment)



So we are back to the no true scotsman:

"They aren't a real feminist as they are pushing inequality"

Problem is that you have to reconcile the inequality being pushed in the name of Feminism, by prominent Academic Feminists, by cited Feminist Authors, by Pop-Feminists with large youtube followings, By Tumblrina Feminists.

Just like Islam - when you have 50% or more of UK Muslims saying that Homosexuality should be a Crime, is it not a reasonable position to say that Muslims have a problem with Homophobia?

No, not depending on PoV, since it should be clear that the feminism group contains both those who just want equality, and those who want more.

You need to consider that inaction is an action that aligns with the core value as well. You seem to think the only feminists are those who are vocal, which is an unfounded assumption. What we know is that the feminism ideal was created as a way to get equal rights for women, and has made great progress in this area. We also know these extremist muppets are getting fuck all traction, so you might even think the number of feminists supporting them was vastly less than the number supporting the equal rights that have gone through.

The point where it stops being anecdotal evidence, skewed by your already demonstrated notion that only the loud/active ones are actually feminists. The few crazy academics are most certainly in the minorty, as academics as a whole group are only a very small part of society, for the crazy feminist ones to be in majority of the feminist movement, the whole thing couldn't be larger than what, about 10,000 people? which clearly not the case.

That's not the core ideology at all, equality is (it's documented with the rise of feminism).

You missed one, 0) cos men actually don't have issues. (ascribing that to patriachy and priveledge is an assumption based on the opinion you already hold, this is circular logic).

Gainful employment is not the only place work gets done, to say they work less hard is insulting and incorrect; because the implication is that at the same job they would also work less hard. I've not put forward the pay inequality argument at all, so it is a strawman by the most basic definition.

Utterly incorrect, science does remove political bias, that is why they show their working. The science I asked for is only a simply survey, and would be a trivial matter to show (or remove) any bias; as I've already shown the bias/unsuitability in some of your previous figures.

Regardless, the interview still plays a very important part of the hiring process.

You've stated 'feminism is not for equality' though. That is not the same as saying Feminism has a problem with inequality. It's the typical way in which people predisposed to disliking a group will attribute the actions of a subgroup (be it a 1%, 10%, 50%, 80% portion) as representative of the entire group to further their cause. It's abhorent when bigots do it against race, when done against religion, when done to generate hate towards the 'upper class'; and you should take a good look at yourself and why you are doing it here, the illogic you're using here is out of character with your normally logical and well grounded posts.

[Grumph]

Perhaps I've been born on the wrong fucking planet?

Congratulations, you've finally posted something I can agree with - now if only they'd take you back......

[yokel]

No, not depending on PoV, since it should be clear that the feminism group contains both those who just want equality, and those who want more.

You need to consider that inaction is an action that aligns with the core value as well. You seem to think the only feminists are those who are vocal, which is an unfounded assumption. What we know is that the feminism ideal was created as a way to get equal rights for women, and has made great progress in this area. We also know these extremist muppets are getting fuck all traction, so you might even think the number of feminists supporting them was vastly less than the number supporting the equal rights that have gone through.

The point where it stops being anecdotal evidence, skewed by your already demonstrated notion that only the loud/active ones are actually feminists. The few crazy academics are most certainly in the minorty, as academics as a whole group are only a very small part of society, for the crazy feminist ones to be in majority of the feminist movement, the whole thing couldn't be larger than what, about 10,000 people? which clearly not the case.

That's not the core ideology at all, equality is (it's documented with the rise of feminism).

You missed one, 0) cos men actually don't have issues. (ascribing that to patriachy and priveledge is an assumption based on the opinion you already hold, this is circular logic).

Gainful employment is not the only place work gets done, to say they work less hard is insulting and incorrect; because the implication is that at the same job they would also work less hard. I've not put forward the pay inequality argument at all, so it is a strawman by the most basic definition.

Utterly incorrect, science does remove political bias, that is why they show their working. The science I asked for is only a simply survey, and would be a trivial matter to show (or remove) any bias; as I've already shown the bias/unsuitability in some of your previous figures.

Regardless, the interview still plays a very important part of the hiring process.

You've stated 'feminism is not for equality' though. That is not the same as saying Feminism has a problem with inequality. It's the typical way in which people predisposed to disliking a group will attribute the actions of a subgroup (be it a 1%, 10%, 50%, 80% portion) as representative of the entire group to further their cause. It's abhorent when bigots do it against race, when done against religion, when done to generate hate towards the 'upper class'; and you should take a good look at yourself and why you are doing it here, the illogic you're using here is out of character with your normally logical and well grounded posts.

Thing is men have the "Y" chromosome, it's the difference between making a space craft vs making sandwiches.

How about you hop in that car dive on that road and over that bridge that women designed and built, let's see how far you get?

[WristTwister]

It's a ........intersex it's that simple.
That "doctor" is full of shit, probably a pedophile.

How much medical attention with theses mentality ill people need.

Do you not think letting a kid believe that they're born in the wrong body is going to fuck them up?

It's Gatorade on crops level of thinking.

Perhaps I've been born on the wrong fucking planet?

That "doctor" is the Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and is an internationally recognised specialist in the treatment of transgendered youth. An opinion that being transgendered is "fucked up" is no substitute for research into the clinical and psychological treatment.

Most transgendered kids get beaten and bullied. 35% of Dr Spack's patients had self-harmed or attempted suicide before seeking medical care. That sounds like they already strongly believe they are in the wrong body before they even seek out treatment.

You haven't been born on the wrong planet, you just need to consider the feelings of people that genuinely feel at their core that they're a different gender to the set of genitals they were born with. Don't you care about their happiness, the harassment they have to endure daily from something they feel defines them as a human being? No one is saying we should perform sex changes on every young adult that thinks they might be in the wrong body, the purpose of Dr Spack's work is to determine if that's even necessary, he even states that around 80% of young people who show transgender tendancies return to their cisgender around puberty. But for the small few who need it, why should we stand in the way of them living a happy and fulfilling life as the gender they identify with.

[yokel]

That "doctor" is the Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and is an internationally recognised specialist in the treatment of transgendered youth. An opinion that being transgendered is "fucked up" is no substitute for research into the clinical and psychological treatment.

Most transgendered kids get beaten and bullied. 35% of Dr Spack's patients had self-harmed or attempted suicide before seeking medical care. That sounds like they already strongly believe they are in the wrong body before they even seek out treatment.

You haven't been born on the wrong planet, you just need to consider the feelings of people that genuinely feel at their core that they're a different gender to the set of genitals they were born with. Don't you care about their happiness, the harassment they have to endure daily from something they feel defines them as a human being? No one is saying we should perform sex changes on every young adult that thinks they might be in the wrong body, the purpose of Dr Spack's work is to determine if that's even necessary, he even states that around 80% of young people who show transgender tendancies return to their cisgender around puberty. But for the small few who need it, why should we stand in the way of them living a happy and fulfilling life as the gender they identify with.

I don't give a fuck about peoples "feelings" .
A male can never know what it's like to be a female and vice versa.

Gender is not science you stupid woman, it's an ideology like Santa or the Easter bunny.

Anyone that makes my kids question whether they're male or female will get my fist in their fucking face.

If you want to consider someone's "feelings" what about mine?

[Akzle]

What a load of shit, the words 'man' and 'woman' were around long before 'gender'

correct. back in the ignorant age, before dna and shit, when the only real indicator was whether a human had dangly bits in their crotch.
most of the species has developed somewhat since then. you might catch up one day.

'gender' roles come about because of human behaviour, human behaviour is the result of human male and female sexual biology.

you realy do have a loose association with reality, dont ya.

[Akzle]

That "doctor" is the Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and is an internationally recognised specialist in the treatment of transgendered youth.

pah! yokel is WAY more qualified than that, he has broadband and youtube!

[yokel]

pah! yokel is WAY more qualified than that, he has broadband and youtube!

I'm identify as an attack helicopter, so I'm clearly more qualified than that human that thinks he's an actual doctor.

[TheDemonLord]

making them...? irrelevant? unimportant?

Statistically speaking - yes, they are an outlier.

more, i'd suggest they occur at a higher rate, but go unrecognised cos men feel the societal pressure to be "manly" men, and so probably don't bother asking their doctor if it's normal to enjoy wearing silk panties.

Wanting to wear silk panties =/= Transgender.

If you identify as a Woman - Fine.
If you want to wear silk panties - Fine.
If you want to redefine words to fit your narrative and then say some wholy retarded shit in order to maintain that narrative - we got problems.

the "traditional" gender roles are based on nignorant christian bullshit, and largely -negative- stereotyping, women, rather than nurturing/compassionate are called weak, rather than receptive are "easily mislead".
...where more pagan ideas embraced the yin and yang, the mother earth (rather than the sky father), and probably most importantly. didn't let women out of the cave to start developing stupid ideas about equality.

Traditional Gender roles can be bad, they can also be good.

For sure there are societies that brutally enforce them, however there is work being done in the field of Evolutionary Psychology that suggests our biology informs our Society - which is why universally amongst all cultures they started from a position of Men go off to work/fight and the Women look after the kids.

My position (so as to be clearly distinct from Yokels) is that there is more Gender Roles than purely society (as claimed by Feminists) and that there is a good biological foundation for the way things are. This does not mean that Society should in turn enforce compliance with these roles and neither should society seek to artificially redress a perceived imbalance with people choosing to by and large conform to these roles.

[yokel]

Statistically speaking - yes, they are an outlier.



Wanting to wear silk panties =/= Transgender.

If you identify as a Woman - Fine.
If you want to wear silk panties - Fine.
If you want to redefine words to fit your narrative and then say some wholy retarded shit in order to maintain that narrative - we got problems.



Traditional Gender roles can be bad, they can also be good.

For sure there are societies that brutally enforce them, however there is work being done in the field of Evolutionary Psychology that suggests our biology informs our Society - which is why universally amongst all cultures they started from a position of Men go off to work/fight and the Women look after the kids.

My position (so as to be clearly distinct from Yokels) is that there is more Gender Roles than purely society (as claimed by Feminists) and that there is a good biological foundation for the way things are. This does not mean that Society should in turn enforce compliance with these roles and neither should society seek to artificially redress a perceived imbalance with people choosing to by and large conform to these roles.

Feminists be like , we need to destroy gender stereotypes.
Nek minnit, look a girl wants to wear boys clothes, he must be a boy trapped in a girl's body.

Gender is science fiction.

Btw I'm being an outrageous cunt on purpose.

[Akzle]

Statistically speaking - yes, they are an outlier.

ahhhh. statistics, where if it doesn't give the esult you want, you discard it. hurrah man-society.

If you want to redefine words to fit your narrative and then say some wholy retarded shit in order to maintain that narrative - we got problems.

oh irony!

...there is a good biological foundation for the way things are. This does not mean that Society should in turn enforce compliance with these roles and neither should society seek to artificially redress a perceived imbalance with people choosing to by and large conform to these roles.

quite. quite.