Farmers Markets And Farm Shops
Shopping & Style2 mins ago
Can You Guys Please Analyse And Refute The Following Quote?
59 Answers
"Every time I hear someone use the word "cis" I die a little inside. Feminists truly are a joke nowadays, the little tumblrinas really need to get off their pretentious negativity trips.
There are little to no cognitive differences with male and female homo sapiens at birth. There is nothing special about man or womanhood. We understand the fundamentals and our pool of knowledge concerning the finer details is expanding every single day. That said, there isn't some mystical element that makes a woman a woman or a man a man. These attributes can be changed and replicated. In the future I would imagine the greatest thing on the planet (i.e. science) will be able to flawlessly alter physiology in a sexual context. As it stands, sex changes are good enough not only for the law but medical professionals as well. You can change your sex and the associated procedures only expand in accuracy.
As mentioned above, there are next to no differences between males and females at birth. The truth of it all is, the differences in the human sexes are minute at best. Everything beyond this is entirely a product of the environment. If women are uncomfortable that a transwoman is changing in front of them, tough ***, get over it; based purely on statistics they probably won't even prefer women. We don't need separate locker rooms, we don't need separate restrooms. These are archaic concepts that don't belong in the modern world. There is little to no issues with co-ed facilities. Logically, since we have separate bathrooms entirely due to sexuality, proponents of this would have to advocate separate bathrooms for homosexuals in order to avoid being hypocritical. Oh wait, what about bisexuals? Now there's a paradox.
I would prefer gender itself to go back to being uselessly interchangeable with sex, but as it semantically stands, it doesn't. That's the way it is in ENGLISH. Other languages such as French assign gender to random objects like lamps and chairs. This only furthers the notion that the way gender is perceived beyond a black and white biological perspective is purely linguistic and subject to the culture.
With that said, not everyone that claims to be transgender is actually transgender. Not every crossdresser is transgender, not every man that wants to be a woman is transgender. Someone legitimately has to be experiencing and diagnosed with gender dysphoria. There's a clear distinction between this and fetishizing something. It's also important to note that a transsexual may or may not be transgender. Most of these constructs we have of what it means to be a man and woman are purely socio-economical, meaning that beyond that black and white biological perspective, it's essentially trivial. If someone feels they fit that the social construct of a women and want to take that a step further and impeach on it from a biological standpoint, more power to them. It doesn't affect me and or really anything important.
That all said, I hate Caitlyn. Yes, their name is Caitlyn, they legally changed it. Caitlyn is a bigot, an inconsistent hypocrite that doesn't understand the pressures many trans women go through. Being a rich celebrity that went off and on hormones in the 70s and 80s, never publicly coming out as anything (until now), is a far cry from what trans people deal with. Especially considering the *** had all that extra fame and money from being apart of the vapid Kardashian brand"
Do you agree with the notion that he is extremely intelligent and can you analyse the post? The creator of the post claims to have a degree in Anthropology.
There are little to no cognitive differences with male and female homo sapiens at birth. There is nothing special about man or womanhood. We understand the fundamentals and our pool of knowledge concerning the finer details is expanding every single day. That said, there isn't some mystical element that makes a woman a woman or a man a man. These attributes can be changed and replicated. In the future I would imagine the greatest thing on the planet (i.e. science) will be able to flawlessly alter physiology in a sexual context. As it stands, sex changes are good enough not only for the law but medical professionals as well. You can change your sex and the associated procedures only expand in accuracy.
As mentioned above, there are next to no differences between males and females at birth. The truth of it all is, the differences in the human sexes are minute at best. Everything beyond this is entirely a product of the environment. If women are uncomfortable that a transwoman is changing in front of them, tough ***, get over it; based purely on statistics they probably won't even prefer women. We don't need separate locker rooms, we don't need separate restrooms. These are archaic concepts that don't belong in the modern world. There is little to no issues with co-ed facilities. Logically, since we have separate bathrooms entirely due to sexuality, proponents of this would have to advocate separate bathrooms for homosexuals in order to avoid being hypocritical. Oh wait, what about bisexuals? Now there's a paradox.
I would prefer gender itself to go back to being uselessly interchangeable with sex, but as it semantically stands, it doesn't. That's the way it is in ENGLISH. Other languages such as French assign gender to random objects like lamps and chairs. This only furthers the notion that the way gender is perceived beyond a black and white biological perspective is purely linguistic and subject to the culture.
With that said, not everyone that claims to be transgender is actually transgender. Not every crossdresser is transgender, not every man that wants to be a woman is transgender. Someone legitimately has to be experiencing and diagnosed with gender dysphoria. There's a clear distinction between this and fetishizing something. It's also important to note that a transsexual may or may not be transgender. Most of these constructs we have of what it means to be a man and woman are purely socio-economical, meaning that beyond that black and white biological perspective, it's essentially trivial. If someone feels they fit that the social construct of a women and want to take that a step further and impeach on it from a biological standpoint, more power to them. It doesn't affect me and or really anything important.
That all said, I hate Caitlyn. Yes, their name is Caitlyn, they legally changed it. Caitlyn is a bigot, an inconsistent hypocrite that doesn't understand the pressures many trans women go through. Being a rich celebrity that went off and on hormones in the 70s and 80s, never publicly coming out as anything (until now), is a far cry from what trans people deal with. Especially considering the *** had all that extra fame and money from being apart of the vapid Kardashian brand"
Do you agree with the notion that he is extremely intelligent and can you analyse the post? The creator of the post claims to have a degree in Anthropology.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Trevorblack2014. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@TrevorBlack2014
The restroom law appears to have been inspired by some level of "ick" factor, experienced by ordinary people, when someone whose actual sexuality they are uncertain, or unconvinced, of. I mean, it could be a fully hetero prankster, wearing a dress to get some sicko jollies from watching the opposite sex relieving themselves. (I've exaggerated, for effect, there, of course).
Main point is that the majority is offended and revulsed by something so a law serves the majority by outlawing it.
I say majority, when I should qualify that by saying (mockingly) the "moral majority" because, in the bible belt, they're the ones making all the laws, convinced that they speak for everyone and, sometimes, that God is speaking to them and guiding their hand, in writing these laws. You know the type?
This quote could be applied to the tiny minority, the transgender community but I could just as easily apply it to some televangelist, who could be shaping laws in your state while not being an elected official. Merely an "influencer".
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself."
-George Bernard Shaw
I have not 'analysed' the quote, as yet. Have you looked at aspects, such as embryo lionisation, or the hormonal and behavioural outcomes of rare genotypes (XXY, XYY)?
You may also have encountered this "male and female brain" concept. Personally, I've not read up on the science and, since the implication is that we're "wired up differently", I want to see some solid evidence of that, before I croak. We have the scanner technology already, do there's a good chance.
The restroom law appears to have been inspired by some level of "ick" factor, experienced by ordinary people, when someone whose actual sexuality they are uncertain, or unconvinced, of. I mean, it could be a fully hetero prankster, wearing a dress to get some sicko jollies from watching the opposite sex relieving themselves. (I've exaggerated, for effect, there, of course).
Main point is that the majority is offended and revulsed by something so a law serves the majority by outlawing it.
I say majority, when I should qualify that by saying (mockingly) the "moral majority" because, in the bible belt, they're the ones making all the laws, convinced that they speak for everyone and, sometimes, that God is speaking to them and guiding their hand, in writing these laws. You know the type?
This quote could be applied to the tiny minority, the transgender community but I could just as easily apply it to some televangelist, who could be shaping laws in your state while not being an elected official. Merely an "influencer".
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself."
-George Bernard Shaw
I have not 'analysed' the quote, as yet. Have you looked at aspects, such as embryo lionisation, or the hormonal and behavioural outcomes of rare genotypes (XXY, XYY)?
You may also have encountered this "male and female brain" concept. Personally, I've not read up on the science and, since the implication is that we're "wired up differently", I want to see some solid evidence of that, before I croak. We have the scanner technology already, do there's a good chance.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.