Should the Male Gender Become Redundant?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You can admit you were lying/being intentionally malicious, but you can never retract a statement.

I've seen you people consistently weaponize gender.
I also knew you were transgendered of some variety and sexually male.
It was entirely reasonable for me to connect those two together when you suddenly started identifying as male and using it as part of your argument.
If i'm mistaken about your identity, so be it.

Regardless of whether you changed your identity for the sake of the argument (I could be mistaken) you absolutely did weaponize gender.

Now, explain to me how someone can weaponize gender? We are just stating that we're men and our opinion comes from a male perspective, not that you must listen to us because we're men. Our experiences based upon gender and beliefs do matter you know? That's not weaponizing a gender, that's putting up an alternate view. "So you are male and you have seen this? Hmm... Odd, I have never experienced such a thing" isn't weaponizing; "So, I am male and you must listen to me because I am male and..." is.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I saw no gender weaponization.
God, that would be terrifying in reality...

I guess penises and vaginas can be upgraded into weapons now.

I wonder if we also need concealed gun permits just to go to the bathroom now.

[Hathradic States]

I've seen you people consistently weaponize gender.
I also knew you were transgendered of some variety and sexually male.
It was entirely reasonable for me to connect those two together when you suddenly started identifying as male and using it as part of your argument.
If i'm mistaken about your identity, so be it.

Regardless of whether you changed your identity for the sake of the argument (I could be mistaken) you absolutely did weaponize your gender.

This is the most entertaining post I have seen in a hot minute.

"You people"
"Transgendered"
"started identifying as male"
"if i'm mistaken about your identity"

I can no longer approach you as a poster who opposes bigotry. Nah. Miss me with your pervy gender policing and your stereotyping of transgender citizens. Miss me with your prejudice, and miss me with your bigotry. Your claims to support equality are not worth their weight in piss.

And what is the problem with the two I highlighted?

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Regardless of whether you changed your identity for the sake of the argument (I could be mistaken) you absolutely did weaponize gender.

Yes, because the fact that he is a part of the group that dem ebul radefemmes supposedly want to exterminate and thus would be sane again to not approach and not be approached by these kinds, and listen as an outsider in the case a feminist is accidentally otherizing or essentialist - let's assume it's in a good faith form - so he would know when they are in the wrong, is totally irrelevant. At all. Bravo.

Para com essa porra. Sério mesmo.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've seen you people consistently weaponize gender.
I also knew you were transgendered of some variety and sexually male.
It was entirely reasonable for me to connect those two together when you suddenly started identifying as male and using it as part of your argument.
If i'm mistaken about your identity, so be it.

Regardless of whether you changed your identity for the sake of the argument (I could be mistaken) you absolutely did weaponize gender.

Now, explain to me how someone can weaponize gender? We are just stating that we're men and our opinion comes from a male perspective, not that you must listen to us because we're men. Our experiences based upon gender and beliefs do matter you know? That's not weaponizing a gender, that's putting up an alternate view. "So you are male and you have seen this? Hmm... Odd, I have never experienced such a thing" isn't weaponizing; "So, I am male and you must listen to me because I am male and..." is.

Typically it comes in the form of "You're a man so you wouldn't understand." or similar. In this case, it was an attempt to distance himself from radical feminists by:
1. Implying only female feminists are the misandrist variety
2. Stating that as a male he's never met one/rarely meets them. (Thereby implying we wouldn't believe him if he were female)
3. Thereby using the fact he is a male as a point in favor of his argument. Not delivering it from the perspective of being male, but as a point in his favor.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is the most entertaining post I have seen in a hot minute.

"You people"
"Transgendered"
"started identifying as male"
"if i'm mistaken about your identity"

I can no longer approach you as a poster who opposes bigotry. Nah. Miss me with your pervy gender policing and your stereotyping of transgender citizens. Miss me with your prejudice, and miss me with your bigotry. Your claims to support equality are not worth their weight in piss.

And what is the problem with the two I highlighted?

I don't see the problem with any of it.
It's fairly clear that I was talking about feminists with "you people." I have no issues with transgendered individuals, and a record of disliking feminists.
And he did start identifying as male in the thread.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Typically it comes in the form of "You're a man so you wouldn't understand." or similar. In this case, it was an attempt to distance himself from radical feminists by:
1. Implying only female feminists are the misandrist variety
2. Stating that as a male he's never met one. (Thereby implying we wouldn't believe him if he were female)
3. Thereby using the fact he is a male as a point in favor of his argument. Not delivering it from the perspective of being male, but as a point in his favor.

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL motherfucking damnit Ostro

If you think this is an evil method of using gender as a weapon and thus an example of sexism, then you are a bigger radical feminist than the radical feminists themselves.

You just won the internet, only that it was just the opposite.

[Ostroeuropa]

Typically it comes in the form of "You're a man so you wouldn't understand." or similar. In this case, it was an attempt to distance himself from radical feminists by:
1. Implying only female feminists are the misandrist variety
2. Stating that as a male he's never met one. (Thereby implying we wouldn't believe him if he were female)
3. Thereby using the fact he is a male as a point in favor of his argument. Not delivering it from the perspective of being male, but as a point in his favor.

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL motherfucking damnit Ostro

If you think this is an evil method of using gender as a weapon and thus an example of sexism, then you are a bigger radical feminist than the radical feminists themselves.

You just won the internet, only that it was just the opposite.

If it's radical to follow through with the actual founding principles of feminism without putting up with all the stupid fucking dogma they trap themselves in then I am a radical.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

If it's radical to follow through with the actual founding principles of feminism without putting up with all the stupid fucking dogma they trap themselves in then I am a radical.

Well, that was edgy, even though a nicer shade of edgy than your usual one.

You still exaggerated really, really far right now, though.

[Morlodania]

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL motherfucking damnit Ostro

If you think this is an evil method of using gender as a weapon and thus an example of sexism, then you are a bigger radical feminist than the radical feminists themselves.

You just won the internet, only that it was just the opposite.

If it's radical to follow through with the actual founding principles of feminism without putting up with all the stupid fucking dogma they trap themselves in then I am a radical.

So...
You just admitted it...

[The Truth and Light]

So. The thread has devolved into the usual suspects behaving in their usual way. Hath being clueless about diversity and inclusive language, though I don't blame him, it's hard to keep up with. Ostro being trans* exclusionary and self-fellating (AGAIN), a few sensible people trying their best to remind the aforementioned posters why denying someone's gender identity makes you a prick.

And then there's me. Somehow, I have managed to maintain the stance that men do not need to be exterminated, and that feminism should not be about mass masculicide. Yet I get flack anyways? par for the course.

Anyways, to sum it up.

ITT: A bunch of anti-feminists say "TOLERANCE BE DAMNED, SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT MEN SO I'M GOING TO TAKE IT OUT ON EVERY FUCKING BODY!"

And that's life in NSG.

[Ostroeuropa]

If it's radical to follow through with the actual founding principles of feminism without putting up with all the stupid fucking dogma they trap themselves in then I am a radical.

So...
You just admitted it...

I've always admitted that i'm a gender abolitionist. That is an offshoot of feminism.
I thank feminism for bringing into view the notion of gender politics, much like I thank religion for bringing into view the notion of philosophy.

But now that we have philosophy. Now that we have Gender Abolitionism.
Our first malformed attempts should be cast aside.

Some G.A's identify as feminist. Most do not.


Mass-Male genocide is a possible stance for a feminist.
It is impossible for a G.A to support this, as they'd have to acknowledge gender.

[Hathradic States]

So. The thread has devolved into the usual suspects behaving in their usual way. Hath being clueless about diversity and inclusive language, though I don't blame him, it's hard to keep up with.

I don't see that, sadly.

Ostro being trans* exclusionary and self-fellating (AGAIN), a few sensible people trying their best to remind the aforementioned posters why denying someone's gender identity makes you a prick.

He doesn't seem trans exclusionary, and referencing that someone might be a prick is somewhat flaming.

And then there's me. Somehow, I have managed to maintain the stance that men do not need to be exterminated, and that feminism should not be about mass masculicide. Yet I get flack anyways? par for the course.

Because you seemed like you were denying that these elements exist in feminism.

[Ostroeuropa]

If it's radical to follow through with the actual founding principles of feminism without putting up with all the stupid fucking dogma they trap themselves in then I am a radical.

Well, that was edgy, even though a nicer shade of edgy than your usual one.

You still exaggerated really, really far right now, though.

How is it edgy?

[The Truth and Light]

He doesn't seem trans exclusionary, and referencing that someone might be a prick is somewhat flaming.

If you can accuse someone of lying about their gender in a pathetic attempt to get the upper hand in a debate, then refuse to apologize, then get the person you insulted warned for flaming - NS has hit a new low. That's all I have to say about that.

[Morlodania]

You people could dual over it...

[Hathradic States]

He doesn't seem trans exclusionary, and referencing that someone might be a prick is somewhat flaming.

1) If you can accuse someone of lying about their gender in a pathetic attempt to get the upper hand in a debate, 2)then refuse to apologize, 3) then get the person you insulted warned for flaming - NS has hit a new low. That's all I have to say about that.

1) I was confused to for a bit. I remember you insisting on being "they" for a while. It wasn't so much accusation of lying as it was confusion caused by you changing. It happens.

2) He retracted his statement, admitting he was wrong.

3) Eh? Where?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Now, explain to me how someone can weaponize gender? We are just stating that we're men and our opinion comes from a male perspective, not that you must listen to us because we're men. Our experiences based upon gender and beliefs do matter you know? That's not weaponizing a gender, that's putting up an alternate view. "So you are male and you have seen this? Hmm... Odd, I have never experienced such a thing" isn't weaponizing; "So, I am male and you must listen to me because I am male and..." is.

Typically it comes in the form of "You're a man so you wouldn't understand." or similar. In this case, it was an attempt to distance himself from radical feminists by:
1. Implying only female feminists are the misandrist variety
2. Stating that as a male he's never met one/rarely meets them. (Thereby implying we wouldn't believe him if he were female)
3. Thereby using the fact he is a male as a point in favor of his argument. Not delivering it from the perspective of being male, but as a point in his favor.

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean the "You're a man so you wouldn't understand" argument as he himself is a male.

Now, as for your bullet points.

1- Well, female and male feminists can be misandrist, but that wasn't the point he was arguing I think. But someone who is sexist cannot be a feminist, because feminism = equality of the sexes, not female supremacy. Like my dad said to me once "not everything that people state is red is actually red" and he is right, you can decry someone for not being a feminist by looking at their views against the ideas of feminism espoused by more rational figures in the field, but not to decry an entire ideology simply because some extreme, albeit obnoxious members of it can ruin it for everyone else.

2 - No, I think he was trying to argue that as a male he hasn't met one who is a feminist and actually espouses the concept that women must be superior, and I think it is reasonable to assume that he would also decry their ideas about feminism were he in the situation of talking with someone who is that misandrist. Which is different than saying he is right.

3 - Refer back to 2, because that is just a logical conclusion you just made, not a premise.

[The Truth and Light]

You people could dual over it...

I kind of just want to move on. An apology is too much to expect, so if I could get out of this situation with my sanity in tact, that would be marvelous.

[Morlodania]

You people could dual over it...

I kind of just want to move on. An apology is too much to expect, so if I could get out of this situation with my sanity in tact, that would be marvelous.

*Pulls out a ton of swords*
Will this help?

[Ostroeuropa]

1) If you can accuse someone of lying about their gender in a pathetic attempt to get the upper hand in a debate, 2)then refuse to apologize, 3) then get the person you insulted warned for flaming - NS has hit a new low. That's all I have to say about that.

1) I was confused to for a bit. I remember you insisting on being "they" for a while. It wasn't so much accusation of lying as it was confusion caused by you changing. It happens.

2) He retracted his statement, admitting he was wrong.

3) Eh? Where?

Pretty much.
Incidentally, the mods are aware usually that I tend to request non-intervention if the insult is just swear words or petty insults.
You can call me an asshole all you want.
If you imply I beat my wife i'm going to get pissed and report it.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Well, that was edgy, even though a nicer shade of edgy than your usual one.

You still exaggerated really, really far right now, though.

How is it edgy?

Your Mx. Know It All attitude of always, and painting yourself as the hero that is freeing this world from the shadows of ideology, identities and what you decided to just umbrella inside a big group of what you arbitrarily defines as superstition, even if it is studied by people far smarter and more knowledgeable than you as a serious thing at least in many aspects.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So...
You just admitted it...

I've always admitted that i'm a gender abolitionist. That is an offshoot of feminism.
I thank feminism for bringing into view the notion of gender politics, much like I thank religion for bringing into view the notion of philosophy.

What are you talking about?!

You do understand that, from a historical perspective, philosophy came before religion, correct?

[The Truth and Light]

I was confused to for a bit. I remember you insisting on being "they" for a while. It wasn't so much accusation of lying as it was confusion caused by you changing. It happens.

Holy fucking shit. If we're just going to lie about what is written on the forum for all to see, I'm out. Fuck that noise.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've always admitted that i'm a gender abolitionist. That is an offshoot of feminism.
I thank feminism for bringing into view the notion of gender politics, much like I thank religion for bringing into view the notion of philosophy.

What are you talking about?!

You do understand that, from a historical perspective, philosophy came before religion, correct?

It popularized it, I should have said.

I was confused to for a bit. I remember you insisting on being "they" for a while. It wasn't so much accusation of lying as it was confusion caused by you changing. It happens.

Holy fucking shit. If we're just going to lie about what is written on the forum for all to see, I'm out. Fuck that noise.

...
It was in your signature. I remember it too.