NationStates

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 12:50 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:I would yet again like to note that there is a feminism thread; please don't drag that stupid topic into our space.

I'm pretty sure that thread is defunct. Otherwise, i'd be more than happy to move the discussion there.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 12:51 pm**

Des-Bal wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:I would yet again like to note that there is a feminism thread; please don't drag that stupid topic into our space.

There's not actually.

Seems like the last one got locked, oddly. My bad.
Regardless, it is not a topic related to trans people specifically, and you should make a thread to talk about it rather than invading the trans thread.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:I would yet again like to note that there is a feminism thread; please don't drag that stupid topic into our space.

We’re discussing women. Aren’t trans women women too? They are. This topic affects them too.

Yes, but it's not specific to transgender issues, and it should be in a thread about women rather than transgender people of any gender.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 12:53 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
It ties in into what you said and Bienhalde. She’s violent because men, he said. It strips a woman of agency. This is not denying that yes, it’s also a way in which people consciously or unconsciously absolve her of responsibility. It’s also an excuse she can use to absolve herself of the consequences of her behavior. I’m not absolving anyone however. I’m telling you what this view point does.

I see. You know, not to get all "Horseshoes" on you, but there's a lot of ideals that are shared between the extreme feminists and the... patriarchyists? They view the same thing, but draw opposite conclusions. In a similar vein though, those campaigning for equality share views as well. Shame they side with the supremacists of their own identity rather than cross the identity line.

I see it as horseshit, honestly. Why a man or a woman is violent, aggressive, promiscuous? Because we humans can be that way. This division of “that’s masculine behavior” or “that’s feminine behavior” is hogwash. It’s a way to typecast a person due to their gender. These behaviors are not inherently make or female. It’s just humans being humans, and they’re not tied to a specific sex or gender. To insist on it is silly at best and ignorant at worst.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 12:54 pm**

Des-Bal wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:The gender spectrum and social constructionism are extremely different things. I do not by any means support social constructionism, yet the gender spectrum is obvious.

How is it obvious? I requested any evidence of it and recieved none.

It's rather difficult to study minutiae of identity scientifically when we don't even understand human identity itself. From every one of my experiences, I have seen nothing to discredit it, while I know many people who don't fit into a strictly binarist view.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 12:56 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:There's not actually.

Seems like the last one got locked, oddly. My bad.
Regardless, it is not a topic related to trans people specifically, and you should make a thread to talk about it rather than invading the trans thread.

There's no "invasion" going on. The OP and others raised toxic masculinity as a possible reasons for why a transman could have done a shooting. Some conversation on the wider utility of the term then arose organically from that.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 12:57 pm**

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Seems like the last one got locked, oddly. My bad.
Regardless, it is not a topic related to trans people specifically, and you should make a thread to talk about it rather than invading the trans thread.

There's no "invasion" going on. The OP and others raised toxic masculinity as a possible reasons for why a transman could have done a shooting. Some conversation on the wider utility of the term then arose organically from that.

I'm fine moving this discussion tbh, but the old thread got locked.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 12:58 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:It's rather difficult to study minutiae of identity scientifically when we don't even understand human identity itself. From every one of my experiences, I have seen nothing to discredit it, while I know many people who don't fit into a strictly binarist view.

Why don't they fit in?

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 12:59 pm**

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Seems like the last one got locked, oddly. My bad.
Regardless, it is not a topic related to trans people specifically, and you should make a thread to talk about it rather than invading the trans thread.

There's no "invasion" going on. The OP and others raised toxic masculinity as a possible reasons for why a transman could have done a shooting. Some conversation on the wider utility of the term then arose organically from that.

Yes, which has caused non-regular posters to enter the thread and hijack it into being about nothing related to trans people anymore.

There's no "co-opting" going on. Hindus and others created swastikas as a religious symbol. Usage of it as a Nazi military symbol arose organically from that.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:00 pm**

Des-Bal wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:It's rather difficult to study minutiae of identity scientifically when we don't even understand human identity itself. From every one of my experiences, I have seen nothing to discredit it, while I know many people who don't fit into a strictly binarist view.

Why don't they fit in?

Either they lack gender, are between genders, or are both genders.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:01 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:Either they lack gender, are between genders, or are both genders.

What, beyond their statement that it's the case, evidences that they lack, are between, or are both genders?

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:03 pm**

Des-Bal wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Either they lack gender, are between genders, or are both genders.

What, beyond their statement that it's the case, evidences that they lack, are between, or are both genders?

I have no idea, as I've not studied them. However, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them.
In a legal case, you believe a witness's testimony if their story checks out with the evidence (or lack of it). Same applies here. Obviously not definitive proof of anything, but my own personal beliefs are dictated in part by my experiences, as are yours.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:04 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:
Dumb Ideologies wrote:
There's no "invasion" going on. The OP and others raised toxic masculinity as a possible reasons for why a transman could have done a shooting. Some conversation on the wider utility of the term then arose organically from that.

Yes, which has caused non-regular posters to enter the thread and hijack it into being about nothing related to trans people anymore.
There's no "co-opting" going on. Hindus and others created swastikas as a religious symbol. Usage of it as a Nazi military symbol arose organically from that.

I disagree as this topic affects transgender people too. Trans women are victims of the concept of toxic masculinity too. But if you don’t want the discussion here, I’d be more than happy to stop.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:07 pm**

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Yes, which has caused non-regular posters to enter the thread and hijack it into being about nothing related to trans people anymore.

I disagree as this topic affects transgender people too. Trans women are victims of the concept of toxic masculinity too. But if you don’t want the discussion here, I’d be more than happy to stop.

I think we should move this topic to a different thread, but i'm not about to step up and do that.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:07 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:I have no idea, as I've not studied them. However, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them.
In a legal case, you believe a witness's testimony if their story checks out with the evidence (or lack of it). Same applies here. Obviously not definitive proof of anything, but my own personal beliefs are dictated in part by my experiences, as are yours.

There is no reason to believe them, because there's no reason to believe that that's a thing that can happen. If a witness presents testimony that rests on something that no evidence suggests is possible happening then that witness would be ripped to shreds. You also have to note that this particular witness testimony is coming from someone with no reference point, they only know what it's like to be them they wouldn't actually know the difference between having and not having a gender.

My personal beliefs are dictated by my experiences and by evidence. Where my beliefs are not substantiated by evidence I treat it as a mistake.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:10 pm**

Des-Bal wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:I have no idea, as I've not studied them. However, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them.
In a legal case, you believe a witness's testimony if their story checks out with the evidence (or lack of it). Same applies here. Obviously not definitive proof of anything, but my own personal beliefs are dictated in part by my experiences, as are yours.

There is no reason to believe them, because there's no reason to believe that that's a thing that can happen. If a witness presents testimony that rests on something that no evidence suggests is possible happening

No evidence suggests it couldn't happen, though. There is no adequate scientific evidence for or against a gender binary.

then that witness would be ripped to shreds. You also have to note that this particular witness testimony is coming from someone with no reference point, they only know what it's like to be them they wouldn't actually know the difference between having and not having a gender.

I mean, that means you also cannot tell me that whatever your gender is is different from any other or whether it really exists, since you don't know the difference between having a gender and not having a gender. This kind of invalidates your argument as well.

My personal beliefs are dictated by my experiences and by evidence. Where my beliefs are not substantiated by evidence I treat it as a mistake.

That's what everybody likes to tell themselves.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:15 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
I disagree as this topic affects transgender people too. Trans women are victims of the concept of toxic masculinity too. But if you don’t want the discussion here, I’d be more than happy to stop.

I think we should move this topic to a different thread, but i'm not about to step up and do that.

I asked in Moderation to maybe have a split into a new thread.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:15 pm**

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
West Leas Oros 2 wrote:I think we should move this topic to a different thread, but i'm not about to step up and do that.

I asked in Moderation to maybe have a split into a new thread.

Good on you.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:17 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:No evidence suggests it couldn't happen, though. There is no adequate scientific evidence for or against a gender binary.

I mean, that means you also cannot tell me that whatever your gender is is different from any other or whether it really exists, since you don't know the difference between having a gender and not having a gender. This kind of invalidates your argument as well.

That's what everybody likes to tell themselves.

There's no scientific evidence for or against Russel's Teapot, this is not new ground we're treading it's just your sympathies to the person making specious claims.

Not at all, I'm not claiming to be something no evidence suggests can exist. If I was saying that I didn't have auditory hallucinations but that I could hear the voice of god you would be quite correct to doubt me.

And when they're willing to slaughter their sacred calves they can achieve that. It's not an unachievable goal it's a good way to live.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:17 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:
Dumb Ideologies wrote:
There's no "invasion" going on. The OP and others raised toxic masculinity as a possible reasons for why a transman could have done a shooting. Some conversation on the wider utility of the term then arose organically from that.

Yes, which has caused non-regular posters to enter the thread and hijack it into being about nothing related to trans people anymore.
There's no "co-opting" going on. Hindus and others created swastikas as a religious symbol. Usage of it as a Nazi military symbol arose organically from that.

♪ Godwins in the skyyyyy on eaaaagles ♪

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 1:39 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:I would yet again like to note that there is a feminism thread; please don't drag that stupid topic into our space.

Feminism is rather pertinent to transexuality and the discussion of gender in general...so

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 2:10 pm**

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Yes, which has caused non-regular posters to enter the thread and hijack it into being about nothing related to trans people anymore.

♪ Godwins in the skyyyyy on eaaaagles ♪

It was just the first example that came to mind. Nothing specifically accusing you of being a Nazi (since a more accurate strawman would call you a Stalinist anyway, and I strive to maintain realism in my strawmen).

Cappuccina wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:I would yet again like to note that there is a feminism thread; please don't drag that stupid topic into our space.

Feminism is rather pertinent to transexuality and the discussion of gender in general...so

Perhaps to the discussion of gender, but there's really nothing specifically tying it to transness.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 2:17 pm**

Cekoviu wrote:Stalinist

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 2:27 pm**

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Stalinist

Oh, mb. I meant Hoxhaist.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 2:57 pm**

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:Stalinist

Cekoviu wrote:
Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Oh, mb. I meant Hoxhaist.

>treating Stalinism and Hoxhaism as insults.

Anyway, I’ve recognized transgenders in my NS country as of today.

Posted: **Fri May 17, 2019 3:17 pm**

Soviet Tankistan wrote:
Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Oh, mb. I meant Hoxhaist.

>treating Stalinism and Hoxhaism as insults.

Ew.

Anyway, I’ve recognized transgenders in my NS country as of today.

General is an OOC forum.

NationStates

TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?