Imperial States of Duotona wrote:Hey, found this thread on accident, I'm not gonna try to pretend like I'm an expert on trans issues (I'm cishet, so yeah) but all I can say is trans rights!
Thank you!
Advertisement
by Forhillia » Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:56 pm
Imperial States of Duotona wrote:Hey, found this thread on accident, I'm not gonna try to pretend like I'm an expert on trans issues (I'm cishet, so yeah) but all I can say is trans rights!
by Kowani » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:40 pm
by Kharao » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:44 pm
by Lady Victory » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:47 pm
by Alcala-Cordel » Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:09 am
Lady Victory wrote:I remember when I was a kid all I knew about Texas was guns and cowboys, which was enough for me to label them as "cool".
Man the world was so much better when I didn't know how it really worked.
by Necroghastia » Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:28 pm
Alcala-Cordel wrote:Lady Victory wrote:I remember when I was a kid all I knew about Texas was guns and cowboys, which was enough for me to label them as "cool".
Man the world was so much better when I didn't know how it really worked.
I grew up in Texas until I was I, and I loved it but in hindsight I did see a lot of questionable things that I was just used to.
I also visited family in Texas a few months ago, and the promotion of consumerism and anti-intellectualism was extremely blatant. At one point my cousin and I even saw a protest against the "trans agenda" in the middle of the city. There were also weird right-wing billboards everywhere and just about no one wore masks
by HISPIDA » Fri Sep 24, 2021 12:54 pm
Lady Victory wrote:I remember when I was a kid all I knew about Texas was guns and cowboys, which was enough for me to label them as "cool".
Man the world was so much better when I didn't know how it really worked.
by The Serbian Empire » Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:12 pm
by North Washington Republic » Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:39 pm
Lady Victory wrote:I remember when I was a kid all I knew about Texas was guns and cowboys, which was enough for me to label them as "cool".
Man the world was so much better when I didn't know how it really worked.
by Ifreann » Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:56 pm
Michel Meilleur wrote:Ifreann wrote:Again, you are asserting something to be true not based on evidence or logical reasoning, but based on having learned it during your primary education. As if the fact of having learned it first makes it true, as if children are never taught simplified or incomplete versions of the truth, as if children are never taught outright lies. I was taught in biology that a species is defined as a group of animals that can produce viable offspring. But that's not true. Interspecies hybrids exist. The best known are the infertile hybrids of horses and donkeys, but fertile hybrids are also possible. Panthera hybrids can be fertile, ligers have successfully mated with lions to produce liligers. Ultimately, species is just a made up category. There isn't always a clear line where one species ends and its nearest relative begins. And sex, likewise, is not the simple binary you were taught when you were 12 and trying to stifle giggles as your teacher said "scrotum".
"Not based on evidence or logical reasoning"
"Only women have women's sex organs".
Again, we're not talking about atoms or La Place transformation nor even breeding random animals to make new ones here. We're talking about the biology equivalent to 1+1 in maths.
Not even that, it's actually a disservice to compare it to 1+1 because that requires basic logic that I'm not even asking you to display. Literally, the only thing you need is to be able to read some letters and see to what drawing they correspond to on an anatomic chart to see and once you've learn it once, it's never going to change in your whole life because those are organs! It's taught in middle school because it's literally just that seasy to get the basic concept that "Men and women have different sex organs, men have a penis and balls, women have a vagina and a womb."
Just do yourself a favor and stop trying to evoke some great esotericism of the sexual organs that take ten thousands years of university researchs to be able to pierce the complexity of. Not only is it not working, but it's making your argument (and what you're trying to defend with it) look even dumber the harder you try to pretend that there is some hidden truth behind knowing what sex has what organs and where they are in the body. Randomly dropping unrelated bits of knowledge you got from reading some wikipedia articles only makes it clearer that not even you believe in the shitty point you're trying to argue.
The only thing you're displaying here is that you don't actually understand science but that you're very eager to pretend that you do and love it because you feel that it makes the political ideology you espouse look the tiniest bit legitimate... Even if it takes you lying about anything and everything to try and achieve that goal.
by Kowani » Mon Sep 27, 2021 8:34 pm
by Serrus » Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:32 am
Ifreann wrote:Importing an argument from the UK politics thread.
[mucho texto]
Eastern Raarothorgren wrote:News websites are good and reasonable soruces of information or they would not be on the internet if they were saying things that were incorrect.
Keshiland wrote:I am yes arguing that the 1st 4 are not binding to the states and yes I know that in most Republican states they would ban the freedom of religion and the freedom of essembally but I don't live there and I hate guns!
by Michel Meilleur » Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:57 am
Ifreann wrote:Principia Mathematica is a work on foundational mathematics that first establishes that 1 + 1 = 2 on page 379 of the first volume, and completes the proof on page 86 of the second volume. The maths we teach to children first is the easiest to understand, not the foundation of the field.
But that's not always true. Men don't always have a penis and testes, women don't always have a vagina and uterus, for various reasons, including the reason that some people are transgender.
That I'm using examples to help explain to you what I'm saying proves that I don't believe it? That's just bollocks.
I like science as much as any internet weirdo, but all I'm demonstrating is a slightly wider understanding of the world that you were given when you were in primary school.
by Vassenor » Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:01 am
by Ifreann » Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:01 pm
Michel Meilleur wrote:Ifreann wrote:Principia Mathematica is a work on foundational mathematics that first establishes that 1 + 1 = 2 on page 379 of the first volume, and completes the proof on page 86 of the second volume. The maths we teach to children first is the easiest to understand, not the foundation of the field.
A book, I'm sure, you've actually read rather than are just name-dropping in a rather shallow attempt at appeal to authority, losing in the process rather pathetically the point that children do not need the 200 pages proofs needed to verify the truth that 1+1=2, just like they do not need to go through hundreds of pages long of anatomic books to verify the fact that men have male sexual organs and women have female sexual organs.
But that's not always true. Men don't always have a penis and testes, women don't always have a vagina and uterus, for various reasons, including the reason that some people are transgender.
Errors in the reproductive process that leads one to be born with none or both remains just errors that are inherent to the very nature of sexual reproduction. "Accidents of life" that lead one to lose their sexual organs after their birth remains just accidents. Those are simply "exceptions" that do not change the rule that is that men and women are born with the sexual organs that are pertaining to their sex.
That's literally a biological imperative for the continuation of the specie.
That I'm using examples to help explain to you what I'm saying proves that I don't believe it? That's just bollocks.
Wallah, that you're delving into mysticism when it comes to basic anatomic facts does, tho.
I like science as much as any internet weirdo, but all I'm demonstrating is a slightly wider understanding of the world that you were given when you were in primary school.
Rather a much wronger one, lmao.
by Vassenor » Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:52 pm
by Michel Meilleur » Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:01 am
Ifreann wrote:Children don't need hundreds of pages of proving that 1+1=2, but mathematicians do, because the foundations of mathematics are much more complicated than the arithmetic operations we learn first as children. It's much easier to teach people addition and subtraction and so on, and then go back later and teach them the more complicated logical underpinnings of those things.
You can't accurately describe the nature of humans by excluding certain humans from your consideration. I can't just exclude redheads and claim that humans are only ever blonde or brunette. Calling redheads an error doesn't mean they aren't real and don't count as human.
Using examples isn't mysticism.
Maybe get out in the world more.
by Ifreann » Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:24 am
Michel Meilleur wrote:Ifreann wrote:Children don't need hundreds of pages of proving that 1+1=2, but mathematicians do, because the foundations of mathematics are much more complicated than the arithmetic operations we learn first as children. It's much easier to teach people addition and subtraction and so on, and then go back later and teach them the more complicated logical underpinnings of those things.
Nice and all but 1+1 is still equal to two and each of the two sexes has its own specific reproductive organs and those two facts that children learn still remain true even if you can spend fifteen more years studying the "why" as to they exist.
You can't accurately describe the nature of humans by excluding certain humans from your consideration. I can't just exclude redheads and claim that humans are only ever blonde or brunette. Calling redheads an error doesn't mean they aren't real and don't count as human.
You can accurately describe the nature of sexual reproduction of humans, and the organs involved in them, by removing errors and accidents.
Just like you can describe that humans have naturally hair without "excluding bald peoples from humanity" (which would be a closer comparison than whatever you tried to do with that shit, smh my head).
In fact, that's what everyone is doing already, much to your chagrin apparently.
Using examples isn't mysticism.
Pretending it takes decades to understand the intricacies of male and female sexual organs belonging respectively to men and to women is tho, lmao.
Maybe get out in the world more.
It's really hard not to pick up on the absolute irony that you're trying to use a version of "touch grass".
But yeah, no, your views are still wrong and seen as so by the crushing majority of the population in the world.
by Vassenor » Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:41 am
Michel Meilleur wrote:But yeah, no, your views are still wrong and seen as so by the crushing majority of the population in the world.
by Kowani » Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:50 am
Vassenor wrote:Michel Meilleur wrote:But yeah, no, your views are still wrong and seen as so by the crushing majority of the population in the world.
That's not what the polling says.
by Vassenor » Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:59 am
by New Astri » Wed Sep 29, 2021 11:16 am
by Michel Meilleur » Wed Sep 29, 2021 11:42 am
Ifreann wrote:1+1=2, provided we make certain assumptions about the meaning of those digits and operators. If we made other assumptions it would be the case that 1+1=1, or possibly 1+1=10. People don't tend to learn about those kinds of things until later in their education, if at all. Similarly, there is more to the human sexes than the first things you were taught about them.
But it's not true that humans naturally have hair on their heads. Many humans are born with little if any head hair, some never grow any head hair, some lose their head hair partially or entirely as they age. Leaving those facts out makes the description "Humans have head hair" inaccurate.
I'm sure they'll catch on to the reality of the situation sooner or later. It's not terribly complicated.
by Necroghastia » Wed Sep 29, 2021 11:52 am
Michel Meilleur wrote:
Can't do anything but hope for you not to be crushed under the black-hole forming weigh of the irony of your words and wish you the same. It's indeed not complicated at all so hopefully you won't take too long, kids don't need too much time so you shouldn't either.
by Michel Meilleur » Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:05 pm
Necroghastia wrote:Indeed! Kids tend to grasp LGBT concepts pretty easily, it's such a shame the same can't be said of many adults for whatever reason.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Australian rePublic, Choson Minjujuui, El Lazaro, Grandocantorica, Ifreann, Lycom, Misdainana, Port Carverton, Simonia, Suriyanakhon, Ukraine-0, Vanuzgard
Advertisement