About the origins of the word "gender"

submitted by BiologyIsReal from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

No ad hominem? You accused two people of gaslighting you, but being called a gronk for refusing to see the point I’m making is an attack.. (The point I’m making is that your ‘proof’ is not actually proof of your claim, no English speakers ever use the term sex to mean anything but intercourse)

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Evidence is evidence, not proof, where's yours?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

You’re still banging on about this after a week? Lmao wow.

If you want evidence that people use the word sex to mean things other than intercourse I’d suggest talking to people who don’t have extremely unhealthy opinions of sexual relations, just about any biology textbook, and just about any gardening manual.

[–][deleted]  (12 children)

[removed]

    [–][deleted]  (9 children)

    [removed]

      [–][deleted]  (8 children)

      [removed]

        [–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        You started the ad hominem when you accused me of gaslighting you.

        [–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        That's not what ad hominem is.

        [–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Of course it’s ok when you call people awful things. And of course it’s essentially a hate crime cause I called you a gronk. How many times do you need someone to humour you and tell you you’re right about everything you think before you’ll go away and bother literally anybody else?

        [–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Oh look, yet another false accusation you're unable to substantiate. What awful things did I call you? An ass? Nope, that was you.

        [–]BiologyIsReal[S,M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        You started it, Snow. An houseplant has made it clear that she does't want to keep engaging with you. So take the club and stop right now.

        [–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        She has a funny way of showing that. If anything I've made it clear I don't want to keep engaging with her. You've made your bias too obvious. You failed to reprimand her for name-calling, which has given me more leverage when I say: you're lying about who started it.

        [–]BiologyIsReal[S,M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I did not lie. You were the one who started by making a baseless accussation (gaslighting) because she disagree with you. If you don't see how behaving like that is wrong, I don't know what to tell you except next time you through around the word gaslighting so caressly I'm not going to be lenient with you.

        [–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Since she is allowed to name-call me, am I allowed to name-call her? Double-standard in 3...2...1

        [–]BiologyIsReal[S,M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Enough with the spam and the acussations. You don't need to reply to every comment if you don't have anything new to add.