all 20 comments

[–]LilianH 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I can't get past him referring to Riley as "she" and "her". When someone is willing to lie so easily about reality it makes me doubt everything they say.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth)[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you mean Akkad he can get in trouble with youtube for misgendering. He's already been demonitized. The quickest way to get in trouble on social media is misgender, it has nothing to do with his personal beliefs.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is a neccessary 'bending of the knee'. If he was not to do so. He would get shitcanned from youtube for transphobia.

Kinda how we're all on saidit now and not reddit because we did not bend the knee.

It is something he had to do in order to keep access.

Does not change the message or content in any way what so ever.

[–]Chipit 13 insightful - 6 fun13 insightful - 5 fun14 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Baha...love his pic of Rowling in Nazi regalia.

This Lindsey Ellis character is a really unpleasant person who likes sarcasm. Yeah, telling children to get sterilized isn't like gay conversion therapy - it is much, much worse. If biology does not matter, why do trans people feel the need to transition?

Commenter nails it: "if trans people are indistinguishable from their cis-counterparts, then why are they so easily distinguishable?"

"Trump and conservatives are anti-science, but let's LITERALLY abolish science and math."

[–]joogabahGay shows the way 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Always nice to see a defense of JK Rowling, but this Akkad dude still doesn't get it right. All males have always been and always will be 100% male. All females have always been and will always be female. Intersex conditions are not relevant to the trans debate, since trans people are not intersex. And even intersex are not both or neither, they are interesting abnormalities that underscore and reveal the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the processes that work in concert to produce human males and females, and what happens when some part of that is absent. Gender is completely socially constructed. There are plenty of masculine women and feminine men. The POLITICAL refusal (that is often unconscious) to not follow the typical sex role stereotype is what it means to be gay; that is, it very often leads to a gay sexual orientation. It's not the only route to gayness (there are other forms and causes of homosexuality), but it is a major one, and that deviation is what people notice when their gaydar pings. I think it is easier to understand with lesbians, perhaps, that they would not develop erotic attachments to men, if they do not (for whatever reason unique to each person) develop a submissive femininity that would lend itself to that. I also think (like Freud) that homosexual desire is primary due to childhood sex segregation and the fact of being one's own sex, so that one's own form cannot be alien in the way that the opposite form can be, particularly if sex segregation is extended. It is quite possible to not even see the opposite sex in the nude for the first couple of decades of one's life, while routinely interacting in the nude with the same sex (this is typical in many societies). So a lack of attraction to the opposite sex that gay people feel is not exactly symmetrical to the lack of attraction that straight people (at least claim to) feel. Finally, homosexuality is verboten, so engaging in it is a form of rebellion, whereas heterosexuality is conformist. Living in a patriarchy that oppresses women and demands heterosexuality is the context in which this all plays out. And just because it feels like one was born that way, does not mean that one was. I didn't choose to speak English, and yet, I do. And that runs in families too, but it is not biological. Humans have the greatest capacity to learn of any species. Sexual desire is learned in people, without them realizing they are learning it, and it is bound up with gender which is imposed by patriarchy, to facilitate the production of human beings and their two most vital roles for the nation: soldiers and mothers. THAT, is old school radical feminism and gay liberation and makes the most sense to me.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth)[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The POLITICAL refusal (that is often unconscious) to not follow the typical sex role stereotype is what it means to be gay

actually same sex attraction is what it means to be gay. Lots of gay people follow sex role stereotypes. I don't think gay penguins are rebelling against heteronormativity.

heterosexuality is conformist not really, heterosexuals have always played with polygamy, polyamory, open relationships, orgies, spouse swapping...go look at all the "Queer" heterosexuals in our lgbt groups, in our pride parades, and ask if they seem conformist to you.

Sexual desire is learned in people, without them realizing they are learning it hmm seems like you want me to unlean my genital preferences, riley

[–]joogabahGay shows the way 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Homosexuality in animals is inevitably bisexual. I am unaware of any other species with exclusive homosexuality. All other species are compelled to mate on given environmental cues. Humans are the only species that can choose not to reproduce, or that is even aware that sex leads to reproduction. In humans, sex is not instinctive the way it is in animals. No animals require sex education. Sexual desire is not equivalent to sexual instinct. Instinct is involuntary and automatic and the opposite of intelligence which is learned and consciously controlled. Humans are the latter, every other species is the former. And of necessity. Without an inviolable sexual instinct to reproduce, those species would die out. Humans, with their intellect that understand sexual reproduction, can and do enforce heterosexuality culturally. Haven't you ever asked yourself why people even give a damn who you sleep with? What is the motivation to police it? There is some kind of general awareness of the "pitfall" and contagion of homosexuality, because of the primary nature of homosexual desire, owning to the fact that it is learned in humans, and humans are sex segregated. Ironically, gendering makes all people prefer their own sex. Heterosexuals only claim to prefer each other in a sexual context, which is dubious given the constant threat of homosexuality conservatives are very aware of.

If homosexuality were nothing but same sex attraction, how can you tell people are gay by looking at them? They are in some respect, gender nonconforming, very often. I assert that the refusal to conform to gender is one route to same sex desire. It throws off heterosexual desire which is a desire based on difference in power, and learned. Gay men love women. Straight men fuck them.

People are heterosexual because it is demanded under the threat of violence and ostracism that they be heterosexual. No one's opinion of their own sexuality is credible within that context.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190318164751/http://www.humansexualevolution.com/

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

their two most vital roles for the nation: soldiers and mothers.

Conscription was created in 1798 and abolished in 1975. That's a mere 177 years. Try again.

[–]TheBeefBenson 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Surely you acknowledge there were civilisations that existed before the US? And that is still conscription for the majority of the US history as a formal nation. Conscription of men to fight has existed for ever...it was just conscription with a lower case c, It didn't exist in a legal framework because there was no legal framework for serfs.

[–]Chipit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nope, conscription was introduced in 1795 in France. Before that, nations could not mobilize their entire male populations. They just had armies of 10-20,000 or so and that was it. But with conscription, France had a much more powerful army and almost unified Europe 200 years before the EU Maastrict treaty.

If you mean peasant levies, those were scraped up from the nearest villages and were of negligible military worth. They changed the result of no battle ever, and if you know of one I'm intensely curious to investigate.

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

I was indeed referring to any kind of situation whereby men were enlisted to fight against their will. But I don't see how the military worth of peasant levies is relevant to the discussion at all.

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

Not entirely true, militias of the adult male population existed in England as early as the 1500s if I remember correctly. And all the way back in the 1300s, King Edward III required all adult men to regularly practice the use of the welsh longbow, because English peasants would be conscripted for service on the Continent. This came into effect BECAUSE of the need to circumvent the feudal prohibition on vassal levies serving in the military for more than two months at a time. What the French did was universal conscription. That accompanied a sort of total-war and nationalization of warfare that also came about at the time. Armies of over a hundred thousand were put to the field for years on end a century before Napoleon (especially in the war of Spanish Succession).

[–]joogabahGay shows the way 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What? So ancient armies didn't enforce conscription and the male monopoly on violence happened after the American Revolution? George Washington shot men who wouldn't fight in the Revolution. Why do you think men commonly wear short hair? In antiquity, short hair was for slaves and soldiers only.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190318164751/http://www.humansexualevolution.com/

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, there was not universal male conscription until the French invented it. Do try to keep up.

[–]joogabahGay shows the way 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't know what you're talking about. Men have been forced to fight in wars since the beginning of civilization. Why do you say things like "do try to keep up"?

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They didn't keep lists of every man in the country and call them up by year of birth. That's conscription. What you're talking about is a kind of slavery. Two different things.

[–]joogabahGay shows the way 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All I said is that masculinity is determined by the need for soldiers, and that that is historically (and still mostly) the domain of males. Why a fixation on "conscription" is relevant isn't clear to me.

[–]fijupanda 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hehehe, I love Nature.

Even our cells have a sex. Male and female cells are quite different. This is biology. This is science. It's not a construct.

Newer research for instance shows that women have a better immune system than men along with better chances of overcoming viruses and bacteria, thanks to XX chromosomes which carry more genetic information than the Y chromosome.

The fact that the medical community has ignored female health in research, study and diagnosis has recently only shown how different male and female health really down to the molecular level....

https://www.ted.com/talks/paula_johnson_his_and_hers_health_care?language=en

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2020/01/womens-health-concerns-are-dismissed-more-studied-less-feature/?utm_source=reddit.com

[–]materialrealityplz 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even things like ADHD are different in women and men, and it often gets overlooked in women because it was mostly studied on boys/men.

[–]Whuchurface 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Fuck Akkad Made by Sumeria Gang