TRANSGENDERTrans violence is violence - Middle school trans-identified male beats up girl (Video)

submitted by ClassroomPast6178 from (x.com)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]tyranicaloverlord 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

What the fuck are you going on about? The term Cis comes from a sexual predator who fucked little boys, don't embrace it. Secondly, a male is a male, and female is female. Just because they say they are something and dress a stereotypical way doesn't mean the are the gender they want to be.

This video is just another of too many of Troons attacking females because they are future violent women beaters.

[–]makesyoudownvote 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes and Henry Ford was a Hitler supporter, Ghandi was a sexual abuser too. The fact someone did something awful doesn't discredit their body of work. In the case of Dr. Money his work itself is deeply flawed, it's his WORK you should attack on it's lack merits.

But the distinction he drew between sex and gender is one that has caught on. You can argue all you want, but the world moved on past that decades ago. It is the current meaning of the two.

Also there has ALWAYS been a distinction between man and male. You don't have man cats (unless you're a furry) you have a male cat, a female cat. Similarly you don't have the man part of a garden hose and the woman part of a garden hose, you have the male and female parts. Man and woman have always been relatively loosely defined, but it roughly means a male and female (respectively) that are specifically human, and specifically adults. Adulthood itself is also a human construct based around a physiological trend. For most of history in most civilizations adulthood started at the beginning of puberty, around age 13. It's really only in the past 200 years that it's come up to mean 18, only the past 100 that it has come to be so rigid as to really by 18 on the dot, and only the past 20-30 that the consent thing when it comes to sex has been taken all that seriously. As late as the 80s there was little to no social stigma around what would be called ephebophilia (14-19), and Hebephilia (11-14) was where people began really drawing that line. Pedophilia up until really quite recently only described an attraction to people 10 and under. Technically it still does.

This is why of all the things Dr. Money did wrong, this distinction isn't really one of them. He didn't so much make the distinction in a vaccum as to distinguish what used to be a vaguely defined term and hone in on the distinction that was already being used without people really being 100% aware of it.

Also you totally missed the point of my comment entirely. Which was to explain basically exactly what you said "a male is a male and a female is a female" and to say that the language is confusing because this is a complex topic.

People who refuse to discuss and debate the topic on either side are equally complicit in making it confusing. We don't have to agree on the conclusions in order to agree on language enough to at least have conversations.

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

This is a whole lot of word fodder that says nothing other than you buy in to the transgender bullshit.

Man and woman have always been relatively loosely defined

No. You are wrong. It is definitive, logically, scientifically, and unequivocally. To suggest anything otherwise is pseudo intellectual dribble.

Also, stop defending a pedophile.

[–]makesyoudownvote 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ok buddy.

Everyone is wrong but you.

You literately argue JUST like a woke SJW and it's frankly kinda hilarious. You fail to grasp nuance even when walked through the process. It's like you can't risk opening yourself up to nuance because it might change your opinion.

It's ok, some people don't have the brain power to understand the world in anything but black and white. Some people need to think of the primary colors as red, blue, and yellow, because they can't understand how additive or subtractive colors, or they still think the tongue has regions for taste. As full grown adults they still think what they learned from a grade school teacher is more "right" than an entire community of experts who spend their entire lives working out the minutia.

Also did you really think saying I'm defending a pedophile would make me walk back my argument? This is the same tactic SJW's use when they say you are a homophobe, or you are defending a fascist. It's an attempt to create a statement so emotionally overwhelming that people disregard logic and reason and just want to distance themselves from the damning label. The tactic is played out, y'all need to learn a new trick.

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

The fuck are you talking about? I destroyed your contention, and called you out for being a pedophile apologist, and you got nothing to respond with because you know I am right. You said a lot of words without saying anything at all.

[–]makesyoudownvote 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You destroyed nothing except for any belief I had that you were capable of critical thought.

Also exactly, that's the same tactic the SJWs and woke crowd use. Just pick some placeholder word that inspires and emotional reaction, pedophile, heretic, homophobe, transphobe, racist, apologist, fascist, racist. Pick from the list, mix and match for added benefit. It's so easy a child can do it! Then you don't have to make a single argument or risk thinking.

My point was to posit the following question.

How does the fact that Dr. Money was a horrible person relate to his work? Do you understand how those are separate things. Sure he was horrible for the sake of accomplishing work, but that doesn't invalidate the results of the work itself.

Secondly I actually said his work sucks too. Ya might have missed that, like you missed most nuance. It's just that once again you show not enough familiarity with the work, because that would require critical thought, so you revert to an ad hominem attack to avoid it.

The fact you are unable to understand something doesn't make it wrong, but in this case I refuse to admit it's possible for someone who isn't mentally handicaped or below the age of 10 not to understand. It must be obstinance. There is no other way.