Mother Warns of Influence of Pornography on Gender Identity Among Youth by NoMorePatriarchy in GenderCritical

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

I think the way men masturbate can create a penis-fetish in them, since they are associating the sight & touch of an ejaculating erection with the feeling of orgasm. I think there are number of porn categories that are outgrowths of penis-fetish, like "big dick" & "BBC" & "compilation" (which just compiles male ejaculations). Back in the day, a lot of guys would admit to "skipping to the end" of the porn video, which in most cases is just the guy masturbating himself to completion i.e. 100% gay porn.

I think penis-fetish can lead to vagina-envy, which manifests itself in men anally penetrating themselves or seeking out being penetrated by others. This could potentially lead to AGP.

Should GC feminists stop associating with conservatives on topics in which they’re interests are aligned? by Heimdekledi in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Both parties" are conservative, & both are to blame for the latest development regarding RvW.

What are feminists supposed to do? Pretend Dems have their back? Make/vote for a third party that'll never make it, but even if it did, it'd just get infiltrated by the same corporate party that controls the two major parties?

Infiltrating the Conservative party is easier than trying to influence the "liberal" party. Boycotting the conservative party would be counter-productive.

GC: How do you feel about out trans people choosing to become parents? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't think every man should have the "right" to reproduce, since that would require some form of surrogacy.

And, of course, not everyone has the right to adopt children.

Parent's can also get their children taken away from them, in cases where it is the best option for the child.

There are 4 different types of transgender people: straight & gay women, straight & gay men (even more if you consider those who medically transition vs those who don't). So, we'd have to consider each of the types separately. After thinking about it, I agree with you & don't think trans-identification alone, in any of the forms, should preclude someone from having children.

What I don't understand is why they think it's enough to simply "go off hormones" whenever they want to detrans for whatever the reason. I guess it's all part of the detransphobia. There is no help to try to "transition them back". In some cases the testosterone levels don't disappear for months (according accounts on r/detrans).

Trans Activists Create Tool to Silence Feminists on Twitter by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

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

copy the strategy

AT LAST: Some sanity on Reddit! by LeoneOkada in GenderCritical

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

It seems like the only way to voice GC views on reddit is under a male username on majority-male subs. Something to think about.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't believe I have a gender identity in the transgender sense, hence why I have no problem getting it changed, you say have no problem with me getting it changed either. But you seem to have a problem with getting yours changed. The reasons you give: it's silly, puerile, moronic. Inconsistent. So you're being disingenuous. Whatever the real reason is you're unwilling to give it, inexplicably.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Those 11 likes are unlikely to be an additional 11 people, right? 10 of those 11 likely overlap with the other reply. As a former mod you should know that it's highly unlikely that the post we are talking about received the engagement of over 20 individuals. Please stop assuming I'm too stupid to see through these gas-lighting attempts.

Your entire reply is opposing my previous question on here, instead of the current one.

Just ask yourself: how did a supposed troll end up being more well-read on feminism than you?

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not all GC feminists are radical feminists either.

Do you think GC feminists identifying as desisters or detrains would be a better tactic then?

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

I thought most people (moderates) went along with the trans thing, bc they think they are all transsexuals who have been surgically/magically transitioned into the opposite sex? I.e. not everyone knows it's a lie, some really are duped.

Again, most TRAs don't identify as transgender. By identifying as transgender you become harder to oppose or censor, as you could literally get them arrested for hate-speech (in places like the UK).

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

It's unnecessary for you to forfeit more than once, babe.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

I posted a debate question. You're the only one here not engaging in the debate, favouring ad hominem attacks instead. You're trying to justify your misuse of the debate sub by claiming that I'm giving "marching orders". FYI, "marching orders" don't end in a question mark. No one is forcing you to debate, but if you don't want to debate the question, what are you here for?

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As I explained to another user, one of the replies got 10 up votes, so you & I both know I'm not over-estimating the results.

My previous reply already answered your question as to the value of me doing it.

I've drawn many comparisons, not just the spy example, to illustrate just how effective a strategy this is.

Straight people who don't even have GD are the most ideologically pure. It'd be great to overwhelm them by sheer numbers alone, but just a substantial number of free radicals would cause an upset. It's just important to go around calling anyone & everyone within the community "transphobic", without given them a chance to call you it. Once inside, you'd have no need to stand on a soap box, just reprimand anyone else who does for their transphobia (which should be easy bc they are constantly contradicting themselves). It'll disillusion gender identity allies the most.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Yours are the only replies without substance, or are "us" & "we" your new preferred third person pronouns now? If you're not here to debate, then you're probably on the wrong sub. You can't blame someone for expecting a debate on a debate sub.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Sorry, I was mixing you up with BiR. Her go-to is to make it personal. You don't do it as often, but here you were casting aspersions.

I think my point in my previous reply still stands. Transgender identity is simply expecting everyone to treat them as if they were the opposite sex. Identifying as male in online forums, when you're female, is the equivalent of that. The fact that most women are protective of their female gender identification online, despite the negative & lack of positive consequences, seems to indicate that there may be something to transgender identification that makes it more substantial than the mere "nothing" that its lack of perceptibility & explicitly would suggest.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Three, three three" – if the "go for it" reply gets 10 insightful points, then that's more than three. When it comes to replies that most GC people that frequent this forum up-vote, 10 is as high a number as you can expect. Nice gas-lighting attempt though.

Your first reply here was: "Have you done it? Have you changed your markers on your ID?" Basically trying to expose my supposed hypocrisy. But now you're suggesting that it's irrelevant whether I do it or not, since I'm not female. I'm okay with women doing it & you guys are okay with men doing it. Either both sides are hypocrites, or neither side is. So which is it? Either way you've got to back-pedal.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

What would you be losing if you did it though? Answer: your "gender identity", which you acknowledge is nothing. But the fact that you're unwilling to lose it, suggests that gender identification is not as insubstantial as GC feminists claim. I'm not telling you to do it, I'm trying to spur on some introspection. I'm asking why don't (in general & in the past) GC feminists get their gender legally changed?

Thanks for the links, you've saved my a step. But I'm still not going to change it until I move to the UK (I've never properly lived there, hence why I didn't say "move back", so I haven't got an official "place of residence" yet). I have every intention of "putting my money where my mouth is" & as soon as I do, trust me, you'll hear about it. But as you said, it won't change your mind since I'm male & your female. For the record, I have no trouble acknowledging that male transitioners gain a hell of a lot more credence than female ones, however, that doesn't mean there is no political leverage to be gained by GC women en masse changing their gender. I firmly believe that if there had been a bunch of Lauren Southerns doing it in Canada, they'd be able to draw more attention to the issue.

P.S. I think it's totally legitimate for someone to point out the hypocrisy of someone with a messy room telling others to clean theirs, see: Jordan Peterson.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

I agree with all of that. Of course actions speak louder than words. Problem is most people don't realise that a substantial number of people go by the reverse. A way to expose that is to beat them at their own game.

A lot of people are against the church being tax-exempt, bc it makes it easier for cults to spring up about the place. If enough businesses just claimed to be churches, the short-term benefits would be: not having to pay taxes for a while, while in the longterm you'd be drawing attention to the issue. What's the issue you have with this tactic?

I was reading Kathleen Stock's book, but the problem I found with it was that all the terminology is created by TRAs & so simply using the same terms already half-promotes transgenderism, by half-legitimising it. It's difficult to argue against an ideology without creating a whole new nomenclature, which you'd have to then convince everyone to agree with. So I think the conventional RadFem way to oppose transgenderism can somewhat backfire. If you infiltrate it, you can help decay it from the inside.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Contentless reply. It just boils down to "you think your idea is smart, but it's not". Of course I'm going to dismiss an unsubstantiated claim like that. You're not even trying to defend your position, which you're going to pretend to have pride in.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

A bunch of fools “identifying” as feminists and selling porn didn’t make them feminists.

But that's the point that I was making. Nowadays words speak louder than actions. If TRAs can't respect the meanings of words like 'feminism', why should we respect words like 'transgender'?

We aren’t playing spies here.

Translation: we aren't on the winning team here.

Lobbyists infiltrate both major political parties, that way no matter what the election outcome, the corporate party wins. This strategy has been proven time & time again as a winning strategy. So spare me the weak excuses. What's the real reason you're against GC people infiltrating the trans movement?

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

only 3 replies? That's like 50% of the users here lol

boycotts are only effective if enough people do it. Individual use can help you avoid arrest for "transphobia" or avoid getting banned for "transphobia", but it can also help you identity-politics your way out of any debate, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f0MfGqQXH4&list=PLpHJ9aQruxVc_QfalD5sDoKyPo6tVG8fW&index=33 you might form a few cracks on the way. Why not use their own ideology against them? Why not use their own tactics against them?

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm not a foreigner, so your tangent was a waste of time.

You're being inconsistent. I asked you what you thought about GC men identifying as trans & you said:

"Go for it. When Zuby identified as a woman so he could break the women's world record in weightlifting, he got a lot of mileage out of it and seemed to bring attention to the issue. Graham Lineham identified as a woman and a lesbian on a dating app to bring attention to all the "transbians" doing that"

https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/8qwr/gc_should_gc_men_identify_as_transgender_to/wfm8

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Given the responses you have been given in this thread, I doubt the answer was an unanimous "good for feminism".

Just check my post history if you don't believe me. Literally the same users who expressed having no problem with me identifying as transgender, are now pulling out every excuse when I ask why they don't do it too. They've done a 180.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Online users often assume that I am female all the time based on what I'm saying. The only reason people on here don't is bc my username ends in "Man". Often women online will use their real name & picture for some reason & when they fill out the form to make their account, they put their real birth date too. Men generally try to remain anonymous. So when I see an anonymous/androgynous username & pfp in a Youtube comment section & the content of their comments seems like a guy posted it, at that point I'll assume it's a guy. I'd say I'm right 99% of the time, but there is no way of confirming it. Nothing to do with male as the default in this case, more to do with experience with trends.

There is no reason to be "female" online. If you create a masculine username & pfp then you haven't changed your sex, but you have changed people's perception of it (which is what transgender identity comes down to: being treated like the opposite sex, hence why I referred to this as "gender identity"). This would only benefit many women online, yet they'd still prefer to be recognised as female, regardless of the cost. Why is that? It seems to suggest to me that there is something substantive to "gender identification", that keeps people attached to theirs even when given the opportunity to be unsexed/cross-sexed arises.

Your go-to is personal attacks, which makes me think you aren't confident in your argumentation.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And for the last time, I do NOT have a "gender identity". You act as obnoxious as QT every single time you insist I have one.

In this post I am using the transgenderist definition of "gender identity", which I don't believe anyone has, however, I do find it odd how attached some people are to their "gender identity". Whenever I incorrectly assume a woman's gender online (I mistake them for a guy) they are quick to correct me, even when it's irrelevant to the the short, transient exchange. This is baffling to me. You open yourself up to sexist abuse online if you're a woman, but whenever there is an opening to experience just the tinniest bit of male privilege for once, they shut it down. People seem to be very protective of this part of their identity, even when it makes no sense to, even to their own detriment.

Lauren Southern is the only trans-skeptic I know of who mocked transgender identity by legally identifying as trans. I just wonder why she was the only one. It seems to suggest there is something to the idea of gender identification. Do you think that LS spread "chaos"?

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

In the county that I'm in right now it costs about 2K bucks to get gender legally changed & this law hasn't been updated for decades. It certainly isn't as woke of a country that the majority of English-speaking countries are. I plan to move to the UK at some point, at which point I will most certainly be changing my gender legally. It's the only legal way to "boycott" gender identity laws, by giving them a taste of their own medicine. I asked on here if me doing so would be good or bad for feminism, the response was a unanimous: good for feminism.

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

So if anti-feminists en masse started identifying as feminists, then defanged feminism from inside, ostracised all the feminists from the movement for "kink-shaming", & used the movement to promote patriarchal norms under the guise of feminism, they'd just be "validating" feminism?

GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am not an adherent

I predicted this response & addressed it pre-emptively. Apparently not effectively enough. Here is my second attempt. Heard of COINTELPRO? It was an operation instituted by the FBI to infiltrate & disrupt leftist groups. It's a winning strategy. Feminism has been breached by sexist male-privilege/entitlement via the transgender identity Trojan horse. So if anti-feminists can identify as feminists & implode feminism, why should the ostracised feminists be so opposed to overwhelming & re-defining transgender identity ideology?

Identity politics means if you have the "correct" identity, your speech becomes more valid on that topic. Most TRAs aren't trans-identified. If you were trans-identified you could go around saying "as a transgender person..." & use it to just call TRAs transphobes (which is what they fear most, calling everyone transphobic is their defence mechanism to avoid being called it themselves) & tell them to shut-up & let trans people speak i.e. you. Why accuse me of mansplaining when you literally needed it spelled out?

Sure "trans-men" & "NBs" don't have as much to gain, but I guess you could identify as a "trans-woman" lol that'd probably be a lot more effective, as among the transgender population there is a lot of "passing privilege" that you'd benefit from.

Twitter. Yuck. by CleverFoolOfEarth in GenderCritical

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They're called brocialists. Men's privileges over women's rights.

Good news everyone in the UK: Conversion therapy: Ban to go ahead "but not include trans people" by SnowAssMan in GenderCritical

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Transition is a synonym for conversion, so technically transition should be banned. Baby-steps in the right direction though. Next stop, banning transition, social & medical, of minors, since childhood & adolescent GD affects gay kids disproportionately. Transitioning them would be gay conversion, especially since they literally identify as "straight" afterwards.

What do you think about what’s happening in Texas by Heimdekledi in GCdebatesQT

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

No, ROGD teen girls are heterosexual, almost exclusively. You'd probably find a reason to disagree with me if I said water is wet.

What do you think about what’s happening in Texas by Heimdekledi in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

But trans kids don't exist. According to every study on desistance, childhood gender dysphoria is an indication of latent homosexuality. Desistance occurs naturally up to 95% of the time. Transition is quite literally conversion & doesn't even cure GD, unlike desistance.

As far as I know there is no scientific excerpt (not even in the US) that makes the "TWAW" claim, so if by "supportive" you mean parents who tell their gay sons that they are girls, then "every credible major medical association" is both anti-science & homophobic.

At best you'll end up with some gay people like Blaire White, who are too effeminate to attract the average gay man, but too male to attract the average straight man. This is possibly the only demographic that would benefit from medical transition, but this is only known after they have fully matured i.e. they're not children. Transsexuals shouldn't have to turn themselves inside out (almost literally) in order to resemble the opposite sex. They should be recognised for what they are: very effeminate gay males, as well as the sexual orientation of those attracted to them: gynandromorphophilia.

All the straight people, whether they are female teen ROGDs, or middle-aged male AGPs, are just appropriating GNC gay people. It's just some, middle-class, neurotic identity crisis. Undeserving of sympathy.

The Transgender Debate is Over. by SnowAssMan in GenderCritical

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Gender/sex is real" is not a punchline. It's the kind of thing an audience is meant to applaud, not laugh at. Are you telling me you didn't know that?

How is it PC to say "gender" when referring to the sexes? Is it PC to say "gender reveal party" too? You're failing to recognise that regular people say "gender" to mean the same thing that you mean when you say "sex".

Anyway, since you don't know why Chappelle said "gender" when he was obviously talking about biology, then you'll just have to trust me when I say that "gender" is what regular people use as an umbrella term for the sexes.

For all the TERFs out there... by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Why did he post another picture of himself, when his profile pic already demonstrates just how big his forehead is already? A substantial percentage of that forehead is scalp.

If all cells can turn into sperm and egg, why doesn't that mean everyone is both men and women at the same time? by UwUness2 in GenderCritical

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

wrong sub. you want the debate one.

The Transgender Debate is Over. by SnowAssMan in GenderCritical

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

Again, why do you think Chappelle changed "sex is real" to "gender is real"? Does it demonstrate that outside the feminist vs. TRA bubble "gender" = "sex", or is there some other reason?

Sex may have two meanings, but so does gender. Why pretend that no one could possibly be confused by a word having two meanings, when "gender's" two meanings confuses you? You've made a point not to use the word "gender" as a result, meanwhile Chappelle is avoiding using the word "sex", bc he is talking to regular people. He wants to be taken seriously. If he had said "sex is real" to regular people they'd either laugh or be confused. Maybe you don't expect anything you say ever to reach regular people.

Either way, boycotting the word "gender" seems pretty pointless – counter-productive even. Conversely, Chappelle demonstrated that using "gender" instead of "sex" actually makes sense, if you want to comprehensively convey a GC message to regular people.

Qt, Why is gender so important? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Please stop mistaking this discussion for a previous one. You opted to say "gender" instead of "transgender identity", or "gender identity". Is there a reason for that, or do you regard them all as synonyms? You say, you mean what qt means when they say "gender", but they say all sorts of strange things, usually the opposite of the truth. They don't say "sex", for instance. They say "assigned sex at birth", or "natal sex" – if you had used either of these terms, I would have questioned that too, bc they are nonsense terms regardless of who uses them.

MT keeps trying to assure me that gender refers to masculinity & femininity. Apparently she is the only one who who thinks that.

Anyway, would replacing "gender" with "gender identity" in your OP have changed the meaning in any way?

Qt, Why is gender so important? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not going to make assumptions, I'll leave that to the experts, like HP. If she means "transgender identity" or "gender identity", why would she opt to say "gender"? I just want to know what she understands "gender" to mean & how it is different from "gender identity".

Qt, Why is gender so important? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The neo genders aren't the ones you take issue with, are they? Can you name a couple of genders? Bc you still haven't managed to name any.

Qt, Why is gender so important? by Houseplant in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Do you mean "transgender identity"(?), as in "What makes transgender identity more important than one’s sex legally, medically, and socially?"

What does "gender" mean to you? Can you name a couple of genders?

The Transgender Debate is Over. by SnowAssMan in GenderCritical

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

I read somewhere that people find more than 3 examples to be untrustworthy & difficult to digest/remember. So I prefer using fewer, straight-forward, strong examples. I have re-written most of it to be more focused & more attractive to the more JKR-minded reader. What do you think(?):

The Transgender Debate On Female-Only Terms & Spaces is Over.

J.K. Rowling said women are in danger of rape & murder by men, including men who want to be the opposite sex. Men who want to be the opposite sex responded by sending her rape & death threats, thereby proving her point & ending the debate once & for all, in an own goal.

J.K. Rowling wouldn’t be married to a man if she believed that all men are predators. Like most people, she just recognises that female-only prisons, shelters & sports need to remain female-only in order to remain safe.

• Male sex-offenders have been assaulting female prisoners ever since they’ve been allowed in women’s prisons.

• Male athletes have been breaking women’s records & skulls ever since they’ve been allowed to compete against female athletes.

Protecting trans-identified males from human rights violations, like wrongful eviction & redundancy, doesn’t require them to be legally recognised as women. Making female-only terms & spaces male-inclusive is not a right, it’s male-entitlement. Male-only terms & spaces are already male-inclusive.

A person’s biological sex may be irrelevant 99% of the time, but female-only spaces are that 1% exception.

Trans-identified males only have trivial reasons for using female-only terms & spaces, but their movement is willing to tell any lie in order to pressure you into complying with its demands. So don’t be taken in by the manipulative “think of the suicidal trans kids” hype, because it’s all a myth.

• According to EVERY study on desistance, childhood gender dysphoria is temporary & an indication of latent homosexuality, not trans identity.

• The detransition rate is higher than the suicide rate, which is under 1%.

• Trans-identified murderers outnumber trans-identified murder victims (which have been <1 annually, in the UK; none motivated by transmisandry).

• According to a meta-analysis, the sexed brain of trans-identified males is almost identically to any other male’s, making “binary transgender identity” impossible, & even “non-binary identity” a stretch. Even gay men’s brains share some similarities with women’s, so if gay men are 100% male, then so are trans-identified males.

Even the scientific literature on the subject, like the DSM-V, describes trans-assigned males as men & never as women. There is a gaping chasm of difference between scientific consensus & trans activist claims. There isn’t a single science excerpt that even implies that an adult human male could ever be a woman.

The unsubstantiated claim that trans-identified males are women, is not only unnecessary for the pursuit of their basic human rights, & compromising of women’s rights, it’s also pseudoscientific.

The debate is over. “Trans-woman” is a euphemism for “male woman”. There is no such thing as a “male woman”, therefore there is no such thing as a “trans-woman”, only a trans-identified male. A trans-identified male wants to be female & pretends to be female, but he will never amount to being female. ‘Woman’, ‘girl’ & ‘female’ are female-only terms. Women’s prisons, sports & shelters are female-only spaces. Language & law are not playgrounds for men’s gender-swap role-play.

Remember, it costs trans-identified males literally NOTHING to continue using the male-only terms & spaces that they used before they identified as trans. Femboys manage it just fine. Any movement conspiring to make female-only terms & spaces unisex, is an anti-woman hate group that prioritises male role-play over female safety.

Pass it on.

The Transgender Debate is Over. by SnowAssMan in GenderCritical

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not being disingenuous, I'm in touch with the average person, like Chappelle is. Most people don't know the Maya Forstater backstory behind that tweet. Why do you think Chappelle made the conscious or unconscious decision to translate JKR's words from "sex is real" to "gender is real"?

Only feminists & TRAs say "sex & gender are not the same". But their actions always contradict it. If within feminism sex-roles & gender-roles are synonyms then sex & gender are synonyms within feminism. The original sentiment behind "sex & gender are different" was that gender refers to masculinity & femininity. You won't find anyone, not even feminists, who understands gender to only refer to masculinity & femininity today. So can we stop insisting that sex & gender are different, since those are empty words with no meaning behind them?

The Transgender Debate is Over. by SnowAssMan in GenderCritical

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

"Sexes" only has one meaning, so your example fails as an example. "Sex is real" is not clear, to the average person, even within context.

Dave Chappelle's translation was necessary. His show is mainstream, feminist theory is not. If you want to disseminate feminist ideas to the general public you have to first speak their language & stop living in denial & stop using exceptions as an excuse, especially since exceptions prove the rule.

Both: How do you feel about the terms "female man", "male man", "female woman", and "male woman"? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

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

TRAs have moved on from that. Nowadays TRAs have made it quite clear that the words girl, woman & even 'female' all describe a social construct which any man can identify with (synonyms for femininity). Likewise they have decided that there should be no way of describing the sexes, not even while piling a bunch of euphemisms on top. Take "AMAB", for instance. "Assigned male" is not even indirectly acknowledging the fact that the person is male.

That's why no one should give them an inch. Man & woman are not social constructs, masculinity & femininity are. Man & woman, like male & female are single-sex terms.

Even "feminised male" would be pushing it. But if a man feminises his name (which is the very least that they do) then it'd at least be accurate.

The Transgender Debate is Over. by SnowAssMan in GenderCritical

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

My post is in the public domain now. You can cannibalise any bits that you may find helpful & discard the bits you mayn't.

The Transgender Debate is Over. by SnowAssMan in GenderCritical

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

"The opposite sex" & "unisex" & "single-sex" & "same-sex" & "sex-characteristics" are terms in themselves which cannot be compared to using "sex" on its own to refer to the sexes – here too the word "sexes" is used as a synonym for a grammatically awkward (or even incorrect) word "genders". Terms like "unigender" don't exist, so why would it surprise you that I don't make up words that don't exist? I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand the difference, or you're just being disingenuous.

Even the DSM-V, which is a medical document, had to take time out explaining what is meant by 'sex'. Bc even among academics "sex" usually means sexual intercourse:

"The area of sex and gender is highly controversial and has led to a proliferation of terms whose meanings vary over time and within and between disciplines. An additional source of confusion is that in English "sex" connotes both male/female and sexuality. This chapter employs constructs and terms as they are widely used by clinicians from various disci­plines with specialization in this area. In this chapter, sex and sexual refer to the biological indicators of male and female (understood in the context of reproductive capacity)".

Within the DSM-V the distinction between sex & gender seems to be limited to the gender dysphoria section, bc throughout the rest of the document, at the end of every section there is a heading called "Gender-Related Diagnostic Issues", which tallies up the differences between the male & female experience/symptoms/prevalence etc. of whatever disorder is under discussion.

I don't know what sort of bubble you live in if the above surprises you, but in English, among the general public & among professionals, "sex" generally means sexual intercourse & "gender" generally refers to the sexes. Saying "sex" on its own only serves to alienate & make the message less accessible. Why else do you think Dave Chappelle translated JKR's "sex is real" Tweet to "gender is real"? Bc he knows, outside the trans vs. feminist debate, gender & sex are synonyms. And he is making jokes for regular people, not some echo-chamber that likes to believe that stipulative definitions overwrite permanent ones.

The Transgender Debate is Over. by SnowAssMan in GenderCritical

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

Pathetic. Try harder next time.

The Transgender Debate is Over. by SnowAssMan in GenderCritical

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

My point is that even if you're only looking at gender identity, trans=identified males still aren't women. Basically, even their own "logic" dismantles transgender identity.

"The Science of Being Transgender" (Thoughts on this video?) by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical

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

"Brainsex":

The fact that some neuroanatomical, neurophysiological, and neurometabolic features in transgender individuals resemble those of their experienced gender despite the MAJORITY resembling those from their natal sex means that binary transgender identity is impossible. Even a non-binary gender identity conclusion would be a stretch, since the evidence is still weighted in favour of "their natal sex".

"Historical transgender":

Outside the modern day West all these global & historical supposed "transgender" males are all homosexuals. Historical "trans-identified males" are appropriated gay men. In most cultures & throughout history there has been a distinction between gay male "bottoms" & "tops". "Tops" could include gynandromorphophilic men & pederasts, who were otherwise straight. Most cultures have a term for gay men, which they often only use to describe the "passive" ones. These have been appropriated by the trans movement to refer to "third gender" & "transgender".

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

If gender is a synonym for sex then the reverse is also true. However, those are the exceptions. Generally, inside & outside academia gender is used more than sex to refer to the sexes. If you genuinely never noticed then you need to step outside the feminist/TRA bubble.

Even feminism & transgenderism uses gender as a synonym for sex. The synonyms sex-roles & gender-roles illustrate this, so does gender dysphoria being alleviated with the administration of cross-sex hormones.

Everywhere you look gender is referring to sex, even grammatical gender (in English) does this. I don't see what the point in denying this is.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Every feminist who can't accept that sex & gender are synonyms are following Stoller's lead.

You said you weren't "fond" of the term gender identity. Aesthetics.

Your research methods are worryingly lacking. I thought you said you work in the hard sciences. Kohlberg's definition of gender identity is the original one from 1966. It's pretty easy to find, if you're looking for it. If you google things like "the origin of gender" it'll say: John Money 1955, which is incorrect on so many levels, Money coined "gender-roles" in 1955, gender is an ancient term, but apparently you would have just taken the top results as gospel. Maybe one day when you google 'woman' & it regurgitates some TRA definition you can try to distance yourself from that term too.

No one is using Kohlberg's definition besides you

Do you realise that you're saying I'm more informed on this topic than anyone else?

Julie Bindel seems to be using Kohlberg's definition of gender identity here, unfortunately shortening it to gender: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/26/how-important-is-gender

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

You're an ignoramus when it comes to feminist theory, making me only an expert by comparison. Prove otherwise.

Arguing with you is exactly like arguing with one of those androcentric choice feminists who can't accept that the word gender is a synonym for sex, even though it's been that way for over 500 years. I "tell off" a lot of people, stop cherry-picking only the female ones. You're not more feminist than I am by virtue of being a woman. You don't even read feminist works. You honestly expect never to be called-out on a feminist forum for being completely unfamiliar with feminist theory?

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

see my previous reply.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Your man Stoller has been in charge of feminism's re-definition of gender since 1970. Every time you say the equivalent of "sex & gender are not the same thing" you are quoting a man. I'm not making the decision that gender & sex should be regarded as synonyms. I'm just pointing out that they have been synonyms for over 500 years & continue to be synonyms even to this day, using a number of examples within every day life, academia & even feminism & transgenderism.

TRANSPHOBIA HURTS ALL WOMEN by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

sexism hurts all women

All: Is gender identity falsifiable? If so, what would disprove it? by Penultimate_Penance in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then why did you say: "Identity should be based on who you are not what you are"?

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Anyway, if the Google search results for "sex a/b/c...etc" didn't surprise you, then you must know that sex = sexual intercourse, unless otherwise stated in a minority of situations.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

TRAs have indeed been taking advantage of feminism's confusing contradiction whenever the claim "sex & gender are not the same", only to use "sex-roles" & "gender-roles" synonymously, thereby proving that sex & gender are synonyms.

Since the general public & most of academia still use gender as a synonym for sex, which is what it always was, maybe feminists could join in with that crowd, instead of sticking rigidly to the gender/sex division that caused the problem to begin with & whose continued support is only making it worse, even though they aren't even consistent with it (the roles example).

You refusal to use gender as a synonym for sex is counter-productive, as has been demonstrated for decades now. There is no evidence to suggest that treating sex & gender as synonyms would have any negative results.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Stoller has been dead for years too, so why should we follow his lead in dividing synonyms into separate terms?

and you're the only one that I'm aware of who wants to re-define "gender identity"

That's like me accusing you of wanting to re-define "woman". Kohlberg's definition of gender identity is the definition of gender identity. TRAs want to re-define both "gender identity" & "woman". And you're willing to capitulate regarding "gender identity", bc, get this, you're not fOnD of the term LOL. Excuse me if an argument of aesthetics fails to convince me. Hopefully you never get displeased with the word "woman".

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

We've already established that I'm literally more of an expert on feminism than you are. So it's not an attitude, just the reality of the situation, which you are at fault for.

There is no way of you knowing whether I've been putting the theory into practise or not, since you are completely unfamiliar with the theory. There are men & women who agree with me & men & women who disagree with me. I've always been aware of that. No idea what relevance that is supposed to have.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

See my previous reply. This is kind of like arguing that zero is a number just bc it's referred to as such for convenient's sake.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]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.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

You're the one having a tantrum over me asking you to support your claims. So it's pretty clear which of the two of us has a serious problem.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Some women agree with me, some disagree with me. Women have a variety of opinions. The fact that your "disengaging" efforts was name-calling is pathetic. Defending your reprehensible behaviour is pathetic. Your continued name-calling is also pathetic. Ad hominem is a verbal attack, an accusation of gas lighting is not an attack. Try harder next time.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

That's not what ad hominem is.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]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

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

If you happen to hear someone say the word "sex" 99% of the time it's in reference to sexual intercourse, anyone who denies that is gas lighting.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

So, do teens not learn that humans have 46 chromosomes: 44 autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes? Do they not learn that females are XX and males are XY? Do they not learn the inheritance of certain traits is linked to sex? Do they not learn, for example, that daltonism is more prevalent in males?

WTF? Of course not. That's advanced biology. You won't learn that unless you study biology at university, or maybe medicine at A-level.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

But you & I both know that she was gas lighting me, hence why she was never able to evince her counter-claims. Instead of conceding the point she went out kicking & screaming.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

You're not even able to articulate what it is about my "attitude" you dislike, so I'm not obliged to entertain the spurious criticism. Come back when you've read some feminist theory, until then I'll always be more of a feminist than you.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Neuter means neither. "Neither gender" is not a gender, it's a lack of gender. It's like saying that "no apples" is an "amount of apples". It's not true, but you might say it in the context of talking about people with apples.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 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.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Accusations of gas lighting is not a personal attack. You didn't know that? Well now you do. All the personal attacks are coming exclusively from HP. Prove otherwise.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

So you finally realise that Kohlberg & I are not the same person. Finally, some progress. But you want to debunk the social sciences? That'd be counter-productive for any feminist to do. You might as well say that you don't give a damn what biology says a woman is since TRAs re-defined it in law. By your logic, you'd have to reject the word woman too on the exact same grounds you reject gender & gender identity.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm aware of what reasons don't apply in an English-speaking context. I'm still waiting for your reasons that do apply.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

You've made said tiny mistake over & over again, even though I pointed to out every time you did, leading any reasonable person to believe it was your pitiful attempt at strawmanning. If only you personally use sex to mean male/female exclusively, then how is that relevant?

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Tool, wank, nutter – thank you for supplying evidence that all you can resort to is ad hominem, favouring it over evidence. You're the reason this exchange has devolved into being so unpleasant. But I'm certain you won't take responsibility even for something as incontrovertible as that.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

English isn't Spanish. Using "gender" in linguistic contexts exclusively makes sense in Spanish. But neither of us are speaking in, or about Spanish. In English gender is a synonym for sex. The only one who seems to disagree is Stoller & transgenderists & feminists are his biggest allies (the only difference between either group being differing re-definitions of gender). Maybe feminists should stop being his biggest ally & reject his re-definition of gender, instead of rejecting the term itself, since doing the latter would only further cement the re-definition of gender.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Teens don't learn about anything with the term "sex" in it outside of sex education.

Did the Google results for "sex...a/b/c/d etc." surprise you in their focus on sexuality, or not?

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Why don't you see a problem with female "feminists" who aren't theorists, aren't activists & have never even read any feminist theory in their life & never will? The fact that a man is more familiar with feminism than you are is an inconvenience for you, but easily rectified by you, so maybe quit blaming my biology for your own self-inflicted shortcomings. Nothing about my biology is preventing you from doing a spot of reading. The fact that the two of us use this forum proves that neither of our views are representatives of our respective sexes.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

In German the word for sex & gender is the same. Not a convenient language for your argument. If neutering your dog isn't a sex change then neuter gender is tantamount to saying agender i.e. lacking a gender.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

You're using the transgenderist re-definition of gender identity again. Gender identity is as "unfalsifiable" as class identity. As long as the social sciences have a place in science then Kohlberg's gender identity will as well.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

All the name-calling is coming from HP.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

First you falsely accuse me of supplying only anecdotes then talk about your trip to the vet. Pathetic.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

My replies have just as much substance as HP's.

All: Is gender identity falsifiable? If so, what would disprove it? by Penultimate_Penance in GCdebatesQT

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

Using the other sides words and definitions when it makes sense to do so is essential to debate

Whoever uses the terms of the opposition is capitulating. Always make them use your terms, not the other way around. As soon as you start playing by their rules you've helped them monopolise the "debate", which is the their winning move in said debate.

I'm not fond of the other definitions of gender identity either

They're not on the same level. "TWAW" isn't supported by any scientific discipline.

Identity should be based on who you are not what you are

That's only personal identity. Social identities also exist. Billion dollar industries depend on individuals within demographics all sharing behavioural patterns.

A person's sex, skin color or sexual orientation does not dictate the content of their character

A person's class dictates a lot about them. Admitting that isn't justifying classism.

Transgenderists believe that gender identity is a personal construct. They swing between biological determinism & free will, like conservatives. As usual, it's socially determined, otherwise all the dysphorics in media, politics & crime would be homosexual females, not heterosexual males again.

Sam Lux did a video saying "Trans-Racial" & "Trans-Korean" aren't legitimate. This transphobic garbage needs be reported out of existence by SnowAssMan in GenderCriticalGuys

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

that's certainly Butler's conclusion, instead of just accepting Sam Lux for what he is: a feminine homosexual man.

Does Kim Petras "pass"? And why are TIMs and TIFs everywhere? by UWUness in GenderCritical

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

I think JKR & Piers Morgan & most people believe some of that crap to some degree though.

About the origins of the word "gender" by BiologyIsReal in GCdebatesQT

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

Says the guy who want we adopt his personal definition of "gender identity".

You're mixing me up with Lawrence Kohlberg, you know, the guy who coined 'gender identity'. Oh wait, you didn't know that, even though I've reminded you on several occasions?

Again, what purpose does replacing "gender" with "sex" have, if you don't actually replace gender with sex in any of the examples where "gender" is used by TRAs?