Tim Allen: Being a non-liberal in Hollywood is like 1930's Germany

  • 99 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for ad1x2
ad1x2

8430

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#51 ad1x2
Member since 2005 • 8430 Posts

@sSubZerOo said:

I seriously wish both political leanings would stop using fucking nazi comparisons every chance they get.. There are other groups and political ideologies in the world, be more nuanced than comparing everything to skeletor every FREAKING CHANCE you get.. These do not help your arguments, they worsen it.

Nazis are probably the most hated and vilified people in modern history, and the fact that their reign of terror was recently enough that people who suffered through it are still alive to attest to their horrors.

With that in mind, people will use the other "N" word when talking about their opponents in hopes of getting others to hate them as much as they do.

Avatar image for n64dd
N64DD

13167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 N64DD
Member since 2015 • 13167 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@mattbbpl said:
@n64dd said:
@mattbbpl said:
@n64dd said:

Obama care is a tax on the poor. Drink more kool-aid.

Your buddies in the House are bitching about the fact that it gives too much to the poor.

Our country is kind of broke. Maybe poor people should get jobs?

That's the Republican party I know! Welcome back.

Yeah, you hear that coal miners and manufacturing laborers! Go get a job, it's not up to the rest of us to subsidize your lost industry in a vain attempt to bring it back!

Exactly! Get a job bums!

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23009 Posts

@n64dd said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@mattbbpl said:

That's the Republican party I know! Welcome back.

Yeah, you hear that coal miners and manufacturing laborers! Go get a job, it's not up to the rest of us to subsidize your lost industry in a vain attempt to bring it back!

Exactly! Get a job bums!

Hold on, it's not quite that easy.

First we have to pass tax breaks so the "job creators" will bestow the plebs with jobs. That should be next on Trump's list. I mean, there are some in this bill (even though, as you say, the country is broke), but Ryan and Trump have made it clear they plan to pass far MORE as part of a tax reform package. And then, because as you stated the country is broke, we'll need to make further cuts to healthcare and social services to offset those tax breaks. But that will all really get the country growing because as we all know inequality is decreasing by the day and our economy is capital starved.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#54 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

@ad1x2 said:
@sSubZerOo said:

I seriously wish both political leanings would stop using fucking nazi comparisons every chance they get.. There are other groups and political ideologies in the world, be more nuanced than comparing everything to skeletor every FREAKING CHANCE you get.. These do not help your arguments, they worsen it.

Nazis are probably the most hated and vilified people in modern history, and the fact that their reign of terror was recently enough that people who suffered through it are still alive to attest to their horrors.

With that in mind, people will use the other "N" word when talking about their opponents in hopes of getting others to hate them as much as they do.

You are exactly right they are one of the lowest scum of humanity, which is why its freaking insulting to constantly use it with downright trivial bullshit differences on opinion..

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

58155

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#55 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 58155 Posts

@mattbbpl said:
@n64dd said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@mattbbpl said:

That's the Republican party I know! Welcome back.

Yeah, you hear that coal miners and manufacturing laborers! Go get a job, it's not up to the rest of us to subsidize your lost industry in a vain attempt to bring it back!

Exactly! Get a job bums!

Hold on, it's not quite that easy.

First we have to pass tax breaks so the "job creators" will bestow the plebs with jobs. That should be next on Trump's list. I mean, there are some in this bill (even though, as you say, the country is broke), but Ryan and Trump have made it clear they plan to pass far MORE as part of a tax reform package. And then, because as you stated the country is broke, we'll need to make further cuts to healthcare and social services to offset those tax breaks. But that will all really get the country growing because as we all know inequality is decreasing by the day and our economy is capital starved.

Yeah! For the job creators! Because, umm...corporations are people, too! And people deserve to be treated right! Just not people people.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
FireEmblem_Man

20248

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#56 FireEmblem_Man
Member since 2004 • 20248 Posts

@nintendoboy16: He's not wrong, all of Hollywood is indoctrinated with Far Left views and if you don't comply to those views, they have power to destroy your career

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

16515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57  Edited By blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 16515 Posts

@hillelslovak said:

Someone's been hitting the cocaine again.

Both sides have such a victim complex. Jesus christ. I'm pretty sure Jews in 1930s Germany were not collecting massive royalty checks for their shitty old shows. It's pretty ironic he is bitching, whilst, as an old man, not realizing that the worst that will happen to him is insults, and not forced labor awaiting execution.

uhh..when was the last time a liberal made a thread like this? Ever? Well, the fact is liberals don't because we don't have inferiority complexes on being wrong about everything. The conservative drama queen soap opera of being stepped on isn't an illusion, its REAL. Only an idiotic conservative could be pro life and at the same time advocate for "small" government. Its a freaking hypocrisy of the highest order. These same science denying conservatives are fake Christians only when it suits them to hate on the muslims. Yet whenever a Dylan Roof, Columbine , Newtown shooter pops up, they strangely remain silent on the "crazy muslims" and revert to their go to stance: protecting the 2nd amendment from "enemies of the constitution lol. They want to be taken seriously...they need to graduate from cult status. And yes, I am happy calling the conservatives a cult because that's what they are. They aren't like liberals who have significant disagreements on a variety of topics. The current con jobs are all nutcases united around a single purpose: to "protect" America from the "commie/socialist" liberals. Trust me...CONS have gone off the deep

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

41489

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 14

#58  Edited By nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 41489 Posts

@FireEmblem_Man said:

@nintendoboy16: He's not wrong, all of Hollywood is indoctrinated with Far Left views and if you don't comply to those views, they have power to destroy your career

I hardly believe that. Some conservative celebrities have opened up on their politics and, far as I know, never got the scrutiny Allen is talking about (or at least on a BIG level). Clint Eastwood? Sylvester Stallone? They have conservative views and their careers are fine. It seems that the celebs that are DICKISH on their conservative views (Ted Nugent, Mel Gibson) are the ones that were shunned.

Avatar image for vfighter
VFighter

11031

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 VFighter
Member since 2016 • 11031 Posts

@blaznwiipspman1: Thanks for one of the biggest, dumbest pieces of nonsense drivel I've seen in some time.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde

12935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 82

User Lists: 0

#60 deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
Member since 2005 • 12935 Posts

@blaznwiipspman1 said:
@hillelslovak said:

Someone's been hitting the cocaine again.

Both sides have such a victim complex. Jesus christ. I'm pretty sure Jews in 1930s Germany were not collecting massive royalty checks for their shitty old shows. It's pretty ironic he is bitching, whilst, as an old man, not realizing that the worst that will happen to him is insults, and not forced labor awaiting execution.

uhh..when was the last time a liberal made a thread like this? Ever? Well, the fact is liberals don't because we don't have inferiority complexes on being wrong about everything. The conservative drama queen soap opera of being stepped on isn't an illusion, its REAL. Only an idiotic conservative could be pro life and at the same time advocate for "small" government. Its a freaking hypocrisy of the highest order. These same science denying conservatives are fake Christians only when it suits them to hate on the muslims. Yet whenever a Dylan Roof, Columbine , Newtown shooter pops up, they strangely remain silent on the "crazy muslims" and revert to their go to stance: protecting the 2nd amendment from "enemies of the constitution lol. They want to be taken seriously...they need to graduate from cult status. And yes, I am happy calling the conservatives a cult because that's what they are. They aren't like liberals who have significant disagreements on a variety of topics. The current con jobs are all nutcases united around a single purpose: to "protect" America from the "commie/socialist" liberals. Trust me...CONS have gone off the deep

Liberals are at this moment denying biology, whilst pushing dozens of genders. Liberals, at this moment are denying Islam, in it's ideology, is a unique threat to world civilization. The left is too busy, at this moment, to admit they deserved to lose the last election. We have proof the Democratic establishment is a corrupt machine, who chooses it's candidate not by the will of voters, but by backroom dealings.

You are pushing at an open door with most people if you are saying conservatives have a ton of faults, but calling them hypocrites whilst acting as if they are the sole ideological side with major problems, you show yourself to be the closed minded fool you accuse them of being.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

16515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61  Edited By blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 16515 Posts

@hillelslovak said:
@blaznwiipspman1 said:
@hillelslovak said:

Someone's been hitting the cocaine again.

Both sides have such a victim complex. Jesus christ. I'm pretty sure Jews in 1930s Germany were not collecting massive royalty checks for their shitty old shows. It's pretty ironic he is bitching, whilst, as an old man, not realizing that the worst that will happen to him is insults, and not forced labor awaiting execution.

uhh..when was the last time a liberal made a thread like this? Ever? Well, the fact is liberals don't because we don't have inferiority complexes on being wrong about everything. The conservative drama queen soap opera of being stepped on isn't an illusion, its REAL. Only an idiotic conservative could be pro life and at the same time advocate for "small" government. Its a freaking hypocrisy of the highest order. These same science denying conservatives are fake Christians only when it suits them to hate on the muslims. Yet whenever a Dylan Roof, Columbine , Newtown shooter pops up, they strangely remain silent on the "crazy muslims" and revert to their go to stance: protecting the 2nd amendment from "enemies of the constitution lol. They want to be taken seriously...they need to graduate from cult status. And yes, I am happy calling the conservatives a cult because that's what they are. They aren't like liberals who have significant disagreements on a variety of topics. The current con jobs are all nutcases united around a single purpose: to "protect" America from the "commie/socialist" liberals. Trust me...CONS have gone off the deep

Liberals are at this moment denying biology, whilst pushing dozens of genders. Liberals, at this moment are denying Islam, in it's ideology, is a unique threat to world civilization. The left is too busy, at this moment, to admit they deserved to lose the last election. We have proof the Democratic establishment is a corrupt machine, who chooses it's candidate not by the will of voters, but by backroom dealings.

You are pushing at an open door with most people if you are saying conservatives have a ton of faults, but calling them hypocrites whilst acting as if they are the sole ideological side with major problems, you show yourself to be the closed minded fool you accuse them of being.

perfect example of a dumb conservative right here. You act like the trannies only existed under obama. The only thing obama did was pass a very obscure bill, allowing the trannies to do what they were doing for the last 50 years anyway...and that is using the womens washroom. Yet the conservative losers come in, acting like the bathroom is a holy place, painting them trannies as child molestors and rapists waiting for the "opportunity" to strike. The tranny bill was another civil rights bill and nobody cared about it until the repub, right wing nut jobs held a meeting and decided to make it a big deal.

Another stupid argument by the right wing nut jobs that "islam is evil" LOL. All religions are evil...take a look at some of the gross disgusting things said in the bible. Guess what, its a 2000 year old book written by some dingy alcoholic, rags wearing camel fuker. Get over it. The "muslims" aren't terrorizing over "islam"...they're terrorizing because of poverty, starvation while using some crazy 2000 year old book as a crutch. Even George W. Bush understood something like that, and he was a freaking idiot. Its alot easier to brainwash a hungry/desperate man than a well fed/succesful one. Hell, its the reason for all the right wing crazy whackjob conservatives popping up...the corporations have butt fukd them royally (cons allowed it to happen with support of "small government") and now have become irrational lemmings ready to jump off the cliff at any moment.

Of course..the nut jobs cons wont understand any of this, so keep on doing your crazy shtick. Its worked so far in getting the king of nut jobs elected.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@blaznwiipspman1: Actually Hills is pretty liberal.

Pessimism is not conservativism.

Avatar image for sayyy-gaa
sayyy-gaa

5850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 sayyy-gaa
Member since 2002 • 5850 Posts

Every political party in USA should stop using:

1. Nazi comparisons as it relates to anything

2. slave comparisons as it relates to anything

3. Jesus comparisons as it relates to anything.

Tim Allen who is currently working on Toy Story 4 and still gets big royalty checks for a show that last aired 15+ years ago has it hard in Hollywood I'm sure. But I doubt it mirrors the horrors of

a. getting dragged from your homes and thrown in camps

b. being forced to perform manual labor in subhuman conditions with no rights.

c. being the messiah for millions[billions?] of people.

He has a point regarding Hollywood being liberal but STFU with the insane comparisons. These things go in cycles.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178807 Posts

@Maroxad said:

@blaznwiipspman1: Actually Hills is pretty liberal.

Pessimism is not conservativism.

He's libertarian I believe. Not liberal.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde

12935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 82

User Lists: 0

#65 deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
Member since 2005 • 12935 Posts

@blaznwiipspman1 said:
@hillelslovak said:
@blaznwiipspman1 said:
@hillelslovak said:

Someone's been hitting the cocaine again.

Both sides have such a victim complex. Jesus christ. I'm pretty sure Jews in 1930s Germany were not collecting massive royalty checks for their shitty old shows. It's pretty ironic he is bitching, whilst, as an old man, not realizing that the worst that will happen to him is insults, and not forced labor awaiting execution.

uhh..when was the last time a liberal made a thread like this? Ever? Well, the fact is liberals don't because we don't have inferiority complexes on being wrong about everything. The conservative drama queen soap opera of being stepped on isn't an illusion, its REAL. Only an idiotic conservative could be pro life and at the same time advocate for "small" government. Its a freaking hypocrisy of the highest order. These same science denying conservatives are fake Christians only when it suits them to hate on the muslims. Yet whenever a Dylan Roof, Columbine , Newtown shooter pops up, they strangely remain silent on the "crazy muslims" and revert to their go to stance: protecting the 2nd amendment from "enemies of the constitution lol. They want to be taken seriously...they need to graduate from cult status. And yes, I am happy calling the conservatives a cult because that's what they are. They aren't like liberals who have significant disagreements on a variety of topics. The current con jobs are all nutcases united around a single purpose: to "protect" America from the "commie/socialist" liberals. Trust me...CONS have gone off the deep

Liberals are at this moment denying biology, whilst pushing dozens of genders. Liberals, at this moment are denying Islam, in it's ideology, is a unique threat to world civilization. The left is too busy, at this moment, to admit they deserved to lose the last election. We have proof the Democratic establishment is a corrupt machine, who chooses it's candidate not by the will of voters, but by backroom dealings.

You are pushing at an open door with most people if you are saying conservatives have a ton of faults, but calling them hypocrites whilst acting as if they are the sole ideological side with major problems, you show yourself to be the closed minded fool you accuse them of being.

perfect example of a dumb conservative right here. You act like the trannies only existed under obama. The only thing obama did was pass a very obscure bill, allowing the trannies to do what they were doing for the last 50 years anyway...and that is using the womens washroom. Yet the conservative losers come in, acting like the bathroom is a holy place, painting them trannies as child molestors and rapists waiting for the "opportunity" to strike. The tranny bill was another civil rights bill and nobody cared about it until the repub, right wing nut jobs held a meeting and decided to make it a big deal.

Another stupid argument by the right wing nut jobs that "islam is evil" LOL. All religions are evil...take a look at some of the gross disgusting things said in the bible. Guess what, its a 2000 year old book written by some dingy alcoholic, rags wearing camel fuker. Get over it. The "muslims" aren't terrorizing over "islam"...they're terrorizing because of poverty, starvation while using some crazy 2000 year old book as a crutch. Even George W. Bush understood something like that, and he was a freaking idiot. Its alot easier to brainwash a hungry/desperate man than a well fed/succesful one. Hell, its the reason for all the right wing crazy whackjob conservatives popping up...the corporations have butt fukd them royally (cons allowed it to happen with support of "small government") and now have become irrational lemmings ready to jump off the cliff at any moment.

Of course..the nut jobs cons wont understand any of this, so keep on doing your crazy shtick. Its worked so far in getting the king of nut jobs elected.

Wow, you call me a conservative, which nobody has, and all you actually accomplish is your complete ignorance, and projected duality, the tool of the fool.

I make a statement that liberals are denying biology, and you immediately go "You're denying the existence of transgenders before Obama!!" I'll lay it out simply for you, since I cant go at your speed of 2 words per minute: We are a binary reproducing species. One has the sperm, the other the egg, and the reproductive system needed to cell divide this fertilized egg. Therefore, our species has 2 genders. Since our species does in fact have 2 binary genders, we cannot have 76 genders. Since liberals are the only people pushing this insanity, which is a contradiction to biology, they are denying biology. You see? Rocket science.....

Your second paragraph is the same aped horseshit I have heard from Mehdi Hassan Ashkar Buhkari, Reza Aslan, and countless other immoral apologists. Ask yourself, are the leaders of the Taliban poor, or do they have college degrees, and some masters degrees? Is the leader of ISIS college educated, or poor and uneducated. Was Osama Bin Laden a billionaire, or a poor and oppressed person? Were the 19 hijackers on 9/11 poor and oppressed, or college graduates? Was Omar Mahteen oppressed by US foreign policy, or in a state of poverty due to US policy, or was he living the dream in America?

Does the Muslim hatred of gays come from oppression and poverty, or the Quran and Hadith?

Does the Jihad imperative come from poverty and oppression, or the Quran?

Does the genital excision of women across the Muslim world come from poverty and US policy, or the Quran and Hadith?

Its alot easier to brainwash a hungry/desperate man than a well fed/succesful one. Now that is a marvelous demonstration of complete ignorance. Go onto youtube, and watch the confessions of would be suicide bombers, and the men who routinely train suicide bombers. They, like Osama Bin Laden, the leaders of Boko Haram, Al Nusra, ISIS, Al Qaeda, will tell you exactly why they did it. They routinely tell you flat out, it is becuase of the loss of Muslim territory, offense to Islam, and the furthering of Islamic domination, coupled with their belief in martyrdom.

So, if it's all poverty and oppression, because you know, Muslim dictatorships totally dont have access to money or oil at all, why would a man like Osama Bin Laden attack the USA? Why did the 19 hijackers come from Saudi Arabia, who is supremely favored by the US despite rampant human rights abuses due to their Wahhabi Islamic government, attack the US? Were these college educated men impoverished within the USA, unable to use their engineering degrees, or were they true believers?

Argue your point, and attempt to not scream like an idiot.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66 Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@hillelslovak: Ever heard of Hermaphrodites?

(Not going into the discussion that you confused gender for sex, I will leave that for another discussion)

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde

12935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 82

User Lists: 0

#67 deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
Member since 2005 • 12935 Posts

@Maroxad said:

@hillelslovak: Ever heard of Hermaphrodites?

(Not going into the discussion that you confused gender for sex, I will leave that for another discussion)

The mass majority of hermaphrodites cannot reproduce. It is almost negligible even within that tiny demographic. Remember, I said binary reproducing species.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@hillelslovak said:
@Maroxad said:

@hillelslovak: Ever heard of Hermaphrodites?

(Not going into the discussion that you confused gender for sex, I will leave that for another discussion)

The mass majority of hermaphrodites cannot reproduce. It is almost negligible even within that tiny demographic. Remember, I said binary reproducing species.

The point is.

There are more than 2 sexes. Whether they can reproduce or not is irrelevant. They exist.

Unless, you are detracting from the, "Since our species does in fact have 2 binary genders" nonsense.

Avatar image for SOedipus
SOedipus

14788

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 SOedipus
Member since 2006 • 14788 Posts
@Maroxad said:

The point is.

There are more than 2 sexes. Whether they can reproduce or not is irrelevant. They exist.

Are you referring to individuals who are born with Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome... etc? If not, may you elaborate?

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@SOedipus said:
@Maroxad said:

The point is.

There are more than 2 sexes. Whether they can reproduce or not is irrelevant. They exist.

Are you referring to individuals who are born with Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome... etc? If not, may you elaborate?

Of course, as well as other instances of where intersex is usually considered.

But the thing that came at the top of my head are those cases... rare as it may be, have BOTH reproductive organs.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde

12935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 82

User Lists: 0

#71  Edited By deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
Member since 2005 • 12935 Posts

@Maroxad said:
@hillelslovak said:
@Maroxad said:

@hillelslovak: Ever heard of Hermaphrodites?

(Not going into the discussion that you confused gender for sex, I will leave that for another discussion)

The mass majority of hermaphrodites cannot reproduce. It is almost negligible even within that tiny demographic. Remember, I said binary reproducing species.

The point is.

There are more than 2 sexes. Whether they can reproduce or not is irrelevant. They exist.

Unless, you are detracting from the, "Since our species does in fact have 2 binary genders" nonsense.

Definition of sex

  1. 1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

  2. 2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@hillelslovak said:
@Maroxad said:
@hillelslovak said:
@Maroxad said:

@hillelslovak: Ever heard of Hermaphrodites?

(Not going into the discussion that you confused gender for sex, I will leave that for another discussion)

The mass majority of hermaphrodites cannot reproduce. It is almost negligible even within that tiny demographic. Remember, I said binary reproducing species.

The point is.

There are more than 2 sexes. Whether they can reproduce or not is irrelevant. They exist.

Unless, you are detracting from the, "Since our species does in fact have 2 binary genders" nonsense.

Definition of sex

  1. 1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

  2. 2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

And then you have people who fall outside those 2 established structures... or contain both.

Do you see the problem with your original assertion yet?

Sex is a lot more complex, than the binary 2 sexes or 2 genders nonsense. That isnt biology denial ;)

http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

Avatar image for drunk_pi
Drunk_PI

3358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 Drunk_PI
Member since 2014 • 3358 Posts

@sSubZerOo said:

I seriously wish both political leanings would stop using fucking nazi comparisons every chance they get.. There are other groups and political ideologies in the world, be more nuanced than comparing everything to skeletor every FREAKING CHANCE you get.. These do not help your arguments, they worsen it.

Stop being such a Nazi about Godwin's Law.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde

12935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 82

User Lists: 0

#74 deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
Member since 2005 • 12935 Posts

@Maroxad said:
@hillelslovak said:
@Maroxad said:
@hillelslovak said:
@Maroxad said:

@hillelslovak: Ever heard of Hermaphrodites?

(Not going into the discussion that you confused gender for sex, I will leave that for another discussion)

The mass majority of hermaphrodites cannot reproduce. It is almost negligible even within that tiny demographic. Remember, I said binary reproducing species.

The point is.

There are more than 2 sexes. Whether they can reproduce or not is irrelevant. They exist.

Unless, you are detracting from the, "Since our species does in fact have 2 binary genders" nonsense.

Definition of sex

  1. 1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

  2. 2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

And then you have people who fall outside those 2 established structures... or contain both.

Do you see the problem with your original assertion yet?

Sex is a lot more complex, than the binary 2 sexes or 2 genders nonsense. That isnt biology denial ;)

http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

Are you speaking along the lines of gender identity, or sexual identity? This shit is so confusing. I often view this issue along the lines of two people alongside one another through tubes in the same direction.

I was speaking much more to the portion of the issue where people are clearly delusional about their gender/sexual identities. Like the 52 year old canadian man who became a 6 year old girl, or the people who identify as other animals. shit like that. Not simply differences on chromosomes. I have only heard the argument from people on the left that the binary dichotomy of sexual reproduction is simply a tool of societal conditioning. It may not be the sole dichotomy, but I often hear the argument articulated along the lines of this dichotomy not being the rule of thumb in a completely overwhelming majority of humans.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75  Edited By KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts
@Maroxad said:

And then you have people who fall outside those 2 established structures... or contain both.

Do you see the problem with your original assertion yet?

Sex is a lot more complex, than the binary 2 sexes or 2 genders nonsense. That isnt biology denial ;)

http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

Well... no, there are still only two genders. What you're referencing is abnormalities that will still remain within the two genders. Some of these abnormalities (I believe on the high end is 1.4% w/the low end being 0.4%. So its probably in between) are better studied and we have more information on and are often given names or summary terms and then some are more rare and we don't even have names for. But none of this changes that there are only two genders, its actually demanded by our biology. The paper you referenced really has more to do with chromosome representation as we age or throughout events in our life.

I wouldnt call it biology denial, but its not very accurate, depending on the person is/could be intentionally misrepresenting ideas or studies and its not something laymen should be running around suggesting.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@hillelslovak said:

Are you speaking along the lines of gender identity, or sexual identity? This shit is so confusing. I often view this issue along the lines of two people alongside one another through tubes in the same direction.

I was speaking much more to the portion of the issue where people are clearly delusional about their gender/sexual identities. Like the 52 year old canadian man who became a 6 year old girl, or the people who identify as other animals. shit like that. Not simply differences on chromosomes. I have only heard the argument from people on the left that the binary dichotomy of sexual reproduction is simply a tool of societal conditioning. It may not be the sole dichotomy, but I often hear the argument articulated along the lines of this dichotomy not being the rule of thumb in a completely overwhelming majority of humans.

Ahh good.

I was just toying with you. Taking some of the things you said out of context.

I do agree, this whole gender issue has probably been taken too far. Transgenderism is fine... as there is a lot of empirical data to support that. But then there are a lot of issues, like you said, that seem to have no scientific backing that I am aware of (like the 2 examples you brought up). Needless to say, gender seems to act in a spectrum with 2 ends, male and female (not surprising since gender is a descriptor). Hell, look at those jRPG characters, especially those meant to be androgynous. You cant tell me those are more masculine than say... Duke Nukem.

I dont like the assertion that there are only 2 genders since it assumes it is an integer or int instead of a float, that goes between 0 and 1.

@kod said:

Well... no, there are still only two genders. What you're referencing is abnormalities that will still remain within the two genders. Some of these abnormalities (I believe on the high end is 1.4% w/the low end being 0.4%. So its probably in between) are better studied and we have more information on and are often given names or summary terms and then some are more rare and we don't even have names for. But none of this changes that there are only two genders, its actually demanded by our biology. The paper you referenced really has more to do with chromosome representation as we age or throughout events in our life.

I wouldnt call it biology denial, but its not very accurate, depending on the person is/could be intentionally misrepresenting ideas or studies and its not something laymen should be running around suggesting.

My point is that using the criteria we use for determining someone's sex. There will be no real way to pin it in 2 categories without using a load of double standards and non-objective criteria. Some will fall outside these 2 baskets, it doesnt matter that they are rare, they still exist. Our reproductive biology has been evolved around 2 sexes. But mutations and anomalies do occur.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178807 Posts

@Maroxad said:
@SOedipus said:
@Maroxad said:

The point is.

There are more than 2 sexes. Whether they can reproduce or not is irrelevant. They exist.

Are you referring to individuals who are born with Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome... etc? If not, may you elaborate?

Of course, as well as other instances of where intersex is usually considered.

But the thing that came at the top of my head are those cases... rare as it may be, have BOTH reproductive organs.

Those are abnormalities though.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#78  Edited By deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Maroxad said:
@SOedipus said:
@Maroxad said:

The point is.

There are more than 2 sexes. Whether they can reproduce or not is irrelevant. They exist.

Are you referring to individuals who are born with Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome... etc? If not, may you elaborate?

Of course, as well as other instances of where intersex is usually considered.

But the thing that came at the top of my head are those cases... rare as it may be, have BOTH reproductive organs.

Those are abnormalities though.

And what relevance does that have? Being albino is an abnormality, does that mean there's no such thing as white hair?

How common something is has no baring on whether it exists. The fact is it exists even if it only effects a very small amount of people.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178807 Posts

@toast_burner said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Maroxad said:
@SOedipus said:
@Maroxad said:

The point is.

There are more than 2 sexes. Whether they can reproduce or not is irrelevant. They exist.

Are you referring to individuals who are born with Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome... etc? If not, may you elaborate?

Of course, as well as other instances of where intersex is usually considered.

But the thing that came at the top of my head are those cases... rare as it may be, have BOTH reproductive organs.

Those are abnormalities though.

And what relevance does that have? Being albino is an abnormality, does that mean there's no such thing as white hair?

How common something is has no baring on whether it exists. The fact is it exists even if it only effects a very small amount of people.

No one said it didn't exist. However it is still an abnormality and not a different sex. IE an albino is one of the races not an entirely new race.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:

No one said it didn't exist. However it is still an abnormality and not a different sex. IE an albino is one of the races not an entirely new race.

The difference is. With an albino, you can still tell what race they belong to. In many cases with hermaphrodites, you cant. This is something I base on personal experience, as one of my pets private parts was essentially both that of a female and a male.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178807 Posts

@Maroxad said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

No one said it didn't exist. However it is still an abnormality and not a different sex. IE an albino is one of the races not an entirely new race.

The difference is. With an albino, you can still tell what race they belong to. In many cases with hermaphrodites, you cant. This is something I base on personal experience, as one of my pets private parts was essentially both that of a female and a male.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much dude.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#82  Edited By KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@Maroxad said:

@kod said:

Well... no, there are still only two genders. What you're referencing is abnormalities that will still remain within the two genders. Some of these abnormalities (I believe on the high end is 1.4% w/the low end being 0.4%. So its probably in between) are better studied and we have more information on and are often given names or summary terms and then some are more rare and we don't even have names for. But none of this changes that there are only two genders, its actually demanded by our biology. The paper you referenced really has more to do with chromosome representation as we age or throughout events in our life.

I wouldnt call it biology denial, but its not very accurate, depending on the person is/could be intentionally misrepresenting ideas or studies and its not something laymen should be running around suggesting.

My point is that using the criteria we use for determining someone's sex. There will be no real way to pin it in 2 categories without using a load of double standards and non-objective criteria. Some will fall outside these 2 baskets, it doesn't matter that they are rare, they still exist. Our reproductive biology has been evolved around 2 sexes. But mutations and anomalies do occur.

Right i got what you were saying, but any "double standards" or "non objective criteria" typically comes from laymen not understanding how solidified this topic is within biology and this misunderstanding tends to come from external/societal forces. Abnormalities do not create a new gender. The suggestion of more than 2 genders is non-scientific gobbledy goo.... it might be a debate in the social sciences and post modernism, but not biology.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@kod said:
@Maroxad said:
@kod said:

Well... no, there are still only two genders. What you're referencing is abnormalities that will still remain within the two genders. Some of these abnormalities (I believe on the high end is 1.4% w/the low end being 0.4%. So its probably in between) are better studied and we have more information on and are often given names or summary terms and then some are more rare and we don't even have names for. But none of this changes that there are only two genders, its actually demanded by our biology. The paper you referenced really has more to do with chromosome representation as we age or throughout events in our life.

I wouldnt call it biology denial, but its not very accurate, depending on the person is/could be intentionally misrepresenting ideas or studies and its not something laymen should be running around suggesting.

My point is that using the criteria we use for determining someone's sex. There will be no real way to pin it in 2 categories without using a load of double standards and non-objective criteria. Some will fall outside these 2 baskets, it doesn't matter that they are rare, they still exist. Our reproductive biology has been evolved around 2 sexes. But mutations and anomalies do occur.

Right i got what you were saying, but any "double standards" or "non objective criteria" typically comes from laymen not understanding how solidified this topic is within biology and this misunderstanding tends to come from external/societal forces. Abnormalities do not create a new gender. The suggestion of more than 2 genders is non-scientific gobbledy goo.... it might be a debate in the social sciences and post modernism, but not biology.

Nothing in science is solidified. Even gravity, hell even Darwinian evolution.

THAT SAID... A third sex in general adds very little to a model, hence why it is unnecessary to do so if not completely absurd to add a third sex in biology, the model wont get more functional. But it is not exactly incorrect to assume that a creature that can not meet the criteria of the male or female sex falls outside of those 2.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#84 KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@Maroxad said:

Nothing in science is solidified. Even gravity, hell even Darwinian evolution.

Yes there is plenty in scientific fields that have been factually proven and "solidified" and the two things you mention are perfect examples of this. While we can debate details of certain topics within the overall conversations of evolution and gravity, the majority of the base information (and expanded) we have is factual, we know there is nothing plausible that will reverse this information.

@Maroxad said:

A third sex in general adds very little to a model, hence why it is unnecessary to do so if not completely absurd to add a third sex in biology.

So... i want to point out that you almost never find biologists or academic medicine suggesting these things, its always people within the "soft" (which is a kind term to say the least) sciences. Its just like how UFO sightings are most common among armature astronomers. As NDT put it," because they dont know wtf they are looking at". The same applies here, people simply do not understand how much or what we do know in biology. This apparently includes yourself. Not only would we have tons of information on a third sex if actually existed, but if it magically popped out of no where then yes, it would literally change everything we know about humans. Its not "adds very little to a model", no it completely alters everything we are as a species.

@Maroxad said:

But it is not exactly incorrect to assume that a creature that can not meet the criteria of the male or female sex falls outside of those 2.

Its absolutely, 100% incorrect to assume this about species that we have already identified the means of reproduction. Maybe with some unknown species we have not studied, this is acceptable to proclaim, but not humans. And whether you like it or not, this is something that we've known for human beings for quite a while and there is nothing in the appropriate fields that even begins to counter it.

Im doing my best to keep this as layman as possible. If there is something you want further explained or better explained, please ask. This is a topic that is currently hurting the name of science and its all because of people who don't seem to know what they are talking about. yet are being labeled as credible because they have unrelated degree's. Its a problem.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#85  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@kod: Once again. I was probably wrong to say a third sex so to speak. However, some individuals within species with 2 sexes... are impossible to categorize. This is my entire point.

Also, I was trying to imply this part...

"Its not "adds very little to a model", no it completely alters everything we are as a species.".

Implying in my previous post that adding a third sex adds more convolution and doesnt really solve any problem.

P.S: We do have a fairly good ammount of information on intersex people. Enough to being able to trace it back to multiple causes... which depend on a case to case basis.

Evolution would be discarded pretty fast if evidence started piling up against it. Of course, that is extremely unlikely to ever happen. All relevant evidence we find only supports it.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86  Edited By KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@Maroxad said:

@kod: Once again. I was probably wrong to say a third sex so to speak. However, some individuals within species with 2 sexes... are impossible to categorize. This is my entire point.

Again, its only difficult or impossible if you're not following biology.

This is why the other person said you were a science denier or biology denier or anti-whatever. Because you have to ignore or not know what we do know in order to present this idea that we dont know. From a scientific standpoint, no one is difficult to categorize. Even outliers and abnormalities are still easily categorized.

Again, i get your point, its not that hard to grasp. You want to be open minded to things we do not know or fully understand. Which is fine, the problem is the promotion of this idea on this specific topic, is ignoring what we do know and understand and this "questioning" or "stance" when it comes to specific topics (because we see this quite often now with the facebook/twitter/20 second media) it often promoted or created by people who don't know anything on the subject.

I think a lot of this comes from people not wanting to accept the difference between a social situation or social sciences, with hard sciences. They don't want to call people "abnormal" or "outliers" or suggest it could be more of a mental disorder. Which i get to a degree, but once we step into the world of academia and science, there is a certain degree of acceptance and honesty we have to have. And facts don't care if someone does or does not like being labeled as abnormal. Sadly instead of the promotion of being honest and generally being good people, we've seen those attempt to shame others and be very forceful in these ideas, while also attempting to use biology and other fields to say they are right. When they're not and they can often be as bad as the Discovery Institute who attempts to use science to disprove science by intentionally altering it, misunderstanding it or misrepresenting it. Its the promotion of lies, deception and falsehoods, this is rarely a good thing.

EDIT: I actually read this paper a few days ago and luckily it was still in my history. But the process being described in this paper only works because we are able to do what you're suggesting is impossible. If it was inaccurate or failed at categorizing even abnormalities, then it would not be a useful or effective process. The great thing about effective and working processes is they can generally be applied in multiple ways, as we see here. http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0000323

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#87  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@kod said:
@Maroxad said:

@kod: Once again. I was probably wrong to say a third sex so to speak. However, some individuals within species with 2 sexes... are impossible to categorize. This is my entire point.

Again, its only difficult or impossible if you're not following biology.

This is why the other person said you were a science denier or biology denier or anti-whatever. Because you have to ignore or not know what we do know in order to present this idea that we dont know. From a scientific standpoint, no one is difficult to categorize. Even outliers and abnormalities are still easily categorized.

Again, i get your point, its not that hard to grasp. You want to be open minded to things we do not know or fully understand. Which is fine, the problem is the promotion of this idea on this specific topic, is ignoring what we do know and understand and this "questioning" or "stance" when it comes to specific topics (because we see this quite often now with the facebook/twitter/20 second media) it often promoted or created by people who don't know anything on the subject.

I think a lot of this comes from people not wanting to accept the difference between a social situation or social sciences, with hard sciences. They don't want to call people "abnormal" or "outliers" or suggest it could be more of a mental disorder. Which i get to a degree, but once we step into the world of academia and science, there is a certain degree of acceptance and honesty we have to have. And facts don't care if someone does or does not like being labeled as abnormal. Sadly instead of the promotion of being honest and generally being good people, we've seen those attempt to shame others and be very forceful in these ideas, while also attempting to use biology and other fields to say they are right. When they're not and they can often be as bad as the Discovery Institute who attempts to use science to disprove science by intentionally altering it, misunderstanding it or misrepresenting it. Its the promotion of lies, deception and falsehoods, this is rarely a good thing.

EDIT: I actually read this paper a few days ago and luckily it was still in my history. But the process being described in this paper only works because we are able to do what you're suggesting is impossible. If it was inaccurate or failed at categorizing even abnormalities, then it would not be a useful or effective process. The great thing about effective and working processes is they can generally be applied in multiple ways, as we see here. http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0000323

I am not just saying myself. Same goes with professional doctors. Who in some cases cant tell the sex of newborn children. Sometimes trying to wait a bit until they get older, sometimes they never properly succeed. Had it just been myself, this wouldnt have been a problem. But when actual professionals do it. There lies the problem.

I truly despise any attempts to put politics in science. Hence, one of the many reasons I strongly dislike the term climate change denier, instead prefer the term skeptic. None of this comes from any attempts to be open minded about cranks (who often use made up genders all the time for attention or something), instead it came after reading about plenty of anecdotes of doctors being unable to determine the sex of babies, followed by seeing images myself.

That said, the paper you linked, actually contained a decent argument in favor of your position. If it comes to a point where those anecdotes stop appearing... I will completely bury my stance on this issue.

Since you seem to misrepresent my position here it is.

Sexes: 2 sexes but exceptions and anomalies do exist.

Exceptions: Anomalies, and definately something wrong with them. But if they cannot have a sex assigned to them, then you can not honestly say they are either male nor female, at least for the time being.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#88  Edited By KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@Maroxad said:

I am not just saying myself. Same goes with professional doctors. Who in some cases cant tell the sex of newborn children. Sometimes trying to wait a bit until they get older, sometimes they never properly succeed. Had it just been myself, this wouldnt have been a problem. But when actual professionals do it. There lies the problem.

Can you cite one of these cases?

It sounds like you're talking about hermaphroditic born children and the "wait and see" thing is, i believe, something they did in the mid to semi-late 20th century. I have heard this before but it was always anecdotal and older stories. But even if we say this is the case today, it does not suggest a problem. Its not like the only way to determine gender is to lift up skirts and check for an innie or outie, there are many ways to gender people. I dont know of any clinic or doctor who would be like "oh... i cant tell... take'em home and bring them back in a month!", no, doctors need to know so they know how to properly proceed. Even if the innie outtie thing was confusing, they would continue to test.

@Maroxad said:

That said, the paper you linked, actually contained a decent argument in favor of your position. If it comes to a point where those anecdotes stop appearing... I will completely bury my stance on this issue.

Since you seem to misrepresent my position here it is.

Sexes: 2 sexes but exceptions and anomalies do exist.

Exceptions: Anomalies, and definately something wrong with them. But if they cannot have a sex assigned to them, then you can not honestly say they are either male nor female, at least for the time being.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/13/joe-holliday-reveals-gender-after-25-years_n_7981498.html

Even people born without genitalia can be gendered within the two genders because in biology, its more than your genitalia. I think your confusion is coming from the fact you're unaware we can gender people without even glancing at their genitals and it will actually be more precise. Which is why i said what i did about the age of the anecdotal stories you highlight, most likely they are from American pre-1995/2000 or so or a modern 3rd world country without medical resources. Ive never misrepresented your stance here, ive merely attempted to tell you that its.... irrelevant and not based in science.

I get being curious based on anecdotal stories, especially repeating ones. But there has to be a point on this specific subject, when you look into modern technology and if these anecdotal stories make sense anymore. Then maybe you can ask when these anecdotal stories took place... 1983? Thats not shocking. If/when they were resolved. How they were resolved. etc. This all just circles back to my point that even if you (or even a doctor) are confused on this subject, biology is not. It takes my lab 48 hours to sequence this information. If we had newer technology, that could be cut down to about 20 minutes. So currently the worst case scenario is a baby is born, doctors are confused, they send us a sample and before the mother is released (3 days i believe is typical for birth) she will know the gender. Best case, a baby is born, doctors are confused, before the mother leaves the birthing room she knows the gender. Its also worth noting that these are limitations of technology, not biology.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@kod: Cant find the links. I recall them being stories I found being roughly 3-4 years old. But as we both know. Medical technology moves fast. And they may have been able to weed out this issue.

While you are correct that there is more ways to determine than just genitilia. Hell, the article you linked discussed quite a few of them. Even if you look at the genetics or hormones there can be, anomalies.

I am saying you misinterpreted my argument since it seems like you were trying to argue that my position came from social sciences or something. I dont major in Social Sciences nor have I ever majored it, nor is it something I will ever touch.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@Maroxad said:

@kod: While you are correct that there is more ways to determine than just genitilia. Hell, the article you linked discussed quite a few of them. Even if you look at the genetics or hormones there can be, anomalies.

Now you're getting into specific details that vary in everyone, but none of it changes the fact that there will always be (as far as i know, we've never seen a case where this is not true) an obvious dominate gender. BTW, we've found out hormones are a bad way to sex people. There is something to it but our current methods have been deemed inaccurate as they do not account for as much as they need to.

@Maroxad said:

@kod: I am saying you misinterpreted my argument since it seems like you were trying to argue that my position came from social sciences or something. I dont major in Social Sciences nor have I ever majored it, nor is it something I will ever touch.

I don't know where your ideas come from specifically, i simply know that there is a fairly high degree of scientific illiteracy on the subject and its a general position we see pushed by the likes of Buzzfeed and even TYT to a degree. People who attempt to use social ideas or social sciences in an attempt to counter biology.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

17851

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#91 br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 17851 Posts

@kod said:

It sounds like you're talking about hermaphroditic born children and the "wait and see" thing is, i believe, something they did in the mid to semi-late 20th century.

Judaism has, since ancient times, recognized six genders: Zachar (male), Nekenah (Female), Androgynous, Tumtum (indeterminate), Ay'lonit (female at birth, male characteristics at puberty) and Saris (male at birth, female characteristics at puberty).

This issue isn't new and as been with us as long as we have been around.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92  Edited By KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@br0kenrabbit said:
@kod said:

It sounds like you're talking about hermaphroditic born children and the "wait and see" thing is, i believe, something they did in the mid to semi-late 20th century.

Judaism has, since ancient times, recognized six genders: Zachar (male), Nekenah (Female), Androgynous, Tumtum (indeterminate), Ay'lonit (female at birth, male characteristics at puberty) and Saris (male at birth, female characteristics at puberty).

This issue isn't new and as been with us as long as we have been around.

Congratulations to some Jews?

You may feel differently, but i dont think religious claims or a product of religious claims, bodes very well against science. And highlighting fairly old terms by bronze aged people does nothing to help this argument.

BTW, those seem to simply be different names yes? Zachar does not mean anything beyond male.

Androgynous simply means indeterminate appearance upon initial or basic visual glance.

Ay'lonit, sounds to be an old term for hermaphrodite. The most important and telling things to pay attention to here is "infertile" and the focus on puberty.

As for Saris it seems to be trans.

At the end of the day these all seem to be nothing more than alternative words and is not highlighting things that are not already in the conversation.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

17851

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#93 br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 17851 Posts

@kod said:

Congratulations to some Jews?

You may feel differently, but i dont think religious claims or a product of religious claims, bodes very well against science. And highlighting fairly old terms by bronze aged people does nothing to help this argument.

BTW, those seem to simply be different names yes? Zachar does not mean anything beyond male.

Androgynous simply means indeterminate appearance upon initial or basic visual glance.

Ay'lonit, sounds to be an old term for hermaphrodite. The most important and telling things to pay attention to here is "infertile" and the focus on puberty.

As for Saris it seems to be trans.

At the end of the day these all seem to be nothing more than alternative words and is not highlighting things that are not already in the conversation.

I'm merely pointing out that this isn't a new debate. It's as old as humanity and will last just as long.

The only anecdotal evidence I can give to the topic is a boy I knew in 6th grade was rushed to the hospital from school because (I found out later) he had begun menstruating and it had no way out of his body. He eventually had a hysterectomy and still identifies as male.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23804 Posts

@br0kenrabbit said:
@kod said:

Congratulations to some Jews?

You may feel differently, but i dont think religious claims or a product of religious claims, bodes very well against science. And highlighting fairly old terms by bronze aged people does nothing to help this argument.

BTW, those seem to simply be different names yes? Zachar does not mean anything beyond male.

Androgynous simply means indeterminate appearance upon initial or basic visual glance.

Ay'lonit, sounds to be an old term for hermaphrodite. The most important and telling things to pay attention to here is "infertile" and the focus on puberty.

As for Saris it seems to be trans.

At the end of the day these all seem to be nothing more than alternative words and is not highlighting things that are not already in the conversation.

I'm merely pointing out that this isn't a new debate. It's as old as humanity and will last just as long.

The only anecdotal evidence I can give to the topic is a boy I knew in 6th grade was rushed to the hospital from school because (I found out later) he had begun menstruating and it had no way out of his body. He eventually had a hysterectomy and still identifies as male.

That sounds kinda painful.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

17851

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#95  Edited By br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 17851 Posts

@Maroxad said:

That sounds kinda painful.

He nearly died from toxic shock. Another hour and the story would have a different ending.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#96 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23009 Posts

@br0kenrabbit said:

I'm merely pointing out that this isn't a new debate. It's as old as humanity and will last just as long.

The only anecdotal evidence I can give to the topic is a boy I knew in 6th grade was rushed to the hospital from school because (I found out later) he had begun menstruating and it had no way out of his body. He eventually had a hysterectomy and still identifies as male.

Well, I know what nightmare I'll be having tonight.

Avatar image for kod
KOD

2754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#97 KOD
Member since 2016 • 2754 Posts

@br0kenrabbit said:

I'm merely pointing out that this isn't a new debate. It's as old as humanity and will last just as long.

The real question is; Was this the same debate? Was this an attempt at defining more than 2 genders or simply noting and defining visual traits of people?

From what ive seen it seems that the idea that this was a gender debate or highlighting a belief of alternate genders, came long after the fact. Its also worth mentioning that if we are to say this is the same conversation or idea, that length of said conversation does nothing to help legitimize it or give it any degree of credibility.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

17851

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#98  Edited By br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 17851 Posts

@kod said:
@br0kenrabbit said:

I'm merely pointing out that this isn't a new debate. It's as old as humanity and will last just as long.

The real question is; Was this the same debate? Was this an attempt at defining more than 2 genders or simply noting and defining visual traits of people?

From what ive seen it seems that the idea that this was a gender debate or highlighting a belief of alternate genders, came long after the fact. Its also worth mentioning that if we are to say this is the same conversation or idea, that length of said conversation does nothing to help legitimize it or give it any degree of credibility.

I'm not trying to legitimize anything, simply pointing out the futility of trying to 'wizard it away'. We have all kinds of science that tells us where we came from but that hasn't killed the creationist debate, has it?

And yes, each of the genders were treated differently by Jewish law. A Tumtum for instance was required to obey the stricter of the laws for both genders: If the law for males was stricter in a given area of concern, then the Tumtum adhered to this. Where the law for females was stricter, the Tumtum was to follow that.

Avatar image for n64dd
N64DD

13167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99 N64DD
Member since 2015 • 13167 Posts

He's right. Democrats are communist borderline nazi's when people do not accept their views.