/s4s/ - anime pillow fight

1740568289906330.png
[Hide] (530.8KB, 1150x1071)

i would say tier 1
i fucking hate the state of /lgbt/ where you have to debate with women if women are  women because TERFs and Trumpism won so hard that now AMAB women with supplied hormones are falling into biases against their own interests in supposed AMAB women discussion circles

>>69040
don't understand anything that was said here

>>69041
The cis women on /lgbt/and Crystal Cafe both hate trans women and don't see them as real women. While chuds use trans lolcow to psyop everyone into viewing us in the worst possible way. This causes an internal debate between which trans girls are real and which trans girls are sexual degenerates with AGP.

I'm certain this site is 95% alice and lilith mix and 5% dalits. under no way is anyone here a normal woman

>>69045
I work a normal job, pass well enough to girlmode in public and just want a monogamous relationship. I use female pronouns when adressing myself in my mind and think of myself as a woman. I don't play videogame and have normie hobbies like gardening and playing with cats.

1604862439463.jpg
[Hide] (29.5KB, 250x250)

>>69042
thank you for explaining squishy. i would argue that trans girl is also a term built to stigmatize us and divide us from "normal women". the current consensus on scientific classifiers is bad and based on old myths (like biological determinism) and gender rules. i don't need a new classifier just because society used a bad approach on me at my birth that failed at classification. but maybe i'm too lost on my critique, you still understood my point - thank you for existing <3
>>69045
you are factually wrong and just revealing your biases, also all those stereotypes are "normal women", whatever you mean with it

>>69045
what about the straight men on this site?
>>65472

>>69049
>based on old myths (like biological determinism)
lol "old myths"
how the fuck is biological determinism an old myth dumbass?
there are studies on infants that show men are more interested in systemic things like wrenches and cars and women are more interested in people. how do you explain that woke squishy?

__iwakura_lain_serial_experiments_lain_drawn_by_sano_snsk3470__sample-d9ac51905c98a854937878b6c9e48537.jpg
[Hide] (85.1KB, 850x690)

>>69052
You're more than just your biology. Who you are isn't defined by it.

>>69050
at least 50%

>>69055
i don't believe that
i think people are mostly defined by their genetics 
i think 80% of your personality is defined hereditarily/by your genetics

>>69055
and that makes no logical sense if you actually think about it
you are made out of tissue and cells and those things are biological 
if you are made out of biological building blocks, how can you defy them? this is like saying a house made out of wood can't burn down because you saw once a house made out of brick that didn't burn down in a fire

>>69052
>there are studies on infants that show men are more interested in systemic things like wrenches and cars and women are more interested in people
you mean the study that you found while scrolling through tiktok or what? if by infants you really mean infants how the fuck would an infant boy have the capacity to acknowledge that wrenches and cars are systemic?
Even if it was true (which is obviously not) it wouldn't be deterministic/essentialist, both of those ideologies imply that sex/gender are inherently correlated, NOT that there are specific traits who have a higher occurence in X sex than Y sex

[www.boymoders.com]_ilovepizzaxxxx_-_19159.png
[Hide] (250.6KB, 640x760)

>>69057
>i think 80% of your personality is defined hereditarily/by your genetics

1619176987861.gif
[Hide] (103.5KB, 540x453)

>>69052
I'm claiming that complex traits aren't determined by simple genetic sequences. Nothing in XX or XY specifies an interest in whatever. Two lines of reasoning:
1) For complex traits the DNA variants that differ between people are mostly regulatory, not protein coding (enhancers, promoters that govern how the genome is read). 2) These elements respond to context such as developmental stage, cell type, nutrition, stress, AND hormonal state... The most relevant inheritable variations for complex traits comes from the components that instruct how to integrate signals (the environment) in protein construction. This is the reason you share 99% of your coding sequence with a chimpanzee and don't look like one, regulation makes all the difference. Your own examples reinforce my thesis since CAH girls (XX with ovaries) show in studies "male toy play" and CAIS kids (XY with testes) develop "female toy play". These complex traits are better classified by androgen signaling (the result of a polygenic interaction, not XX or XY). Attention, the androgen signaling is non-binary and stays on a spectrum, a completely complex and polygenic trait that depends on very different cells in your body. Also, the effects you name usually increase with age, meaning that prolonged male/female socialization is doing the job. Biological reality is that these complex behavior are the result of a sequential multiplication (that is influenced by socialization) from a small initial bias given by ALSO the binary genes.
Given these facts, my arguments is not that there is no effect of genes on behavior, but that I've been classified as a male based on outdated scientific dogmas, like the one you believe in. Now, sorry dumbass, but I've dedicated around 25 minutes to reply to a 120IQlet, and it is wasted time, so.

>>69059
>Even if it was true (which is obviously not)
It is lol (Escudero, Robbins, & Bales (2013) Sex-related preferences for real and doll faces versus real and toy objects in young infants and adults) (read escudero2013.pdf)
>if by infants you really mean infants how the fuck would an infant boy have the capacity to acknowledge that wrenches and cars are systemic?
sorry :( the researchers didn't call the images systemic or anything like that they just reffered to them as "stove/car-like (nonsocial) stimuli" sorry my mistake 
they didn't have to consciously acknowledge it, the researchers just calculated a score based on how much time the infants were looking at the images, which isn't that bad of a heuristic since people usually look at things they like more than they look at things they don't like.

>it wouldn't be deterministic/essentialist, both of those ideologies imply that sex/gender are inherently correlated, NOT that there are specific traits who have a higher occurence in X sex than Y sex
WHAT? most of the time when i see someone calling someone a biological essentialist is when someone claims something like this "there are specific traits who have a higher occurence in X sex than Y sex"
i guess we must have different definitions of biological determinist

>>69065
the conclusion you draw from there is completely based on your initial bias

>>69040
>>69042
go outside

1761660958647204.gif
[Hide] (313.8KB, 300x300)

i got 69069 post

dfe32d264cbabd9ae792929ef360e1ec.jpg
[Hide] (862.1KB, 2030x4096)

biological determinism is a retarded idea in current year anyway since gender roles have been fucked over to hell by jews
there was a time when distinguishing ppl based on anatomy was useful, since men are larger, stronger, faster, smarter, more resilient and more righteous than women, so when dividing labor it was a good idea to take that into account
but now the jews decided to wage-enslave the other half of the population, so it matters v little who stays at home washing the clothes and who pays for the dinner
and before you bring up the braindead fertility argument, remember that birthrates are plummeting everywhere and young ppl arent even getting married or owning homes anymore, so whether you can breed your partner makes no difference since also microplastics are sterilizing men like only hitler could dream of
so even if your claim that having an Y chromosome makes you grow a p*nis turns out to be true, it is literally immaterial to the cyberpunk dystopia we are living in rn

>>69062
>I'm claiming that complex traits aren't determined by simple genetic sequences. Nothing in XX or XY specifies an interest in whatever. Two lines of reasoning:
when did I ever claim the opposite lol? it should be clear the Y chromosomes does nothing more than hormone regulation since it's only 59 megabases compared to the x chromsome which is 155 megabases
>>69062
>Your own examples reinforce my thesis since CAH girls (XX with ovaries) show in studies "male toy play" and CAIS kids (XY with testes) develop "female toy play". These complex traits are better classified by androgen signaling 
i wanted to post the studies about CAH kids but i decided against it for some reason. i don't think i ever said that hormone signaling doesn't do the vast majority of work in the development of humans 
>(the result of a polygenic interaction, not XX or XY).
at this point everything is a polygenetic interaction. 
>the androgen signaling is non-binary
nothing is a binary in biology. saying this just makes you clearly political
>Also, the effects you name usually increase with age, meaning that prolonged male/female socialization is doing the job.
not like anybody can test for that. there are no long term studies about humans  completely isolated from previous gender norms
and what if it's not socialization but long term 'contamination' by hormones? hmm?
>Given these facts, my arguments is not that there is no effect of genes on behavior
i was mostly arguing against that. thought you completely denied biology like marxists.
>but that I've been classified as a male based on outdated scientific dogmas
they may be outdated by they work in 99% of cases
>Now, sorry dumbass
:'O

>>69069
please explain what you think my position is

1631884510120.jpg
[Hide] (34.7KB, 381x370)

>>69074
> when did I ever claim the opposite lol? it should be clear the Y chromosomes does nothing more than hormone regulation since it's only 59 megabases compared to the x chromsome which is 155 megabases
then we agree (and we may agree on the consequences of the fact that HRT is fundamentally messing the information it encodes)
>  hormone signaling doesn't do the vast majority of work in the development of humans
so you understand this variable is  continuous and not binary (and yes, I was making a political statement, that a better biological sex classifier would be based on this)
> not like anybody can test for that. there are no long term studies about humans  completely isolated from previous gender norms
and what if it's not socialization but long term 'contamination' by hormones? hmm?
this can be the case, and I agree. I have no answers, but level of hormones/reception of them is for sure relevant. I would say socialization probably too, but it is impossible to measure.
> they may be outdated by they work in 99% of cases
okay,  my point is that a better classifier would be based on the complete genome (even in classifying general reproductive behavior), and the one we have failed me (and my sisters), but we are BIOLOGICAL WOMEN if cis-society agreed on not oppressing us and considered more biological complexity

if this is the case, i dont see why attacking me like that to begin with. also, im not a communist. why the fuck did i bet banned for doxxing wtf lol

>>69077
>so you understand this variable is  continuous and not binary (and yes, I was making a political statement, that a better biological sex classifier would be based on this)
tbhdesu i called it political because you sounded like a libtard when you said that. i mean i completely understand that human characteristics are on a continuous multidimensional spectrum and that even between the most strict definition of sexes there is a lot of variance but i don't like the modern connotations of the term non-binary and the most ardent users of it 
what i want to say is that i guess i dont like it when people are woke about it. but my dislike for woke terms is because i assume that the people who use them are leftists and most leftists disagree with any fact that doesn't show the quality between literally every single person on the planet 
>okay,  my point is that a better classifier would be based on the complete genome (even in classifying general reproductive behavior)
wow i completely agree, i was just thinking that 
>but we are BIOLOGICAL WOMEN 
genetically predisposed with having more in common with the current classification of a woman*
>if this is the case, i dont see why attacking me like that to begin with.
i assumed you were a communist
>also, im not a communist.
wow

>>69077
>also, im not a communist
my bad

>>69081
*equality
not quality

>>69081
but i am a libtard, i will always vote the most left party you can vote for because it is existential to me. i think you strawman people on the left ngl

a267ff197d1f47af4d5054b013999a4f3e3e702543c283ea3970a5ade12e0605.jpg
[Hide] (98.5KB, 750x550)

gender isn't real
you're all retards
fucking false dichotomy muh sexo faggots
>>69040
You specificalyl are the only one with a gneder on this board and your a gay fat man
preobably old too lol

oh nvm this anon >>69081
is fine
not actually though like 6/10
like
>but my dislike for woke terms is because i assume that the people who use them are leftists and most leftists disagree with any fact that doesn't show the quality between literally every single person on the planet 
This is a reason to dislike those people specifically and generalizing identity in the group from a single point of behavior is the same kind of retarded shti as the chuds and this >>69077 commie faggot

>>69086
>>69087
why the fuck are chuds raiding this board btw. is it the cc remnants? post face retard

>>69089
>chuds raiding this board
wtf are you on about
this place has been chud central for months now

>>69085
>but i am a libtard, i will always vote the most left party you can vote for because it is existential to me
whatever.. if you vote for your own interests i don't have an actual issue with you. it makes total rational sense as a trans person to support progressive parties with your vote, because they'll support you in return 
my issue is with people who actually believe the progressive agenda
>i think you strawman people on the left ngl
i mean... do i? i try to be as unbiased as possible in my personal political analyses, not because of some internal moral value, but because analyzing things in the most objective matter is the most effective way to make useful analyses that predict the future
i think that in my personal opinion leftism is based on these foundational beliefs
1. Everyone is inherently equal. Everyone is equal, your expertise or special talent isn't special to you, it was most likely luck (white privilege) or it's because you oppressed someone somehow.
2. The weaker party in any conflict is always right, and the oppressor never had any right to do that. 
3. All hierarchy is inherently bad. No hierarchy is correct. No things that have lasted for thousands of years are not better than any newer idea.
could you please tell me how im wrong woke-chan? i'm very interested

>>69085
>i will always vote the most left party you can vote for
None of the American candidates have ever been left excluding Sanders who baaarrrreeely made the line towards leftism, the whole red/blue system is literally just far-right and harm-reduction right and this won't ever change through democracy, or at least for as long as the bourgeoise is manipulating the elections with its enormous capital. There's no democratic future in America that's leftist and it probably won't ever be within our lifetime, by refusing to explore anything that goes past dems/repubs you're basically doomed to just vote for the party that "isn't as" oppressive but still does its best at doing so while half-assedly keeping its promises. Like >>69097 says, trans/gay/whatever liberation won't successfully happen until every oppressed group is liberated, and this fundementally won't happen under rightism just because of how it works

desutree.png
[Hide] (197.4KB, 450x547)

>>69089
>everyone that criticizes me for being a chud must  be a chud!
brilliant logic lil tranner
>post face retard
wew lmao
it was jiru tier

1761567247729941.jpg
[Hide] (64KB, 736x736)

>>69104
you spawn here, say completely ideological bullshit (which i agree with if you managed to read my posts but you are too retarded) with no further reasoning, proceed to insult and misgender me. then you come up with some agreement about something not clear to anyone because you are too dumb to articulate (again just randomly insulting me). what is your point even if not just insulting me?
>>69099
i understand your point, but which should be the alternative for americans? they still have to vote. if you want to do independent political action, i support your effort, but it goes out of the voting discussion. if you manage to spawn a party more left than democrats that is strategically valid to vote (and i were american), i would vote for that according to the rule stated. im not american anyway, so.
>>69097
1) equality is a belief about the dignity of you as a human and hence the quality of life you should live. most people that make sense will argue for substantial equality, which takes into account biological and "starting point" differences. it is not an argument about people not turning out smarter/dumber at 10, it is an argument that both smart and dumb people should live comfortable lives. smartness (who is a completely random asset) should benefit the dumbs, and in the same way any other set of assets that are completely randomly assigned between the population. at the same time, these qualities shouldnt be a burden on you just because people want to exploit them (like uteruses, for example). i think most people believe in this kind of substantial equality, and not that we are spawned/turned out identical because it is clearly false.
2) its is clear that the person exercising the power can be held responsible of its execution, and not the person being subjected to it often unfairly? i dont see how you could argue that the weaker (powerless) party is wrong, when it has limited agency by definition. people might have some rightful power on others and the weaker party might be wrong if you analyze as a judge in a case by case POV, but im not sure you could argue the same with disempowered groups through social reproduction
3) i dont agree with your statement, but there is a lot of nuance. hierarchies dont have to imply having weaker dehumanized parties living like shit, which is what many people support
btw, you can speak more with me in private if you care but i dont want to keep typing here because i think im shitting up the board lole at the same time my posts scare the chuds so idk
>>69096
dam its bad xD

1673438228177.png
[Hide] (67.3KB, 212x420)

>>69109
>say completely ideological bullshit
That's pure projection lmao
>then you come up with some agreement about something not clear to anyone because you are too dumb to articulate
nah m8
ur just too dumb to read
>>69109
>most people that make sense will argue for substantial equality, which takes into account biological and "starting point" differences. it is not an argument about people not turning out smarter/dumber at 10, it is an argument that both smart and dumb people should live comfortable lives. smartness (who is a completely random asset) should benefit the dumbs, and in the same way any other set of assets that are completely randomly assigned between the population.
This is so fucking wild
imagine being this assmad that you're retarded and it limits your options
unironically just kill yourself and stop bothering your betters lol
>i think most people believe in this kind of substantial equality
legit less than 10% of people even claim to and 99% of them are true commies in the sense that they're not even useful idiots proper, they're just saying shit for clout or personal advantage
you're the one retard dumb enough to acutally drink the coolAIDS lol
>i think im shitting up the board
True, but not because you're retarded, just because you're a polititranny
>my posts scare the chuds
dude lmao nobody is scared of you
they just think you're retarded

wow.png
[Hide] (139.9KB, 273x338)

>>69109
>which i agree with
demonstrably not since you explicitly think that gender carries meaning
if persons regardless of individual differences are alike in dignity than the fact that you're a gay fat old retard isn't an insult
not because it's true (though it is)
but because in your own words you think that's no better or worse than anything else

>>69110
you wrote another wall of insults and nothing of substance again because you are unable to produce anything of substance, you are a retard. you probably are an IT retard who got filtered by his first calculus course (at best, you probably sell burgers somewhere) and i should just apply my rule that if you cant solve a boundary problem you are not worth my time lol but im sure your brain does indeed limit you in this regard
> legit less than 10% of people even claim
this is the concept of equality that you find in most european constitution, its largely agreed upon principle. but as a burger you cant fathom anything really. you are monolingual, which says a lot.
>>69111
okay, enlightened, what do you even mean by "gender doesn't carry meaning", and how would even argue for that position? i wont go on the rest of this useless post because it reveals you as dumb that you are unable to see how i can easily argue against your dumb take
its funny btw that you turbochuds just write whatever bullshit but im at fault for arguing in my interest lol

lefty_comics.png
[Hide] (27.2KB, 203x219)

>>69112
lmao what a fucking meltdown
I love how you seamlessly transition between projecting your retardation onto others and acting like it's a cardinal sin into claiming outcome inequality is a majority position and you're normal for holding it (even though you just got done exploding diarrhea out your pants leg because you think someone else might be as dumb as you).
Bonus points for assuming that anyone you see as better than you must be a burger because the trait that most europeans have that you do actually share is a deeply seated inferiority complex towards your amerilard descendants
>it reveals you as dumb that you are unable to see how i can easily argue against your dumb take
he's having a stroke lol

Clipboard_Image.jpg
[Hide] (26.8KB, 397x227)

>>69112
Also
>you turbochuds
This is pure projection.
Like I'll break it down for you because you'll probably never grasp it on your own
>chuds believe in gender essentialism
>on the topic of gender this is their most fundamental postion
(not actually true btw a lot of chuds are postgender retards but the rhetorical chud we're discussing does. This is much more a dudebro normie /shrieking harpy position tbh)
>you believe in gender essentialism
>for all (my) intents and purposes you believe the same thing as the chud
(I don't care that you don't arrive at what makes someone a member of a gender differently to other boomer retards who hold an identical viewpoint to yourself, just the way you subsequently try to treat that person as a member of a proscriptive group)
>therefore you are a chud in the context of this topic
>this topic is what we're discussing
>therefore you are a chud
plus there are plenty of other chudlike behaviors

honestly not even fair to the boomers
barely even fair to the strawman rhetorical chud
but you get the idea

>>69115
you are just good at baiting on online forums, you have never spoken with a human, and im not discussing of any hypothetical chud. i dont believe in gender essentialism. you still managed to write 0 arguments and 0 theses of your own... this is just sad, hope you have sex at some point of your life

>>69115
the sad thing is you could have argued with me on the "gender essentialist" implications of my arguments with a well written posts if you cared in the slightest, and i can foresee them, and i would have gently replied to you very much in topic, but you went for your schizochud trip for some reason (you are just unable to verablize a good discussion, this is the real reason), so you resorted to using these ragebaity 2008 forum trolling schemes that are well known, sadge really

btw, if you ever actually cared a bit, culture is freely available in the internet and i do believe that if you started reading instead of ragebaiting you would also learn how to verbalize your positions (or supposed so)
https://dn721600.ca.archive.org/0/items/butler-gender-trouble_202409/BUTLER_gender_trouble_text.pdf

>>69117
>>69118
nice argument chud
>>69120
linking something you yourself haven't read is a wild move
I love how you posted something where she straight up just says "yeah this feminist completely exposed the basis of my belief as entirely artificial and unproductive but uh she actually just believes the opposite of what she said doesn't make sense instead of what she actually said which is that it doesn't make sense !1!"
illiterate people link (but not read) illiterate writers  I guess lol

mpv-shot0016.jpg
[Hide] (387.2KB, 1920x1080)

also
>hope you have sex at some point of your life
this has got to be a bot, right?

>>69123
i have no arguments to make against a wall of ragebait...
can you elaborate on why the book says that or what xD i dont think it does, and if it did, where? i still dont refer completely to this book as truth, because it isnt anyway. but in this book (and Bodies that matter) you wont find the same extremist binary POV on gender theory you hold to ragebait people online. im very up to updating my believes if you come up with a well argued post that is on point. i will be specific, but i know im replaying to a ragebater so idk, i still want to believe you have a bit of good faith. i dont argue that sex generates gender, but a good theory doesnt disregard facts in evolutionary psychology/biology. if it does, you will rightfully be attacked for being a schizo. you can read the beginning of my post to see that i state that "complex behavior" (such as gender expression) cant be explained by genetic sequencing alone. and later i state that gender expression emerges clearly at a later age, and genes play a part in it but very much together with an environment in which gender is socially preconstructed. androgen receptors have a predictive effect on gender expression in infants (according to how gender is expressed in the culture of the experiment) that is better than XX/XY predictor, but i have not stated that this is casual, as i wouldnt have stated that XX/XY is casual even if they clearly are good predictors of gender expression for infants and not only in current and past societies. at most i would say that it is casual in aligning you with a certian preconstructed gender, inverting the casuality you tell me im supporting (while accounting for scientific facts that are non-derogable). clearly my points went in the direction that if we wanted to clusterize people better by biological characteristics we should use the genome (for sex clustering), and that our definition of sex should account for the fact that it depends on gender as constructed.

and no, i dont believe that gender is "empty" or whatever you mean by that, and you are free to explain what you mean, and why you would hold such a belief. for now. this is obviously my good faith in believing you actually care and are not stroking your ego online, but i expect another ragebait tbf because yes. you have never discussed with anyone outside of ragebaiting on forums xD

>i will be specific
>isn't specific
>schizos up a completely unrelated conversation with himself that's a complete nonsequitur to everything that has been said
bot or retard?
>>69126
>and no, i dont believe that gender is "empty"
It's crazy how disingenuous you are
you can't even pretend for one second to have read what other people actually wrote
literally just making shit up to put words in peoples mouths and then putting it in airquotes while spamming every possible abrasive mannerism which exists
>you are free to explain what you mean
Gender isn't a useful category
That's it.
>ragebait
<t. author of >>69089 >>69109 >>69112 >>69126
wew actually
People calling you retarded when you act retarded isn't ragebait
It's them identifying that you're being retarded

>>69127
okay, why is it not useful? according to which definition of utility?
i mean... you keep stating this, but you fail at making an argument about everything (both about being on topic with your counterpoints to me and about this thesis you want to articulate but cant and that makes less and less sense), it is the truth

>>69127
and why should language/society serve utility to begin with?

>>69127
the book i sent to you nor any book i know made the argument you are making, actually the opposite?

2256090.png
[Hide] (1011.3KB, 3099x2200)

>>69130
Read posts before replying to them retard
literally just see >>69123
holy shit you're such a tedious and disingenuous faggot
>nor any book i know
Read a book then nigger
I'm actually kind of surprised (assuming you read any of the shit you link and spew, which I guess not) since afaik Foucoult et al. badly rehashed the real work about 30 years later and made it popular amongst retards
But uh, here you go:
https://ia800704.us.archive.org/30/items/OurFaith/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf
>>69129
Take your meds
>>69128
>okay, why is it not useful?
You are literally asking me to prove a negative.
You have gone this entire conversation just continuously trolling instead of giving even one reason why you want the category (which you are imposing synthetically) to exist or making any use of it.

>>69131
yes but what you type here "d the basis of my belief as entirely artificial and unproductive" is not something that that book does, you have completely invented it? butler argues that gender is very productive btw (by foucault's idea of power as productive), it produces stuff and that's why it's worth going through its genealogy to begin with (and hence it is a useful category). They argue that gender is contingent and open to resignificication (which is exactly why i argued the stuff i argued about resignificy sex biologically). i dont know why i should read that book specifically from the 50s specifically
> You are literally asking me to prove a negative
proving a negative means estabilishing a universal claim of nonexistence. claiming that gender is not useful is the other way around, an universal claim you are making: concept of gender earns nothing that other concepts can't deliver across all human knowledge/society reproduction/whatever other framing. you should make an argument for this, and i think you have to explain a lot of things you understand absolutely nothing about to make this claim xD
honestly, you are in bad faith and just a ragebaiter. i wont engage with you anymore because its pointless, sorry - i gave you the most i could.

i dont even understand what you plan on gaining by behaving like this on the internet honestly... not knowledge for sure, interesting discussions neither. i mean z.z

ofc i know that you cant prove that claim, but that's exactly the point. you make a claim that is not provable (actually it is easy to argue that gender is useful and the whole book is built on this, and you invent that the book argues the opposite idk why), and just ragebaity insult me because i ask you to prove your only point which is an absurd claim that cant be proven? if this isnt ragebait but "good arguments". i dont know xD

well whatever, i wont reply further. ive been too respectful and went off the "im just insulting you back" route for a while to see if you cared the least, but you dont. i tried to show the absurdity of your posts, you wont accept any of this because you only care about ragebaiting, but i hope this isnt the case. have fun

__hinanawi_tenshi_touhou_drawn_by_ayumi_tooru__16d02458332f4b874bdbeab07843392e.jpg
[Hide] (99.2KB, 500x500)

>>69133
You're so retarded and disingenuous I seriously doubt that you're actually human
>butler argues that gender is very productive btw
She claims that.
After acknowledging that her basis for this belief is entirely false.
She doesn't give any actual supported argument for that position
Did you actually read the book?
>proving a negative means estabilishing a universal claim of nonexistence.
Which is what you are asking em to do.
>claiming that gender is not useful is the other way around, an universal claim you are making: concept of gender earns nothing that other concepts can't deliver across all human knowledge/society reproduction/whatever other framing. you should make an argument for this
You're literally just making shit up that couldn't possibly be further removed from what I actually said and declaring "you think/said this!"
No nigger
I said what I said
Gender isn't useful
Other intersectional categories aren't useful either.
>honestly, you are in bad faith and just a ragebaiter.
It's crazy how fucking disingenuous and aggressively hostile to any kind of actual communication you've been throughout the entire thread while repeating this
>i dont know why i should read that book specifically from the 50s specifically
It's the basis for pretty much all theory of language that exists in the world?
Literally just read the book. You asked me to read a book I've already read that was retarded and completely unrelated to the conversation, now I'm asking you to read a book that's only a little longer that forms the basis of the discussion.
Literally a good and interesting read anyway besides it's importance to understand these sorts of topics.
>>69134
Like serious question
Are you terminally ill or strung out on mind impairing drugs (e.g. antidepressants, hormone replacement, etc.)?
This is a level of projection that genuinely makes me think you're not in your right mind and can't actually parse the words on the screen.

:s/asking em/asking me

I thought trooning out was supposed to fix this sort of retardation

Your Fortune: Expect Ill Tidings

stop name-calling each other you're not on 4chan

Grrrr.... Donald Trump's oppressive transphobic regime has robbed me of my one chance at a happy female life. Now I have to spend all day arguing about made up /pol/shit online like an ugly angry moid

Your Fortune: Super Bad Luck

ironically the dalit is the only one of these who actually passes for happy and ascended

Your Fortune: You Do Not Wanna Know

>>69143
Yeah kinda. /pol/ started the axe wound meme, the 51% suicide meme, groomer meme and made every lolcow trans person mainstream news. Conservatives even parrot /pol/ memes to scare the clueless normies about us.

>>69144
Gross

>>69145
none of those are memes lol
>and made every lolcow trans person mainstream news
how the fuck was that /pol/
like of all the superfast normie active boards /pol/ probably gave the least shits about CWC
unironically this was a /tv/ thing both in the case of actual trannies on the site getting stalked by retards but also just like
bruce jenner and stuff in the normiesphere were unironically more of a thing on mainstream TV earlier and more often than they were on /pol/
>>69144
Really depends on whether they go outside or not
alice and dalit are both fine if they stick to their own devices. The main issue they face is that they might want sex and not get it and if they don't care about that then they should be good.
If they get involved in screeching retard shit than obviously that's going to have a negative effect on their life

>>69145
all normies used to love and respect trannies, until they were brainwashed by right-wing grifters

f702ff4fecf8798bc76ede3c84307408785fe542a54e282148f00d43105cad6a.png
[Hide] (340.5KB, 522x539)

things like teachers helping teens troon out behind their unwitting parents back does a lot more to harm your cause than troonjaks

>>69153
delusional

>>69155
It's funny how antipsyches have left you unable to pick up on even  basic sarcasm
nta btw since you need it made explicit

>>69157
What a pitiful attempt to hide behind irony lol

>>69159
???

>>69154
The teacher isn't handing out HRT or something illegal or retarded. Most of the time the teacher just tell the kid that the local Planned Parenthood does HRT.

>>69165
Usually how it plays out is the teacher and staff think they know what's best and call CPS if they parents aren't as enthusiastic about their tomboy getting railroaded into he/him territory as them

>>69171
What are you talking about?

>>69172
Probably the post they're replying to that's on the same topic I would think

>>69171
I know cases where the parents would have been supportive if they had any idea. The cliche gay narrative of leaving a rejecting family to find a found one is so pervasive it's just taken for granted that the parents should be demonized and the right thing to do is to force yourself between them and their kid.

Gay people demonizing their own family for rejection clout was already being reported on like 50 years ago

You just know these 30-40 something teachers must be picking up on children to live out their unrealized queer fantasies through

>>69183
if you go on like r/feminineboys half the posts there are about their parents finding their amazon skirts and having a meltdown that can go anywhere from a strained relationship to total disownment, you hardly ever see the opposite, even when they say they're "accepting", it's usually just the mom

Clipboard_Image.jpg
[Hide] (168.5KB, 1433x1072)

>>69191

>>69191
do you actually know trans people and relatives of trans people, like, in real life? or are reddit gold farming posts your only sample

I dislike people that claim to be transgender.