/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