/h/comicsandmanga Landchad - Donates $20/month House Furry Founder
DWHITE___________DYNAMITE DWHITED/YNAMITE :b::u::s::s::y:_________________________________________________________________________:l::m::a::o:  16d ago (image post) Edited 16d ago 923 thread views #344418 earned 424 coins from votes
Reported by:

made a new toss

Unable to load image

!transphobes

104
New Old Top Bottom Controversial Random
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

View entire discussion

>Freedom of Expression and Free Speech are separate things

What did they mean by this? Strikes me as some s*x vs. gender shenanigans that I'm not aware of

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There had to be court cases which established that nonverbal "expression", like wearing a shirt or waving a flag are covered under the first amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromberg_v._California

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

freedom of expression is probably goth girls vs handmaids :marseygilead:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

s*x vs. gender shenanigans

There are three levels of woke:

  • Zero: s*x and gender are the same and immutable

  • One: s*x and gender are separate, with only gender being mutable (at least with present technology)

  • Two: s*x and gender are kinda separate but both mutable; trans people change their biological s*x

I'm at "one," and I think it's the most defensible. Level "zero" starts falling apart to explain things like kathoey culture. Level "two" is pseudoscience.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Completely wrong. Correct:

Negative One: s*x and gender are the same and immutable

Zero: s*x and gender are separate, with neither of them being mutable, but may not be necessarily the same

One: s*x and gender are separate and s*x is mutable

Two: s*x and gender are the same and immutable. S*x has nothing to do with what genitals you have, or in fact anything material or measurable. If it seems like someone flip-flops between two sexes, in fact whatever s*x they declared themselves to be most recently is the s*x they've always been, and any other s*x they've declared themselves as was a mistake. (So both are mutable in the "we've always been at war with east asia" sense)

Negative one is an indefensible counter-reaction to wokeness. Zero and one are both separately defensible disagreements over how "s*x" is defined, with the one side believing it comes from genetics, the other from genitalia. Two is the presently accepted understanding by progressives.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One: s*x and gender are separate and s*x is mutable

Wouldn't it be "gender is mutable" instead? Isn't that what the whole point of "gender-fluidity" is?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:!marseytrain:s want people to accept their gender identity unconditionally regardless of anything. In order to not be hypocrites, this forces them to accept the gender identities of r-slurred children who are unknowingly parodying transgenderism in the same way "I identify as an attack helicopter" does. Gender fluidity is not interned into :marseytrain: ideology in any way outside of that, there's no attempt at a theory of how gender fluidity comes about, because everyone knows that it's a stupid larp that makes them all look dumb but can never say as much.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Quite the house of cards

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fair enough on "two," but why did you flip which one is mutable for "one"?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Transgenderism is supposed to be a neurological condition that a person is born with that causes them to have a gender different from their s*x. If gender was mutable, this would be trivially solved: you would change the gender to the one that matches their s*x, and then they would be fixed. This is called "conversion therapy" and is understood to not work. The alternative is to change the s*x (or at least the gender presentation) to match the gender. This is the accepted treatment of transgenderism.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The alternative is to change the s*x (or at least the gender presentation) to match the gender.

I think the semantic gap between us is because there are actually three things in play:

  • A person's biological s*x: basically chromosomes and functional genitalia

  • A person's gender presentation: clothing, prosthetics, cosmetic surgery

  • A person's sense of whether they are a man, woman, etc.

I was defining s*x as the first, gender as the second, and ignoring the third. It seems, when you say, "One: s*x and gender are separate and s*x is mutable," you are ignoring the first, treating the third as someone's "s*x," and then something a bit more complex with the second.

From my understanding, conversion therapy is when someone is pushed to have the second match the first. The "affirming" approach is to encourage changing the second to match the third. I don't think your framework quite captures this distinction.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The different ideologies disagree on the definitions of things, which they use to hide the underlying differences of values. Cons think that people should just put up with whatever mental issues they have in order to look normal. Libs think that people with mental issues should share the load by causing issues for everyone around them while dealing with their issues. If we define s*x as something immutable, then no matter what a :marseytrain: does they can't change their s*x and hence will always be a weirdo. If we define s*x, say, in terms of hormones, then anyone's who's even started transitioning already has (according to us) no meaningful difference from the opposite s*x and therefore can't be excluded from bathrooms, changerooms, brazilian waxes, etc. If we define conversion therapy as just encouraging people to act normal, then it works fine and might help a person put up with being the wrong s*x. If we define it as trying to change a person's underlying sense of what gender they are, then it doesn't work, and in fact causes harm.

Since definitions of words are ultimately arbitrary, the definition that makes the most sense is the one that best aligns with your ideology. Fights over definitions are understood to be fights over the underlying values, since once the definition that makes your opponent look stupid is accepted the battle is basically won.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fights over definitions are understood to be fights over the underlying values, since once the definition that makes your opponent look stupid is accepted the battle is basically won.

:marsey#clapping:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

K

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

yeah frick you BIPOC

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The difference between saying BIPOC and wearing a ahegao jacket

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

its like how canadians have free thought but not free speech

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.



Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.