Social Gender ideology is dying, common sense prevailing

[krelianx]

This is a long winded way of telling us that you are confusing gender and gender roles. You're just merely using a wide vocabulary to not only make people think you're intellectual, but to also distort the fact that you're spouting nonsense here on a topic that is already set in stone. The rest of us logical people see right through the bullshit.

Your second to last paragraph is a shining example of the activists version of the definition of a woman. Everything after "or" is outright nonsensical.

I have folded laundry, done the dishes, cooked dinner and done plenty of other things that the stereotypical gender role for women would be. That does not make me a woman. If my wife changes the oil or mows the lawn, she is not a man. All we've done is merely do the work of the typical role of the other gender. That does not change our gender.

I'll spare you the pseudo intellectual psycho babble and let you know what the definition of a woman is, it's an adult female. A female is the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, which require the fertilization from a male. Doing the dishes does not make a man produce eggs. I can't believe you wrote all that out and didn't even think more than a half step ahead on this.

If you want to blatantly ignore everything that was said, including the literature that you asked for, and throw strawmen like "doing the dishes does not make me a woman", and say "you're just saying nonsense on what is a closed topic of debate" then don't bother trying to argue with someone.

Social roles define social identities, like properties define kinds. Being something one sits on is a property of being a chair. It doesn't follow that being something one sits on makes one a chair. Cooking is a necessary property of a chef, that doesn't mean that everyone who cooks is a chef.

You don't even realize that you have, unwittingly, granted the point. You recognize that there are such things as gender roles, and that these are correlated in different ways to biological sex. The set of such roles and their correlations to other factors, such as biology, are what people (including the scientific establishment, and people who do not agree with non-gender binarism) define as gender. That's it. Like I said, like the literature reflects, and like the proof I provided shows. That's the way the concept works. That's not to confuse gender and gender roles, that's simply to state that the latter are intrinsic to the definition of the former.

This obviously doesn't mean that playing a given role associated with a given gender makes one a member of that gender, anymore than being something one sits on is necessary and sufficient for being a chair, anymore than being a biped is sufficient for being a human, or cooking sufficient for being a chef.

This is the concept of gender that scientific literature, and even dictionaries use. You don't get to decide how words are defined or what concepts exist for the rest of humanity. The meaning of a word is its use. You can argue that the use given to it is nefarious, incoherent, or whatever. But you are denying something undeniable, which is that there is a difference between the two concepts. The concepts are not synonymous. You can't brute force a concept out of existence because you are too stubborn to understand it.

You will never actually learn anything because you don't only willfully ignore information, but you don't understand how language works.

 

[krelianx]

See? You got nothing. Just cope posting from the losing end of the debate. Not exactly unique. This is the natural end of debate for leftists when their idiotic nonsense is rejected.

That you are too stupid or dogmatized to understand or even read the information that has been given is not my problem buddy.

Willful ignorance and joining a group of morons in an online orgy of stupidity does not mean you have refuted anything

 

[RoastBeast]

If you want to blatantly ignore everything that was said, including the literature that you asked for, and throw strawmen like "doing the dishes does not make me a woman", and say "you're just saying nonsense on what is a closed topic of debate" then don't bother trying to argue with someone.

Social roles define social identities, like properties define kinds. Being something one sits on is a property of being a chair. It doesn't follow that being something one sits on makes one a chair. Cooking is a necessary property of a chef, that doesn't mean that everyone who cooks is a chef.

You don't even realize that you have, unwittingly, granted the point. You recognize that there are such things as gender roles, and that these are correlated in different ways to biological sex. The set of such roles and their correlations to other factors, such as biology, are what people (including the scientific establishment, and people who do not agree with non-gender binarism) define as gender. That's it. Like I said, like the literature reflects, and like the proof I provided shows. That's the way the concept works. That's not to confuse gender and gender roles, that's simply to state that the latter are intrinsic to the definition of the former.

This obviously doesn't mean that playing a given role associated with a given gender makes one a member of that gender, anymore than being something one sits on is necessary and sufficient for being a chair, anymore than being a biped is sufficient for being a human, or cooking sufficient for being a chef.

This is the concept of gender that scientific literature, and even dictionaries use. You don't get to decide how words are defined or what concepts exist for the rest of humanity. The meaning of a word is its use. You can argue that the use given to it is nefarious, incoherent, or whatever. But you are denying something undeniable, which is that there is a difference between the two concepts. The concepts are not synonymous. You can't brute force a concept out of existence because you are too stubborn to understand it.

You will never actually learn anything because you don't only willfully ignore information, but you don't understand how language works.

I went off of the definition that you yourself posted. If you think that's not correct, then don't post that specific convoluted definition. That definition is a bullshit one anyway and lord knows how deep you had to dig to find that. The reason why most people don't agree with you is because your argument is incoherent and illogical. Douse it in as many big words as you want but illogical is illogical.

Type "definition of the word woman" into google and even google in all it's liberal glory says that the definition is an adult female human being. Therefore you cannot be a woman unless you yourself are an adult female human being. This means a man cannot be a woman, no matter how many womanly gender roles he performs. No matter how feminine he acts. He will never be a woman because a man cannot be an adult female human being.

There is nothing else to discuss. You can make it seem as complicated as you want but you will always lose to the most basic kindergarten logic because this is not a complicated subject. This shit has been settled for decades, even centuries.

 

[krelianx]

I went off of the definition that you yourself posted. If you think that's not correct, then don't post that specific convoluted definition. That definition is a bullshit one anyway and lord knows how deep you had to dig to find that. The reason why most people don't agree with you is because your argument is incoherent and illogical. Douse it in as many big words as you want but illogical is illogical.

Type "definition of the word woman" into google and even google in all it's liberal glory says that the definition is an adult female human being. Therefore you cannot be a woman unless you yourself are an adult female human being. This means a man cannot be a woman, no matter how many womanly gender roles he performs. No matter how feminine he acts. He will never be a woman because a man cannot be an adult female human being.

There is nothing else to discuss. You can make it seem as complicated as you want but you will always lose to the most basic kindergarten logic because this is not a complicated subject. This shit has been settled for decades, even centuries.

Calling things "illogical" is not an argument. I don't even think you know what "logical" means.

Let me ask you a simple question: what is the difference between a sound and valid argument?

If you have to Google that, then you are the one using 'big words' they do not understand.

If you know the difference, then I'll be very glad to hear how the argument I provided is either invalid or unsound.

If you cannot show either, then you have nothing except your own biases and dogmas to go by.

And incidentally, I am the one who has shared actual scientific literature.

You have nothing except your appeals to "logic" and some strange appeal to historical consensus. Not to mention a litany of inbred morons whose combined GPA in high school probably is 3.0.

 

[sanguinius]

Calling things "illogical" is not an argument. I don't even think you know what "logical" means.

Let me ask you a simple question: what is the difference between a sound and valid argument?

If you have to Google that, then you are the one using 'big words' they do not understand.

If you know the difference, then I'll be very glad to hear how the argument I provided is either invalid or unsound.

If you cannot show either, then you have nothing except your own biases and dogmas to go by.

And incidentally, I am the one who has shared actual scientific literature.

You have nothing except your appeals to "logic" and some strange appeal to historical consensus. Not to mention a litany of inbred morons whose combined GPA in high school probably is 3.0.

You need a lot of justifications to pretend a man isn’t a man. That’s not a good sign.

 

[krelianx]

You need a lot of justifications to pretend a man isn’t a man. That’s not a good sign.

Don't talk to me.

 

[sanguinius]

Don't talk to me.

This is a message board. We aren’t talking.

You have trouble with basic parts of reality.

 

[krelianx]

This is a message board. We aren’t talking.

You have trouble with basic parts of reality.

Ok, don't message me. Just don't interact with me in any way.

 

[RoastBeast]

Calling things "illogical" is not an argument. I don't even think you know what "logical" means.

Let me ask you a simple question: what is the difference between a sound and valid argument?

If you have to Google that, then you are the one using 'big words' they do not understand.

If you know the difference, then I'll be very glad to hear how the argument I provided is either invalid or unsound.

If you cannot show either, then you have nothing except your own biases and dogmas to go by.

And incidentally, I am the one who has shared actual scientific literature.

You have nothing except your appeals to "logic" and some strange appeal to historical consensus.

I posted the literal definition with a logical explanation. Like I said, asking you what a woman is was going to be the KO blow of the argument. It always is. You have no refute for it. No amount of bullshit scientific studies will ever make a man an adult female. Study it all you want. Post a million studies for all I care. There is no refute for that simple explanation. If you had one, you would have already stated it. You don't because there is no argument against it. You will never be able to argue against it because there is no coherent or logical argument against it. Any attempt at it will make you look like a nutcase.

Posting scientific studies does not make you right or more intelligent. If you need a scientific study to tell you that you need water to survive, then you are less intelligent than the person who knows this through instinct. Just like how we instinctually know the difference in men and women. No white lab coat needed. Just good old instincts that we all possess.

 

[krelianx]

I posted the literal definition with a logical explanation. Like I said, asking you what a woman is was going to be the KO blow of the argument. It always is. You have no refute for it. No amount of bullshit scientific studies will ever make a man an adult female. Study it all you want. Post a million studies for all I care. There is no refute for that simple explanation. If you had one, you would have already stated it. You don't because there is no argument against it. You will never be able to argue against it because there is no coherent or logical argument against it. Any attempt at it will make you look like a nutcase.

Posting scientific studies does not make you right or more intelligent. If you need a scientific study to tell you that you need water to survive, then you are less intelligent than the person who knows this through instinct. Just like how we instinctually know the difference in men and women. No white lab coat needed. Just good old instincts that we all possess.

You didn't answer my question.

What is the difference between a sound and valid argument? And if my argument if "illogical" then in what ways is it either invalid or unsound?

I'll wait.

Admitt that you don't know.

Because you actually don't have either science or actual logic behind you, you now appeal to 'instinct'.

Translation: I don't know what I'm talking about, nor do I have the disposition to read and learn, so I have to appeal to clairvoyance into the nature of reality.

 

[Hog-train]

You’re ok with little girls and boys being allowed in nude spas?

It becomes pdf only when a trans person enters? Which nude spa does a trans man use? What little kids should see them? Boys or girls?

Yep no problem if it's a parent taking their child to a single sex nude space like a spa. This is common in Korea and some other cultures.

I don't know how TF you don't have a problem with tranny's actually suing to be let into these spaces.

 

[AmonTobin]

Why are Magas so hot for their so called "Trannies"? It's like they can't get enough of they/them.

 

[RoastBeast]

You didn't answer my question.

What is the difference between a sound and valid argument? And if my argument if "illogical" then in what ways is it either invalid or unsound?

I'll wait.

Admitt that you don't know.

Because you actually don't have either science or actual logic behind you, you now appeal to 'instinct'.

Translation: I don't know what I'm talking about, nor do I have the disposition to read and learn, so I have to appeal to clairvoyance into the nature of reality.

The hell does this have to do with the actual topic at hand? Not only did you start this topic off way down in the weeds, but now you're off on tangents as well. It's how this gender argument always goes because there is no sound argument for gender theory. Either refute what I said or start a new thread on the difference between sound and valid arguments and we can discuss that there.

I posted a very basic explanation that children can not only understand, but already know instinctually. If you want to refute that, then refute it. If you can't refute it, then I guess that answers whether or not you have a sound and valid argument.

 

[kflo]

Yep no problem if it's a parent taking their child to a single sex nude space like a spa. This is common in Korea and some other cultures.

I don't know how TF you don't have a problem with tranny's actually suing to be let into these spaces.

I have a problem with kids in nude spas. Yes. That’s fucked up to me. You are for it yet scream only if there’s a tranny there too.

You ok walking around with your dick out around young boys?

You didn’t answer my question. What kids should trans men be allowed to expose themselves around? Little boys or little girls?

 

[kflo]

The hell does this have to do with the actual topic at hand? Not only did you start this topic off way down in the weeds, but now you're off on tangents as well. It's how this gender argument always goes because there is no sound argument for gender theory. Either refute what I said or start a new thread on the difference between sound and valid arguments and we can discuss that there.

I posted a very basic explanation that children can not only understand, but already know instinctually. If you want to refute that, then refute it. If you can't refute it, then I guess that answers whether or not you have a sound and valid argument.

lol. You are asking him to refute something you know you have no possible interest in hearing.

 

[krelianx]

The hell does this have to do with the actual topic at hand? Not only did you start this topic off way down in the weeds, but now you're off on tangents as well. It's how this gender argument always goes because there is no sound argument for gender theory. Either refute what I said or start a new thread on the difference between sound and valid arguments and we can discuss that there.

I posted a very basic explanation that children can not only understand, but already know instinctually. If you want to refute that, then refute it. If you can't refute it, then I guess that answers whether or not you have a sound and valid argument.

It has to do because your only counter-argument is that the argument I provided was illogical. And you keep avoiding actually addressing what I said by appealing to terms like "nonsense" and "illogical".

I broke it down into premises, and even formalized it to make it transparent.

Using, you know, basic predicate logic.

Well, I am asking what you mean when you say that my argument is "illogical".

A bad argument is either invalid or unsound. And if it is either, you should be able to point to what in the argument makes it so.

You are the one who is incapable of refuting.

Also, instinctual knowledge is an oxymoron. Instinct is innate, knowledge is acquired through experience. Traditionally, it is defined as justified true belief. Justification is not instinctual but relative to inferential capacities.

You don't even know what you're talking about, and you are the one using terms you don't understand.

 

[sanguinius]

Ok, don't message me. Just don't interact with me in any way.

“don’t talk to me or my made up genders ever again”

 

[Hog-train]

I have a problem with kids in nude spas. Yes. That’s fucked up to me. You are for it yet scream only if there’s a tranny there too.

This wildebeest successfully sued a female only nudity required Korean spa in Washington to accept pre-op trannys. They previously allowed POST-op tranny's - they just don't want dicks flopping around in a female only space.

Why TF don't you have a problem with that?

SGN:: Olympus Spa vows to take anti-Trans discrimination case to Supreme Court

A spa in Lynnwood, Washington, has gained national attention following lawsuits regarding discrimination against Trans women.

www.sgn.org

You ok walking around with your dick out around young boys?

Perfectly fine because the dads and moms have to accompany them there. This is a common thing with parents bringing their kids to public baths and spas in many cultures - Russian baths, Turkish spas, Korean spas.

Stop acting like this is some kind of perverted practice - these things have existed since antiquity. It only became perverted when a bunch of trannys with dicks insisted on entering the female spaces.

You didn’t answer my question. What kids should trans men be allowed to expose themselves around? Little boys or little girls?

Some places require them to have the genitalia that matches like the place below. Some allow transwoman to go to the men's if they pass. Because people with vaginas aren't exactly threats. It's the tranny's with dicks in the female space that people have a problem with.

 

[krelianx]

“don’t talk to me or my made up genders ever again”

I'm not interested in interacting with you. Just don't address me and move on with whatever it is you do.

 

[RoastBeast]

It has to do because your only counter-argument is that the argument I provided was illogical. And you keep avoiding actually addressing what I said by appealing to terms like "nonsense" and "illogical".

I broke it down into premises, and even formalized it to make it transparent.

Using, you know, basic predicate logic.

Well, I am asking what you mean when you say that my argument is "illogical".

A bad argument is either invalid or unsound. And if it is either, you should be able to point to what in the argument makes it so.

You are the one who is incapable of refuting.

Also, instinctual knowledge is an oxymoron. Instinct is innate, knowledge is acquired through experience. Traditionally, it is defined as justified true belief. Justification is not instinctual but relative to inferential capacities.

You don't even know what you're talking about, and you are the one using terms you don't understand.

I refuted what you said in very simple terms. I'll do it one more time even though it's absolutely redundant by now.

A woman is an adult female. A female is the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, which can be fertilized by males. A male cannot bear offspring or produce eggs. Therefore a male cannot be a woman.

For the record, you've failed to refute this 3, going on 4 times now. Instead you want to get into the weeds on what a sound or logical argument is because you know you cannot refute that. The bolded paragraph above is my extremely simple refute that you yourself have no argument for.

Like I said, you got KO'd by someone simply asking you what a woman is.