Jordan Levi
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DJP, what i mean when i say falsifiable is basically what you’re saying: the definition has to refer to something specific. if i order spaghetti at a restaurant and i instead get served a plate of shit, i need to be bale to explain why that plate of shit isn’t spaghetti. this is where the definition having to not be circular comes into play. also, i’m not saying we should tell them they’re talking nonsense. there may be a physical reason for this phenomenon, but to attribute it to some unproveable concept like a gendered soul is blatantly idealist. but that’s basically an unconscious assumption of the only 4 definitions TRAs ever give you for what a man or a woman are.
i’ve been lagging on replying to this stuff cuz i’m an asshole lol
rob, i’ve actually seen a couple TRAs say everything should be unisex, even sports. madness.
yeah rob, trump started attacking biden over his bill allowing “trans women” to participate in women’s sports. dems are gonna lose so much mf credibility over this, cuz it’s so mf easy to see that they merely want the definition of key terms to be changed to fit their worldview without having any alternative, falsifiable definitions to offer.
USA's top high school boys🟦of 2016 vs the Olympic Women's🟥Finalists of 2016
100 Meters (Track & Field)
Is it fair for males to compete in the girls' or women's categories?
More & Sources 👉 https://t.co/sRTcBmLmyV pic.twitter.com/YDSStFBumd
— boysvswomen.com (@boysvswomen) February 24, 2020
Thomas again, i’ve had hella family who knew they were gay very young, i actually prefer that being explained so kids don’t get confused and think it’s bad. maybe even being transgender should be talked about alongside it, but that chart just isn’t the way to go about it to be honest.
DJP again, i don’t mind children being taught about homosexuality, that’s very important. what i do mind is Mermaids telling kids about this sexist gender spectrum below and making them believe they may be transgender for being gender non-conforming
https://twitter.com/LabelFreeBrands/status/1366918504373391364
DJP again, there have been no societies on record in which those who were gender non-conforming to their own sex were treated as literal members of the opposite sex, they were always treated as a third group. GNC men in india aren’t called women, they’re called hijras.
also, yes, most transgender people never have cosmetic surgery and most aren’t intersex either. i think many people get confused and think this is akin to being intersex, but it’s not.
Thomas, there’s no such thing as a human hermaphrodite. this term’s been used in the past to refer to people with intersex conditions, but it’s a misnomer.
hermaphroditism is the presence of 2 fully developed reproductive systems in a single organism. human’s reproductive systems develop from mullerian and wolffian ducts, but those are mutually antagonistic, meaning the development of one causes the suppression of the other. a human being can’t fully develop both systems, because our species is gonochoric: organisms of our species can only develop one sex.
also thomas, it’s better to say there are only 2 sexes to be clear. some queer theorists argue there are an infinite number of genders, but i’ve seen lists with upwards of 100. this one doesn’t list yhat many, but it gives you an idea how ridiculous this can get.
https://nonbinary.miraheze.org/wiki/List_of_uncommon_nonbinary_identities
gender is a loaded word at this point, so it’s best to be clear about what we mean.
but i’ll check that story out ASAP, thx
my bad for the late replies, i read these right before calls started picking up at work and had errands to run after before i knocked out. i knew these would take me a while to type, so i decided to just deal with them after i woke up.
DJP, i think *you’re* missing the point somehow.
if you want to communicate with a word, it needs to have a definition which isn’t curcular, and it has to be falsifiable.
we’ve already had a falsifiable definition of what a woman is for millenia. it merely refers to biology.
while i believe feminists were the first to refer to gender as the societal expectations superimposed on each of the only 2 human sex classes, they never referred to gender itself as constituting true womanhood or manhood, but a cage which should be abolished.
the term “gender identity” was coined (again, without ever giving a falsifiable definition, just an “inner sense of self”) by John Money, a documented pedophile who defended pedophilia. i hope all of us here can agree that that’s *clear* evidence that he was mentally unwell. but aside from that, his first parient and that patient’s twin later committed suicide.
queer theorists try to ignore this and act as though belief in “gender identity” as one’s true self is some sophisticated idea, the next frontier of liberation even.
this idea of there being some “inner you” is completely incompatible with marxism at the moment. if this were to be true, we’d find some material evidence of it eventually — in which case it would then be compatible with materialism — but that still wouldn’t change the sex of people’s bodies and the very real differences between them.
this idea of “gender identity” only makes sense if you equate womanhood with femininity and manhood with masculinity, whether you think that masculinity or femininity is evidence of a “gendered” brain or soul. here’s one guy some of my mutuals dogpiled earlier today:
https://twitter.com/wrathliberator/status/1367555822876786694
i have the utmost respect for anarchopac, but we need to dissect this statement.
no one is “assigned” male at birth. medicine doesn’t deal with gender in the sense queer theorists mean it, medicine only deals with sex. as i’ve said before, sex is unequivocally observed ar birth in 99.982% of cases. even the other 0.018% with ambiguous genitalia aren’t “assigned” a sex, since they already had one, it just gets incorrectly guessed sometimes.
“i identify as a woman”
he doesn’t define what a woman is. why were rachel dolezal and jessica krug villified for “identifying” as black, but it’s perfectly fine for a man to “identify” as a woman, especially without ever defining what they mean by that?
“inteenal sense of self”
lmaooo! do you guts get it yet? there’s no “internal sense” of womanhood or blackness, they’re biological realities. i din’t “feel” black or like a man, i’m just a black man.
the joke analogy is a clear example of why the idea of gender identity is faith-based and useless. no one can explain an emotion, but womanhood isn’t an emotion just like being black, disabled, or a certain age aren’t.(there are people claiming to be transracial, transabled, and transage as i believe i’ve already mentioned, but queer theorists can’t seem to explain why these aren’t rational if transgenderism is to them)
gender non-conforming did exist prior to capitalism, but they were never treated as the literal opposite sex, they’ve always been classified as a 3rd category. that’s not what most transgender people want tho, they want to be treated as literally being the opposite sex in every sense.
as i said before, they try to redefine almost everything sex-related to fit their narrative. to them, sexual orientation isn’t based on sex (even though it’s *literally* in the name), it’s based on *gender*. so heterosexual men who won’t fuck this “trans woman” are considered bigots:
https://twitter.com/Vee_like_Viv/status/1340006062167101440
even though they’re clearly a man by common parlance, and can only be considered a woman by queer theory definitions, which — again — aren’t even falsifiable, let alone commonly accepted yet, thank god.
but it’s being written into law that this person above is a woman just cuz they say so and can’t be discriminated against, meaning they can enter women’s bathrooms, compete in wimen’s sports, and run for women’s political positions. it’s fuckin nonsense.
funny thing, the hashtag #SuperStraight was trending on twitter today. it’s supposed to be a new sexual orientation for straight people to call themselves to make it clear they’re attracted to sex, not gender, and thus aren’t transphobic. transgender people are pissed and are getting called superphobes lmaooo it’s fuckin hilarious 😂
yeah, thomas, it gets ugly. lupron, for example, thins bones. it’s also being used off brand. it hasn’t been approved to be used as a puberty blocker, just for stage 4 cancer treatment. also, most kids who ID as trans end up turning out to just be gay before they finish puberty.
lmao no, a TIM has never and most likely will never give birth. there’s talk about uterus transplants being possible in the future, but i don’t see that ever working, because: 1) the uterus is kept functional by a woman’s entire reproductive system, not just estrogen. without the entire system, a uterus would rot, and 2) men don’t have enough space in our pelvises to hold a baby anyway. but i did see one TIM simulate a pregnancy on facebook and a shiyload of libfems were falling over themselves to call him brave for his fake gestation of a non existent baby. then he had this really weird exchange when it was over about wanting to ask to breastfeed his friend’s newborn to continue with the simulation. it was so goddamn cringe.
but a couple times a year now you’ll hear about a TIF having a baby and the media will be like “look, everybody! men can give birth, too! 😍😍😍” acting as though they’re oblivious to the fact that they’re talking about a biological woman.
one TIF wanted to be listed as the dad on their kids birth certificate, but was denied.
Good. A birth certificate is the property of the child, not a validation of the identity of a parent. Freddy McConnell gave birth, which in British law makes Freddy the mother, not the father. Language isn't there to be twisted for personal satisfaction.https://t.co/SaBcbrlRzf
— Kat 🟩⬜️🟪 #WomenMatter ♀️ 🏴🇺🇦🇮🇱 (@socksknitter) November 16, 2020
it’s just so dumb cuz all the legal fiction and “validation” in the world would never make them a man anyway, at least not in any falsifiable sense.
yeah, i guess there was a ban on transgender people in the military that got lifted recently, but the reaction was split, to be fair lol many trans people saw it as a victory, but i’d say most saw it as an L. my twin was the only one of me and my brothers that went to the military and that’s the only reason he was able to dodge homelessness after high school (unlike the rest of us). obviously the military can help people who came from background like mine get on their feet faster, but at what cost?
i accidentally typed “material essence” instead of “ethereal essence” at the end of this reply the first time, so i tried to edit it, but it seems like i accidentally deleted it lol so i’m commenting it again with the intended editing:
rob, you’re correct. like i said, there’s multiple layers of obfuscation and dogma to wade through, but it only works if people don’t understand how sexual development works and don’t try to clarify the first principles of both sides.
i didn’t even understand sexual development til like a year and a half ago, so while it was easy for me to see that key terms weren’t being defined in a falsifiable way by the trans community, i’d get stuck on trying to explain exactly what a female was in a scientific sense. it’s easy to say “females have vaginas, XX chromosomes, etc.” but then they’d bring up that some people I’d call women are born without them, so I’d get stumped obviously.
i thought the same thing many of them do at first, i was confused and thought that sex was the same thing as sex characteristics, but this is what most people get wrong. a person’s sex class is their body’s intended reproductive role. these reproductive roles are determined by the development of either the mullerian or wolffian ducts. i’d never even heard about these ducts before about a year and a half ago. so not only was i detaching sex characteristics from their reproductive role, but i also didn’t understand that 4 of the 5 sex characteristics evolve from a single process. these sex characteristics don’t develop at random. for example: nobody can be born with both a prostate and a uterus. why? because both of these develop from the mullerian ducts. if it regresses, it turns into a prostate. if it progresses, it turns into a uterus. it can’t do both at the same time. the idea that sex is a spectrum or in some way arbitrary only makes sense if you’re ignorant to this and think that intersex conditions are just random groupings of sex characteristics, but they’re not. all intersex people developed only one of these ducts, just like endosex people, the only difference being that intersex people had complications along the way. but their body still developed toward one intended reproductive role, regardless of any abnormalities along the way.
so this logic starts by exploiting most people’s ignorance of sexual development and framing biological sex as unreliable, which leads to completely idiotic takes like this:
as many as they like. biological sex is a right wing concept which needs to be dropped – it only causes oppression and hatred.
— Beth (@bethonyourpc) February 28, 2021
so then you advocate instead for womanhood and manhood to be based on “gender identity.” you advocate for everything that’s always been sex-segregated to instead be gender identity-segregated. you (at least unconsciously) claim that gender dysphoria is the only dysphoria that isn’t a mental illness, but that it’s actually caused by someone being born into the wrong body, their “gender” being different than that which they were “assigned at birth.” if someone points out the fact that men have a natural advantage over women in sports due to their bodies, you either claim that 1 year on estrogen gets rid of that (as if testosterone is the sole source of men’s advantage is sports) or say that there’s no such thing as a typical man’s or woman’s body anyway (as if women weren’t barred from sports for generations specifically cuz of their bodies [but many in this group would say it’s cuz they “identified as women,” whatever tf that means]). and you do all this without ever defining what “gender” or “gender identity” means in any falsifiable way, and if anybody happens to point that out, you just call them a bigot.
i’ve mentioned the fact that i’ve only gotten a few broad definitions from trans people for the words woman, man, male, and female, and the fact that none of them stand up to scrutiny, but the thing is that they *seem* like they stand up to scrutiny if you operate off of one or two first principles, being: 1) cartesian dualism — the idea that body is separate from the mind/soul and that your body isn’t the real you, but your mind/soul is, and (to some extent) 2) individualism.
saying “a woman is anyone who feels like/says they’re/identifies as a woman” makes sense if you assume that women “feel” like women cuz they have “girl souls.” assuming this, it’s understandable that some would call it cruel not to “affirm” these feelings.
saying the definition of womanhood is completely subjective or completely undefinable even subjectively makes sense if you assume the existence of a girl soul, because there’s no way to define one in any falsifiable sense in the first place.
equating “femininity” with womanhood makes sense if you assume that “feminine” behavior is the result of having a girl soul.
the “girl brain” answer just seems like a last ditch effort to validate this idea.
the thing is, i don’t even think many of them realize they’re taking this idea for granted in the first place. there’s no way in hell anybody could subscribe to this blatantly idealistic dogma while also subscribing to marxism, which, as we all know, is firmly grounded in materialism. you can’t possibly believe womanhood or manhood is some ethereal essence while also believing it’s a material reality.
definitely not accusing the entire group of being pedophiles, my bad if it came off that way, but they’ve managed to try to latch onto the trans thing, but i should be clear that it’s not like there hasn’t been pushback on that from within the trans community. i was moreso just saying that i read that their tactic was to write any dissenters off as bigots so as to shut down debate, which is exactly what the trans community has done, even though it seems pretty obvious that people who probably aren’t even trans are already abusing self-ID.
also, i just realized your “i guess” comment was in reference to my comment about a pedophile movement back in the 70s. this group was at the forefront, from what i understand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange
if you think someone’s making something up cuz you haven’t learned about it yet, just ask for a reference. snide comments don’t lead to understanding.
