Serious Oh Hey It's Another G E N D E R Thread

For something made by an ivy league, It doesnt exactly scream "professional". Its understandable but hardly at first. Still i get the picture
Also, anyone who has to say "Ignore this, its not relevant here" seems suspicious in my book. "Ignore the giant human-shaped bloodstain on this carpet, its not relevant to this rather nice vase we're talking about at this moment". I'll let it slide because frankly you'll just pull a single study from a student-run site out of your ass again which i'd rather not waste the time of debating on.

The other thing is that, while yes this site IS run by ex students at harvard, and likely everyone on the team is bright as a brand new lightbulb, i still have many doubts that even they know the true boundaries and full comprehension of this crap we've pulled on ourselves


keep in mind this whole heap of crap blew up and became a social ware because some random fuckin guy didnt want transgender people using their identified gender instead of their birth in his establishment. Unreasonable yes, but the cause of a social fucking storm less so.


I will admit that maybe my example didnt make sense to you nor others because my logic is not made to be understood by others. It makes logical sense to SOME intelligent people, because they put time and effort into understanding what i say for its intended meaning instead of assuming they know what i say when i say it.
frankly i wouldnt be surprised if you completely misunderstood considering you couldnt understand the difference in an analogy of literally BEING god himself and saying you mentally identified as god.

However i'm going to step out of this because frankly i'm not wasting my breath trying to explain my reasoning to a bunch of stubborn random people whom *i don't know and they don't know ME* who don't give half a rats ass about understanding what i tried to say and instead taking it for face value.

see ya on the flip side.

 

She's not exactly a student, Call.
"Catherine J. Wu, MD
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

EDUCATIONAL TITLES

• Associate Professor, Medicine, Harvard Medical School

• 
  
• Associate Physician, Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute"

That's bigotry, for you.

I understand your example perfectly well. It's just that it had lot of flaws.

Again, I understand your example perfectly well. It's just not an example that clarifies the issue.

Wow. A bunch of bbcode errors. Fixed now, and hopefully makes more sense.

 

The truth has been uncovered by research in facilities all over america.
the genders, listed in most important to least important.

most important genders
red gender
blue gender
yellow gender

the secondary not-so-important genders that are still slightly important but not as much
green gender
purple gender
orange gender

then the other colours genders that aren't important at all
magenta gender
violet gender
teal gender
vermilion gender
amber gender
chartreuse (wtf) gender

dont worry, im not messed up in the head. this is what I really believe in.

I believe that the whole world was created last thursday and our memories were implanted by aliens from earth.

now everyone, if you can disprove my true beliefs ill send you 50 bucks paypal. i dont have money

 

Du bist ein Weirdo.

 

don't forget mauvegender
whatever the hell "mauve" is

 

Everybody was against gays when these religions were created, Christianity is also againt cutting your hair and eating shellfish because they are abominations according to Leviticus. Arguably the Bible should not be interpreted so literally and lived by because the social context in which it was written is very different. But the main point in Christianity still stands that you ahoul

Leviticus is the wackiest of the holy books, it states that shellfish are abominations and cutting your hair is sinful. All these holy books were written in a ccompletely different social time, I'm not denying that religions followed by the book are against gays and such, but religions must be updated for modern times in light of modern research. If we can cut our hair now, why not accept gays as well. And you know, that's what religions are doing.

Overall religions teach good morals and I think it's wrong to bash them for some slightly outdated belief. I fully agree that religions *can* be destructive when interpreted literally, I live in the middle east, but that's simply the fault of the people interpreting it. If you read that passage in Leviticus and decide that you should go out and tell some gays off, entirely denying that modern research shows it is a genetic factor, and thus a creation of gods, you are a bigot. I reiterate: It's the bigots fault, not the religion.

Almost every ideology out there is "soaked in the blood of innocents", be it religion, capitalism, communism, whatever, doesn't invalidate the system nor mean the system is at fault, simply means it must be improved/not carried out by bigots.

________________________________

If it's written pre 19th century or so it's still going to spout much the same bullshit, it's only really recently that society has become accepting of that outside the religous norm.

________________________________

also you didn't seriously just use those two as sources unironically. God that religion of peace site is filled with misleading information, and the daily mail is just a biased shithole

 

One of the first 5 books was written a couple of centuries after the first four

 

Notice how instead of attacking the quotes they presented, you attacked the source itself.
You're not even making a point with this, if you have a problem with what they show, present evidence.

How is this information misleading ? Or are you just trying to poison the well without going even deeper ?
I agree the Daily Mail is a sensationnalist rag, but does that invalidate the rulings of Shariah courts that kill gays ? Of course not.

I agree that religions should be domesticated and made compatible with western values and the principles that made the west so different from nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

There is not a single "good moral" you can obtain with religion than you cannot obtain with a secular reasonning. If you have a counter example, I'd be very interested to hear it.
If religion isn't a required factor to obtain good morals, it's a completely useless thing for that specific purpose. Nevermind the fact that since people don't need religion to be good, the only aspect of it that stands out is it being used as a justification for murders and bloodshed.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."

― Steven Weinberg​

I'm a hardcore moderate.

If the source material at the core of your belief states that gays should be executed, then you have two reactions : You can either turn a blind eye, acknowledge it, or follow it.

But if you want to claim that religion has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with bigotry, then explain this :

"However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...se-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

"...nearly half (47%) think it is not appropriate for gay people to teach in schools."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/index.html

src : https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Mulims-full-suite-data-plus-topline.pdf

Either their culture is bigoted, or their religion (which also influences the culture) is bigoted. Religion isn't just a catalyst for bigotry, because if all it did was "reveal" the bigotry in the hearts of normal people, then we wouldn't have half of British Muslims saying being gay should be illegal.

Religion creates bigotry and justifies it.

 

what is this entire debate about? Can someone summarize for me

 

semantics
all it is
s e m a n t i c s

 

Nope. Biological characteristics are not semantics.

 

definition of gender is semantics

 

gender is a type of blood group.

 

That's not even remotely close to being right.

How can a social construct in any way be related to a blood group?

 

i don't think Jaymon was being serious

 

Then maybe he should get out of the serious thread

It's still dumb though

 

you guys are not gullible.

 

Biological sex and gender are not the same. Gender, while some say it is a matter of semantics, has now been shown to have a structural basis in brain morphology and chemistry. At least for some genders. Knowing biology, eventually, I believe that it will be shown to exist for all genders. Genders, as self-identified.

 

alright now i'm confused because the dude said that blood type determines gender and i identified it as a joke
uuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh

 

The blood type comment was a joke. Gender has nothing to do with blood type. lol