Steerzing in a New Direction...

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5520
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6721

Post by Gumby »

Service Dog wrote: Is the phrase "still a thing" still a thing?
yes, and it's as fetch as ever.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15149
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6722

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Lsuoma wrote: Well, perhaps she should have tried to smear Depp.
Maybe she should just crawl off to bed and let it all out.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6723

Post by Service Dog »

"luxury beliefs"
"the penised"

Her storytelling prowess speaks for itself, but I didn't realize she was such a wordsmith.


Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6724

Post by Service Dog »

Hunter Biden, who posted his homemade porn videos on PornHub, texted a PornHub link to his father President Joe Biden's phone number.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/0 ... med-today/

fuzzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 2175
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:30 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6725

Post by fuzzy »

The jury found for Johnny Depp on all three counts of defamation, but it was number two that really did in Amber Heard.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2384
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6726

Post by Keating »


Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6727

Post by Service Dog »

She's full of shit.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15149
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6728

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Had to trespass someone off my porch & back 1/4 mile to the road this evening. Very tense situation.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6729

Post by Pitchguest »

Service Dog wrote: She's full of shit.
She WAS full of shit.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15149
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6730

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Hopefully, losing this lawsuit will prove a cathartic experience for Amber Heard.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10856
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6731

Post by Steersman »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: And Dawkins descends to spank a WEITard:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/06/ ... nt-1997630
Sure a bunch of them over there. I'd left a response but I think I'm permanently in the doghouse there for, once again, challenging some of Coyne's articles of faith:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/05/ ... nt-1997461
whyevolutionistrue
May 31, 2022 at 4:41 pm
Bombadil,

You’re over here to make one point: that sex in HUMANS is undefinable or ambiguous.(That’s your goal.) Unfortunately, in 99.9% of the time or more, it isn’t. And, no, we don’t call a menopausal woman “sex undefinable”, nor a castrated man ambiguous. The vas majority of vertebrates obey the human binary, and yet once again you bring up the goddam clownfish, which, by your own lights, CHANGES FROM ONE SEX TO THE OTHER. How do you know that? Well, my benighted friend, it becomes a female from a male because it stops producing sperm and starts producing eggs, with all the secondary sex characteristics that that entails.

You are not arguing in good faith here, or perhaps you’re just ignorant, but you’re pushing an ideological point by distorting biology. I abhor that, and won’t have it. Clownfish, my butt!
Expressing his inner Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and Red Queen ("Off with his head!"). But his closing comment reminds me of the classic joke, "Crunch bird, my ass" - I hope clownfish do likewise to him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crunch_Bird

He really is - far too often - too much of a narrow-minded and dogmatic idiot - too often too pigheaded to even address arguments that conflict with his articles of faith. My response to that comment of his:


My response, currently and likely to be forever in limbo, to that earlier comment of his about the "gamete size dichotomy":

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/05/ ... nt-1997360
► Show Spoiler
He and far too many others there and elsewhere are fixated on the "idea" that every member of every sexually-reproducing species has to be a member of one sex category or the other:
I generally agree, but even the gamete account isn’t entirely free of borderline cases .... as Kathleen Stock writes (in “Material Girls”), “the gamete account would struggle to classify such people as definitively male or female since it is unclear precisely which gamete-producing developmental pathway they are on.”
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/06/ ... nt-1997795

Too many refuse to even consider that, by definition, the "necessary and sufficient condition" for sex category membership is NOT being on a (vaguely defined or non-functional) "developmental pathway", but actually having functional gonads that actually produce one type of gamete or the other.

So much errant moonshine; outright Lysenkoism predicated on unscientific dogma; putting feelings before facts.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11576
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6732

Post by Lsuoma »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Hopefully, losing this lawsuit will prove a cathartic experience for Amber Heard.
Well, she's not as full of shit as people thought.

fuzzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 2175
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:30 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6733

Post by fuzzy »

Am I the only member of this community who has had an esteemed pet of my visited conquest defecate upon the copulative bed?


Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5520
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6735

Post by Gumby »

Just found this guy, pretty good stuff.


Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15149
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6736

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

fuzzy wrote: Am I the only member of this community who has had an esteemed pet of my visited conquest defecate upon the copulative bed?
My dog's hind legs are going, so sometimes she poops on the floor before I can help her up & out the door.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10971
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6737

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: still
My condolences. It is a sad part of life when time gets to that point. Best of luck with that

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10856
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6738

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: And Dawkins descends to spank a WEITard:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/06/ ... nt-1997630
The man is 81. What the hell is he doing getting in to dumb arguments about the definition of "woman" on the Internet? How clueless is he that he?
Something of a popular pastime these days. Though wouldn't have been much of an issue if it weren't for various woke and transloonie nutcases trying to redefine both "woman" and "female" to encompass the "bepenised".

But Dawkins has something of a point in saying or suggesting that the definitions for both are matter of semantics, of a priori stipulations, of "by definition" definitions:
It is a semantic issue, and if you deny it you don’t understand what semantic means. I said “IF you define by chromosomes”– I never said you SHOULD define by chromosomes, but IF you define by chromosomes – then a trans woman is not a woman. That is a simple matter of fact, IF you define by chromosomes.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/06/ ... nt-1997630

Though not all definitions are created equal. But two that are contradictory can't both be true, at least simultaneously. That so many try to have that cake and eat it too leads to some gobsmacking idiocy, even if it's periodically amusing. Starmer and Company insisting that some women have penises being a case in point though I ran across an earlier manifestation on a BBC interview:
Ellie Mae O’Hagan, Vichy feminist:

"you know, I actually don’t know why some people are women, and some people are male, no one on this panel does, and anyone who claims to know the answer to that question is a liar."


Apparently that's just a short clip from a longer interview in which the interviewer made a decent point - at about 00:33 - in drawing attention to the two definitions on the table: “What about the definition of ‘woman’ as your biological sex rather than gender identity?”



Tough fucking shit that "transgender women" - AKA transwomen, AKA male transvestites - are "upset" 🙄 when they're called "male-bodied people". The only definition for "woman" that has any coherence, consistency, and utility is the biological one. Not least because the biological one - "adult human female" - is only 3 words as opposed to the, probably, hundreds if not thousands of words necessary to define "woman" as a "female gender identity". Moot whether even thousands would be sufficient given that "gender identity" is almost entirely subjective.

But absolutely astounding how the gobsmackingly idiotic "idea" of "self-identification" ever saw the light of day, much less became government policy in more than a few so-called civilized western countries.

In any case, something of documentary by Matt Walsh at the Daily Wire tilting at that windmill, taking a run at the question, "What is a Woman?":

https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe-v2

Takes a subscription to watch it, but a decent summary and review of it here:

https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/wh ... -woman?s=r


Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6740

Post by Service Dog »

no subscription req'd, here: https://odysee.com/@Marsey:8/whatisawoman:5

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10856
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6741

Post by Steersman »

I expect that, as the article seems to justify in some detail, most of that "anger" and "viciousness" is less gays themselves than the remarkably thuggish transwomen:

https://terfisaslur.com/

Featuring the infamous Zinnia Jones:

https://terfisaslur.files.wordpress.com ... 4715-3.png

Lovely bunch. Though people getting disabused of their delusions tends to out the "best" in them ...

"Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism":

http://www.annelawrence.com/shame_&_nar ... c_rage.pdf

http://genderapostates.com/transwomen-a ... stic-rage/

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6742

Post by Service Dog »

ok... I'm 8 minutes into it... and already there are 2 excellent punchlines. far better than I expected.
first one is the last line uttered by the gender-affirming therapist.
second one is the glimpse of Steersman's mother's basement wall...


"My mother is dead," will reply Steersman.

We know.
► Show Spoiler

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10856
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6743

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote: "luxury beliefs"
"the penised"

Her storytelling prowess speaks for itself, but I didn't realize she was such a wordsmith.
Thanks for the link to Walsh's documentary. Will take a gander at it, particularly as another review wasn't quite as "glowing" as the previous one:

https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/100 ... high-hopes

But relative to Rowling and her "bepenised" and "luxury beliefs" comments, it seems that the latter phrase at least has been around for some time:

https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-be ... americans/

Apparently the author of that article coined the phrase.

But while Rowling is no doubt doing yeoman's work in drawing attention to the rank insanity of transgenderism - she's more or less immune to being "cancelled" by the mob, I've gotten the impression she has contributed something to the clusterfuck with some "terminological confusion" herself. Though that may be something of a "thin beef", and may require a closer look through my archives than I have "the spoons" for at the moment :-)

In any case, her "statement of principles" - pretty solid by the look of it on a quick skim - along with a few "criticisms" from PZ and his tribe:

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/

https://web.archive.org/web/20200615210 ... k-rowling/
https://web.archive.org/web/20200809181 ... deep-dive/
https://web.archive.org/web/20200613120 ... a62e1f5165

While I certainly think Rowling has the higher moral ground and the more credible case, I find it profoundly disconcerting that Ashley Miller and (transwoman) Dawn Ennis apparently, at first blush, provide a "credible" rebuttal. Reminds me of a passage from Michael Shermer's "The Believing Brain":

BelievingBrain_Shermer_Section_1A.JPG
(50.99 KiB) Downloaded 209 times

"incongruent interpretations" hardly does justice to that far too common phenomenon. "Intellectual dishonesty" and "motivated reasoning" seems more descriptive - mostly on the part of the PZ, Miller, Ennis and company. But far too many feminists of various stripes also seem to be peddling some highly questionable dogma of their own which makes substantial constributions to the whole transgender clusterfuck:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Hilton, Heying, & Wright] is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... and_Gender

Takes a great deal of time and effort to separate wheat from chaff - on both sides - to determine who's playing with a full deck and who isn't; kinda think both sides are missing a few cards, though PZ and company more so.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10856
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6744

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote: <snip>

"My mother is dead," will reply Steersman.

We know.
:roll:

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6745

Post by Service Dog »

Speaking of 'What Is A Woman' & spoilers...

Howabout that scene... with the regretful female-to-male... describing :puke-front: :puke-left: :puke-huge:
► Show Spoiler

John D
.
.
Posts: 5759
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6746

Post by John D »

This is good.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15149
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6747

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Watching now. Best line so far (which I'm stealing):
► Show Spoiler

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6748

Post by Pitchguest »

All right, just to make it clear: Swedes DO feed their guests. That is all.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15149
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6749

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Couldn't pass up this wine:

Bell's End.JPG
(1.49 MiB) Downloaded 188 times

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15149
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6750

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Finished watching WIAW? (Mille grazie, cano!) Based on trailers, expected it to be a 90 minute Crowder-eqsue punk. But it deftly mixed humor & exposure of absurdity with the very real & tragic consequences of trans lunacy. With sanity counterbalances from the likes of Peterson, Soh, and my newest GILF crush, psychiatrist Miriam Grossman.

Everyone must see this!

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10856
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6751

Post by Steersman »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Finished watching WIAW? (Mille grazie, cano!) Based on trailers, expected it to be a 90 minute Crowder-eqsue punk. But it deftly mixed humor & exposure of absurdity with the very real & tragic consequences of trans lunacy. With sanity counterbalances from the likes of Peterson, Soh, and my newest GILF crush, psychiatrist Miriam Grossman.

Everyone must see this!
"absurdity with the very real & tragic consequences of trans lunacy" - amen to that.

If you're interested in reading more chapter and verse in that sad tale, you may wish to check out the Substack GC News. It is of course looking at the issue from a "gender-critical" perspective, but pretty much every day they have a dozen or more links, some archived, to various stories on that "trans lunacy":

https://gcnews.substack.com/p/thursday-june-2-2022?s=r

Bonus is my comment there that day ;-) . But of particular note is a reference to a portion of the interview, which you may recollect, of some deluded nutcase academic at the University of Tennessee:
Haven't watched it all myself, but absolutely gobsmacked by one "Dr." Patrick Grzanka of the University of Tennessee at about 18:55. As Holly put it:

"The college professor Walsh interviews, who pronounces the concept of truth to be 'deeply transphobic,' as well as 'condescending and rude' was the best example of how far gone academia is that I’ve ever seen."
Though, as mentioned, I haven't yet watched all of the documentary myself but not entirely sure about Dr. Soh. While she has made any number of quite credible arguments on the topic, she seems reluctant to consider that, on the most charitable reading of gender, there is a justifiable difference between sex itself and gender, that what she means by "gender" is not what others, of fairly decent credentials themselves, mean by the term:

https://www.playboy.com/read/gender-neutral-trend

But quite agree that more people need to see that documentary.

Though I think that one of the flies in that ointment is that Walsh himself seems to think that sex and gender are synonymous, that he fails to differentiate between (the rather obscure) difference between gender (personalities) and gender identity (subjective perceptions of personality):
To me, the very idea that there are girl things—colors, clothes, activities, toys, emotions—is exactly what gender is about. It’s about what people assume about you, the role you are expected to play, based on your sex. “Sex” is biology, and “gender” is how people are controlled, defined, limited because of it.

But the definition in this book is the one most kids are learning today. They describe it as an internal sense of self, or “how I feel about myself, who I am, and how that fits into how people see me.” They write, “Even though the topic of gender is a big one, it all comes down to how you feel.” In other words, an entire generation is learning that gender is synonymous with gender identity.
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/w ... -about?s=r

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2384
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6752

Post by Keating »

Pitchguest wrote: All right, just to make it clear: Swedes DO feed their guests. That is all.
Vore fetishists?

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6753

Post by Service Dog »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: WIAW? (Mille grazie, cano!) Based on trailers, expected it to be a 90 minute Crowder-eqsue punk. But it deftly mixed humor & exposure of absurdity with the very real & tragic consequences of trans lunacy. With sanity counterbalances from the likes of Peterson, Soh, and my newest GILF crush, psychiatrist Miriam Grossman.

Everyone must see this!
(prego) I re-watched it... to show GF... and... I think the movie is on a par with a strong episode of Tucker Carlson tonight. Which sounds like faint praise-- but Tucker's batting average & homerun count are high.

I still think the Brainwash (Hjernevask) series is the best documentary on gendercrap.

https://youtu.be/tiJVJ5QRRUE

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6754

Post by Pitchguest »

Service Dog wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: WIAW? (Mille grazie, cano!) Based on trailers, expected it to be a 90 minute Crowder-eqsue punk. But it deftly mixed humor & exposure of absurdity with the very real & tragic consequences of trans lunacy. With sanity counterbalances from the likes of Peterson, Soh, and my newest GILF crush, psychiatrist Miriam Grossman.

Everyone must see this!
(prego) I re-watched it... to show GF... and... I think the movie is on a par with a strong episode of Tucker Carlson tonight. Which sounds like faint praise-- but Tucker's batting average & homerun count are high.

I still think the Brainwash (Hjernevask) series is the best documentary on gendercrap.

https://youtu.be/tiJVJ5QRRUE
When I first watched Brainwash, I was amazed at how expertly -- by a comedian, no less -- it went right to the point and straight past the bullshit.

I make it a habit of citing the case of David Reimer when I discuss transgender issues and it's remarkable how much of it has been forgotten or ignored. John Money was a child-molester, a pervert and a grifter, but because he was a reputable 'sexologist' in his heyday, contemporary transgender advocates still make use of his argument that gender is a social construct - even though his own experiments disproved it and has been disproven many times over since then.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10856
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6755

Post by Steersman »

Pitchguest wrote:
When I first watched Brainwash, I was amazed at how expertly -- by a comedian, no less -- it went right to the point and straight past the bullshit.

I make it a habit of citing the case of David Reimer when I discuss transgender issues and it's remarkable how much of it has been forgotten or ignored. John Money was a child-molester, a pervert and a grifter, but because he was a reputable 'sexologist' in his heyday, contemporary transgender advocates still make use of his argument that gender is a social construct - even though his own experiments disproved it and has been disproven many times over since then.
Looks like an interesting documentary itself - worth looking into a bit further:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

Though I wonder exactly what you mean by "gender" - some justification to think it's the result of a combination of both nature (genetics; biology) and nurture (social norms, "socially constructed"). Nice summary of that view from the Wikipedia article:
Experts interviewed for the series in support of a nature-nurture interactionist perspective included Simon Baron-Cohen, Steven Pinker, Simon LeVay, David Buss, Glenn Wilson, Robert Plomin and Anne Campbell.
Many feminists are, of course, rather desperately committed to nurture only - "The Patriarchy did it! (!!11!!)" :roll: - while many others, just as desperately, insist that it is synonymous with sex which is itself, of course, just a matter of biology.

But pretty much everyone talking past each doesn't help matters at all. Only way forward seems to be to define exactly what we mean by the term "gender"; Wikipedia seems to have the most workable definition that I've seen yet:
Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Of particular value is that it doesn' t insist that any of those characteristics are due more to nature, nurture, or - sure to offend the benighted denizens of Coyne's blog/echo-chamber - simple individual choice:
.... Femininity can be understood as socially constructed,[1] and there is also some evidence that some behaviors considered feminine are influenced by both cultural factors and biological factors. To what extent femininity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femininity

Think that we're all more than just playthings of the gawds, than zombie or Frankensteinian creations of our biology or the societies we're part of; that we're all, more or less, "autonomous individuals" as the "infamous" "free-thought" blogger Anjuli Pandavar used to put it. Ideally, in any case.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6756

Post by Pitchguest »

Culture does not define your gender, nor does nurture. It is immutable. It's instinct. John Money tried to disprove that notion when he convinced the parents of David Reimer to raise him as a girl after a botched circumcision. It didn't work. Because you cannot seperate your sex and your gender. They are not socially constructed.

Ironically, while transgender activists are eager to parrot Money's talking points about gender, they simultaneously embrace gender norms, to the point where it becomes almost parodial. (Transwomen, for example, wearing traditionally feminine clothing, putting on make-up and lipstick, putting on fake wigs and eyelashes, etc, etc.)

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10856
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6757

Post by Steersman »

Pitchguest wrote: Culture does not define your gender, nor does nurture. It is immutable. It's instinct. John Money tried to disprove that notion when he convinced the parents of David Reimer to raise him as a girl after a botched circumcision. It didn't work. Because you cannot seperate your sex and your gender. They are not socially constructed.

Ironically, while transgender activists are eager to parrot Money's talking points about gender, they simultaneously embrace gender norms, to the point where it becomes almost parodial. (Transwomen, for example, wearing traditionally feminine clothing, putting on make-up and lipstick, putting on fake wigs and eyelashes, etc, etc.)
"immutability" and "instinct" is only your entirely unevidenced OPINION. You still haven't defined exactly what you mean by "gender"; you apparently seem to think it is synonymous with "sex".

You - and far too many others - refuse to give any thought or credence to the arguments discussed if not endorsed about the "nature-nurture interactionist perspective" in that Brainwashed documentary.

Nor are you willing to even consider the arguments of credible organizations like the British Medical Journal:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:

Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735

Though they too are putting too much weight on the "socially constructed" while refusing to consider - as you are doing - that while gender might reasonably be considered as synonymous with personality types and behaviours, there is a great deal of evidence that SOME of that is, in fact, "socially constructed", and that some is, in fact, "bred in the bone". See this for example, the graph in particular:

FourthWaveNow_BornInWrongBody1A.jpg
(73.15 KiB) Downloaded 134 times

https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-ch ... -identity/

Pigheadedly insisting on one extreme or the other - nature (exclusively) OR nurture - is helping no one. And in fact contributes to the problem.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6758

Post by Service Dog »

fuzzy wrote: Am I the only member of this community who has had an esteemed pet of my visited conquest defecate upon the copulative bed?
A broken home is tragic. But a not-housebroken home smells worse.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6759

Post by Pitchguest »

Steersman wrote:
Pitchguest wrote: Culture does not define your gender, nor does nurture. It is immutable. It's instinct. John Money tried to disprove that notion when he convinced the parents of David Reimer to raise him as a girl after a botched circumcision. It didn't work. Because you cannot seperate your sex and your gender. They are not socially constructed.

Ironically, while transgender activists are eager to parrot Money's talking points about gender, they simultaneously embrace gender norms, to the point where it becomes almost parodial. (Transwomen, for example, wearing traditionally feminine clothing, putting on make-up and lipstick, putting on fake wigs and eyelashes, etc, etc.)
"immutability" and "instinct" is only your entirely unevidenced OPINION. You still haven't defined exactly what you mean by "gender"; you apparently seem to think it is synonymous with "sex".

You - and far too many others - refuse to give any thought or credence to the arguments discussed if not endorsed about the "nature-nurture interactionist perspective" in that Brainwashed documentary.

Nor are you willing to even consider the arguments of credible organizations like the British Medical Journal:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:

Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735

Though they too are putting too much weight on the "socially constructed" while refusing to consider - as you are doing - that while gender might reasonably be considered as synonymous with personality types and behaviours, there is a great deal of evidence that SOME of that is, in fact, "socially constructed", and that some is, in fact, "bred in the bone". See this for example, the graph in particular:


FourthWaveNow_BornInWrongBody1A.jpg


https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-ch ... -identity/

Pigheadedly insisting on one extreme or the other - nature (exclusively) OR nurture - is helping no one. And in fact contributes to the problem.
Unwilling to consider arguments? Not giving any thought or credence? I'm not sure how you got all that from what I said, but it's impressive what you can glean from one comment. What I really said, though, was that gender, as an innate characteristic, and sex, its biological counterpart, cannot be seperated, and through studies have been proven time and again to not be socially constructed. I never said that they were synonymous.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10856
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6760

Post by Steersman »

Pitchguest wrote:
Steersman wrote:
<snip>

Though they too [the BMJ] are putting too much weight on the "socially constructed" while refusing to consider - as you are doing - that while gender might reasonably be considered as synonymous with personality types and behaviours, there is a great deal of evidence that SOME of that is, in fact, "socially constructed", and that some is, in fact, "bred in the bone". See this for example, the graph in particular:

<snip>

https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-ch ... -identity/

Pigheadedly insisting on one extreme or the other - nature (exclusively) OR nurture - is helping no one. And in fact contributes to the problem.
Unwilling to consider arguments? Not giving any thought or credence?
I'm still waiting for your exact definition as to what you mean by "gender". And your rebuttal of the standard view, based on some solid evidence, that it is more or less equivalent to personalities and personality types. You have either?

You don't get to make up your own definitions for terms - and then expect everyone to stand up and salute them. That's the modus operandi of the transloonie nutcases.
Pitchguest wrote: <snip>
What I really said, though, was that gender, as an innate characteristic, and sex, its biological counterpart, cannot be seperated, and through studies have been proven time and again to not be socially constructed. I never said that they were synonymous.
Bully for you. You can SAY "2+2=5", but that doesn't actually make it true or consistent with other facts or theories.

But I said, "you apparently seem to think it is synonymous with 'sex'" ...." If it is not synonymous with sex then how is it different? What exactly differentiates sex from gender? The conventional view - as per both the BMJ and Wikipedia - is that sex is based on reproductive abilities and structures while gender is, as mentioned, more or less equivalent to personalities and personality types - like "extrovert" and "introvert" or the 16 categories in the Myers-Briggs personality type system ("pseudoscience", "little better than a Chinese fortune cookie").

Try thinking that when some people talk about gender that that is more or less what they are talking about: personalities and personality types. Insisting on your own rather idiosyncratic, obscure, poorly-defined, and incoherent definition - particularly when you've got diddly-squat to justify it - when they are talking about something entirely different with some facts behind it isn't helping matters at all.

But I wonder, how much biology do you have under your belt? Have any clue at all about statistics? While I'll concede the latter is somewhat murky and rather "counter-intuitive", you really can't possibly understand their arguments - that 4th Wave Now article and graph in particular - without at least the basics of the science and math of it. Fairly decent introduction here in the context of the infamous "Google memo" by James Damore:

https://s8mb.medium.com/understanding-a ... 3394f3512c

You may also wish to pay some close attention to Wikipedia's articles on Gender - though anything to do with gender identity is pretty much a mephitic swamp of idiocy, and on the Big Five personality traits, the latter in particular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_ ... ifferences

Gender seems to be an overlay on those traits; it correlates the frequency of those traits with sex, for example, "Agreeableness", one of the Big Five:


But those personality traits are not immutable even if there may be SOME correlation with our sexes: females tend to be more agreeable than males, on average, but someone being a "female" is not proof that they are more agreeable than all males; many females are substantially less agreeable (more disagreeable) than many males. Likewise with many of those "Big Five" traits.

In addition to which, many of those traits can and do change for any number of reasons - from education, social development, resource availability, intent - the ubiquitousness of self-help courses being proof of that, and many others:
Some cross-cultural research has shown some patterns of gender differences on responses to the NEO-PI-R and the Big Five Inventory.[122][123] For example, women consistently report higher Neuroticism, Agreeableness, warmth (an extraversion facet) and openness to feelings, and men often report higher assertiveness (a facet of extraversion) and openness to ideas as assessed by the NEO-PI-R. ....

A study of gender differences in 55 nations using the Big Five Inventory found that women tended to be somewhat higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The difference in neuroticism was the most prominent and consistent, with significant differences found in 49 of the 55 nations surveyed. ....

As modern societies have become more egalitarian, again, it may be that innate sex differences are no longer constrained and hence manifest more fully than in less-wealthy cultures.[125] This is one interpretation of the results among other possible interpretations.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5759
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6761

Post by John D »

Do I have to give another lecture on the error of curve fitting from discrete digital inputs????? I thought we covered this ground already.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6762

Post by Service Dog »

I haven't been following Bret Weinstein lately... for months now. I agree with John D's assessment-- that Weinstein needs to be taken with a grain of salt/ until his suspicions are verified by rigorous sources.

But I'm glad he's still out-there, plodding-away. The other-guy in this video does a good job of explaining why rigorous scientific verification was NOT necessary, to know resisting the Covid Tyranny was the right-thing-to-do.

And there's a new tidbit in here, which I haven't heard before, that the carrier mRNA in the jabs... was altered... in ways not previously disclosed to the public. No informed consent...


Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10856
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6763

Post by Steersman »

John D wrote: Do I have to give another lecture on the error of curve fitting from discrete digital inputs????? I thought we covered this ground already.
:roll: What pretentious twaddle; not at all sure that you have any clue at all about what you're talking about. Methinks that, at best, you're seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying and/or what, in particular, the Wikipedia article on the Big Five is saying relative to what I've said.

Rather than cryptic and entirely unevidenced ipse dixits, you might try "showing your work" ... ;-)

And_then_a_miracle_happens_cartoon.jpg
(44.2 KiB) Downloaded 72 times

But more particularly, I'll readily concede that Wikipedia's article is using incredibly sloppy language, at best, in this quote:
A study of gender differences in 55 nations using the Big Five Inventory found that women tended to be somewhat higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_ ... ity_traits

It's not - as is apparently being implied - that ALL women are higher than ALL men in "neuroticism and agreeableness", but that, ON AVERAGE, women are PROBABLY more agreeable than are men (women=4; men=3.7), that there are MORE women exhibiting higher levels of agreeableness [A>=3.8] than there are men:


A large part of the transgender clusterfuck, and many related issues like the infamous "Google memo", is due to so many people - including those who should know better (*cough, bimodal-Coyne, *cough) - not having the slightest clue how to interpret statistical distributions. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

But to put something of a finer point on the issue, you might try answering a question or two relative to variations in population heights among men and women:

Mathematica_PopHghtCompare_1A_Sctn.JPG
(30 KiB) Downloaded 71 times

Is it true or not that in range of 185 to 190 cm [72.83 to 74.80 inches] that there are about 6 times as many men as there are women? That some 9.2% of males are in that range versus some 1.7% of females? That men "tend" to be taller than women? That there are more "tall" [>170 cm] men than there are tall women?

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6764

Post by Service Dog »

.

I hate this.



.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6765

Post by Service Dog »

https://media.patriots.win/post/uqVkJe4sbPhx.png
https://media.patriots.win/post/rQdHGOGdpzu7.png

https://www.wsj.com/articles/proud-boys ... 1654546936
.
825 people over a 5 month period. At least one died.
https://media.patriots.win/post/aLxOX74eqr1c.jpeg
https://media.patriots.win/post/WsJqfy243DQi.jpeg
https://media.patriots.win/post/3DJsHLov680x.jpeg

Newly-leaked home video shows nude & high Hunter Biden brandishing pistol with prostitute.
https://nypost.com/web-stories/nude-hun ... president/

I'm no expert, but that doesn't appear to be a ".38 caliber revolver" as described in every news article about Hunter Biden's illegal gun purchase. Looks like one of those semi-automatic weapons of war "no one needs", with too many bullets.


https://media.communities.win/post/dwfwUfHhYkDJ.jpeg

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6766

Post by Service Dog »

It's 6pm in Washington D.C.

Joe Biden has issued no statement commemorating D-Day, nor did he last year.

Not on Whitehouse.gov, nor his personal twitter account, nor the POTUS account.

Happy PRIDE Month!
https://nitter.grimneko.de/potus

last year:

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15149
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6767

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Service Dog wrote:
Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:09 pm
.

I hate this.



.
Hochul is a psychopath and a tyrant.

S.9458/A.10503b raises age to 21. Conflicts with Jones v. Bonta, which recently ruled age limits unconstitutional;

S.9407-B/A.10497 bans body armor, which will be challenged under Heller, arguing that armor = arms commonly in use;

S.9113-A/A.10502 expands red flag laws, violates 5A (due process) & 6A (right to face one’s accusers), not to mention the principle of innocent until proven guilty;

S.4116-A/A.7926-A requires micro-stamping, which does not work in practice. As no manufacturers incorporate into their designs, this will — as in California — serve as a de facto handgun ban;

S.9456/A.10504 bans braces, which amputees and others with handicaps require to operate a gun;

S.9229-A/A.10428-A “eliminates the grandfathering of large-capacity [I.e., standard capacity] ammunition feeding devices that were lawfully possessed prior to the enactment of the Safe Act or manufactured prior to 1994.”

Violates Art. I, § 9, Cl. 3: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”;

S.4970-A/A.1023-A adds even more paperwork & requirements to make it even more difficult to own a gun shop — and thus easier for the state to shut one down on a technicality;

S.89-B/A.6716-A, S.4511-A/A.7865-A & S.9465/A.10501 investigate & punish Thought Crime.


https://www.mynbc5.com/article/new-york ... s/40208503

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15149
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6768

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

NB: the magazine law is the confiscation they keep telling us will never happen.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6769

Post by Service Dog »

Biden administration is using minor paperwork typos to shut down a huge number of gun stores across the country
Gun Store Shutdowns Spike 500 Percent Under 'Zero Tolerance' For Typos
Firearm license revocations for retailers have increased greatly, and overzealous inspectors risk retailers' cooperation with law enforcement.

https://notthebee.com/article/the-biden ... he-country

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6770

Post by Service Dog »

.

Caravan of 11,000 illegals approaches



Chinese techno dystopia

John D
.
.
Posts: 5759
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6771

Post by John D »

Had dinner with coworkers tonight. Me... I am just a Michigan boy.... one of the women is a Indiana girl... One of the women is from southern Brazil... one of the men is from Kenya... one of the men is from Hungary... one of the men is from Switzerland.

The six of us laughed and told stories and complained about inflation. We ate good Italian food and got half drunk. We talked about kids. We talked about the differences between the Swiss and the Brazilians and the Kenyans etc.

What a good night. Restores my faith. Everyone is done with Covid. Everyone laughed at our stupid regular human problems... being attacked by Canada Geese or fighting with the Cable company.

We are gonna be okay.... We are gonna be okay.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7852
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6772

Post by MarcusAu »

I'm wondering if some of the women peripherally involved with the Uvalde shootings should be correctly identified as 'former mothers'.

Is there anyone pedantic enough to point this out to them?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15149
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6773

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

John D wrote: one of the women is a Indiana girl
Did she move up there at the age of eighteen?

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6774

Post by fafnir »

MarcusAu wrote: I'm wondering if some of the women peripherally involved with the Uvalde shootings should be correctly identified as 'former mothers'.

Is there anyone pedantic enough to point this out to them?
That reminds me of this passage that Bertrand Russell uses as an example of sophistry:
If you will answer my questions, said Dionysodorus, I will soon extract the same admissions from you, Ctesippus. You say that you have a dog.

Yes, a villain of a one, said Ctesippus.

And he has puppies?

Yes, and they are very like himself.

And the dog is the father of them?

Yes, he said, I certainly saw him and the mother of the puppies come together.

And is he not yours?

To be sure he is.

Then he is a father, and he is yours; ergo, he is your father, and the puppies are your brothers.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5759
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6775

Post by John D »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
John D wrote: one of the women is a Indiana girl
Did she move up there at the age of eighteen?
Her name is Emily. She is one of my favorite women. She wears no makeup but always looks beautiful. She has a quick wit. She might suspect I have a crush on her. In another life I would have braved the tempest for her… but that will not happen in this life.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 8075
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6776

Post by Service Dog »



I was skeptical, at first, until he mentioned which-specific gods had 'decolonized' his mind: the Old Ones.








MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7852
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6777

Post by MarcusAu »

Not sure what all the criticism of the new Lord of the Rings series is about - from what I've seen - it looks pretty good...







Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10856
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6778

Post by Steersman »

MarcusAu wrote: I'm wondering if some of the women peripherally involved with the Uvalde shootings should be correctly identified as 'former mothers'.

Is there anyone pedantic enough to point this out to them?
:roll: Haven't the foggiest idea what you think "mother" actually means. But a moment or two with a dictionary would show "former mothers" to be something of a cognitive distortion at best. Though I'll concede that many sources are rather mumble-mouthed:
parent:
noun: a father or mother; one who begets or one who gives birth to or nurtures and raises a child; a relative who plays the role of guardian
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/parent
beget
verb
1. (typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction
A mother is the female parent of a child. Mothers are women who inhabit or perform the role of bearing some relation to their children, who may or may not be their biological offspring. Thus, dependent on the context, women can be considered mothers by virtue of having given birth, by raising their child(ren), supplying their ovum for fertilisation, or some combination thereof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother

On the basis of Wikipedia definition - "supplying their ovum", that status and state can't possibly change even if the child dies for one reason or another.


John D
.
.
Posts: 5759
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#6780

Post by John D »

Wow... the shit these cunts post on Tic Tok. WTF. Not that I would do it... but...yeah.. just a fantasy and all... and not like I would do this.... but I feel like (in another life) I would wrap a tie strap around her neck and pull it tight and watch her die... not that I would do this and in a different life... and all. And her eyes would pop out while she struggled to breathe... in another life and not like I mean it and all.

Post Reply