HOME | DD

KonungenCarolus In reply to ??? [2017-06-11 04:05:27 +0000 UTC]

None of those things are objectively true by any means. Trump is doing a decent job compared to Buchanan and Hoover, Fidget Spinners are a completely subjective time wasting device with dubious effects on people with attention disorders, Fat people are objectively less healthy than thin people (this coming from a rather overweight person), prices at Disney are more based around attendance which can fluctuate from year to year and and argument can be made that legalizing all drugs will lead to fewer deaths because there are no more cartels and illegal, irresponsible drug usage and plus we get that sweet drug tax money. Your move, creep!  

(Note that most of this is in jest)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

paulasocar In reply to KonungenCarolus [2017-06-12 00:36:32 +0000 UTC]

Someone's Been watching too much Fox news, There's always going to be that ONE nut who wants to naysay on something popular just to be different, Health is NOT a moral Obligation, and Check Disneyland prices around autumn and Winter. *mike-drop*

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KonungenCarolus In reply to paulasocar [2017-06-12 02:05:29 +0000 UTC]

Oh boy, we got a live one here! Alright so you still haven't addressed that while Trump may be bad, there's much worse we've had. Then again I doubt you know much about every single president ever so there's not much you can say on that. Maybe just don't go saying "x is the worst" if you don't know much about every one. Fidget Spinners are still fine, but not really great. They're there. Like pool noodles and stress balls. They're pretty okay. Health may not be a moral question but it is a, gasp, health question. Why some people want to normalize unhealthiness is beyond me. Nothing wrong with telling a smoker to stop smoking, nothing wrong with telling a fat person to eat less. The point about Disney was more a question of absolutism. Its not true 100% of the time though it is most of the time.

Back and forth we go, ever until eternity, never letting it die. Never stopping. An endless procession of horror. A useless conversation on a useless picture. Wasting our lives wondering, pondering to no end. These truly are the end times.

 Don't forget! You're here forever!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HeraldOfOpera In reply to KonungenCarolus [2017-08-08 20:35:32 +0000 UTC]

Just want to point out that eating less won't necessarily make them less fat, unless they take it to unhealthy levels which would be rather obviously counterproductive. Also, I'll note that it isn't actually unhealthy until you get to outright obesity, which isn't what the fat shamers are actually attacking; we're actually talking about the societal fixation on absurdly skinny women who are, objectively speaking, just a different form of unhealthy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HeraldOfOpera In reply to Naundeeey [2017-08-08 20:44:33 +0000 UTC]

There aren't even quite two biological sexes because intersex people exist, and identity in general is sort of weird and confusing.

Blacks make up a disproportionate number of the poor, and the poor make up a disproportionate number of criminals. This is still bad, but not quite the same as blacks being inherently predisposed to crime like you seem to be implying.

The most dangerous ideology is extremism of any kind; Christianity has Leviticus 18:22 and gender-locks on high positions, but it doesn't currently have highly organized murderous assholes that ignore the actual tenets of their claimed faith like ISIS.

Eating too much can make you fat, but it's not the only thing that can make you fat, and what qualifies as "too much" varies from person to person. It's also harder to lose fat than gain it, so they may have already cleaned up their act but not have much to show for it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Naundeeey In reply to HeraldOfOpera [2017-08-08 21:18:02 +0000 UTC]

To 1: Lets not act like those people make up even 1% of the population. And Identity has nothing to do with it.

To 2: wealthy blacks commit more crime than unwealthy whites.

To 3: Just because Christianity was horrible in the middle ages does not justify Islam being horrible TODAY. We should learn from history and not allow Islam to wreak havoc.

To 4: Calories in - calories out. First law of thermodynamics. Losing fat is harder? B tch it ain't. Only for low IQ and low ambitioned people.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HeraldOfOpera In reply to Naundeeey [2017-08-09 00:38:57 +0000 UTC]

Rarity doesn't matter; their existence is enough to disprove your point. And if you're not talking about biological sex, then you're talking about gender identity, at least with regards to the point I was addressing.

Got a source for that? I don't even know of enough legitimately wealthy black people to be a usable sample here, and once you get to "actually wealthy" nearly everyone's doing something sketchy and nobody's getting meaningfully punished for it.

We shouldn't let anybody wreak havoc. That it's mostly Muslims doing so right now has surprisingly little to do with actual proper Islam. I'd like to repeat that ISIS is breaking the laws of Islam just as hard as they're breaking all the other kinds of laws of Man.

Some facts for you: calories are far from the only thing you get from food; what you eat matters as much as if not more than how much, and the countries where obesity is an issue are eating stuff like Big Macs. There's also exercise and metabolism to think about; Sherpas basically eat sticks of butter because, with the amount of heavy lifting they do, they basically have to just to survive. Oh, and let's not forget the fact that fat isn't actively harmful until you get to the point of obesity, so having a bit of pudge is barely relevant beyond aesthetics in the first place, and in fact was even considered a positive in most times and places outside of here and now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Naundeeey In reply to HeraldOfOpera [2017-08-09 05:27:00 +0000 UTC]

"Rarity doesn't matter" is just your opinion. Also you can pretend to be whatever you are, you can identify yourself as a vietnam vet if you want but that does not actually make you a vietnam vet and you can't force other people to pretend like you are. That would require restrictions on freedom of speech, unnecessary reprinting of dictionaries and censorship in general.

On the crime thing: www.washingtonpost.com/news/wo…

We shouldn't let anybody wreak havoc. That it's mostly Nazis doing so 1933 has surprisingly little to do with actual proper national socialism. I'd like to repeat that NSDAP is breaking the laws of Germany just as hard as they're breaking all the other kinds of laws of Man.

And again: Calories in - calories out. No bullshit.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HeraldOfOpera In reply to Naundeeey [2017-08-09 13:46:12 +0000 UTC]

So you're saying transgender people are lying to themselves? Anyway, the whole "Vietnam vet" thing is irrelevant because Vietnam vets actually exist as a real thing and nobody would ever try to argue otherwise. Again, we're talking about which things exist, and rare things exist so rarity doesn't have anything to do with the discussion we're having. I'll freely admit that "third genders" are mostly a social construct because anything other than male or female is too rare to be properly integrated into societal frameworks, but gender dysphoria is a real mental disorder that you're basically denying is a real thing, and I didn't even realize we were going far enough down the rabbit hole that I'd need to state that until now.

I'll note that even your source notes that racism may have caused the difference in crime, rather than the other way around like people actually use it to claim. Black people are told implicitly that they have less value, and they lash out as a result. We don't really understand the underlying causes of this sort of thing as well as sociologists would like you to think.

The funny thing is, that might actually be true, because I don't know enough about "proper national socialism" to refute it due to the stigma associated with the Nazi party. I do know that an awful lot of the Nazi high command didn't seriously believe in Hitler's goals and were using him for their own ends. They also, at least, had the sense to change Germany's laws so that they weren't technically breaking them, which ISIS has not done due to being a splinter faction without the authority to do so. Oh, that's another thing: you're trying to argue a minority is the same as a majority, which means you lose even harder than resorting to Nazi comparisons already implies.

Are we actually reading the same posts? That's technically true but, as you admitted, was already said and conceded. What exactly is the "bullshit" you refer to this time? Is it the fact that people who do more exercise need more food to maintain their weight? That's a natural consequence of the same law of thermodynamics you were using to justify your position in the first place, and it can shoot down your whole point on its own if it isn't addressed.

TL;DR: the closest you got to a valid argument was a strawman of one of my arguments, that was also a Godwin to boot, meaning something that you clearly weren't even arguing for in the first place and that would be cause for disqualification in most circles even if that weren't true. It takes skill to fail that hard and still believe yourself correct.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Naundeeey In reply to HeraldOfOpera [2017-08-09 19:48:09 +0000 UTC]

"So you're saying transgender people are lying to themselves?"
Yes. Not all of them but the vast majority.
And they do that for the sole reason to either get attention or perks from society. Otherwise there wouldn't be this HUGE uprising gender debate we're experiencing in the past couple of decades.
[...] that you're basically denying is a real thing [...] is what I would call a strawman but it was a mistake on my part to say "there are only two genders", what I meant to say is that there are only two biologial sexes. I acknowledge that intersex people exist (people with actual biological anomalies), however this is irrelevant in regard to my point since 1. it is rare and divergend from biological norm and 2. there are not only biological anomalies which affect sexual matters, there can be anomalies about pretty much anything on the human body. You know, people being born paralyzed. Should we therefore brainwash little boys into dressing like girls like they do in sweden? Hell no. Am I denying those people (you know the less than .1% of the pop. people) basic human rights and am I saying we as a society should completely neglect them? Hell no! These people deserve the same human rights just like you and me and they should (if they want) get medical help to help them living a normal life.
This does NOT mean that it's a good idea to give them perks or advantages, giving them jobs they're obviously not qualified for. It does NOT mean that it's a good idea to counter-discriminate against people who fall into the male/female categories and are able-bodied or establishing censorship-laws so people (who pretend to be gender-fluid, whatever the hell that means) don't get their feelings hurt. Life is chaotic, there is no safe space and there is no security, there is only freedom.
You are pretending, like I deny the existence of actual intersex people or those with mental disorders (what you call gender dysphoria). These people are anomalies because unusual things happen in this butterfly-effect mess of universe we live in, however, my point still stands. The biological standard is: MALE or FEMALE.


"...your source notes that racism may have caused the difference..." Yes. "MAY".
"Black people are told implicitly that they have less value, and they lash out as a result." I need sources on that one. Oh wait, maybe you are talking about affirmative action? Because that is discriminatory against asians which need to score higher than their black counterparts to get into the same university. Or is it that black people grow up with the idea that all their problems are to blame on those oppressive white racist and this is what causes tha lash-out? Maybe if we would stop those welfare programms,  stop affirmative action, stop subsidizing single-motherhood and maybe if blacks would blame themselves for their problems they would work harder and reach a higher status in todays society? What do you think? White people of today have NOTHING to do with slavery or oppression of from 200 years ago. It is also statistically proven that whites are the least racist ethnicity nowadays. Go google that up yourself.
By the way, the fact that blacks make up >50% of US crimes although being only 12% of the US pop. is still true, so what are we arguing about?

"which ISIS has not done due to being a splinter faction without the authority to do so" ISIS became the authority. There is no such thing as a universal authority other than laws of physics themself. Those who declared ISIS to be a threat are just a bunch of nations who agreed on it and they were the majority. Again - there is no such thing as security (universal authority), only the freedom you are willing to fight for. And what do you mean with "comparing majority to minority"? Nazis WERE THE MINORITY in the third reich. They just became the authority, ruling over the majority. And they did alot of damage with their ideology. As did Christianity with the bible. As did, does and will do ISLAM with the QURAN.
What do you mean I lose by resorting to comparisons? If you are referring to some funny debate laws we then could also bring up Danth's Law because of statements like "which means you lose even harder" or "It takes skill to fail that hard and still believe yourself correct." but I think that you are a rather smart person and that we're above those frivolous laws people pick up on 9gag.

Eating too much makes you fat.
If your metabolism works faster or your muscles/lifestyle eats up more calories, you need more calories to sustain the same body-fat ratio. Therefore there is a higher threshhold for you where it becomes "too much eating". If your metabolism is slow or you never excercise/have no muscles or whatever, you need less calories. Threshhold is lower accordingly.
This is not that hard to grasp, here you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
What people consider aesthetically pleasing is irrelevant here. People are still responsible for how much fat is beneath their skin. Eating too much still makes you fat.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HeraldOfOpera In reply to Naundeeey [2017-08-09 21:23:45 +0000 UTC]

There's really only the Islam debate left now, because the rest appear to always have been things you oversimplified in your initial comment and I was attacking unintentional implications basically the entire time. Especially important is the fact that the tendency of black people towards crime is cultural rather than biological, and thus can be fixed without segregation or genocide.

I'll sum up my entire remaining point: attack the Nazis, not Germany; attack ISIS, not Islam. The majority of Muslims actually hate ISIS more than we do, because of the people who claim that Islam needs to die on the basis that ISIS exists. Just get the stupider parts of the Middle East to ignore the harmful and outdated edicts of Islam like the Western world does with the harmful and outdated edicts of Christianity, get ISIS to stop pretending that they give two ****s about Islamic anything and admit they're just assholes looking for excuses to kill people. That's all that's really necessary.

Oh, one last word on the gender debate, because it's not actually in disagreement with you: why do we have so few convenient and socially acceptable ways to refer to people in English without using their gender? It would be a lot harder to get someone's gender "wrong" if there weren't so many times where we have to choose between guessing at gender or being disrespectful (I'm not even talking about the disrespect of using the "wrong" one here; I'm talking about how there's "sir" and "ma'am" but there isn't anything equivalent for if you aren't sure)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChenJack In reply to Naundeeey [2017-05-15 09:11:49 +0000 UTC]

I pretty much agree, though I would change anitisemtic into antiallnonislamic. 
And I would add a couple of mine: 
- lots of people are quite easy to be manipulated, programmed, 
- freedom, good don't always win, only power,
- it is quite stupid not to take interest in what other people in your society have got in their minds, what is their culture and ideology,
- it is quite stupid to think people might not impose own cultural rules over other people, 
- there is almost no rationality behind treating all cultures as equal and letting them grow as they wish, wherever they wish, 
- moral codes are created by people, their biological, cultural, intellectual conditioning and capabilities; there is no universal morality except what people agree on, 
- there is quite a probability there are racial (or even more specific) differences on the average intelligence of groups, 
- there are imprinted features of liberal but also socialist economic models that lead to disasters and it is not easy to grow sustainably as most people wish it be; 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChenJack In reply to KareIchi [2017-05-13 13:50:01 +0000 UTC]

Maybe you are addicted to new things. Why generic has to mean low quality? 

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -  
Isn't it generic and quite irrational?

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." Pretentious? In my opinion, a bit. 

"The time is always right to do what is right." Is it from Paulo Coelho?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KareIchi In reply to ChenJack [2017-05-13 16:37:54 +0000 UTC]

Man, you sure are everywhere on this post aren't you?

Addicted to new things? More like bitter over the fact that this person reposted an image that you can find oh so easily on google.

I MEAN LOOK This chick didn't even try to make it her own! And her DA is filled with this!
And this quote is so painfully obvious, no shit people hate the the truth and so on. Doesn't take a genius to think that up.

Just the regular scrolling on deviantart where stolen art gets a shit ton of favorites for no reason, what else is new.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

AhsokaTano1611 In reply to KareIchi [2017-05-26 21:28:09 +0000 UTC]

Hey if they like it, they like it

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChenJack In reply to KareIchi [2017-05-13 16:58:12 +0000 UTC]

I admit I haven't checked if it was copied totally, I mean the graphic. I haven't fav it. I have been speaking with guys mostly on transgender here.

And most mottos are obvious, generic, or simply stupid: Just do it, Carpe Diem, Make peace, not war. 
I think it is kinda addiction to be so focused on uniqeness, to demand newness.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChenJack In reply to Welssh [2017-05-13 09:54:37 +0000 UTC]

Rationally thinking you are right, but "truth doesn't care" is a metaphor for: truth about something that is happening at a given moment is definite. 
Remember, you are attacking it from a perspective of agnosticism and agnosticism has in itself one major flaw: 
Agnostics claim that everything is uncertain, yet it creates multiple paradoxes and it is based on observations of our world, it is based on our world logic. Agnostics demand rational prooving yet they challange concept of rational prooving because it is uncertain if it correct, but they claim it is uncertain basing on our world logic. To me it is a paradox. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Welssh In reply to ChenJack [2017-05-13 15:35:42 +0000 UTC]

To be clear, it is you who percieve me through agnosticism stuff. My thought about post was simple: words should point at some reality. If they don't or make wrong sence, it's lie or distortion. And I gave examples.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChenJack In reply to Welssh [2017-05-13 17:16:04 +0000 UTC]

"What is truth" sounds quite agnostical. 
Besides, the fact that majority of people believe in afterlife is quite good example for hating truth, 
fact that people believe in a free will existance is also quite good example, 
believing that all cultures are equally good according to some moral guidelines is also quite a pleasant lie. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Welssh In reply to ChenJack [2017-05-13 17:57:58 +0000 UTC]

Well, again. It's your perception and interpretation of simple question. It's like "What is this movie about?". Just interest. Besides, I want to know the definitions of words used by my interlocutor to avoid misunderstanding. 

About your examples... honestly, I don't understand it and can't accept. How can someone who believes in afterlife hates truth? What truth you are talking about? 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChenJack In reply to Welssh [2017-05-13 21:22:45 +0000 UTC]

Of course it is my interpretation of your words. Who else would you expect it to be? I approach people using probability, my intelligence and my experiences and I try my best to guess who they are and what is their point. 
I admit that your explanation of asking "what is the truth? Definition, please." sounds reasonable. I agree that quite often people misunderstand each other because they use completely different definitions.
If you don't understand my points we will have to live with it. I think it is quite obvious that people hate the idea of disappearing, of oblivion, and they fall into this pleasant belief that something like soul and afterlife exist or in some cases, reincarnation. 
By using your standards of reasoning I could prove that nobody on this planet never have hated some truth, because nothing can't be proven, no truth certain absolutely. 
It is just a matter of obvious to me game of probabilities, conclusions, observations, analogies, but some people wish to see those probabilities totally different than me, I won't convince nuts wishing to believe that there some spiritual form of them that somehow manifests itself in biochemistry of brain and decides freely what to do. 
And if you troll me, fine, I give a fuck. I am already quite bored by parts of your responses, so goodbye, probably. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Welssh In reply to ChenJack [2017-05-14 04:59:36 +0000 UTC]

Well, hello there!

Let me answer. First of all, I posted my comment and you tried to interpret it like agnosticism; it's ok, but a bit of "making labels". Then I asked for definition of truth and real examples or facts of "people hate" phenomenon . I got nothing of them. Instead you gave some "obvious" ideas and generalizations. Sun is obvious. Your examples of "some people who hate truth" looked like just your ideas without any base of reality. Did you asked at least 10 people about this to make such great generalization like "people hate/like/believe"?

It seems that obvious thing here is that you interpret my words and then begin to fight with your own interpretations. "Nothing can be proven" - I didn't say that. It's totally your ideas, and you tried to give them as my words. And then you call "nuts" those people whose point is different than yours. It's like only your point is right and everything that differs is wrong. To be honest, not very good idea for communication, if you really want to understand another man.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChenJack In reply to Welssh [2017-05-15 13:18:38 +0000 UTC]

I have nothing to understand from you, most probably. Especially after saying "sun is obvious" and asking me about getting sort of survey while these things are quite "obvious": like a fear or regret of oblivion. I am bored by your intelligence. Goodbye. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Welssh In reply to ChenJack [2017-05-15 17:19:22 +0000 UTC]

Bye!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Heliocathus In reply to StarseedRaven [2017-05-12 02:36:20 +0000 UTC]

its funny because like? scientifically that is not and has never been true? lol

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

KonungenCarolus In reply to Heliocathus [2017-05-12 18:24:17 +0000 UTC]

Honestly I'd love to see your evidence. I have no reason to believe any gender other than male or female exists in anything else than people's imaginations. Furthermore how do you define a gender? How can someone possibly know what gender they are? How do they quantify it? Make no mistake, I'm not angry or hateful or anything like that, I'm just wary to accept any claims about such things as true off the bat.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Heliocathus In reply to KonungenCarolus [2017-05-13 01:41:58 +0000 UTC]

There are many gods that lie outside of binary sex and gender all throughout history. As well as many cultures with "third genders" and trans people, honestly the gender binary is a pretty western thing to begin with. (see Native American's Two Spirit or Samoan fa’afafine) I also found  this section of a book about gender diversity through human history in my country/area (New Zealand/the pacific)     (scroll up one page to get to the beginning of the chapter)

As well as when you think about it, it's common sense really. Having a species be one of two things is one of the most unscientific things you can imagine! Biology is messy! Psychology is messy! We don't even a way to define the word SPECIES accurately let alone something like gender. And plus Gender is a feeling. A feeling based on social constructs but feelings none the less. Are you gonna tell me there are only two emotions? or we can only have one of two favourite colours? one of two types of personalities? nah man, science is too crazy for that. I like to describe gender (to simplify it at least) as the way one identifies and relates to a) an identifying label (or none at all) b) the way they decide to present themselves and c) the way to interact with others. And Culture (again mostly western culture) had developed those things to align with the parts people were born with. Two different ways you should dress or act depending on your sex*...which was really restricting. The way someone knows that they were/are genderqueer would be to feel uncomfortable with both of those alignments. And there were lots of people like that! But of course they were outcasted because the ones who did conform didn't understand and saw them as different. Trans and genderqueer people have existed through all of history its only now that i western cultures they're getting sick of hiding in the shadows and are beginning to try and educate the rest. It's definitely taken it's time and there's a lot of resistance (ie the kind fellow who posted the parent comment) .....................although I'm not gonna ignore the sort of over zealous/angry intensity of some people in the queer community (*coughs* tumblr *coughs*) which obviously leads to more resistance but I definitely think we are going places.

*Sex also isn't binary. Most people are taught that we can only have an arrangement of XX XY chromosones but in reality you can have XXX XXY XX and all other stuff. Other animals have completely other types of chomosones! (also if you want to learn a bit about gender/sexual diversity in nature I definitely reccomend Humon's animal lives webcomic). Sexual organs can also be on the spectrum between male and female. It's rare (about as rare as readheads) but normal and most of the time perfectly safe. However it is known that doctors "fix" babies without the parent's consent ...which leads to physcial and psyocologial issues in the future.

Oh yeah I don't blame you, it is totally reasonable to not accept claims off the bat. Honestly I'm trying to teach myself to be more wary as well. My brain is really prone to picking up unsourced informations it's terrible. But this I can definitely talk about. Also sorry for the wall of text it's basically the simplest I can get it without leaving out important details.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KonungenCarolus In reply to Heliocathus [2017-05-13 03:06:00 +0000 UTC]

Well now, you seem to be very knowledgeable on this kind of stuff. Now I dont agree with everything here, as there are many things in science that naturally there should only be two of most of the time (male and female sexes are kind of the norm, anything else is a mutation or divergence from the norm) and I dont particularly think the existence of transgender or other people in history is proof there's any merit to it. At any rate you were gracious enough to give me your world view so I ought to share mine, I suppose

People thought all kind of gods and creation myths were real throughout history and they were wrong. I think most people who identify as trans or some other atypical gender are kind of bold when they claim to be a female or male as even I as a male can't explain what that feels like. They're saying they biologically are something they might not be for no real good reason other than they feel like a male. Heck I even heard a story of someone who became trans after realizing the kind of dances and toys they liked as a kid were very feminine and took this to mean they felt more like a girl when in reality that has no bearing on whether or not you're a man or a woman.

Personally I err on the side of not having gender exist at all. It's existence is kind of iffy at all, considering that besides natural biological and psychological differences between men and women (We are sexually dimorphic after all) every person is more or less different. Different lives, experiences, upbringings and so on that influence them to become a very specific individual that defies classification and labeling. I think people who identify as anything at all are trying to fit their specific vision of themselves into a box, when in reality they're something completely different from anyone else. So in my book, a perfect world would have us all not labeling ourselves at all, accepting we are all individuals that can't be fit into a gender. The only thing that really matters is sex organs and the like, for medical, physiological and psychological reasons (again, Men and Women are pretty different). No gender means no preconceptions and no labels to be tarnished. Only individuals.

Thank you for taking the time to indulge my curiosity and being much nicer than most people I converse with on this topic. It really is enlightening. In total it seems our difference in outlook stems from you taking feelings to really mean something and me thinking they don't. But hey, agree to disagree, eh?  I would bet within a decade we'll have this debacle solved with some kind of hard factual evidence that leaves no room for error. Science is neat like that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Heliocathus In reply to KonungenCarolus [2017-05-13 04:38:18 +0000 UTC]

Well I can't say I know everything. Theres always room for error. But being trans myself and knowing a lot of different kinds of queer people you definitely get a different sort of insight haha! While male and female sexes are definitely more common I wouldnt use the word normal. Just because something isn't common wouldn't make it abnormal. Is blue eyes not the norm? orange hair? they're both mutations.
I'm happy to hear your thoughts. I live by the philosphy that the best way to develop your understanding on the world is to be open to hear other people's perspectives and use it to develop more accurate and insightful understanding!

It's not about whether or not they thought those gods were real, it's about that face that people design their gods based on themselves. If non binary gods exist surely they must reflect the identities of real non binary people.
I think the best way to describe "feeling gender" would be like... would you be comfortable with me or someone else calling you a female? Using female pronouns and addressing you that way? no? probably not? And that would be the same to me except I was born with parts people would typically associate with being female. I agree on the idea that toys and clothing obviously don't reflect gender, which does make describing gender harder. But like I mentioned so is coming up with a strict definition of terms like 'species' or 'galaxy' plenty of things qualify and dont qualify to be a species or galaxy, but some things...sit in this limbo of definition because those terms can only be so distinct. What is a galaxy? a colelction of stars? yes but how big does it have ot be to qualify? ummm we're not sure? I thin kgender is similar to this...it's messy and all over the place but that's ok.

I understand that and yeah humans are sexually dimorphic but I think gender is very much a mental thing. It's just part of personality, it's been associated with sex but only because we once THOUGHT it was but now we're are discovering that it might not be.

On labels I do understand and I have seen this train of thought before but heres the thing I've found. Imagine you are a kid or teenager and you feel different. You can;t quite pin point it but say you dont feel like you fit in to male and female. If we didn't have labels like non-binary or the sub labels of agender, bigender etc (and dont worry there isnt a crazy ridiculous amount of weird ones. There are only like..three important ones, ). This child would feel lost or even worse like they're broken. But then if they find out that there is a word for the way they feel and that other people feel the same. They can feel human again, they can find other people that are like them and build a community. Labels can give people strength. They may be arbitrary and maybe in the future we wont need them! and it would be rad just to be individuals but we are social creatures. But I think in this moment they can be important. It's ok to not want to label yourself but I would deem it selfish to want to take that away from other people.

I think the only evidence we need that other genders exist is the fact that trans people exist. Trans people that identify with "other" genders, and the fact that they do and have always existed.

Oh man no problem. I have a lot of trans friends so it's an important topic to me. And I love hearing other people's perspectives, it helps a lot in forming solid points and ideas. I've even learnt things already from this short conversation haha. I originally thought that this problem was solved...and I think it half is with the fact that...well trans ppl exist but I do definitely agree that we will sure have a solid peer reviewed answer soon. Hopefully the fact it's such a big topic will lead to more insightful studies! I especially love the idea of humans being more accepting to diversity, it just makes everything so much more lovely and exciting!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ChenJack In reply to Heliocathus [2017-05-13 10:46:56 +0000 UTC]

Very nice discussion. I wish to add my perspective: 
- we belong to animals that reproduce based on having two types of sex organs. I wouldn't claim that there are more than two "genders" in case of some hermaphoriditic human impregnatic her&himself and giving birth. 
- in my opinion people see someone and either they are attracted or not (sexual attraction is an expression of a need to reproduce, yes I think gay sex is in fact expression of the need to reproduce), 
- I don't believe in a gender of a brain, it is just a personality influenced by various levels of hormones, I don't feel my brain&mind is male despite I have had high level of testosterone: I am just aggressive, I have strong sexual drive that expression I control, 
BUT I could be wrong and maybe there is something in our brains that really tells us we are male/female or someone else. 
- I think term "norm" should be just used equally to "overwhelming majority", but it doesn't mean that all mutations or "abnormal" development are equal to some illness. In my opinion having religion is the "norm", but I see it as mental illness. 
- I cannot even rationally understand what term "agender" means if someone has got some sexual organs. 
- I think hormones levels differ among people and they fluctuate or not, they change with time more or less noticebly, but I wouldn't call someone with brain, personality more typical for women as a woman if that person would have got penis and testicales.
- to me hermaphoriditic is a person of two genders, but it doesn't mean it is a third gender. The fact that computer has got one port USB type A and another port of USB type B, doesn't mean that computer is of type USB AB or C.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Heliocathus In reply to ChenJack [2017-05-13 11:35:37 +0000 UTC]

im gonna leave it short bc it's late and im tired and ive already explained it in my ramblings. But basically its the idea that gender is just a form of identity..like what you favourite colour is, or a band you like. And it can be all over the place. It has nothing to do with what's in ur pants. And because most of science is messy, its not surprising. Trans people have and will always exist and that's all the evidence you need. tbh.


Also agender means someone who feels like they have no gender (not male, not female, not non binary) again nothing to do with your bits. Just how one percieves themselves.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

ChenJack In reply to Heliocathus [2017-05-13 12:52:03 +0000 UTC]

But I am not sure there is nothing in a brain defining the gender. I am an atheist with quite liberal opinions on sexuality being expressed in public, I am a bisexual, a virgin, I have no reason to fight against trans people other than just pure logic and having interest in truth. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChenJack In reply to Heliocathus [2017-05-13 12:38:04 +0000 UTC]

So I am a Marsian bird, because I feel like a Marsian bird. The fact that trans people exist proves nothing. It only proves that they think there is something in a brain that defines the gender. 
It is like saying that a soul exists because people feel that way. 
Again, I don't feel like a male. I just have quite big penis and I am quite aggressive. 
The fact people don't enjoy being called as opposite sex they are or feel they are, I can understand because it may challange their confidence on sexual attractiveness. 
If someone called me "she" it would be like telling me I have tiny unattractive penis. It has nothing to do with my identity, but with my sexual attractiveness. 

Sorry for the timing: it is 14:30 local time in Poland.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Heliocathus In reply to ChenJack [2017-05-13 12:59:10 +0000 UTC]

none of that made any sense...

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

ChenJack In reply to Heliocathus [2017-05-13 13:20:05 +0000 UTC]

Don't get me wrong: I am not your enemy. I think I prefer majority of trans people over majority of religious "normal" zealots. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Heliocathus In reply to ChenJack [2017-05-14 00:25:34 +0000 UTC]

idk what a zealot is but same

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ChenJack In reply to Heliocathus [2017-05-13 13:14:46 +0000 UTC]

Really? Or maybe you are afraid there is nothing in a brain that defines human gender? Maybe there is only: personality, aggressiveness, sexual preferences, empathy, intelligence. And our gender is only about sex organs. I understand that someone with changed by testosterone brain structures might feel not alright with vagina, because he/she feels aggressive and it is not stereotypical female trait, maybe even sexual preference is typical for men: I mean being attracted to women. 
But I see such a person as woman with personality more typical for men and having lesbian preference.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Heliocathus In reply to ChenJack [2017-05-14 00:25:27 +0000 UTC]

dude idk I just feel like it's a part of your personality. Just the way you see urself and jam. Plus science has only been looking into it recently. I think Bill Nye talked about the science of it a little in his new show but I think that's all we have. We just gotta wait and see lol, hopefully we should start to see a clearer picture of it soon ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 1