New Gender Options for Facebook Users

[coolzeldad]

Why be associated with any label? I have always had that question in mind.


From what I have experienced, the act of doing something out of plain desire or want, rather than being associated with a label that parades the act, scares people more. Because in doing so, the act is less explainable.

Since the nature of a grouping is to idolize the similarities and marginalize the differences, you never can be fully represented by any one group unless you are the sole provider of that group.

In essence, to be part of a label you really have to believe you are. Having others believe you are superficially reinforces the validity of your choice in a label grouping.

Individuals within a group are likely to also provide a service of explanation or encouragement for scenarios relating to the group's societal place and experiences, which is appealing toward the idea of defending a source of thought or action.

Furthermore, groups tend to construct a set of agreed upon beliefs regarding themselves, other groups, individuals, the world around them, concepts of life and death and the nature of existence, morals for thoughts and actions.


I think it is more work to defend your thoughts and actions if you are alone, and easier for larger groups to work to silence your rebuttals.


Who are you? That is a big existential question but related nonetheless.


The issue of identity is impossible to quantify without belief, whether it be the origin of national identity, racial identity, sexual identity, etc., as there are too many factors to consider.

Many people spend their lives struggling to make themselves identifiable to other individuals and groups.


That being said, this is a large spanning topic.

A large problem with asserting belief is that it belongs solely to the individual, and will by nature conflict in some way with the interpretation of another individual or group.

The great thing about discussion is that we can analyze and not only build defense for our own beliefs but also consider the reasoning and it's validity to our own perspectives.

The beliefs one holds for themself rationally supports another individual withholding their beliefs.

Beliefs are what they are. And in the ever changing realm of experience and generally accepted knowledge, beliefs will shift and groupings will change as well.


Just my 2 centz

[ursus]

There is nothing wrong in media or other people encouraging overweight people to start losing weight. Being overweight isn't even healthy to begin with so it is good that society wants everyone to seek perfection because that way we can progress faster.

I'll agree that being overweight is generally unhealthy. However, when approached from a capitalistic standpoint, it's clear that the people attempting to shame fat people into losing weight don't actually care about their health. This might only be an american thing, but our food is not healthy. If society as a whole really cared about the obesity epidemic, they would push for stricter food standards and start educating children on nutrition from a balanced perspective.

Also, what exactly is your idea of perfection? What would make "our society" perfect to you? What should we do with people whose genetics cause them to naturally store more fat? From another perspective, my genetics are inferior because I burn food too quickly and cannot survive long without food.

Implementing changes trough political pressure against people's will or using mainstream media as a propaganda machine to persuade people into it.

And? Political pressure is the only way anything gets done in a federal republic. This point would be valid if we lived in a direct democracy, but here the only way to effect change is to "pressure" your elected representatives or to elect new ones that will vote in your favor. That's just how things are. As for the media, propaganda is distributed from both sides. I've seen misleading information from right-wing and left-wing politicians alike, and even more so from news sites that just need to bring in ad revenue and can't be held accountable the same way politicians can. I don't think either of these two points are worth arguing about, since 1) We literally live in different countries, and 2) The media is unarguably biased no matter what side it's promoting. That's just how media works, and I don't think it's worth getting into which side is "more" untrustworthy.

There are already plenty of laws that cover the discrimination issue plus many of the laws that defend the rights of majority also defend the rights of minority.

Again, this is a country issue. The EU is actually pretty good about human rights from what I've heard, but discrimination laws still have a very long way to go here.

Although I live in California, one of the more liberal/progressive states out of all 50, the validity of the statement you're making varies. Maybe you're right in Lithuania and wrong in Kansas. This isn't something that should be debated as if there's a solid right or wrong global answer.

You can't beat, rob, kill etc. minorities, they really do have enough laws that let them live just fine, except they often like to think that they're being targeted because they're different when often it just happens that they were just simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time,

Strictly speaking, here there are laws on hate crimes. If you look at it from a purely legal perspective then you would be correct. However, there are many instances of police turning a blind eye or judges being much too lenient because of a lack of minimum sentencing. I'll use this list as an example. In that list, most of the people who murdered those individuals faced some kind of punishment. However, there are a number of worrying incidents like this:

Erika Keels (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 3/22/07) Erika, a 20-year-old black transgender woman, was murdered on 22 March 2007, on North Broad Street in Philadelphia. Witnesses saw an assailant eject Erika from her car and intentionally run her over four times, killing her and leaving the scene. A medical examiner’s report supports these eyewitness accounts. But police ruled Erika’s death an accident and have refused to conduct an investigation. The driver, Roland Button, was later apprehended, but he has yet to face criminal charges–including “hit and run” charges.

While I don't doubt that the liberal media loves to blow things like this out of proportion, they still happen. Even though you may resent that I spend time on Tumblr, my presence on that site allows me to see many first- or secondhand accounts of transgender people or other LGBT individuals that face unethical treatment from family and legal authorities alike. I don't compile lists of these so that I can show them to people like you, but I am telling you as one honest person to another that it happens.

I'm obviously not saying that it is like that all the time. Also it is worth mentioning that not all laws that apply to majority may be compatible with minorities.

This is true.

For example, sex-separated bathroom laws focus on genitals, not gender. This is to be expected because society's understanding of gender is still changing very slowly, but this produces problems.

If a transgender woman (Or a "trap" if that's what you'd like to call them) enters a woman's bathroom as they would like to, women will complain that it's simply a man dressing as a woman to go in there and harass them (Even if they've undergone HRT and now have completely female features except for their genitals, which renders them completely infertile and is much too high a price to pay simply to harass women in their bathrooms). If they give up and go into a men's bathroom, they'll be viciously harassed for reasons that I don't think I need to explain. Straight men have an unusual habit in this country of harassing and usually murdering trans women for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying that all straight men (Including me, you, and most of us here) are murderers, but the majority of transgender hate crimes are straight white men brutally killing and sometimes torturing (mostly black) trans women. For this reason, going into a men's bathroom would be a bad idea.

To be honest, the bathroom issue I brought up as an example is too complicated for me to answer. I personally think that a third gender-neutral bathroom would solve most of these problems, but it's too simple of a solution to make everyone happy. In the end, the only true solution would be to enter an age where people are fully educated and understanding of the ways in which gender can differ from the usual. I am not suggesting that we force it on anyone (Hence why I think an additional bathroom would be optimal) because that would create more problems, but in the long term people need to be educated on this.

I've used racism as an example. Also if minorities want to be tolerated they must live up to the moral standards of everyone else instead of "LOOK AT ME GUISE IM GAY".

Has it ever occurred to you that if a minority member was completely silent about their gender/sexuality, you wouldn't notice?

If there are 100 people in a room and 2 of them start acting obnoxiously and shouting feminist rhetoric at everyone around them (It happens, trust me) would you be able to tell if there were 80 more feminists in the room? The majority of transgender people simply want their rights to be lawfully protected and recognized by society so that they can move on with their lives. Most people you see exhibiting the flamboyant "LOOK AT ME EVERYONE" attitude are either not aware of the negative effects their behavior has, or simply too angry about their situation to care. In the end it really is just their problem, but it's also a choice we can make to be understanding of that complication and not make preemptive judgments.

I've used the term and then I also provided more detailed explanation about the Oxford's definition of gender.

Now that I think about it further, I'm going to drop this point. The dictionary is still written by people, and that has a lot of implications. However, you shouldn't be so quick to assume that they're writing that definition just to gain positive attention or because of political pressure. It's much like Facebook adding new accommodations for trans people. Are they doing it for money? Are they doing it for attention? They could also be doing it because they believe it's the right thing to do, but there's no real way to know unless you talk to the people that did it. Zuckerberg does not personally oversee every decision his company makes, but I would imagine his reasoning was something along the lines of "It's a good thing that will also make me more money." I would do the same thing in his position.

Sources of real human opinions I've seen: real life, biology lessons, all the documentary about animals and nature that I've seen, youtube, almost every place on the Internet I've ever been, and /pol/ too.

I think you've missed the point of what I said. You personally decide what information you see. You decide who to talk to in real life. Again, you live in a miniscule country in eastern europe. On the other hand, I also live in a town of less than 100,000 people, but still in one of the largest states of one of the greatest military powers in the modern world. I have a vague idea of what you mean with the nature documentaries and biology lessons, but we're talking about people. People are more complicated than animals in almost every aspect. You can insist that there are still only two "real" genders all you want, but as the definition of the word changes and more and more people realize they fall outside the lines that have been drawn by society it won't be so easy.

I should take this time to let you know that personally, I do think gender as a whole is unnecessary. I also think that people should not be coerced into acting a certain way on the basis of their sex, which is what creates these problems in the first place. However, me thinking gender is unnecessary does not make it un-exist.

Please refer at my posts on the first page of this thread for more info.

You still haven't answered most of the things I've said in the post other than the one you just replied to. I'll admit that "Prove it." is a bit antagonistic, but that's really the only thing I could have said at that point.

I used that to show how simply gender can be defined, or at least how pretty much everyone in here defines it.

Aaaand, here we are.

Gender is defined however people define it. Language is simply a series of words with agreed-upon definitions that are used to communicate information. When the majority of people start using a word with a different denotation, the definition of the word changes. There's no official process for changing the definition of a word. While you define gender as what's in someone's pants, I define gender as a composite of social environment, hormone balance, and the behavioral patterns that result from a person's past experiences. Gender as a concept is more complicated than it needs to be, but we cannot make it less complicated unless we first unravel the current situation in staggering depth.

While people of certain sexes do often act in certain ways, it's not as much as you might think. How many of you are violent, loud, dominating and unusually strong? Gender roles are not as naturally occurring as you said on the first page. I know many more women who are not fond of being quiet, submissive, or domesticated. Feminism has actually been pretty angry about that for hundreds of years. While I would normally take this opportunity to lecture you on the fine line between gender and gender roles, I won't because I actually know nothing about it. Even the people who I look up to for information on this have never given me a particularly solid answer, so I treat them as being more or less conjoined to one another.

Why be associated with any label? I have always had that question in mind.


From what I have experienced, the act of doing something out of plain desire or want, rather than being associated with a label that parades the act, scares people more. Because in doing so, the act is less explainable.

Since the nature of a grouping is to idolize the similarities and marginalize the differences, you never can be fully represented by any one group unless you are the sole provider of that group.

In essence, to be part of a label you really have to believe you are. Having others believe you are superficially reinforces the validity of your choice in a label grouping.

Individuals within a group are likely to also provide a service of explanation or encouragement for scenarios relating to the group's societal place and experiences, which is appealing toward the idea of defending a source of thought or action.

Furthermore, groups tend to construct a set of agreed upon beliefs regarding themselves, other groups, individuals, the world around them, concepts of life and death and the nature of existence, morals for thoughts and actions.


I think it is more work to defend your thoughts and actions if you are alone, and easier for larger groups to work to silence your rebuttals.


Who are you? That is a big existential question but related nonetheless.


The issue of identity is impossible to quantify without belief, whether it be the origin of national identity, racial identity, sexual identity, etc., as there are too many factors to consider.

Many people spend their lives struggling to make themselves identifiable to other individuals and groups.


That being said, this is a large spanning topic.

A large problem with asserting belief is that it belongs solely to the individual, and will by nature conflict in some way with the interpretation of another individual or group.

The great thing about discussion is that we can analyze and not only build defense for our own beliefs but also consider the reasoning and it's validity to our own perspectives.

The beliefs one holds for themself rationally supports another individual withholding their beliefs.

Beliefs are what they are. And in the ever changing realm of experience and generally accepted knowledge, beliefs will shift and groupings will change as well.


Just my 2 centz

This is... well, pretty sound and something that needed to be said, but I think the issue is that people treat gender simultaneously as an identity, label, and medical condition. If you're a transgender person, people assume you align politically with other transgender people. They also assume you self-identify as such, and if they instead respect that you did not choose your identity they will often treat you as someone who is disabled or defective in some way. I could be partially misinterpreting this, but I don't "identify" as white or American or Italian. However, it is a part of my identity. Those are just some of the words for what I am. On the other hand, I identify with some of the ideals represented by these labels. This doesn't mean that I align politically with all other Americans and white people (thankfully) or that I even understand the full experiences of all other white Americans. This applies less and less the smaller the group is, because minority groups are more likely to function as a social group and align together in order to secure their own safety and decrease the chances of their rights being infringed upon.

Of course, it doesn't look like you were focusing only on the issue at hand and I still agree with the content of what you said, but I felt like it needed to be applied to the original topic.

[Cake Faice]

Ursus, do you believe in Pedophile rights too? Being one of those social justice warriors, I'd to know how far in depth you are with this stuff.

[Tiger Guy]

Ursus, do you believe in Pedophile rights too?

i'm pretty sure he doesn't

[Goat]

Ursus, do you believe in Pedophile rights too? Being one of those social justice warriors, I'd to know how far in depth you are with this stuff.

Non Sequitur? I'm new at recognizing fallacies, but that seems like Non Sequitur. Or maybe the one where he is jumping to a conclusion? This thread is riddled with them, I should print it out and analyze it with my uni prof.

[Cake Faice]

Non Sequitur? I'm new at recognizing fallacies, but that seems like Non Sequitur. Or maybe the one where he is jumping to a conclusion? This thread is riddled with them, I should print it out and analyze it with my uni prof.

I paid attention in english class too. But I'm just curious now, since every absurd "oppression" is now being pushed for recognition.

[ursus]

Ursus, do you believe in Pedophile rights too? Being one of those social justice warriors, I'd to know how far in depth you are with this stuff.

What even is the point of saying this? Pedophilia has never been a serious topic of this thread. Randomly accusing me of sympathizing with pedophiles won't help the discussion any more than me asking you if you fuck dogs would. Do you? I'm sure your answer will strengthen my position somehow.

That was sarcasm.

Non Sequitur? I'm new at recognizing fallacies, but that seems like Non Sequitur. Or maybe the one where he is jumping to a conclusion? This thread is riddled with them, I should print it out and analyze it with my uni prof.

It's a red herring.

I paid attention in english class too. But I'm just curious now, since every absurd "oppression" is now being pushed for recognition.

Pedophiles are not "oppressed." There is no basic human right to have sex with young children because children are legally unable to consent to sex. Pedophilia is a crime, not a minority.

[Goat]

I paid attention in english class too. But I'm just curious now, since every absurd "oppression" is now being pushed for recognition.

It's dumb that you even brought pedophillia up, it wasn't mentioned at all here.

Pedophiles are not "oppressed." There is no basic human right to have sex with young children because children are legally unable to consent to sex. Pedophilia is a crime, not a minority.

Pedophillia is a mental condition, and is not illegal. Acting on the urges a pedophile has is illegal, and called child molestation. It isn't illegal to be a pedophile.

[Cake Faice]

It's dumb that you even brought pedophillia up, it wasn't mentioned at all here. And honestly, the only people pushing for the recognition that pedophiles are being oppressed are pedophiles. They haven't made any ground, I can't identify as one on Facebook yet anyways.

What even is the point of saying this? Pedophilia has never been a serious topic of this thread. Randomly accusing me of sympathizing with pedophiles won't help the discussion any more than me asking you if you fuck dogs would. Do you? I'm sure your answer will strengthen my position somehow.

Pedophiles are not "oppressed." There is no basic human right to have sex with young children because children are legally unable to consent to sex. Pedophilia is a crime, not a minority.

Juuuust wondering, thankfully you aren't that delusional. They haven't made any ground but they have been popping up. Also, the reason why I asked that was: Read my last two posts.

[ursus]

Juuuust wondering, thankfully you aren't that delusional. They haven't made any ground but they have been popping up. Also, the reason why I asked that was: Read my last two posts.

As long as we're not going to derail the thread with this, I've actually been around for when pedophiles' tumblr blogs got found and called out. They had a circle of a few people who were sympathizing with them, but most of the people who get taken seriously in the community were pretty clearly not going to defend a bunch of pedo's just because they hadn't offended yet.

I think you're confused as to how Tumblr works. There's no lines drawn for the communities. There are people you follow, whose content you see, and there are people who follow you and see your content. There are plenty of like-minded people like you there, but they generally either argue or don't associate with the people you would identify as "social justice warriors." In fact, the vast majority of SJ-oriented bloggers aren't really that strange. They're just people who don't have an overwhelming stubborn skepticism surrounding everything they do. They were told "Look, these people are oppressed and we should discuss how to help them" and instead of things like "FUCK OFF SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE TRANSFAGGOT JEW DEGENERATE SJW SCUM"  they just abandoned their old views and moved on.

[Prox]

I'll agree that being overweight is generally unhealthy. However, when approached from a capitalistic standpoint, it's clear that the people attempting to shame fat people into losing weight don't actually care about their health. This might only be an american thing, but our food is not healthy. If society as a whole really cared about the obesity epidemic, they would push for stricter food standards and start educating children on nutrition from a balanced perspective.

Also, what exactly is your idea of perfection? What would make "our society" perfect to you? What should we do with people whose genetics cause them to naturally store more fat? From another perspective, my genetics are inferior because I burn food too quickly and cannot survive long without food.

It's also clear that most of people who are trying to shame fat people wouldn't gain any money from them starting to exercise either.
My idea of a perfection is when a society is living with a high moral standards and focuses on great technological, artistic, sports achievements and explorations.

And? Political pressure is the only way anything gets done in a federal republic. This point would be valid if we lived in a direct democracy, but here the only way to effect change is to "pressure" your elected representatives or to elect new ones that will vote in your favor. That's just how things are. As for the media, propaganda is distributed from both sides. I've seen misleading information from right-wing and left-wing politicians alike, and even more so from news sites that just need to bring in ad revenue and can't be held accountable the same way politicians can. I don't think either of these two points are worth arguing about, since 1) We literally live in different countries, and 2) The media is unarguably biased no matter what side it's promoting. That's just how media works, and I don't think it's worth getting into which side is "more" untrustworthy.

Lol, do you honestly believe that political pressure comes from the public or that it is a right thing to do? Just remember that political pressure isn't going to push for the ideas that you agree with forever.

Again, this is a country issue. The EU is actually pretty good about human rights from what I've heard, but discrimination laws still have a very long way to go here.

Just letting you know that marriage is a religious ritual and I'm pretty sure it is described as a union between a man and a woman in the Bible. Either way that's like, your opinion, In my opinion there are enough anti-discrimination laws already put in place, if not too many.

Strictly speaking, here there are laws on hate crimes. If you look at it from a purely legal perspective then you would be correct. However, there are many instances of police turning a blind eye or judges being much too lenient because of a lack of minimum sentencing. I'll use this list as an example. In that list, most of the people who murdered those individuals faced some kind of punishment. However, there are a number of worrying incidents like this:

So, do you honestly believe that putting an extra fancy law would change those people's mind set? They were already breaking the law when they wanted to kill another person so do you really think they would give a shit if there was some kind of anti-discrimination law? Besides, in my opinion, operations which allow for a person to change his gender should simply not be performed anymore. It is just so stupid, what's the point if your gender and you look like an ugly woman when being a man? You still have the same mind set in your head. If you are born a man, then you die as a man. Gender is something that you can't choose.

This is true.

For example, sex-separated bathroom laws focus on genitals, not gender. This is to be expected because society's understanding of gender is still changing very slowly, but this produces problems.

If a transgender woman (Or a "trap" if that's what you'd like to call them) enters a woman's bathroom as they would like to, women will complain that it's simply a man dressing as a woman to go in there and harass them (Even if they've undergone HRT and now have completely female features except for their genitals, which renders them completely infertile and is much too high a price to pay simply to harass women in their bathrooms). If they give up and go into a men's bathroom, they'll be viciously harassed for reasons that I don't think I need to explain. Straight men have an unusual habit in this country of harassing and usually murdering trans women for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying that all straight men (Including me, you, and most of us here) are murderers, but the majority of transgender hate crimes are straight white men brutally killing and sometimes torturing (mostly black) trans women. For this reason, going into a men's bathroom would be a bad idea.

To be honest, the bathroom issue I brought up as an example is too complicated for me to answer. I personally think that a third gender-neutral bathroom would solve most of these problems, but it's too simple of a solution to make everyone happy. In the end, the only true solution would be to enter an age where people are fully educated and understanding of the ways in which gender can differ from the usual. I am not suggesting that we force it on anyone (Hence why I think an additional bathroom would be optimal) because that would create more problems, but in the long term people need to be educated on this.

Ultimately the best solution to this would be to simply just ban all gender-changing surgeries because this wouldn't even require to "educate" people.

Has it ever occurred to you that if a minority member was completely silent about their gender/sexuality, you wouldn't notice?

If there are 100 people in a room and 2 of them start acting obnoxiously and shouting feminist rhetoric at everyone around them (It happens, trust me) would you be able to tell if there were 80 more feminists in the room? The majority of transgender people simply want their rights to be lawfully protected and recognized by society so that they can move on with their lives. Most people you see exhibiting the flamboyant "LOOK AT ME EVERYONE" attitude are either not aware of the negative effects their behavior has, or simply too angry about their situation to care. In the end it really is just their problem, but it's also a choice we can make to be understanding of that complication and not make preemptive judgments.

Has it ever occurred to you that heterosexuals don't really feel the need to go and tell everyone that they're straight? They only do that when they need to or they're being asked to, that's what I would expect from people of different sexual orientations to do.

Now that I think about it further, I'm going to drop this point. The dictionary is still written by people, and that has a lot of implications. However, you shouldn't be so quick to assume that they're writing that definition just to gain positive attention or because of political pressure. It's much like Facebook adding new accommodations for trans people. Are they doing it for money? Are they doing it for attention? They could also be doing it because they believe it's the right thing to do, but there's no real way to know unless you talk to the people that did it. Zuckerberg does not personally oversee every decision his company makes, but I would imagine his reasoning was something along the lines of "It's a good thing that will also make me more money." I would do the same thing in his position.

His reasoning was more like the lines of "It's good for you goyim!". But in all seriousness Facebook is pretty damn popular already, don't you think? I imagine that this decision wouldn't really bring any noticeable profit for Facebook, in fact it could even trigger some outrage.

I think you've missed the point of what I said. You personally decide what information you see. You decide who to talk to in real life. Again, you live in a miniscule country in eastern europe. On the other hand, I also live in a town of less than 100,000 people, but still in one of the largest states of one of the greatest military powers in the modern world. I have a vague idea of what you mean with the nature documentaries and biology lessons, but we're talking about people. People are more complicated than animals in almost every aspect. You can insist that there are still only two "real" genders all you want, but as the definition of the word changes and more and more people realize they fall outside the lines that have been drawn by society it won't be so easy.

I should take this time to let you know that personally, I do think gender as a whole is unnecessary. I also think that people should not be coerced into acting a certain way on the basis of their sex, which is what creates these problems in the first place. However, me thinking gender is unnecessary does not make it un-exist.

The more intelligent the animal is, the more he can resist his pheromones effecting his behavior. For example, if you look at basic insects like ants, their behavior is pretty much completely controlled by their pheromones and when you take a look at humans, they are able to suppress them and rely more on their own intelligence but that does not really change anything. Just like there are only 2 genders in probably every other species on earth, there are also 2 genders for humans too. What exactly makes you think that humans are somehow different in this aspect? It's illogical.

Aaaand, here we are.

Gender is defined however people define it. Language is simply a series of words with agreed-upon definitions that are used to communicate information. When the majority of people start using a word with a different denotation, the definition of the word changes. There's no official process for changing the definition of a word. While you define gender as what's in someone's pants, I define gender as a composite of social environment, hormone balance, and the behavioral patterns that result from a person's past experiences. Gender as a concept is more complicated than it needs to be, but we cannot make it less complicated unless we first unravel the current situation in staggering depth.

While people of certain sexes do often act in certain ways, it's not as much as you might think. How many of you are violent, loud, dominating and unusually strong? Gender roles are not as naturally occurring as you said on the first page. I know many more women who are not fond of being quiet, submissive, or domesticated. Feminism has actually been pretty angry about that for hundreds of years. While I would normally take this opportunity to lecture you on the fine line between gender and gender roles, I won't because I actually know nothing about it. Even the people who I look up to for information on this have never given me a particularly solid answer, so I treat them as being more or less conjoined to one another.

 
Now tell me, what is scientific gender definition, or how many genders real science considers there to be? And it really doesn't matter if people start using one word and because of their flawed understanding it starts to lose it's meaning, that's not what changes definition of things in science.

Also it sounds to me that when you refer at females as being "quiet, submissive, or domesticated" you make it sound like they are being forced to be like that just because of "gender roles". Most if not all females choose for themselves how to act and due to their gender differences they usually are seen watching over kids more often then man. That's also how it usually is with other animal species. I'd also like to disagree with that females have to be quite submissive and domesticated.

You still haven't answered most of the things I've said in the post other than the one you just replied to. I'll admit that "Prove it." is a bit antagonistic, but that's really the only thing I could have said at that point.

I'm not going to bother reading 2 or 3 pages of a generic tumblr rant. Perhaps there was something else that wasn't gender related in those posts(for example: something about anti-semitism maybe) that you'd like me to address, if so, then you can just quote those parts. As for me not answering your points about gender, well I don't think you will ever be satisfied no matter how much I'd rephrase my self and perhaps even I'd bring some points on the table. This would ultimately end in an endless circklejerking and a massive waste of time for both of us.

Non Sequitur? I'm new at recognizing fallacies, but that seems like Non Sequitur. Or maybe the one where he is jumping to a conclusion? This thread is riddled with them, I should print it out and analyze it with my uni prof.

I wonder how much people actually care about this.

They're just people who don't have an overwhelming stubborn skepticism surrounding everything they do. They were told "Look, these people are oppressed and we should discuss how to help them" and instead of things like "FUCK OFF SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE TRANSFAGGOT JEW DEGENERATE SJW SCUM"  they just abandoned their old views and moved on.

And this is exactly the problem. Instead of being skeptical of things and forming their own opinion, they fight for their cause because "they were told". You can only form an opinion of your own, an opinion, completely independent of human/organizations/governments greed, hate, their emotions and their agendas and an opinion which relies on facts, logic and is backed up by morality and true values of human decency. It is exactly because of people being unable or just simply unwilling to accept this is why over thousands of years a minority governing groups, dictators and governments were able to succeed, because they weren't relying on humans having a skeptical look at things, they wanted people who would follow norms, people who would conform to higher authority because they're "being told" to do so. Why else are we not being thought of skepticism at schools then? Skepticism is not only applied to politics, it can be used to pretty much everything, even in social interactions with people, skepticism is an incredibly important skill in life so how come schools don't teach it?

 

[Frank]

The main thing is allowing people to feel comfortable with themselves and their surroundings, without intentionally or actively disturbing other people mental and physical integrity. The laws are there to legitimize the issues. It's not gonna make you change your opinion, but it will (hopefully) make no harassment (true attacks and harms, not calling someone a faggot) go unpunished. Everything needs its due context to be analyzed and judged accordingly. If a guy enjoys wearing dresses, you WILL have to deal with it. You may not like it, you may disagree, but in the end it does not affect you all. If a person wants to paint their house ugly, you have to accept it.

[Sabb]

It's also clear that most of people who are trying to shame fat people wouldn't gain any money from them starting to exercise either.
My idea of a perfection is when a society is living with a high moral standards and focuses on great technological, artistic, sports achievements and explorations.
Lol, do you honestly believe that political pressure comes from the public or that it is a right thing to do? Just remember that political pressure isn't going to push for the ideas that you agree with forever.
Just letting you know that marriage is a religious ritual and I'm pretty sure it is described as a union between a man and a woman in the Bible. Either way that's like, your opinion, In my opinion there are enough anti-discrimination laws already put in place, if not too many.

So, do you honestly believe that putting an extra fancy law would change those people's mind set? They were already breaking the law when they wanted to kill another person so do you really think they would give a shit if there was some kind of anti-discrimination law? Besides, in my opinion, operations which allow for a person to change his gender should simply not be performed anymore. It is just so stupid, what's the point if your gender and you look like an ugly woman when being a man? You still have the same mind set in your head. If you are born a man, then you die as a man. Gender is something that you can't choose.
Ultimately the best solution to this would be to simply just ban all gender-changing surgeries because this wouldn't even require to "educate" people.

Has it ever occurred to you that heterosexuals don't really feel the need to go and tell everyone that they're straight? They only do that when they need to or they're being asked to, that's what I would expect from people of different sexual orientations to do.
His reasoning was more like the lines of "It's good for you goyim!". But in all seriousness Facebook is pretty damn popular already, don't you think? I imagine that this decision wouldn't really bring any noticeable profit for Facebook, in fact it could even trigger some outrage.

The more intelligent the animal is, the more he can resist his pheromones effecting his behavior. For example, if you look at basic insects like ants, their behavior is pretty much completely controlled by their pheromones and when you take a look at humans, they are able to suppress them and rely more on their own intelligence but that does not really change anything. Just like there are only 2 genders in probably every other species on earth, there are also 2 genders for humans too. What exactly makes you think that humans are somehow different in this aspect? It's illogical.

 
Now tell me, what is scientific gender definition, or how many genders real science considers there to be? And it really doesn't matter if people start using one word and because of their flawed understanding it starts to lose it's meaning, that's not what changes definition of things in science.

Also it sounds to me that when you refer at females as being "quiet, submissive, or domesticated" you make it sound like they are being forced to be like that just because of "gender roles". Most if not all females choose for themselves how to act and due to their gender differences they usually are seen watching over kids more often then man. That's also how it usually is with other animal species. I'd also like to disagree with that females have to be quite submissive and domesticated.

I'm not going to bother reading 2 or 3 pages of a generic tumblr rant. Perhaps there was something else that wasn't gender related in those posts(for example: something about anti-semitism maybe) that you'd like me to address, if so, then you can just quote those parts. As for me not answering your points about gender, well I don't think you will ever be satisfied no matter how much I'd rephrase my self and perhaps even I'd bring some points on the table. This would ultimately end in an endless circklejerking and a massive waste of time for both of us.

I wonder how much people actually care about this.

And this is exactly the problem. Instead of being skeptical of things and forming their own opinion, they fight for their cause because "they were told". You can only form an opinion of your own, an opinion, completely independent of human/organizations/governments greed, hate, their emotions and their agendas and an opinion which relies on facts, logic and is backed up by morality and true values of human decency. It is exactly because of people being unable or just simply unwilling to accept this is why over thousands of years a minority governing groups, dictators and governments were able to succeed, because they weren't relying on humans having a skeptical look at things, they wanted people who would follow norms, people who would conform to higher authority because they're "being told" to do so. Why else are we not being thought of skepticism at schools then? Skepticism is not only applied to politics, it can be used to pretty much everything, even in social interactions with people, skepticism is an incredibly important skill in life so how come schools don't teach it?

You've spoken of high moral standards several times yet your justification for not supporting anyone that's somehow (usually biologically in one way or another) different than you is because they need to basically just give in and bow down to the majority 'above them' or at least that's how I've interpreted a lot of what you've said. To me, that's so very much the opposite of high moral standards. Just sounds kind of like you think you're always on top of the podium or something, and for yourself.
So what makes morals for you? What gives you such high moral values? Do you not think that considering the well-being of others is important in regards to having high morals standards? Or do you just think that putting the 'superior' group above all is what's important? Be strong and stay strong sort of thing.

[Prox]

The main thing is allowing people to feel comfortable with themselves and their surroundings, without intentionally or actively disturbing other people mental and physical integrity. The laws are there to legitimize the issues. It's not gonna make you change your opinion, but it will (hopefully) make no harassment (true attacks and harms, not calling someone a faggot) go unpunished. Everything needs its due context to be analyzed and judged accordingly. If a guy enjoys wearing dresses, you WILL have to deal with it. You may not like it, you may disagree, but in the end it does not affect you all. If a person wants to paint their house ugly, you have to accept it.

Which basically means to abolish all standards essentially. If some man wears a dress or paints his house ugly as you say then he should be ready to face criticism and humiliation by the public. Why? Because he's not living up the moral standards of our society. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against change and new things, I welcome them, but those new things have to be decent and share good values as opposed to your example of a man wearing a dress or painting their house ugly, there is no need to kill or hurt them, but when they get harassed by others they shouldn't be surprised why. Basically we should only support change that's good and enriches our culture as opposed to moving it backwards.

You've spoken of high moral standards several times yet your justification for not supporting anyone that's somehow (usually biologically in one way or another) different than you is because they need to basically just give in and bow down to the majority 'above them' or at least that's how I've interpreted a lot of what you've said. To me, that's so very much the opposite of high moral standards. Just sounds kind of like you think you're always on top of the podium or something, and for yourself.
So what makes morals for you? What gives you such high moral values? Do you not think that considering the well-being of others is important in regards to having high morals standards? Or do you just think that putting the 'superior' group above all is what's important? Be strong and stay strong sort of thing.

It really is disappointing to see people nowadays treating our values upon which entire nations were built like dirt.
Now I'm not saying that other groups have to bow down to us, they just shouldn't expect special treatment and make such a big deal out of every little thing that goes wrong to them and yell "discrimination!". Those minority groups should also respect our culture and they shouldn't have anymore rights in changing our culture then we do because right now it is the minorities that are in the lead, at least in the so called "Western world". The needs of many outweigh the needs of the few.

Now what are the morals and values for me? Well I probably won't list everything but I'll try to mention a few important ones that will come to my mind: nationalism, love, real quality, friendship, a lot of morals can also usually be found in religion which teaches people to respect each other and treat others as they themselves want to be treated etc., a sense of pride and dignity, respect for marriage and family values, helpfulness, wanting to positively contribute to the society, being proud and respecting your culture and heritage. I'd probably could think of more but I think it's good enough for the sake of this argument. It also scares me how some people these days are referring to religion as bigoted or full of hate, I'm not a hard core Catholic but I just cannot comprehend how any sane individual can actually think so.

[ursus]

I'm not going to bother reading 2 or 3 pages of a generic tumblr rant. Perhaps there was something else that wasn't gender related in those posts(for example: something about anti-semitism maybe) that you'd like me to address, if so, then you can just quote those parts.

I've answered all the points in all your posts up until now, no matter how ridiculous I think they are, so I don't see how you can say that and still speak authoritatively.

For a change though, I'd like you just to respond to this:

Actually, I'd like to be educated on this. Please explain, if you are able, how Jews as an entire nation of people and as a race are all guilty of oppressing others. I'm happy to learn. Also, on a side note, would you say that they're a form of degeneracy as well? Just curious.