Trap discussion
Register

User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 76

Thread: Trap discussion

  1. #1

  2. #2

  3. #3

  4. #4

  5. #5

  6. #6

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Arsonist View Post
    Yes it is, so?
    Feels like more of a circle jerk topic.

    Just so that I can initiate some serious discussion..

    I strongly dislike the movement to identify as whatever you want. The most insane case I herd of recently is an argument that people should be able to 'species identify' as they would choose. The implications of recognizing such practices get pretty silly really fast. If I am recognized as a dolphin I should not be required to wear clothes. I also should not be held accountable for sexual assault (if you consider dolphins sexually aggressive behavior.) This is an extreme example but speaks to a movement of declassification. If we can identify as whatever we want why have classifications at all? But more than that why eliminate classifications when the issue is how classifications are discriminated against?
    The piratical application for classifications is how the information is applied. Say- For example... You are a closet pre-op trans male to female and you get pulled over. The cop looks at your ID and says "This is a false ID. It says you are female but obviously you are a male." Very simple sanity check there to spot a jacked up fake ID. But now you could argue its discrimination that because you look, act, and are physiologically a male its in conflict to your chosen identity of the week which has implications on years of practiced information use and is almost predatory twards those who use information.

    Once again this argument has many holes you can poke but my core issue is the attitude that it speaks to. That "I should be able to believe whatever I want and the rest of the world should alter their behavior to not offend me!"

    Seriously, In this serious discussion fuck that attitude.. Its implications are repulsive to me. A belief is not concrete and can be argued to be different in every way to cater to a current situation. This makes it very literally impossible to be inoffensive against a party who is determined to position themselves so that they appear victimized which allows the weaponization of mascaraing as a victim. Once again for the extreme and abstract example: "How dare you call me a sir! I species identify as a Dolphin! And why the fuck dont you have a Dolphin bathroom to cater to my situation?"
    For a less extreme parallel its speaking to an attitude of expecting society to work around the way you choose to be which is unfortunately enforced in current law but also has the application of demanding everyone in a room to cater to your sensitivities.
    I strongly support anyone believing ANYTHING for themselves but when they cross over to demanding their beliefs hold implications on others I have no respect for it. That is the purpose of sociological norms, not your personal crusade to demand others adhere to whatever is going on in your head.
    For a practical application instance a few years back I went to a dive bar and had some old military buddies for a reunion. We started pounding beer and shots and talking about the fucked up shit we went through together when a guy came up to us from behind and said how offended he was about what we were talking about (Which at the time was some kinda fucked up Filicide) with his family there. My response was that he was a fucking moron for taking his family to a dive bar and then sitting them in the bar area and demanding the entire bar cater to his shitty parenting decisions. I think I specifically asked him if he planned on going to a strip club afterwards and demanding they put their cloths back on.

    My point here is that every form of identity holds its value. If you feel to be a woman trapped in a mans body then that is a legit thing. But its unfair and even predatory to demand others recognition of a belief you hold while there is no way for them to anticipate your belief even if theres movement justifying it; and your basis for justification has to be within social norms. The second you step outside of those norms to call someone an asshole even though your small social structure and whatever unique group you appeal to justify s it- they are not the asshole. You are.
    Violating social norms is much more offensive than pushing for abject social identity and manipulating the system in your favor is a morally bankrupt practice.

    If your trans male-female but look like a guy, dress like a guy, and have a dick. Dont be a prick and act like society needs to change when someone calls you 'dude'. They are not the asshole- you are.

    Serial?

    You just cant look away...

  7. #7

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    But more than that why eliminate classifications when the issue is how classifications are discriminated against?
    I didn’t read your whole post but I think for the people you’re talking about that this is not the only issue. Obviously calling yourself a dolphin is going too far, but then where is the “best” line when it comes to identity? Does it exist? I figure that in some future society where discrimination is somehow gone, there wouldn’t even really be a point of all these labels we use anyway.

    Idk, I’ve talked with a few genderqueer people and found they never seemed to care about me getting their pronoun wrong, since they’re used to it, but focused more on me using a “binary” gender system at all. From their POV it’s just inaccurate and outdated.
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  8. #8

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    I didn’t read your whole post but I think for the people you’re talking about that this is not the only issue. Obviously calling yourself a dolphin is going too far, but then where is the “best” line when it comes to identity? Does it exist? I figure that in some future society where discrimination is somehow gone, there wouldn’t even really be a point of all these labels we use anyway.

    Idk, I’ve talked with a few genderqueer people and found they never seemed to care about me getting their pronoun wrong, since they’re used to it, but focused more on me using a “binary” gender system at all. From their POV it’s just inaccurate and outdated.
    But what about discriminating based off of real differences between people? For example, let's say I prefer Physics to Chemistry, and my buddy prefers Chemistry to Physics. To make both of us happy, you HAVE to discriminate between the two of us. I don't think all forms of discrimination are bad or invalid.

    If you were to ask me, I feel that this idea stems from this new "Relativist" wave which has been striking the western world for some time now. I mean, if you agree that gender exists on a spectrum, then obviously you have to define what the two opposite sides of these spectrum are - what does it mean to be female/male? It's very difficult to find a good definition of either sex if you view gender behaviorally, because we don't possess a good enough understanding of the brain to explicitly state what exactly determines personality.

    Which btw, psychology at large is moving (and has been, for like, the past 50 years) away from Behaviorism (i.e., the idea that you don't need to understand what happens in the brain to understand the mind, which more or less seems to be one of the fundamental ideas behind modern gender theory).

    And, obviously, the idea that gender isn't binary (or that it isn't on a binary spectrum?) raises even more problems than transgenderism. Because then you can't define gender at all. I could identify as a gender that exists not only outside of the male-female spectrum, but on a whole different axis; like, for instance, a "gender spectrum" based on the degree of intraversion a person displays. But then the problem is that then you can define gender by any two parameters (or more); and thus there can be an infinity of genders. How do you regulate those, as a society?

    Typically, though, genderqueer people do identify as being on the male-female spectrum, but somewhere "in-between" the two. People with other-dimensional gender identities are very rare.

    Even in societies where more than two genders were considered to exist (e.g., many (?) of the Amerindians in Canada and the U.S., or in Polynesia), the non-standard genders typically existed on male-female spectrum (for instance, in Polynesian culture, there is a distinct "female spirit in a male body" gender; that's definitely on the spectrum).
    Last edited by Frostborn; November 4th, 2018 at 12:41 PM.

  9. #9

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Feels like more of a circle jerk topic.

    Just so that I can initiate some serious discussion..

    I strongly dislike the movement to identify as whatever you want. The most insane case I herd of recently is an argument that people should be able to 'species identify' as they would choose. The implications of recognizing such practices get pretty silly really fast. If I am recognized as a dolphin I should not be required to wear clothes. I also should not be held accountable for sexual assault (if you consider dolphins sexually aggressive behavior.) This is an extreme example but speaks to a movement of declassification. If we can identify as whatever we want why have classifications at all? But more than that why eliminate classifications when the issue is how classifications are discriminated against?
    The piratical application for classifications is how the information is applied. Say- For example... You are a closet pre-op trans male to female and you get pulled over. The cop looks at your ID and says "This is a false ID. It says you are female but obviously you are a male." Very simple sanity check there to spot a jacked up fake ID. But now you could argue its discrimination that because you look, act, and are physiologically a male its in conflict to your chosen identity of the week which has implications on years of practiced information use and is almost predatory twards those who use information.

    Once again this argument has many holes you can poke but my core issue is the attitude that it speaks to. That "I should be able to believe whatever I want and the rest of the world should alter their behavior to not offend me!"

    Seriously, In this serious discussion fuck that attitude.. Its implications are repulsive to me. A belief is not concrete and can be argued to be different in every way to cater to a current situation. This makes it very literally impossible to be inoffensive against a party who is determined to position themselves so that they appear victimized which allows the weaponization of mascaraing as a victim. Once again for the extreme and abstract example: "How dare you call me a sir! I species identify as a Dolphin! And why the fuck dont you have a Dolphin bathroom to cater to my situation?"
    For a less extreme parallel its speaking to an attitude of expecting society to work around the way you choose to be which is unfortunately enforced in current law but also has the application of demanding everyone in a room to cater to your sensitivities.
    I strongly support anyone believing ANYTHING for themselves but when they cross over to demanding their beliefs hold implications on others I have no respect for it. That is the purpose of sociological norms, not your personal crusade to demand others adhere to whatever is going on in your head.
    For a practical application instance a few years back I went to a dive bar and had some old military buddies for a reunion. We started pounding beer and shots and talking about the fucked up shit we went through together when a guy came up to us from behind and said how offended he was about what we were talking about (Which at the time was some kinda fucked up Filicide) with his family there. My response was that he was a fucking moron for taking his family to a dive bar and then sitting them in the bar area and demanding the entire bar cater to his shitty parenting decisions. I think I specifically asked him if he planned on going to a strip club afterwards and demanding they put their cloths back on.

    My point here is that every form of identity holds its value. If you feel to be a woman trapped in a mans body then that is a legit thing. But its unfair and even predatory to demand others recognition of a belief you hold while there is no way for them to anticipate your belief even if theres movement justifying it; and your basis for justification has to be within social norms. The second you step outside of those norms to call someone an asshole even though your small social structure and whatever unique group you appeal to justify s it- they are not the asshole. You are.
    Violating social norms is much more offensive than pushing for abject social identity and manipulating the system in your favor is a morally bankrupt practice.

    If your trans male-female but look like a guy, dress like a guy, and have a dick. Dont be a prick and act like society needs to change when someone calls you 'dude'. They are not the asshole- you are.

    Serial?
    The examples you're selecting feel like they're making an issue out of nothing. The I.D. card should write "sex" rather than "gender" to avoid any misunderstanding. People who break the law by sexually assaulting others are breaking the law regardless of whether they insist they're a dolphin and it's "in their nature". If someone's mental patterns lead them to do things that harm themselves/others, then they have a disorder, by the literal definition.

    You're also blurring together several positions into one. For example, asserting gender is subjective is different from asserting being a dolphin is subjective. People who make memes about identifying as apache helicopters and dolphins are either trolling or have fundamentally misunderstood what it means to "identify" - A dolphin is an objective scientific label, while gender is a social construct.

    Let me try to explain it with a contrived, patronizing analogy: Imagine 10 people are alone on a desert island and completely detatched from our society. Hell, suppose our society and world don't even exist. Now suppose they've been given various equipment for different hobbies (like sporting equipment or games). If one person happens to gravitate towards all the nerdy things, that makes them quite a nerdy person. But does it them a "nerd"? No, because there's only 10 people on this island. There isn't a culture that has developed an archetype of what a "nerd" is. There is merely a mutual understanding that that guy is the guy who likes hobbies of that type. If they eventually formed a society, they may not even create a notion of "nerd". There may be 3 or 4 other labels that when combined roughly create the notion of a "nerd", for example.

    Suppose there's someone on the island who shows lots of "manly" attributes and has a penis, and gains the attraction of someone who has many "feminine" attributes and has a vagina. Are they a male and a female? No, due to the reasons stated above. Even if notions of gender are very clearly rooted in our biology, it is ultimately the society which produces an idea of "male" and "female" based on these biological attributes. And a different society could have built a different categorization system from our biology to account for more types of people, and associated other cultural norms with it.

    Now, let's go a little further down the rabbit hole. Suppose you woke up tomorrow and found your penis had been magically replaced with a vagina. If we take the classic view of gender, you are literally now a woman. But you will still feel like a man. You wouldn't suddenly start walking with a more pronounced strut, talking in a higher tone, or gain an affinity for make-up, would you? And tbh, if you explained your unfortunate affliction to others, they'd probably still view you as a man.

    It's just that there's a technicality going on here - if everyone says and agrees "no, actually, that pretty much makes you a woman, regardless of how you feel"... Well then you essentially are a woman. Ultimately, it's all well and good to feel like a man in your head. But society created and ultimately owns the label of man and woman (recall the desert island). If society doesn't recognize you as a man then, ultimately, you aren't.

    Now, would you give a shit? The answer you probably want to give (and I probably want to give) is no it doesn't matter how others view you. You should be comfortable with who you are and not fuss over identities and labels. But, on some level, who you are is determined literally by those around you. If you lived alone on that desert island with noone to observe and recognise your properties, you would remain unlabelled and unnamed. you would be literally nobody.

    And, if you place any sort of value in being a man and have grown any sort of connection or attachment to the label, you're going to care quite a lot if people strip that of you... Regardless of whether you happened to magically wake up with different genitalia one day (like what literally happened to David Reimer lol) or you've lived with the sensation that you have the wrong gender your whole life.

    Or maybe you won't care. We're all different I suppose. Maybe you don't even care about mushy crap like "who you are". The point is, society creates labels that are very meaningful to some people, to the point where they'll even try and pressure the society to change how it views the label. If it's eroding on their fundamental identity, it's understandable why they'd be so uptight about it. That said, whether they have any right to try and change how we view a subjective label that matters to many people and means something different to so many people is another matter. I'm just trying to get across where the nuance in the discourse comes from. This isn't simply "trigger culture" at work. There's some deep shit going on here.
    Last edited by yzb25; November 6th, 2018 at 05:31 PM.

  10. #10

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    The examples you're selecting feel like they're making an issue out of nothing. The I.D. card should write "sex" rather than "gender" to avoid any misunderstanding. People who break the law by sexually assaulting others are breaking the law regardless of whether they insist they're a dolphin and it's "in their nature". If someone's mental patterns lead them to do things that harm themselves/others, then they have a disorder, by the literal definition.

    You're also blurring together several positions into one. For example, asserting gender is subjective is different from asserting being a dolphin is subjective. People who make memes about identifying as apache helicopters and dolphins are either trolling or have fundamentally misunderstood what it means to "identify" - A dolphin is an objective scientific label, while gender is a social construct.

    Let me try to explain it with a contrived, patronizing analogy: Imagine 10 people are alone on a desert island and completely detatched from our society. Hell, suppose our society and world don't even exist. Now suppose they've been given various equipment for different hobbies (like sporting equipment or games). If one person happens to gravitate towards all the nerdy things, that makes them quite a nerdy person. But does it them a "nerd"? No, because there's only 10 people on this island. There isn't a culture that has developed an archetype of what a "nerd" is. There is merely a mutual understanding that that guy is the guy who likes hobbies of that type. If they eventually formed a society, they may not even create a notion of "nerd". There may be 3 or 4 other labels that when combined roughly create the notion of a "nerd", for example.

    Suppose there's someone on the island who shows lots of "manly" attributes and has a penis, and gains the attraction of someone who has many "feminine" attributes and has a vagina. Are they a male and a female? No, due to the reasons stated above. Even if notions of gender are very clearly rooted in our biology, it is ultimately the society which produces an idea of "male" and "female" based on these biological attributes. And a different society could have built a different categorization system from our biology to account for more types of people, and associated other cultural norms with it.

    Now, let's go a little further down the rabbit hole. Suppose you woke up tomorrow and found your penis had been magically replaced with a vagina. If we take the classic view of gender, you are literally now a woman. But you will still feel like a man. You wouldn't suddenly start walking with a more pronounced strut, talking in a higher tone, or gain an affinity for make-up, would you? And tbh, if you explained your unfortunate affliction to others, they'd probably still view you as a man.

    It's just that there's a technicality going on here - if everyone says and agrees "no, actually, that pretty much makes you a woman, regardless of how you feel"... Well then you essentially are a woman. Ultimately, it's all well and good to feel like a man in your head. But society created and ultimately owns the label of man and woman (recall the desert island). If society doesn't recognize you as a man then, ultimately, you aren't.

    Now, would you give a shit? The answer you probably want to give (and I probably want to give) is no it doesn't matter how others view you. You should be comfortable with who you are and not fuss over identities and labels. But, on some level, who you are is determined literally by those around you. If you lived alone on that desert island with noone to observe and recognise your properties, you would remain unlabelled and unnamed. you would be literally nobody.

    And, if you place any sort of value in being a man and have grown any sort of connection or attachment to the label, you're going to care quite a lot if people strip that of you... Regardless of whether you happened to magically wake up with different genitalia one day (like what literally happened to David Reimer lol) or you've lived with the sensation that you have the wrong gender your whole life.

    Or maybe you won't care. We're all different I suppose. Maybe you don't even care about mushy crap like "who you are". The point is, society creates labels that are very meaningful to some people, to the point where they'll even try and pressure the society to change how it views the label. If it's eroding on their fundamental identity, it's understandable why they'd be so uptight about it. That said, whether they have any right to try and change how we view a subjective label that matters to many people and means something different to so many people is another matter. I'm just trying to get across where the nuance in the discourse comes from. This isn't simply "trigger culture" at work. There's some deep shit going on here.
    I would first like to say that I made this a serious discussion and took a stance simply to make the conversation in this thread fit the section it is in. My motivations for doing so don't matter but I did hint to that fact here
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Serial?
    That said. I dont really see your argument. How can you say that a biological classification is valid in one situation but not the other? Lets use your exact situation to examine the connotations..

    Suppose only 10 entities are alive. 9 are human but you are a a dolphin. You embrace everything that is to be a dolphin from eating fish to sexually assaulting women who swim with you. Then one day you are magically turned into a human. If we take the classic view of species, you are literally now a human. But you will still feel like a dolphin. If everyone says and agrees "no, actually, that pretty much makes you a human, regardless of how you feel"... Well then you essentially are a human. Ultimately, it's all well and good to feel like a dolphin in your head. But society created and ultimately owns the label of human and dolphin. If society doesn't recognize you as a dolphin then, ultimately, you aren't.

    Using your own words I think you get what I am saying here. My counter to your contention is that it makes no sense to argue it as acceptable on one genetic level and not on another. I am not saying that its wrong to be able to genetically identify as whatever you feel you are. What I am saying is that it has opened a door where we must define how far it can be taken. Where do we draw the line and how do we deal with the implications of that decision?

    What if I was going to jail and decided that female prison would be more fun than male prison? I could be a super alpha male with a dick but declare myself as a pre-op lesbian female and ask to be placed in a female prison. Nobody else would know how I feel in my head and I could argue that society is fucked up for not recognizing my gender identity if they refused me this situation that I took from a predatory stance. How far do we take this line of thinking? If I can gender identify as whatever I want why not racially identify? Why not species or age identify? Why do we have classifications at all if we choose that what we decide we are matters more than what we actually are?

    We are entering a world that opens some dangerous doors and people who exploit it I consider to be an asshole. I believe its something we have to consider as a society. There is no ethical way to sort the predatory exploiter from the genuine person when the 'proof' of their situation is how they claim to feel. And I will be greatly disgusted with society if a pedophile is let loose because he 'age identifys' as the age necessary to justify his actions.


    This entire argument is a 'slippery slope' fallacy but it is also totally sound and represents the basic question "Where do we draw the line?" and "How can we justify the line being drawn there?"
    Last edited by Helz; November 7th, 2018 at 12:55 AM.

    You just cant look away...

  11. #11

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I would first like to say that I made this a serious discussion and took a stance simply to make the conversation in this thread fit the section it is in. My motivations for doing so don't matter but I did hint to that fact here

    That said. I dont really see your argument. How can you say that a biological classification is valid in one situation but not the other? Lets use your exact situation to examine the connotations..

    Suppose only 10 entities are alive. 9 are human but you are a a dolphin. You embrace everything that is to be a dolphin from eating fish to sexually assaulting women who swim with you. Then one day you are magically turned into a human. If we take the classic view of species, you are literally now a human. But you will still feel like a dolphin. If everyone says and agrees "no, actually, that pretty much makes you a human, regardless of how you feel"... Well then you essentially are a human. Ultimately, it's all well and good to feel like a dolphin in your head. But society created and ultimately owns the label of human and dolphin. If society doesn't recognize you as a dolphin then, ultimately, you aren't.

    Using your own words I think you get what I am saying here. My counter to your contention is that it makes no sense to argue it as acceptable on one genetic level and not on another. I am not saying that its wrong to be able to genetically identify as whatever you feel you are. What I am saying is that it has opened a door where we must define how far it can be taken. Where do we draw the line and how do we deal with the implications of that decision?

    What if I was going to jail and decided that female prison would be more fun than male prison? I could be a super alpha male with a dick but declare myself as a pre-op lesbian female and ask to be placed in a female prison. Nobody else would know how I feel in my head and I could argue that society is fucked up for not recognizing my gender identity if they refused me this situation that I took from a predatory stance. How far do we take this line of thinking? If I can gender identify as whatever I want why not racially identify? Why not species or age identify? Why do we have classifications at all if we choose that what we decide we are matters more than what we actually are?

    We are entering a world that opens some dangerous doors and people who exploit it I consider to be an asshole. I believe its something we have to consider as a society. There is no ethical way to sort the predatory exploiter from the genuine person when the 'proof' of their situation is how they claim to feel. And I will be greatly disgusted with society if a pedophile is let loose because he 'age identifys' as the age necessary to justify his actions.


    This entire argument is a 'slippery slope' fallacy but it is also totally sound and represents the basic question "Where do we draw the line?" and "How can we justify the line being drawn there?"
    +1
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.

  12. #12

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    The examples you're selecting feel like they're making an issue out of nothing. The I.D. card should write "sex" rather than "gender" to avoid any misunderstanding. People who break the law by sexually assaulting others are breaking the law regardless of whether they insist they're a dolphin and it's "in their nature". If someone's mental patterns lead them to do things that harm themselves/others, then they have a disorder, by the literal definition.

    You're also blurring together several positions into one. For example, asserting gender is subjective is different from asserting being a dolphin is subjective. People who make memes about identifying as apache helicopters and dolphins are either trolling or have fundamentally misunderstood what it means to "identify" - A dolphin is an objective scientific label, while gender is a social construct.

    Let me try to explain it with a contrived, patronizing analogy: Imagine 10 people are alone on a desert island and completely detatched from our society. Hell, suppose our society and world don't even exist. Now suppose they've been given various equipment for different hobbies (like sporting equipment or games). If one person happens to gravitate towards all the nerdy things, that makes them quite a nerdy person. But does it them a "nerd"? No, because there's only 10 people on this island. There isn't a culture that has developed an archetype of what a "nerd" is. There is merely a mutual understanding that that guy is the guy who likes hobbies of that type. If they eventually formed a society, they may not even create a notion of "nerd". There may be 3 or 4 other labels that when combined roughly create the notion of a "nerd", for example.

    Suppose there's someone on the island who shows lots of "manly" attributes and has a penis, and gains the attraction of someone who has many "feminine" attributes and has a vagina. Are they a male and a female? No, due to the reasons stated above. Even if notions of gender are very clearly rooted in our biology, it is ultimately the society which produces an idea of "male" and "female" based on these biological attributes. And a different society could have built a different categorization system from our biology to account for more types of people, and associated other cultural norms with it.

    Now, let's go a little further down the rabbit hole. Suppose you woke up tomorrow and found your penis had been magically replaced with a vagina. If we take the classic view of gender, you are literally now a woman. But you will still feel like a man. You wouldn't suddenly start walking with a more pronounced strut, talking in a higher tone, or gain an affinity for make-up, would you? And tbh, if you explained your unfortunate affliction to others, they'd probably still view you as a man.

    It's just that there's a technicality going on here - if everyone says and agrees "no, actually, that pretty much makes you a woman, regardless of how you feel"... Well then you essentially are a woman. Ultimately, it's all well and good to feel like a man in your head. But society created and ultimately owns the label of man and woman (recall the desert island). If society doesn't recognize you as a man then, ultimately, you aren't.

    Now, would you give a shit? The answer you probably want to give (and I probably want to give) is no it doesn't matter how others view you. You should be comfortable with who you are and not fuss over identities and labels. But, on some level, who you are is determined literally by those around you. If you lived alone on that desert island with noone to observe and recognise your properties, you would remain unlabelled and unnamed. you would be literally nobody.

    And, if you place any sort of value in being a man and have grown any sort of connection or attachment to the label, you're going to care quite a lot if people strip that of you... Regardless of whether you happened to magically wake up with different genitalia one day (like what literally happened to David Reimer lol) or you've lived with the sensation that you have the wrong gender your whole life.

    Or maybe you won't care. We're all different I suppose. Maybe you don't even care about mushy crap like "who you are". The point is, society creates labels that are very meaningful to some people, to the point where they'll even try and pressure the society to change how it views the label. If it's eroding on their fundamental identity, it's understandable why they'd be so uptight about it. That said, whether they have any right to try and change how we view a subjective label that matters to many people and means something different to so many people is another matter. I'm just trying to get across where the nuance in the discourse comes from. This isn't simply "trigger culture" at work. There's some deep shit going on here.
    I've been going over studies for some time, and I can't quite tell, judging by the studies, if there is an actual biological basis in "identifying" as the opposite gender. The study I read basically said that some brain structures were different from cisgender people of the same sex, and more similar to those of the opposite sex, whilst other structures were similar to that of the same sex - and, if I'm not mistaken, that there is a certain area of the brain in transmen (WtM) responsible for..., actually, here's the bit that says that:
    Laura found that the trans men had lessened activity in a region of the brain called the supramarginal gyrus. This is an area in the brain which is responsible for giving us a sense of what body parts belong to us. The results may propose that this is less active in transgendered people.
    What I'm saying is that, studies have failed, thus far, to find a conclusive correlation between "transgender identity" and "brain structure (of the opposite sex)". Because, for one, one would expect that transgender brains be identical to those of the opposite sex, if transgender identity is rooted in physiological differences =P

    I invite you (yzb, Helz, aamirus) to share some studies on the brain structure of transgender people, because the ones I found weren't terribly amazing.
    Last edited by Ganelon; November 7th, 2018 at 03:01 AM. Reason: Grammar
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.

  13. #13

    Re: Trap discussion

    The most noble form of trolling is to transform a troll topic in a legitimately serious thread. Good job, Helz.
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    I wanted to buy a kinder egg in usa. But apparently they arn't sold because they are too dangerous.
    So I bought two assault rifles instead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    Imagine this convo going down in real life
    “Alright Enzo come shoot my house up tonight, someone else will be there. I think. Most likely.”

  14. #14

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Magoroth View Post
    I've been going over studies for some time, and I can't quite tell, judging by the studies, if there is an actual biological basis in "identifying" as the opposite gender. The study I read basically said that some brain structures were different from cisgender people of the same sex, and more similar to those of the opposite sex, whilst other structures were similar to that of the same sex - and, if I'm not mistaken, that there is a certain area of the brain in transmen (WtM) responsible for..., actually, here's the bit that says that:
    Laura found that the trans men had lessened activity in a region of the brain called the supramarginal gyrus. This is an area in the brain which is responsible for giving us a sense of what body parts belong to us. The results may propose that this is less active in transgendered people.
    What I'm saying is that, studies have failed, thus far, to find a conclusive correlation between "transgender identity" and "brain structure (of the opposite sex)". Because, for one, one would expect that transgender brains be identical to those of the opposite sex, if transgender identity is rooted in physiological differences =P

    I invite you (yzb, Helz, aamirus) to share some studies on the brain structure of transgender people, because the ones I found weren't terribly amazing.
    I think this can have a kind of simple BIOLOGICAL response. Generally speaking, female humans have two X chromosomes while males have 1 X and 1 Y. But there exists plenty of people that do not actually fall into either of those groups.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_...some_disorders

    Admittedly, we generally consider people with these biological traits to have some kind of “disorder”. Still, the point is that there exist humans who, for example, have both a penis and a vagina: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

    I guess my point is, regarding what you said, that even ignoring somebody who is “physically a male but is female in their head” or vice versa, there exist people who are just literally not male or female physically anyway, so trying to pretend that everyone fits into those 2 sexes and that everyone should therefore be one of those 2 genders is just false.
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  15. #15

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I would first like to say that I made this a serious discussion and took a stance simply to make the conversation in this thread fit the section it is in. My motivations for doing so don't matter but I did hint to that fact here

    That said. I dont really see your argument. How can you say that a biological classification is valid in one situation but not the other? Lets use your exact situation to examine the connotations..

    Suppose only 10 entities are alive. 9 are human but you are a a dolphin. You embrace everything that is to be a dolphin from eating fish to sexually assaulting women who swim with you. Then one day you are magically turned into a human. If we take the classic view of species, you are literally now a human. But you will still feel like a dolphin. If everyone says and agrees "no, actually, that pretty much makes you a human, regardless of how you feel"... Well then you essentially are a human. Ultimately, it's all well and good to feel like a dolphin in your head. But society created and ultimately owns the label of human and dolphin. If society doesn't recognize you as a dolphin then, ultimately, you aren't.

    Using your own words I think you get what I am saying here. My counter to your contention is that it makes no sense to argue it as acceptable on one genetic level and not on another. I am not saying that its wrong to be able to genetically identify as whatever you feel you are. What I am saying is that it has opened a door where we must define how far it can be taken. Where do we draw the line and how do we deal with the implications of that decision?

    What if I was going to jail and decided that female prison would be more fun than male prison? I could be a super alpha male with a dick but declare myself as a pre-op lesbian female and ask to be placed in a female prison. Nobody else would know how I feel in my head and I could argue that society is fucked up for not recognizing my gender identity if they refused me this situation that I took from a predatory stance. How far do we take this line of thinking? If I can gender identify as whatever I want why not racially identify? Why not species or age identify? Why do we have classifications at all if we choose that what we decide we are matters more than what we actually are?

    We are entering a world that opens some dangerous doors and people who exploit it I consider to be an asshole. I believe its something we have to consider as a society. There is no ethical way to sort the predatory exploiter from the genuine person when the 'proof' of their situation is how they claim to feel. And I will be greatly disgusted with society if a pedophile is let loose because he 'age identifys' as the age necessary to justify his actions.


    This entire argument is a 'slippery slope' fallacy but it is also totally sound and represents the basic question "Where do we draw the line?" and "How can we justify the line being drawn there?"
    The thing you’re missing in this whole argument is the difference between taking the society we currently live in and say - adding a new category for sex that is “Dolphin” ...versus talking about a futuristic society where you can completely forget about “male” “female” or “dolphin”.

    Look think about it this way - in an equal society, besides finding an appropriate “mate” what is the actual point of labels like male and female? If everyone is treated equal, then outside of dating, what does it matter if somebody has a vagina, a penis, or both? It really doesn’t right? Again you have to suspend disbelief here and pretend you’re in a future where nobody gives a shit what parts you were born with outside of dating.

    Instead of he and she there’d probably just be a single way to describe a person. Instead of “we need to hire x women and y men in order to keep a good diversity portfolio” it would just be “we need to hire z humans”. Instead of “women are good at teaching and men are good at manual labor” it could be “people who have the skills to be good at teaching are good at teaching and people with stronger physical attributes can be good at manual labor”.


    The point is, you can go on and on and redefine everything we think today - which is heavily predicated on stereotypes and identities - and instead just focus on the individual thoughts and skills of an individual person to determine whether or not they would be a good fit for a certain task. In a “utopian” future society you simply don’t CARE whether I want to call myself a female or a dolphin - you care whether I would be a good fit for a certain task.



    Now, of course the issue with this line of thinking is - how do we ever get to such a society when we are all so used to our current situation? The conservative viewpoint will say - hey these guys are trying to use cheap tactics like “affirmative action” not to make things equal but to screw us over! The liberal viewpoint will say - hey x group has been “opressed” for so long that we need to make reparations now that we’re actually recognizing them... therefore we should overvalue their skills to compensate for the short stick they drew!

    Of course, this locks us into the eternal political duel that we are in right now today and neither party is helping us move forward as a society. Instead, they prey on our differences in order to garner the votes. I think when we finally do make massive cultural leaps forward will only be when the 2 party system can finally be defeated, such that our politics can start to properly represent a freeish market economy (a system where instead of being forced to vote for the 1 of 2 candidates that is closest to your “side”, you can actually vote for the candidate who most closely reflects your own ideals without feeling like you’re “wasting your vote”).
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  16. #16

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    I think this can have a kind of simple BIOLOGICAL response. Generally speaking, female humans have two X chromosomes while males have 1 X and 1 Y. But there exists plenty of people that do not actually fall into either of those groups.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_...some_disorders

    Admittedly, we generally consider people with these biological traits to have some kind of “disorder”. Still, the point is that there exist humans who, for example, have both a penis and a vagina: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

    I guess my point is, regarding what you said, that even ignoring somebody who is “physically a male but is female in their head” or vice versa, there exist people who are just literally not male or female physically anyway, so trying to pretend that everyone fits into those 2 sexes and that everyone should therefore be one of those 2 genders is just false.
    But most intersex people do possess very clearly identifying sexual characteristics; for instance, pseudo-hermaphrodites are outwardly indistinguishable from their apparent sex, with the notable exception that XY females possess underdeveloped male gonads (so underdeveloped that they aren't even "outside of the body", in fact), and that neither of them are fertile (females are basically pure oestrogen, whilst males are practically pure testosterone); there are few cases of true chimærism (used in the sense of "people who possess sexual characteristics of both genders, and who cannot be clearly identified as either"; and even in those cases, people tend to "assume" the identity of a certain gender. These people are the exception, not the norm. And most can't procreate either.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.

  17. #17

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    The thing you’re missing in this whole argument is the difference between taking the society we currently live in and say - adding a new category for sex that is “Dolphin” ...versus talking about a futuristic society where you can completely forget about “male” “female” or “dolphin”.

    Look think about it this way - in an equal society, besides finding an appropriate “mate” what is the actual point of labels like male and female? If everyone is treated equal, then outside of dating, what does it matter if somebody has a vagina, a penis, or both? It really doesn’t right? Again you have to suspend disbelief here and pretend you’re in a future where nobody gives a shit what parts you were born with outside of dating.

    Instead of he and she there’d probably just be a single way to describe a person. Instead of “we need to hire x women and y men in order to keep a good diversity portfolio” it would just be “we need to hire z humans”. Instead of “women are good at teaching and men are good at manual labor” it could be “people who have the skills to be good at teaching are good at teaching and people with stronger physical attributes can be good at manual labor”.


    The point is, you can go on and on and redefine everything we think today - which is heavily predicated on stereotypes and identities - and instead just focus on the individual thoughts and skills of an individual person to determine whether or not they would be a good fit for a certain task. In a “utopian” future society you simply don’t CARE whether I want to call myself a female or a dolphin - you care whether I would be a good fit for a certain task.



    Now, of course the issue with this line of thinking is - how do we ever get to such a society when we are all so used to our current situation? The conservative viewpoint will say - hey these guys are trying to use cheap tactics like “affirmative action” not to make things equal but to screw us over! The liberal viewpoint will say - hey x group has been “opressed” for so long that we need to make reparations now that we’re actually recognizing them... therefore we should overvalue their skills to compensate for the short stick they drew!

    Of course, this locks us into the eternal political duel that we are in right now today and neither party is helping us move forward as a society. Instead, they prey on our differences in order to garner the votes. I think when we finally do make massive cultural leaps forward will only be when the 2 party system can finally be defeated, such that our politics can start to properly represent a freeish market economy (a system where instead of being forced to vote for the 1 of 2 candidates that is closest to your “side”, you can actually vote for the candidate who most closely reflects your own ideals without feeling like you’re “wasting your vote”).
    Ya a big part of the debate is significantly rooted in "identity politics". Very true.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.

  18. #18

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    The thing you’re missing in this whole argument is the difference between taking the society we currently live in and say - adding a new category for sex that is “Dolphin” ...versus talking about a futuristic society where you can completely forget about “male” “female” or “dolphin”.

    Look think about it this way - in an equal society, besides finding an appropriate “mate” what is the actual point of labels like male and female? If everyone is treated equal, then outside of dating, what does it matter if somebody has a vagina, a penis, or both? It really doesn’t right? Again you have to suspend disbelief here and pretend you’re in a future where nobody gives a shit what parts you were born with outside of dating.

    Instead of he and she there’d probably just be a single way to describe a person. Instead of “we need to hire x women and y men in order to keep a good diversity portfolio” it would just be “we need to hire z humans”. Instead of “women are good at teaching and men are good at manual labor” it could be “people who have the skills to be good at teaching are good at teaching and people with stronger physical attributes can be good at manual labor”.


    The point is, you can go on and on and redefine everything we think today - which is heavily predicated on stereotypes and identities - and instead just focus on the individual thoughts and skills of an individual person to determine whether or not they would be a good fit for a certain task. In a “utopian” future society you simply don’t CARE whether I want to call myself a female or a dolphin - you care whether I would be a good fit for a certain task.



    Now, of course the issue with this line of thinking is - how do we ever get to such a society when we are all so used to our current situation? The conservative viewpoint will say - hey these guys are trying to use cheap tactics like “affirmative action” not to make things equal but to screw us over! The liberal viewpoint will say - hey x group has been “opressed” for so long that we need to make reparations now that we’re actually recognizing them... therefore we should overvalue their skills to compensate for the short stick they drew!

    Of course, this locks us into the eternal political duel that we are in right now today and neither party is helping us move forward as a society. Instead, they prey on our differences in order to garner the votes. I think when we finally do make massive cultural leaps forward will only be when the 2 party system can finally be defeated, such that our politics can start to properly represent a freeish market economy (a system where instead of being forced to vote for the 1 of 2 candidates that is closest to your “side”, you can actually vote for the candidate who most closely reflects your own ideals without feeling like you’re “wasting your vote”).
    Yes, but in that case the differences would still exist, even if we pretended they didn't. I really don't think all forms of discrimination are bad (Frostborn is my smurf btw )

    I suppose it is possible to "eradicate" such differences through tremendous social pressure, but that would likely make millions miserable. For instance, in Norway, where some "gender-inclusive" laws have been passed, the ratio of female nurses to male nurses is 20:1.
    Last edited by Ganelon; November 7th, 2018 at 06:15 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.

  19. #19

    Re: Trap discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I would first like to say that I made this a serious discussion and took a stance simply to make the conversation in this thread fit the section it is in. My motivations for doing so don't matter but I did hint to that fact here

    That said. I dont really see your argument. How can you say that a biological classification is valid in one situation but not the other? Lets use your exact situation to examine the connotations..

    Suppose only 10 entities are alive. 9 are human but you are a a dolphin. You embrace everything that is to be a dolphin from eating fish to sexually assaulting women who swim with you. Then one day you are magically turned into a human. If we take the classic view of species, you are literally now a human. But you will still feel like a dolphin. If everyone says and agrees "no, actually, that pretty much makes you a human, regardless of how you feel"... Well then you essentially are a human. Ultimately, it's all well and good to feel like a dolphin in your head. But society created and ultimately owns the label of human and dolphin. If society doesn't recognize you as a dolphin then, ultimately, you aren't.

    Using your own words I think you get what I am saying here. My counter to your contention is that it makes no sense to argue it as acceptable on one genetic level and not on another. I am not saying that its wrong to be able to genetically identify as whatever you feel you are. What I am saying is that it has opened a door where we must define how far it can be taken. Where do we draw the line and how do we deal with the implications of that decision?

    What if I was going to jail and decided that female prison would be more fun than male prison? I could be a super alpha male with a dick but declare myself as a pre-op lesbian female and ask to be placed in a female prison. Nobody else would know how I feel in my head and I could argue that society is fucked up for not recognizing my gender identity if they refused me this situation that I took from a predatory stance. How far do we take this line of thinking? If I can gender identify as whatever I want why not racially identify? Why not species or age identify? Why do we have classifications at all if we choose that what we decide we are matters more than what we actually are?

    We are entering a world that opens some dangerous doors and people who exploit it I consider to be an asshole. I believe its something we have to consider as a society. There is no ethical way to sort the predatory exploiter from the genuine person when the 'proof' of their situation is how they claim to feel. And I will be greatly disgusted with society if a pedophile is let loose because he 'age identifys' as the age necessary to justify his actions.


    This entire argument is a 'slippery slope' fallacy but it is also totally sound and represents the basic question "Where do we draw the line?" and "How can we justify the line being drawn there?"
    I'm vaguely aware we're just having this conversation for the hell of it, and you may not be 100% invested in your stance. It's the same with me tbh.

    Err, by applying the exact same "transformation" scenario to dolphins you greatly complicate an already terrible analogy. Are you maintaining the brain of a dolphin as you transform? Or are you literally just getting morphed into a human with no connection to the aforementioned dolphin? I assume you refer to the former(?), but I don't wanna accidentally strawman your argument and reply to the strawman lol. Anyway, species like dolphin and human are objective, measurable categories like sex. It's not the same as calling yourself a nerd or a man, which is what I was trying to get across.

    Again, there is a clear line drawn here between subjective categories and objective categories. You cannot identify as being a different age for this reason. We have a legal definition of what it means to have the nationality of a certain country, but in some sense even if someone has British citizenship, if they've lived in France their whole life and completely absorbed the culture then they can feasibly identify as "truly French, not truly British", in some sense (even if it holds no legal weight). What makes a French person "truly French" is a social construct, after all.

    I'll grant you that the prison example has more moral ambiguity. You'd probably have to divide the prisons based off sex yet again which is imperfect but the best that can feasibly be done to avoid exploitation, as you said. It's much like if France and Britain had a war and the "basically French" Briitish people in France get persecuted because the system is incapable of perfectly sorting through a subjective category.

    In general, these people are pushing for cultural change moreso than any legal privileges.

  20. #20
    Rachyl
    Guest

    Re: Trap discussion

    The bible says in Genesis 5:2 "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
    So God intended there to be 2 sexes, Male and female. Those are the only two types of sexes that should be allowed, I don't believe in getting body modifications or anything like that to alter your sex, as that is an abomination, and there ARE things that are an abomination to the Lord. Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, those who cause strife. ETC. The whole point of the Gospel is to make you realize that you are a sinner and that you need a savior. Paul the Apostle lays out his gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 1-4.
    How that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the scriptures. Stay away from transvesitites and anyone pretending to be the opposite sex! as they are an abomination to the Lord. And they are not of God! cheers!

 

 

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •