If Mind preceded Matter like Idealism says it does then why do

>>9103876
there are plenty of issues with transgender, particularly ones that arise from the fact that gender is a social construct, but this isn't one of them

>when yu mean to troll idealism but you just fuck up empiricism
>when you probably a materialist too

>>9103881
but those constructs are to some extent determined by phsyicaly induced temperaments

>>9103876
transgender people are pareidolia, just like thefamous "face" on the surface of Mars. It looks like a person but it's pure matter, without any kind of mind or intention.

>>9103876
>transgender people
>exist

>>9103881
My shoes are a social construct, yet they are objectively shoes and will never be socks.

>>9103876
They don't. It's all a fantasy, a psychological disorder, or both.

>>9104406
>they

stop constructing their plurality

>>9104406
Shoes are not a social construct. They are an object.

>>9103886
But since we overcame natural alienation to such a degree that we have swathes of the population spending ther lives on the internet shows we shouldn't care so much about physical constraints as much as conceptual and institutional ones, which deprive us of the potentiality inherent to being

Well, first I don't see the problem. Like, literally: where is the contradiction?

Second, idealists aren't exactly right.

>>9103881
Gender is not a social construct. Social expectations regarding gender exist because gender existed.

Society does not arbitrarily define what masculine values and feminine values are. Millennia of men being men and women being women built expectations.

In other words, the Men and Women came BEFORE the social expectations surrounding their sexes.

Expectations surrounding gender may exist socially, but these are stereotypes, not gender itself.

These gender stereotypes were born over long periods of time, and although they can change, the overall consistency of these views globally suggests they will not change much because they are based on reality. It is likely views on the sexes will change only as the sexes themselves change - which will take place very slowly.

>>9103881
You mean that arise out of the misapprehension that gender is a social construct. Which is more likely: that someone raised as a boy will face being ostracized in order to become a woman just 'cause they feel like it, or that gender identity is inherent and that sometimes your identity doesn't match your sex?

File: 1483154403719.jpg (151KB, 2046x1362px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 2046x1362px

>>9104515
>arise out
He means that transgenders want to have the classical sings of the opposite of their sex, so for women who want to be men, they want to have dick and stop having boobs, because they claim that masculinity is having a dick and not have boobs, a discourse which feminists and other teen leftists despise.
Transgenders are utterly patriarchal.

>>9104545
That's less of a result of an internal need to be as taxonomically close to the gender they're transitioning to than a need look as close to the ideal form of the gender they're transitioning to in order to avoid discrimination and to be accepted both sexually and socially. A trans woman who looks like a woman is going to be much more accepted socially than a trans woman who makes no effort to look like a woman.

>>9104545
>>9104637
Yeah, but as a consequence, a woman who is transitioning to male should identify herself as "penisful", not "man". And a male-to-female trans should state he is "boobful" or "penisless", not "female".

File: 667.png (299KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 500x375px

>>9103876
Trannies are the JUST brendan fraser meme of humans. That alone is interesting in its own right. is there any good transgender literature?

>>9104470
The definition of shoe and sock are social constructs.

Delusions of the mind.

File: fffffffff.jpg (19KB, 370x370px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 370x370px

>>9104884
Also note that men's shoes have the same penis-like shape as socks (which are penetrating objects), whereas women's shoes are just basically an exposed hole.

try hard

>>9104506
I don't think you understand what a social construct is mate.

It's something that only exists in a certain type of culture, and is something completely different in another. It's a meaning we place on something that doesn't really relate to what is actually the case.

Biological sex isn't a construct, but the expectations we have towards people of certain genders are. For example, look at how there's a social construct that men should be tough, and not have strong emotions or be found unable to cope with situations. This is obviously not the case, fucking everyone struggles with stuff and can't cope sometimes, we're communal creatures, yet we've still created a construct in which masculinity is emotionless.

The most likely situation is that there's a combination of the two that influences our behaviour. Are men more likely to act in a certain way than women? Sure, I'd say that even outside a society with strong standards that would be true. However, it's just ignorant to claim that social influences aren't a huge part of why people act certain ways, and in this case it would be the general construct of how men or women should act that influences them. There's nothing biologically that would make a man want to stay quiet about something that's making him absolutely miserable and may eventually drive him to suicide, yet the construct of a man as a stoic figure influences this.


Apologies for poor wording, I'm exhausted and dehydrated, but I think it made sense still. There's a lot of literature out there on social constructionism if you're interested, have a look for yourself.

>>9104884
Well yeah, language is absolutely a social construct, what's your point?

The definition of shoe is not the same as the object itself. The word shoe is not the same thing as an actual shoe, which can exist outside the confines of language. If I call a shoe a Higwat, it's still a shoe, I've just created a different thing to call it. Shoes aren't different things in French anon.

>>9106932
In France I meant to type, sorry.

>>9106928

>There's nothing biologically that would make a man want to stay quiet about something that's making him absolutely miserable and may eventually drive him to suicide

Strong willed, stoic, men make better protectors and providers and thus better mates. Women are more expressive of their emotions because of estrogen, not because of a socially constructed femininity. Gender roles exist in the animal kingdom, and humans aren't really much different than animals when it comes down to it.

>>9106973
>Strong willed, stoic, men make better protectors and providers and thus better mates

Weak reasoning seeing as there's a huge amount of evidence to show that this is directly psychologically damaging. A man who's killed himself is not a good mate.

>Women are more expressive of their emotions because of estrogen

Evidence for this? I understand the impact estrogen has on emotion, but not expressivity of such.

>Gender roles exist in the animal kingdom, and humans aren't really much different than animals when it comes down to it.

False comparison, we aren't animals socially or mentally.

>>9103876
It's called a mental illness.

>>9103876
that's not what idealism states. idealism states that mind precedes the knowledge of matter. depends on what kind of idealist you are i guess, but few of them seriously believed that matter didnt exist at all. it's moreso the belief that our knowledge of everything is shaped by the mind, and thus the mind is granted primacy over matter.

File: 1474529139718.jpg (32KB, 564x275px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 564x275px

>>9107016
>Weak reasoning seeing as there's a huge amount of evidence...

Let's see it

>>9107016

We're very smart primates, but we're still primates. Genetically we're not very different from chimps. Why would we be magically different from every other species of animal on the planet?

Even if "repressing" our emotions is damaging, it's not nearly so damaging as modernity itself. Primitive or traditional, cultures are much healthier both physically and mentally than Western city dwellers. I say we fix that before trying to monkey around with gender roles, no pun intended. Of course we wouldn't have feminism or diversity in that kind of culture but at least we wouldn't have skyrocketing rates of mental illness, drug use, violence, and perversion either.

>>9107381
Evidence that a support network is highly useful in dealing with our issues? I mean, sure, here

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2729718/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921311/
>Numerous studies indicate social support is essential for maintaining physical and psychological health. The harmful consequences of poor social support and the protective effects of good social support in mental illness have been well documented.

You can't have social support while also keeping everything to yourself and hiding your emotions, we're communal creatures, not solitary ones that just live around each other.

>>9107441
>Why would we be magically different from every other species of animal on the planet?

Maybe that we have higher functions? Developed culture? Have many languages and ways of expressing abstract thoughts? Are you seriously arguing humans are no different to chimps, or that one animal having something is proof that we must too?

>it's not nearly so damaging as modernity itself

Evidence for this? Modern culture is by far the healthiest we've ever been, don't try to act like some under developed tribe is better off than us, mental illness has existed in every culture ever, and infections and diseases are much, much more life threatening in less developed cultures than they are here.

>mental illness, drug use, violence, and perversion either.

As I said, mental illness has existed in every culture ever, an increasing rate is easily explained by us actually understanding it better and diagnosing it more, doesn't mean it was around less.

Drug use is just a complete non-issue, people have always used drugs, always will, you can't stop that.

Violence is actually way, way lower than it's been in the past, rates have steadily gone down.

And perversion? What are you even talking about? You get we have less sex than the last generation, right?

Drop the "le wrong generation" shit.

>>9104884
All definitions are social because language is by nature social you goon. If you use social construct to denote anything which can be defined then it literally encompasses everything and therefore has no meaning you retard.

>>9106928

Oh I understand perfectly what it is. It is you who didn't understand my point, mate.

>the social construct that men should be tough

The social expectation that men should be tough is a good example. This notion developed over millennia from widespread observation that men are generally tough, relative to women. This is easily proven, as this particular stereotype exists in all cultures, world wide, and is backed by biological data - such as muscle density, size, the effects of testosterone on the brain, average stress responses in males v. females - the list could go on. Likewise, similar analyses yielding analogous cornucopias of supporting data can be easily produced for the vast majority of objections (if not all of them outright).

>thats obviously not the case...and can't cope sometimes

Social standards and stereotypes, by definition, apply to the mean. You are attempting to use circumstantial variables to negate averages. It doesn't work that way.

Even if this were a trend among modern men, this would only tie into my final point - that these views can change only if the sexes themselves do. However, it is not a trend which is taking place on a biological level, it is taking place as a wind of culture which will pass as circumstances change, as they always do.

The point - the overwhelming majority of social constructions surrounding gender (if not all) are age old derivatives from the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES between the two genders.

Why should our lives be dictated by the bodies we are born in?
What if technology progresses to a point where we could eschew out born bodies and choose a new form. Would doing so be a mental illness?
Not everyone feels as attached to their physical forms as other people do. Transgender people probably view them as malleable.

>>9107887
Y'know what? I'd also like to add this.

"Tough" when applied to men, as in, "Men are generally tough," refers to a specific kind of toughness.

MASCULINE STRENGTH
Toughness, applied to Women, denotes FEMININE STRENGTH.

However, when men and women express their virtues - though there are areas of overlap, as we are all human - they are not analogous.

Women possess strengths which men do not generally posses, and the same is true of men in relation to women.

Similarly, shared virtues express themselves differently depending on whether they are being born of man or of woman. This is not merely a matter of the outward appearance, but a result of the deep interconnected wholeness of the human organism as a complete system.

>>9107887
>such as muscle density, size, the effects of testosterone on the brain, average stress responses in males v. females - the list could go on.

The list could go on with irrelevant data, sure. Testosterone causes emotions to be far more intense, by the way. Stress responses in conflict are not evidence of what's normal emotionally, and neither is fucking muscle density.

Humans are communal creatures, and the huge benefits of strong social networks and support networks are well documented (sources already in the thread). Men are not intended to be different in this somehow, which is shown in the fact that it's bad for both our physical and mental health to try to hide emotions and refuse to admit there's a problem or rely on others to help with it, despite there having been a huge amount of pressure for guys to "Be a man" or "Toughen up and deal with it".

>Social standards and stereotypes, by definition, apply to the mean. You are attempting to use circumstantial variables to negate averages. It doesn't work that way.


If you'd actually address my whole point instead of paraphrasing it to create a different point, and quit using random large words (Circumstantial variables? That's not in any way applicable to what I said, nor does it at all make sense) to try to make yourself seem smarter, you might see it very differently.

Everyone needs to rely on others, men or women. We are communal creatures, and the need for this communal attitude is well documented. As such, it's extremely obvious that men are not best served by hiding these emotions and refusing to rely on a social network, yet this is still what's expected of us as "masculinity", which is seen as a positive. As it's not backed up by any biological data, and in fact is directly contradicted by psychological evidence, it cannot be anything more than an extremely negative social construct expressed in the form of a gender stereotype.

>However, it is not a trend which is taking place on a biological level, it is taking place as a wind of culture which will pass as circumstances change, as they always do.

What are you even trying to argue? Seriously, what is your point? Are you making the argument that it being acceptable for men to have emotions and talk openly about their problems is somehow a negative thing? That they're not meant to do those things on a biological level?

>The point - the overwhelming majority of social constructions surrounding gender (if not all) are age old derivatives from the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES between the two genders.

Are you now arguing that everything we do is because of a biological difference between the genders, and that social influences just flat out aren't there? Are you retarded?

You should focus less on making huge statements and jumping point to point, and more on making an argument that actually makes sense and is easily understood, because I have no fucking idea what your position even is, bar thinking gender roles are biological.

>>9103876
If dick preceeded ass like leftists said, then why does homosexual exist?

Checkmate gaytheists.

>>9107926
Irrelevant data, heh. No, it's not, actually.

Your comment on testosterone, is a good example of why you're missing the point of our discussion. You need to enlarge your perspective before honing in on minutiae - otherwise, it will be a long, arduous process of building your way piece by piece to the perspective I am presenting you (which may take a few minutes, or a day, years, or never happen - depending on what you're actually like)

Testosterone is more intense? In what sense? [rhetorical questions] These things are ambiguous, you see. While testosterone is more intense in one way, estrogen is in others.

As for stress responses in conflict, I am referring to the median stress response for each sex.

This means, we establish first the base line of stress (picture a circle being drawn - this domain is the stress environment). Within this domain, what is the mean response for men and for women? They are, in fact, quite different - in a number of ways.

But by all means, continue believing what you believe as you will.

>address your whole point

That's what I'm saying. I addressed your whole point before your first reply. My second post was nothing more than a reiteration and extrapolation on my first. You cannot seem to see the big picture I'm painting for you, though I've boiled it down to one line for you.

>...is somehow a negative thing

No. Far from it in fact. I only adhered to the example of masculine strength expectations because you provided it, and it is an easy one to use.

>...and that social influences just flat out aren't there?

Again, not at all. Do you know what derivative means? If it is a derivative, then it exists. However, its existence is then contingent upon the existence of a predicate. In this instance, that predicate is biological sex - a physiological phenomenon not limited to genitalia.

What I am saying is there are layers. Your focus is on the currents in the ocean. My focus is on the base formations which have formed those currents in the first place, and which, should they change, can alter those currents ad infinitum.

Sidenote:

Any attempt to make oneself appear more intelligent is destined to fail for every person is precisely as smart as they are.

A person is not actually capable of appearing more intelligent than they are. All the methods of manipulation available to them are only available to precise degree of their capacity.

What actually happens is they are over estimated or underestimated, and it is a fault of the perceiver - born either of naivete, arrogance, or the intrinsic gap between the intelligence of the presenter and audience.

Also, you should know - when you accuse someone of trying to sound intelligent, you have unwittingly associated them with some form of intelligence. It is only by making the association that you can produce the accusation.

>>9108189
Quit the condescending shit mate, you're not anywhere near as smart as you think you are.

>These things are ambiguous, you see. While testosterone is more intense in one way, estrogen is in others.


No, it's not. We can measure this, as low testosterone can result in blunting of emotions, and adding testosterone past the normal range can result in much, much more intense emotions.

Estrogen tends to cause faster moving, less intense emotions.

>This means, we establish first the base line of stress (picture a circle being drawn - this domain is the stress environment). Within this domain, what is the mean response for men and for women? They are, in fact, quite different - in a number of ways.

The baseline of stress? As in how stressed people are day to day? Can you source a study that claims this, particularly one that claims it's a purely biological phenomenon, if it's true?

>My second post was nothing more than a reiteration and extrapolation on my first. You cannot seem to see the big picture I'm painting for you, though I've boiled it down to one line for you.

But you didn't? You just ignored what I said and spent a few thousand words trying to look smart instead of addressing what I said. You flat out made up words to look smarter.

>No. Far from it in fact. I only adhered to the example of masculine strength expectations because you provided it, and it is an easy one to use.

So, if it's a positive thing (which it objectively is as far as health goes, evolutionarily it is a strength), how does that work with your claim that social constructs come from biology? Biologically speaking, this standard is directly a bad thing.

>Your focus is on the currents in the ocean. My focus is on the base formations which have formed those currents in the first place, and which, should they change, can alter those currents ad infinitum.

Purple prose doesn't make you look smarter mate, and you've still not managed to actually address what I'm saying, just talk around it.

>Also, you should know - when you accuse someone of trying to sound intelligent, you have unwittingly associated them with some form of intelligence. It is only by making the association that you can produce the accusation.

No, by accusing you of trying to sound intelligent, I'm flat out saying that you don't sound intelligent, you sound like you're trying way too hard to sound smart, by using unnecessary words in a way that just obscures your point, by making up words, by acting condescending. I'm not associating you with intelligence at all, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do to try to convince yourself I am.


Talk like a normal person, stop trying so fucking hard, actually address the points, don't just go "lol you just don't get it", or don't bother replying, you're pretty much one more unnecessary metaphor off being enlightened by your own intelligence.

>>9108227
I am most likely almost precisely as smart as I think I am - though I may be a bit more or a bit less.

I'm speaking to you as cordially and directly as I may. Either you can handle it, or you cannot. You are not obligated to speak with me, and I am not obliged to accommodate you any further than I already am.

Yes, it is ambiguous. You will certainly not comprehend my argument in any reasonable amount of time if you cannot comprehend even so basic a point.

Your categorizations of the differences between the effects of testosterone and estrogen are spurious and frivolous. I am not asking you to define their effects - if I wished to know specifics, I would consult an expert. This is what I mean by broaden your focus. You need to stop honing in on the particulars and see their connection to the big picture. At the very least, you need to be able to do this to refute my point. Otherwise, you will remain contained within the sphere of my focus, unaware that you are merely examining something within it.

Also, I assure you, I would never profess a point to you as a biological one if it wasn't substantiated. I have no fear of letting anyone know which thoughts are mine and which are data.

There have been studies on male and female responses to stress conducted at Oxford and Cambridge - and I'm sure many other places.

One of the results, present even in very young children, is men prefer to isolate themselves while working through stress while women seek the comfort of a group, for starters.

As a testament to the ambiguous nature of all things, this is not a criticism of men or of women. Merely a statement of fact and a testament to one of our inherent differences. Though it may seem small, even this tendency alone can ripple outwards and manifest itself culturally in many ways. This rippling effect is what I have been attempting to bring to your attention. The social sphere of gender is derived from the intrinsic differences of the sexes. At a certain point, just akin to the effect of currents on an ocean surface, the social dynamics can take on a life of their own. However, they will never be, and never can be, disconnected from the source - the inherent differences of biological sex (which would be represented, in the ocean analogy, by the topology of the sea floor, and the atmospheric conditions which birth specific ocean patterns).

If you truly think I didn't reiterate and extrapolate, then it went entirely over your head, and I'm wasting my time with you.

You don't seem to get it. I'm not trying. If I were I'd speak to you as though writing a thesis. When you spend a large amount of time studying, reading, associating with academics - these things come naturally.

You don't realize that by so vehemently pushing your belief that I'm posturing, you are merely revealing that it is you who would need to try in order to be my equal.

Good luck.

>>9108330
Yeah, okay dude, writing a bunch more purple prose and chucking a few extra insults sure showed me just how smart you are.

By the way, half the words you're using don't make any sense in context. Do you even know what extrapolate means? You can't just put random big words in a sentence and act like it makes you smart dude. Kind of a giveaway that you're trying too hard.

I'm in no way trying to claim I'm a genius, or even particularly smart, but I'm glad I can say I at least write sentences that make sense.

>>9107855
If I punch you and you start bleeding, it's not really blood then?

Only because meaning is constructed interactively (i.e. through subject-object and subject-subject relationships), it does not follow that there is no meaning at all, only that meaning is grounded in the reality of human experience.

Transgender people seek to destroy the category of gendered existence, something which is very much grounded in genetic reality. Men and women do not solely conform to cultural gender identities but they also conform to a combination of cultural and genetic gender identities.

Isn't that the only way they can exist?

>>9108412
Oh, boy. They do make sense buddy. Just not to you.

I've really tried with you, but we're at an impasse it seems.

As I said, good luck.

>>9108427
You analogy fails because it exists, not within an amorphous world of social expectations, but in a concrete, physical reality of direct causal relations.

I am well aware of what ""transgenders"" are trying to do. I have just explained to you why it is an endeavor rooted in fantasy, though you do not know it, and though we did not get to delve as far as we might have if you had known it.

Farewell.

>>9108434
You literally made up words mate, and the other half you seemingly don't understand what they mean.

It's not that what you wrote was too advanced for me, it's that you just chucked in words you thought sounded smart, regardless of if they made sense or not.

>>9108444
Such as? I did not make up a single word. You just need to read more. Ironic, because we're on /lit/.

>>9108573
Circumstantial variables is not a thing, you flat out made that up. I even googled it to make sure, and there was nothing that came up.

You can have circumstantial evidence, or variables, but you can't have a circumstantial variable, it's redundant.

I can go into other examples of shit you said that doesn't make sense if you'd like? Or maybe a bunch of sentences you wrote in an incredibly awkward and stilted way so you could force bigger words into it? The only people who talk that way are retarded fedora sorts that just want to make sure everyone knows how smart they think they are.

If you weren't using so many large words, I'd honestly assume that English wasn't your first language, the way you type is that stilted.

>>9108588
OMG DUDE.

You need to read more, or, if you are reading in earnest, you need to think more critically while you do. I have apparently transcended your ability to manipulate your own language.

Circumstantial variables.

Think about it.

The variables within a specific circumstance.

To put it another way, the elements subject to variation or change within a specific circumstance.

It is literally that simple.

I am not using predefined combinations of words. I do not need to. I understand the meanings of individual words well enough to be able to use them inventively AND accurately.

How can you ever say anything original and intelligent without attaining this level? I am being serious now.

Please, please do go into the other examples. I will be happy to explain them to you.

>>9108626
I also should have specified:

It is not redundant. Redundancy implies repetition, which implies that at least two of the terms or clauses in the sentence were synonyms.

Variables and Circumstances are not synonymous, and therefore, circumstantial variables is not redundant.

>>9108626
>>9108629
Is this serious? Are you being serious with all of this shit? Or have I just fallen for some elaborate ruse?

Do you honestly think that someone who doesn't even know what extrapolate means is somehow ascending my ability to understand language?

You're not an innovator, you're just making up terms and acting smart for it, even if it makes no sense.

You don't even know what redundancy means, and are still acting like your English is somehow superior?

I just can't believe that you're actually this retarded, congrats on actually writing a funny troll instead of just posting bait though.

>>9108643
>ascending

Yes, yes, I do. As the correct word is transcending and ascending and transcending are two very different things.

Your accusations are hollow. I know what each and every word I've used means, each and every metaphor, and analogy.

It is you who is lost, and too proud to admit it and so you attempt to disparage me - not realizing that it is impossible. Anyone who is smarter than you are will see through you as easily as I do.

Which brings us full circle, back to my statement about the futility of attempting to appear more intelligent than you are.

Hahaha. Wow. What a slice of fried gold.

>>9108656
Haha, okay man, you took it a bit far there I think, way too obvious.

In the off chance that you're not trolling, please stop posting, you're legitimately the stupidest person I've had the displeasure of talking to, you type exactly like the enlightened by my own intelligence sorts, and are incapable of admitting that you don't know what half the words you mean, and have made up terms yourself.


Maybe take the shitposting to a board more suited to it though?

Transgenderism is a globalist psyops to make men weaker and reduce birthrate.

>>9103876
Why couldn't there be errors in an idealistic world? Seemingly unsolvable ones, too?

>>9107527
>Modern culture is by far the healthiest we've ever been
Yes yes. The dopamine levels are natural and ideal. Yet he still wishes to kill himself. We have no idea why!
Obesity, lack of architecture and virtues is not health. Porn killed sex, together with feminism.

>>9108673
HAHAHAHAHA. Oh man, you're doomed dude. You're so delusional it is ludicrous. Literally giving me some great laughs though. Keep going. Really.

My linguist roommate [whom you'll no doubt think is fictitious] will love this. Really keep going. If you need another shovel I'll be happy to provide one for you. You seem to be doing a fine job on your own, however.

>>9108673
>doesn't like made up terms
>on /lit
Dude, what the fuck are you doing here? Time to take a deep breath and remember that you're anonymous. It's ok. It's only your pride you are struggling with. You can turn it off and walk away and your life will go on the same.

>>9108701
Obesity is true, but I'd much rather be overweight than die of a horrible infection, or catch a plague, wouldn't you? You can easily change obesity, it's a choice you can make. You can't do anything if you get a nasty disease without modern medicine except wait and hope you don't die.

Suicide's always been a thing as well, as has mental illness, we can track that back about as far as medicine goes under different names. There's more recognised mental illness because we just understand mental illness better, which means that we can as such treat it better. People have always killed themselves though.

Sex isn't dead at all, we're just having less of it than the last generation did. You shouldn't project your own issues onto others like that.


>>9108704
You got me.

>>9108330
Not the anon you're responding to, but gotta be honest, you sound like a douche.

>>9104545
This image is the worst thing I have ever seen.

>>9104875
You say this in every tranny thread. And I'm working on it.

t. tranny

(In the meantime maybe The Book of Dolores by William T Vollmann, even though it's in no way good; it's just it's not quite plebby, either.)

>>9103876
they don't

>>9108792
How do you reconcile visiting this board with being a transexual, honestly. It seems absolutely bizzare to me. I understand how other boards would attract your crowd but I don't see how /lit/ is compatible with your choices in life at all?

Have you tried therapy

>>9108821
I like reading and writing.

And yes - the therapists told me to keep transitioning.

Trannies are proof of the non-existence of free will.

>>9103876

Idealism can be more or less contradictory since it's tough to posit thought as the sole, reliable reality, and advance at the same time the hypothesis of a more transcending reality.

You are now aware that Iran is the second place in the world in number of sex change operations.

>>9109092
I was already aware of that. It's how they punish homosexuality.

File: d45587cd96d8664afe3078a7f8a06e86.jpg (46KB, 480x616px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 480x616px

could someone explain to me why gender-change is still a thing for queers when this lady literally deconstructed gender? why not just be yourself, whatever performativity, without having knives put to your genitals and without taking hormones?

Trannies are crazy perverts.

>>9109116
I like dressing in a way that frightens Muslims.

>>9104875
Mr Vénus is about characters who are certainly trans, written in and set in turn of the century France.

>>9109196
Monsieur isn't abbreviated to 'Mr' in English; it's M or Mssr.

>>9109040
should have gone to a less ideological therapist imo
but each to his own desu
what's your opinion on sartre?

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-16 at 03.05.24.png (70KB, 648x212px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 648x212px

>>9109225
I'm not well-read on Sartre but will say his descriptions of Antoine Roquentin looking into the mirror in Nausea make for a useful adjacency to what happens in dysphoria.

Who knows - maybe Sartre was a repressed tranny and de Beauvoir would get him to be a good underage girl for her.

Honestly, I perceive Sartre as more of a high-ranking politician than an authentic intellectual. His 'revolutionary politics' were official-revolutionary politics, signed and stamped for by his quasi-official party: the wealthy communist intelligentsia. His support for Castro etc. had direct infrastructural benefits for that party, i.e. expansion of resources in terms of gains in financial assets and employees (via comm bureaucrats). So when he talks about creating oneself and accepting one's freedom, I notice, especially in that he feels the need to insist on the existence of slaves' freedom, that he's talking about an onus; fuck you, he's saying, don't tell me you're not free; accept that you're free and use your freedom to... well, he didn't think past that point because he was an intelligent dude born to money; who, like so many of those floppy, post/war-time intellectuals, refused to see how such ludicrous advices as (where I think they reached their ludicrous height) Bertrand Russell's admonishment to each confused young intellectual to 'become a pirate' might not actually be appropriate for everybody - refused to see how, for ordinary people, chaos has a negative value; and ultimately, who not only prioritised amusing himself over fulfilling his obligations as a political leader, but madly persuaded himself (and disastrously, his political colleagues as well) that doing so much was the precise best fulfilment of those obligations. In truth I don't think he understood Nietzsche when he read him, for example, and I think he ended his career in a state of ignorance and confusion, being unsure of what he'd ever said.

>>9105026
Why do women try to make themselves appear taller?

>>9104390
mind if I steal that comparison?

>>9109629
they cannot have dick so they wish they were dicks.
proof : as long as they believe they have dicks (that is, while they identify their clit as a small dick, hence before 7yo), they don't wear high heels.
Freud definitely understood everything.

>>9109773
Dickgirls don't wear heels then, unless it's part of the profession? Interesting.

>>9109629
Filtering out guys shorter than them in heels.

>>9103876
Because transgenderism is caused by ghosts, flawed reincarnation, and spirit possessions you fucking mongrel curmudgeon

>>9109787
Is this that theory that if you were a nazi in a past life you're reincarnated as a tranny, and that this is why there are so many trannies around lately?

>>9109773
What do you mean by identify clit as a small dick, you talking subconscious things that cannot be demonstrably proven? Is the dick a metaphoric representation of male privilege/power/prestige whatever you want to call it in society or are you really being that reductionist? Legitimately curious.

---

Also in general I never understand "gender is a social construct" as a way of a) ending a conversation/dismissing anything (society is inescapable essentially) and b) as an argument against transgender people. If anything I would think it would support them, if it's a social category the boundaries aren't as cut-and-dry as the state of an SRY-gene. Hell, it's even more broad than the state of pre-birth hormone concentrations/proportions.

>>9109629
epiphyseal plates close faster in people with higher+earlier amounts of estrogen (e.g. average woman) giving shorter stature. It could be argued high heels address this height difference

But also
Heels do more than just make oneself taller. The heels of most women's shoes specifically change one's posture in a way that brings in the waist and brings out ass + breasts.

They're also specifically not the shoe type of a laborer (hard to walk in, other shoes like boots can give height but are still practical) so something similar to long nails is probably going on too

>>9110121
Well Freud explains that little girls spontaneously see their clit as some kind of dick. They're not, like, "oh I have a hole instead of a penis", rather "here's my little penis, I have one too". And so the first genital pleasure of a girl is related to the clit, not the vagina.
Then when the girl realizes her clit is not a penis, and her genital organ is rather a hole, she develops "castration complex" (wtf, why don't I have a dick, I want a dick), and later she finally gets a dick when she finds a man. Or she can find a dick in some other symbols (bearing a baby for instance, for a baby is like a dick - it's something that fills their hole. symbolically speaking of course).

I'm not sure if this is all true, but it doesn't sound stupid to me.It's one of the points feminists hate in Freud - because they assume that he regards clitoridian pleasure as something childish that has to be overcome (whereas he just observes that usually, in order to become sexually mature, girls feel like they 'should' focus on vaginal pleasure instead of clit).

Yeah my issue with it is that dick is seen as the neutral/baseline of reference. It's about the baby being the dick it's about the clit being the dick etc etc. Interesting how it's never about dicks being clits (they are different organs but also one in the same, they develop from the same thing in utero but are warped by hormones). The problem is that it's made into an innate psychological facts about human development when one could actually make a similar argument and change it to be socially-driven (disadvantaged social and/or biological category craving the privileges of another, seeking to emulate it to try to gain access to those privileges or gain access to them by proxy [husband theory]) and more people would actually agree with it and it'd probably have more basis in reality.

This is anecdotal but in my experience thinking your clit was a dick is actually unusual. I actually did think my clit was a dick but only because I did not know what clits where but I knew what dicks were somewhat (I had seen a male baby getting changed) so I was like "oh I have a thing that sticks out.. it must be a type of dick."
Had I seen an externally visible clit and had it explained to me what it was I would have identified it as a clit. It was a deficit in my knowledge and a lack of a word for what I had exactly. I didn’t freak out and develop “penis envy” when I realized it was a clit, even when I thought of it as a dick I still saw it for what it was/saw it for its functions. When I realized it was called a clit, what changed wasn’t the perception of my own genitalia but the the meaning of a word/category.

Not sure how similar this is, but a less "political" example that might be comparable is how different languages map out color space differently. Some, like Japanese (at least before WWII/increasing Western influence) map green and blue together. Others, like Russian, divide light blue and dark blue into two colors that are thought of as basic/fundamental as our difference between light red/purple (pink [there are other languages that divide up what we call pink]) and medium-to-dark red (red).
These labels don't affect the hue value nor do they affect perception much.* If there is no word for orange specifically you can still see orange, you just map it to a different one. If there is no word for clit or you don't know it, that doesn't mean you think it's the exact same as a penis [specific male sex organ/equivalent of clit] even if you think of it as a penis. Penis could very well just be thought of "any genital that sticks out" until one acquires a word like "clit" and changes the definition of penis to exclude clits.
* (they do have a slight impact on memory tasks iirc because of the way they linguistically encode colors. also, where there are color boundaries in their language, there is an increased performance/speed in recognizing minute hue changes compared to speakers of languages without a boundary there)

>>>9110121 (You)
fuck sorry forgot to add in who i was responding to, it's (also sorry for the longass comment lmao) >>9110189

>>9110291
>how different languages map out color space differently
There should be at least some tribe where the same word is used for clit and penis. Or maybe there isn't, but if there is, it's definitely worth studying them to see how language influences "penis envy" etc. (and also castration complex in little boys). A bit like what Malinowski did with the inhabitants of Trobriand island and the absence of "fathers" in their tribe, leading to something else than the usual Oedipus complex.

>I actually did think my clit was a dick but only because I did not know what clits where
I guess it's probably what most girls experience. Honestly I don't know at all if Freud states that "penis envy" is a universal phenomenon or not. But if all parents started explaining things, like, look kid, that's a clit and that's a dick, see ? - then yeah maybe there would be no "penis envy" at all since the female genital would not be seen as a lack-of-something.

I also had the impression that some 20-ish girls regarding themselves as adults, or as 'madame', or as fully mature, tend to favor "getting fucked" (in a plain vaginal way) over "getting their clit played with", as if the idea of genital organ being a hole was fully assumed (which I regret).

>>9110328
>There should be at least some tribe where the same word is used for clit and penis
I actually have some doubts there exists a community with a specific word that applies to both and has /no/ other words to distinguish the two (mostly bc male and female are so salient as concepts even if people say they aren’t, they are found across cultures because the vast majority of the population is divided into [can get pregnant or looks like they can] and [can get someone pregnant]. they could be so salient as concepts that there are some linguistic universals surrounding them.).

Closest you might get is a language where penis comes from a word meaning something sticking out that now only has the meaning of genitalia and one form of the word is feminine and one is masculine. I could be wrong though and there is a better example. Interesting either way, I'll have to look into it sometime.

(In Anglosphere science the term phallus is used somewhat close to this and i have seen phallus defined in a way that was inclusive to both clits and dicks. it is mostly used this way in the context of in-utero development as well as in descriptions of intersex conditions where "phallus" is a gender-neutral subsittute for clit/dick. IDK if it can count tho bc while science is impacted by social factors it still doesn't feel entirely comparable to layman/general cultural usage).

[There are also some universals with color too, if there is only one hue distinction in a language it is always something that maps roughly to our conception of red (no one knows why but I assume it’s because it’s the color of our, and other vertebrates, blood). I have yet to find anything about a language that has only white, black, and green. It is always white, black, and red.]

>I guess it's probably what most girls experience.
Yeah, it might. I just thought it was odd because I have asked many others about it and they thought it was weird/hilarious that I did. (and it's not like my friends are the sort to lie about that to act "modest"/"pure", we have academic interests in things like anthropomorphic rollercoaster porn lol).

>I also had the impression that some 20-ish girls regarding themselves as adults, or as 'madame', or as fully mature, tend to favor "getting fucked" (in a plain vaginal way) over "getting their clit played with", as if the idea of genital organ being a hole was fully assumed (which I regret).

Well, I mean to your credit there are individuals somewhat like this (including some of my friends). Usually it’s either due to clit hypersensitivity or due to feeling like clit stimulation would be too “inconvenient” for their partner.
BTW i’ll have to look into the studies you mentioned, they sound interesting, thanks for sharing

>>9108330
>>9108189
>>9107912
>>9107887
>>9104506

Just wanted to to say I appreciated these posts. The helped solidify some thoughts I've been trying to work through. The ocean metaphor was particularly apt and elucidating. Thank you.

>>9110628
Thank you, for your kindness.

>>9110628
Nice samefag dude.

>>9108777
You're right, I did come off as a douche at times.

That anon got under my skin a bit with all his accusations. Still, there's no excuse.

I'm sorry /lit/, and I'm sorry to that particular anon as well.

>>9110858
It genuinely wasn't me.

This >>9110857 and >>9110875

is me.

>>9110880
Sure it wasn't, just someone who types exactly like you did.

Nice deleted post by the way.

>>9110902
I thought so. That's why I deleted them. They were in poor taste, and on reflection I realized it.

Believe what you want.

>like Idealism says

dropped

>>9110858
>>9110902

Just because you need to look the up the words that others use doesn't mean those others have the same shaky grasp of English that you do.

>>9107016
>to show that this is directly psychologically damaging

So what? This doesn't mean that strong willed, stoic men don't make better protectors and providers.

Just because it is psychologically damaging, doesn't mean it wasn't necessary for human males to be that way in a natural environment where everything was out to kill you.

>>9111050
I didn't need to look up the words mate, you literally made up words or used them in the complete wrong context.

As I said, a circumstantial variable is not a thing, and neither extrapolate or redundancy mean what you think they do. CHucking in some purple prose doesn't make you smart, it makes you a fucking pseud.

>>9111056
What evidence is there for men who refuse to act as communal creatures being better protectors? We're not creatures that live on our own or with just one other person, we've always been based around working with others, and relying others for our survival.

A social standard that encourages men to not rely on others and to instead do stuff that directly damages him and would in the wild greatly reduce his chance of survival makes no sense, and as such the encouragement for men to act that way is absolutely nothing than a social standard.

>>9111095
>What evidence is there for men who refuse to act as communal creatures being better protectors? We're not creatures that live on our own or with just one other person, we've always been based around working with others, and relying others for our survival.

Why is being strong willed, stoic, but potentially aggressive, mutually exclusive with being communal and caring?

The point is that men by and large have been the hunters and the aggressors against predators trying to destroy the tribe.

Granted, this natural baggage might not be suitable for a corporate office in 2017, but it is our natural baggage nonetheless, and trying to socially engineer men to be more like women are seems like a fucking bad idea.

>>9111107

Haha you fell for the men were the hunters meme. New research in primatology has shown that female chimps (who share 99% of our genes) do a significant amount of hunting for their social groups. It's a bit of a fallacy to look at modern "primitives" whose males do the hunting and conclude it must have been that way in the hundreds of thousands of years of prehistory.

>>9111142
This is similar to the "there were female knights and warriors in the Middle Ages" meme.

Yes. There probably are female chimps who sometimes have to go hunt.

But if you think evolution has given the male chimp 3 times more upper body strength than the female without a purpose, you're retarded.

>>9111107
>Why is being strong willed, stoic, but potentially aggressive, mutually exclusive with being communal and caring?

Because in the pursuit of stoicism, men tend to refuse to admit when they have problems, or to show natural emotions.

Think of the whole "Toughen up" thing. Men are directly discouraged from talking about and sharing things they're struggling with in fear of being seen as non-masculine, regardless of how damaging this actually is. They refuse to develop a support network, because by relying on a support network, it's perceived that you aren't strong willed.

These standards are in direct contradiction to the sort of creatures humans are, and we can see this in the negative effects (both mentally and physically) that trying to meet these ridiculous standards brings.

>and trying to socially engineer men to be more like women are seems like a fucking bad idea.

See, this is your issue. I'm arguing against the entirely of our current gender roles (though more for men in this situation, as I believe we've made massive progress towards dismantling the traditional roles women were expected to fulfill), while you're still stuck on the idea that I instead want men to be more like women.

Studies have demonstrated that having strong social networks and being able to rely on others is hugely important for both our physical and mental health (I linked a few in this thread already). I believe that the standard that discourages men from this, and does directly damage them, is completely negative, and doesn't have any real biological reason to exist. It's not becoming more like women, it's acting in the way that is healthiest for them to act.

The same as I don't think women wanting to work and be able to be financially independent is them wanting to be more like men, it's simply them wanting the ability to self actualise, and acceptance of this desire.

>>9111157
I'm not that anon, I'm the guy you were originally talking to, but I think you missed his point.

He's not talking about modern chimps, read this part of his post
>It's a bit of a fallacy to look at modern "primitives" whose males do the hunting and conclude it must have been that way in the hundreds of thousands of years of prehistory.

Your point about male chimps being stronger isn't the best either, you can see the same in lions, yet male lions aren't the primary hunters.

Not saying I agree with him, because I have no idea honestly, but I think you missed the point.

>>9111164
>Men are directly discouraged from talking about and sharing things they're struggling with in fear of being seen as non-masculine, regardless of how damaging this actually is.

While this certainly is true to *some* extent, I don't think it's entirely true.

I am a man myself, and the reason I don't want to talk about my feelings with anyone, is because it doesn't solve the problem that the feeling comes from.

I mean, if you have 50000 dollars in debt and have to pay it in 5 weeks, crying doesn't help you even if the fact that you have debt causes extreme emotional distress.

This is why in psychological tests where men and women are told they will experience painful shocks in the next 30 minutes, men will prefer to sit alone, and women will want a support structure around them.

>while you're still stuck on the idea that I instead want men to be more like women.

Yeah, but what you don't understand is that there are no other categories than "men and women" and you can't just conjure new categories out of the aether or the chaos of the cosmos, or pure actuality, because humans are not blank slates. They are not born infinitely malleable, even though John Locke and Tumblr SJWs share this sentiment.

That said, genetics isn't fate. But it is the hand that you are dealt.

>>9111095
>circumstantial variable is not a thing
>not a thing
>no new ideas or phrases please!

>>9111175
>seeking support doesn't help with debts
Um, yes it does. Perhaps a family or friends can loan money instead of a bank that will charge shitloads of interest.

>This is why in psychological tests where men and women are told they will experience painful shocks in the next 30 minutes, men will prefer to sit alone, and women will want a support structure around them.
This relates way more to attachment style, which is a socially conditioned style of object relations. It's not related to gender so much as early experiences with primary caregivers.

>>9111187
>seeking support doesn't help with debts

That literally has nothing to do what we're talking about though.

A man will ask for help if he is in serious shit in real life, but you shouldn't expect him to weep on your shoulder.

>This relates way more to attachment style

How can you possibly know that?

>>9111168
>It's a bit of a fallacy to look at modern "primitives" whose males do the hunting and conclude it must have been that way in the hundreds of thousands of years of prehistory.

But it isn't a fallacy to assume that everyone pre-private property lived in a genderless utopia, where there were no differences between men and women at all?

Please. Humans are primates. We are differentiated between male and female. We live in a dominance-hierarchy. Social status matters.

These things will never change.

File: IMG_0832.jpg (2MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1936px

i got one

if girls are made of sugar and spice and boys are made of snails and puppy dog tails then trannies would be made of chicken nugget???

>>9111199
>That literally has nothing to do what we're talking about though.
>A man will ask for help if he is in serious shit in real life, but you shouldn't expect him to weep on your shoulder.
You're talking out your ass. Displaying emotion is a form of communication, not a bi product of personal experiences. We have never not been social creatures.

>How can you possibly know that?
Decades of experiments in monkeys, human infants and human adults. Look up Harlow, Bowlby, and Ainsworth's research.

>>9111205

Please show me where I assumed that.

>>9111226
>Displaying emotion is a form of communication, not a bi product of personal experiences. We have never not been social creatures.

I didn't say that either. Most normal psychologically stable men will show emotions to people they know and trust, just like women do.

I don't get why it has to be culturally normalized and should be necessary for men and boys to show emotions where they shouldn't shown anyway.

>>9111231
I just assumed that since you deny that there is any biological basis for any form of social organization among primates that you were a Marxist who had read Engels' book on the origin of family structures.

>>9111175
>I mean, if you have 50000 dollars in debt and have to pay it in 5 weeks, crying doesn't help you even if the fact that you have debt causes extreme emotional distress.


It might not solve the problem, but it will absolutely help with the emotional distress.

I don't see where I said anything about crying though. I mean talking about the problems you have, seeking support and help so that you can tackle them effectively.

>This is why in psychological tests where men and women are told they will experience painful shocks in the next 30 minutes, men will prefer to sit alone, and women will want a support structure around them.


You realise that's easily attributed to exactly what I'm talking about, right?

>Yeah, but what you don't understand is that there are no other categories than "men and women"

As far as biological sex goes, yes, absolutely. As far as people go? No, you're 100% wrong. People are a hell of a lot more than just their gender, which is why I'm not the same as you, or another anon in this thread, or any other guy. There is guaranteed to be women extremely similar to us, however, what with there being billions of them.

Ignoring that you can absolutely create new categories, and that creating new categories is exactly how we got the ones we have now, I'm not even talking about that. I'm arguing against the current expectation to fit roles that have a measurable negative effect on people.

>>9111176
It's not a term, you can't just make up terms and expect it to make sense.

>>9111243
Are you seriously saying that it's just as acceptable for men to show emotions and to seek assistance from others as it is for women?

Come off it.

>>9111243
This response is not so much to you personally, just a jumping off point aimed at many people in the thread.

>I don't get why it has to be culturally normalized and should be necessary for men and boys to show emotions where they shouldn't shown anyway.
To me, you seem to be looking at culture like it's a static thing. Unless you are willing to become a hermit, you can't escape the impact of culture, just as much as you can't escape the impact of biology.

There's nothing necessary at all, it's just what we choose to create and encourage - a fucking free for all. That is what is at the core of the transgender movement. You have the right to reject and create whatever culture you want, but it seems ignorant to just plead that culture is finished piece of work fully decided by biology. Rather than say that culture is not to blame at all, put your money where your mouth is and simply state what culture you want. Don't hide behind and biological half-picture because it seems to take you off the hook.

>>9111252
>People are a hell of a lot more than just their gender

I didn't say they weren't either. But males and females exist for a reason, and if there wasn't any reason, humans would be a species that reproduced non-sexually and there wouldn't be any men and women.

Every single species on this planet that has male and female sexes, has *determined* behavior based on those sexes.

If you think this doesn't apply to human males and females, you're a delusional social constructivist, and probably a leftist ideologue.

>>9111252
>can't make up terms and expect it to make sense
I am a third party saying it DOES make sense. Where the fuck do you think new terminologies and language comes from? You absolutely can do that. Again, what the fuck are you doing on /lit of all places if you don't enjoy novel and appropriate use of language?

>>9111261
>To me, you seem to be looking at culture like it's a static thing.

No, I absolutely don't. Culture is by no means static.

But human males, and human females are static. And human females will never become Spartan warriors, and human males will never become 18th century wet-nurses.

>>9111277
Given the cultural shifts happening right now, and the developments in biological intervention - what makes you so sure of that? Why are you so confident that gender as we know it will not become radically different to the point of unrecognisability? A conceptual framework untied from ones original biology? If parents can choose the sex of their child, and then that child can choose their sex with more and more ease and less health complications... honestly why are you so convinced of the fixed nature of these phenomena?

>>9111288
First of all, because I think the people who tamper with these things have *zero* idea what they're doing.

Secondly, I don't like the idea that humanity will die, and something post-human will take it's place, and nobody will ever know what was lost.

>>9111249

I never denied that, ever. I simply think there's a shit load of evidence that culture has a reciprocal causal relationship with biology.

I also think the supposition that men did most of the hunting in most societies in most periods of human evolution is possible but not proven enough to found an argument that biology is the primary causal factor of the gendered division of labour on it.

I forgot to mention that the female chimps also made spears to kill bushbabies, and did so to provide food for their social group.

Why do you think the myth of Amazons exist? You think there's has never been a female warrior caste? Myths, while not literal truth, often preserve disappeared aspects of our collective history. Once you learn the incredible flexibility and variability of human behaviour across time and space, it seems incredibly parochial to make the claims you're making.

>>9111293
My claims might seem parochial.

But your claims need to explain why men or women even exist, if there was no biological reason for them to exist.

If some rudimentary form of division of labor, or elaborate defense against predators wasn't selected for by natural selection, then there's literally no reason why we are a sexed species in the first place.

>>9111291
>First of all, because I think the people who tamper with these things have *zero* idea what they're doing.
I would bet they have a better idea than you about their limits and possibilities. Look how far we've come.

>Secondly, I don't like the idea that humanity will die, and something post-human will take it's place, and nobody will ever know what was lost.
There we go. I tend to agree with this, but notice this is our values about what you WANT culture to be. This has nothing to do with the limitations of biological determinism, this is purely about what you think is important to preserve. The issue is that other people (not me) disagree with what culture should be in this domain.

This is not a scientific debate about the constraints of our biological past, this is an ideological debate about what we want from the future. And the frightening fact is that people don't all want the same thing.

>>9111265
Male and female exist for reproductive purposes, lets not try to say that biological gender has some greater meaning than that, because there's just not the evidence to support that, and the fact that genders have completely different roles in animals makes it an impossible discussion.

Would you argue that men are actually meant to carry children because some animals have the men carry the pregnancy? We aren't other animals, and you can't use what's normal for a completely different species as evidence of what's normal for us.

>you're a delusional social constructivist, and probably a leftist ideologue.

I've been arguing for social constructivism literally in every post I've made, and it took you this long to get that's what I've been saying? I believe that expectations to fit certain cultural norms is highly damaging to both genders, which I've backed up with studies. You've outright admitted that the standards I've brought up are accurate to the expectations of society. I don't see what point you're trying to argue, that despite these things being damaging, going against the way the human mind works (as a communal creature), we're still evolutionarily meant to be them?

And lets leave the /pol/ shit out of this, shall we?

>>9111267
What meaning does it have then? Circumstantial variables are not an accepted scientific term, you can't make up new terminology just on the spot and then call people dumb for not knowing the words.

>>9111277
What you're saying makes no sense. Human males and human females today are massively different in what's acceptable to what was acceptable a few hundred years ago.

And you get there are women who are professional fighters, and men who work in care based roles, right?

mods

>>9111307
well said g

>>9111308
>What meaning does it have then?
I think you'll find that the anon articulately explained the meaning, which was exactly as I understood it before seeing the explanation.

>Circumstantial variables are not an accepted scientific term, you can't make up new terminology just on the spot and then call people dumb for not knowing the words.
No matter how dumb you might be for not immediately understanding the term, you are coming across as WAY more dumb for arguing about not being able to use language like that. Have you even read any scientific articles? They make up terns all the time. This is not arbitrary, because they go through a peer review editing process so that it is acknowledged that novel terms have a meaning that can be understood by the intended audience (just like I'm doing here by backing up the other poster). Honestly, you are simply digging your heels in here for no reason. We've all been wrong before. Just accept it and move on.

>>9111308
>Human males and human females today are massively different in what's acceptable to what was acceptable a few hundred years ago.

What's this supposed to prove exactly? Just because something is more acceptable, doesn't mean more people axiomatically do it.

My country Norway has been on the top of every equality measurement for the past 40 years, and has done everything in it's socially constructivist power to make males and females equal.

And yet there's 20 male engineers for every female, and 20 female nurses for every male one.

So much for your theories. If 40 years didn't do it, what will exactly?

>>9111335
Yeah, okay dude, your made up terms are totally real words, and language has no purpose for existing at all.

We should all just make up words whenever we want to talk about stuff.

>>9111336
Are you seriously arguing that there's been no change in acceptable gender roles in the last 40 years?

And I find it hard to believe that nursing is that dominated by women in your country, it's still heavily women in my country, but it's like 1 guy for every four women here, and that's changing over time as nursing becomes a more acceptable job for men to have instead of it being considered weird for someone to be a male nurse.

>>9111357
>And I find it hard to believe that nursing is that dominated by women in your country

I don't care what you find hard to believe, it's the truth.

This trend is even called "The Gender Equality paradox" by the social constructivists themselves, because they cannot fathom that men and women simply are different.

>>9111357
>Yeah, okay dude, your made up terms are totally real words, and language has no purpose for existing at all.
>We should all just make up words whenever we want to talk about stuff.
They weren't my words, I just understood them. But nice strawman. (Just kidding, it was a really bad one).

>>9111359
Doesn't the fact that my country and your country having such a hugely different percentage of men in that field say to you that maybe it's more than just some inherent biological impulse?

I've presented plenty of data for my argument that in the area I'm talking about, men and women aren't that different, and both benefit massively from the same sorts of social support, yet men are discouraged from seeking this due to arbitrary social standards.

I've explained how this is not evolutionarily sound, and how there's no real basis for the claim that it's a purely biological phenomenon, and you've countered with "yeah but obviously men and women are different for some reason so therefore I'm right".

>>9111362
Do you know what a strawman is?

>>9111384
>Doesn't the fact that my country and your country having such a hugely different percentage of men in that field say to you that maybe it's more than just some inherent biological impulse?

No it doesn't. Because in a country like India, which is far less egalitarian, women educate themselves in STEM fields because that's where the jobs are.

But in my country, women are free to choose whatever they want, and what they apparently want, are stereotypical female jobs, that people like you thought women where indoctrinated into in the 20th century.

>>9111384
>do you know what a strawman is
Are you some kind of illiterate bait bot? I think I'm falling for it, but anyway...
It's where you deliberately make out that your opponents position is way more extreme or ridiculous than it actually is, so that you can then argue against the position you made up instead of their actual position. Here's a good example:

If there original position was that language can be used in novel forms as long as there is a shared understanding of its meaning amongst peers, you might strawman it into
>language has no purpose for existing at all
Or
>We should all just make up words whenever we want to talk about stuff.

File: images.jpg (23KB, 349x422px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 349x422px

>>9111404
BAIT BOT COMPROMISED

>>9111095
I already told you that wasn't me, and I didn't make up a single word, lol.

You really are too hilarious.

You've been arguing with someone who isn't me, and you've thought it was me the entire time.

Too rich. That pride of yours provides some top-tier comedy.

>>9111095
You don't understand what stoic means (or hardly anything for that matter).

Stop talking. You aren't educated enough to debate your own point of view.

>>9111142
So present day chimp activity refutes anthropological and archaeologic evidence of our history?

No, it doesn't.

>>9111164
>Because in the pursuit of stoicism, men tend to refuse to admit when they have problems, or to show natural emotions.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Omg, kid. Just stop. Just stop. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, and you're spouting your ignorant speculations as though they are facts. You are what is wrong with America.

>>9111542


Get a life.

>>9111559
Oh, can't handle the obvious truth, eh?

Lol, typical /lit/ pseud.

>>9103876
>why do transgender people exist?
They dont, they just think they do.
>>9103881
If gender is a social construct and males and females are the same, why do """"transgender people"""" need to take hormones? Arent men and women the same anon?

>>9111394
They are in my country too, why would you assume I'm talking about India?

>>9111404
And no, that's not a strawman, a strawman involves actually arguing against a completely false point. I just took your point and applied it to conversations as a whole.

You said that we should just make up words, or rather that it's acceptable to do such. I pointed out that if it was acceptable, we'd all just make up words when we talk.

>>9111519
I already pointed out terms you made up, and words you used in the complete wrong context. I really find it hard to believe that anyone would be retarded enough to honestly encourage making up terms in conversations.

>>9111531
I'm not talking about the fucking philosophy of stoicism, I'm talking about the common usage of the term, and the way people act in the pursuit of that.

Don't call people retarded if you can't even follow a basic fucking conversation.


You should really quit the samefagging though mate, it was obvious when you started complimenting your writing in the exact same style as you wrote it in, and it's obvious now. You've refused to actually discuss the issue, just condescend and insult the opposition, which is the exact same as the people I just replied to have been doing.

>>9111965
>I'm talking about MY stoicism, not philosophy of stoicism, when I say stoicism I mean the common way people act in pursuit of stoicism
Stop making up your own terms.

>>9111965
>thinks using words in a combination is the same thing as making up words
Just how many years of schooling have you not had?

>>9111965

omg I am fucking LAFFING

you're a hoot and a holler and a halfwit holy molé

>>9112014
Are you now arguing that when someone says that a guy is stoic, they legitimately believe he's a classic stoic?

Colloquial usages of terms is not the same as making up new words.

>>9112026
I clarified that what I meant was terms you made up.

Nice job avoiding that you don't know what extrapolate means though, despite you using it repeatedly.

>>9112037
>4chan is all one person

Fucking hell, you in deep boy. Plus you flat out said "make up words", which has not happened once in this thread. You seem to use that synonymously with people saying two words next to each other in a way you have not seen before and therefore, for some reason, cannot begin to deduce the meaning of.

>>9112099
Have you heard the meaning of a clarification? I used the wrong word, and clarified that I meant he made up a term, while using words completely incorrectly.

It's not like he just used terms I hadn't heard before either, he used terms that just didn't exist before he typed it. You can't just make up terms in a scientific context.

Maybe in a peer reviewed setting where you're talking about something that hasn't been defined before and you give an explanation of what the term means you can, but in this context, there was no need, and he did just make that up, and then act condescending when I pointed out that not only was it made up, but it made no sense.

>>9111965
LOL, congratulations, you've got an entire thread in tears of laughter now.

>>9112037
Wasn't me dude, LOL.

>>9112137
I've not replied to a single one of your shitposts on purpose mate, quit trying so hard.

File: 1457536927548.png (620KB, 592x504px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 592x504px

>>9109116
people love to define themselves by saying they are not this or that

>>9112141
Actually you have. I've gotten many (You)s from you.

Also, you've accused a lot of people of being me.

And it's HILARIOUS.

>>9112155
Okay, sure.

Enjoy your (you) I guess.

File: images.jpg (10KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 443x332px

>>9112130
>listen here buster! I'll not have any flim-flammin new two words on my watch. Don't you DARE put them together!

Kek. You are fucking weird bait man.

By the way, do me a favour and go to Google Scholar. Type in the term "circumstantial variables."

>>9112157
Want to see something really funny?

I told my roommate, the linguist I mentioned, about our discussion, and in turn he showed me an academic journal entry dealing with a similar topic. I'll post the excerpt for you.

[Kubota is being fashionable when she speaks of history, culture, and
even reality as nothing more than social and linguistic constructs. She
seems to suggest that what people construct they may deconstruct, and
that if one is dissatisfied with the traditional ways things have been done,
one need only find the magic words to alter the status quo. I take a
different view. I believe culture is not created; it accretes. It builds up
over hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It consists of the traditions,
languages, religions, folkways, customs, and habits of people handed
down over generations. Whereas attitudes may change from year to year,
the fundamental values of a society do not. Changes occur slowly. Like a large body of water, the surface temperature may be affected by the
prevailing winds, but the temperature at deeper levels remains more
stable.]

This is taken from "Comments on Ryuko Kubota's "Japanese Culture Constructed by Discourses: Implications
for Applied Linguistics Research and ELT": Postmodern Applied Linguistics: Problems and
Contradictions"

Although they are speaking about culture and not gender, it is relevant. It's interesting that even his descriptive imagery was similar to mine. Hopefully, this will help to at last understand my meaning.

>>9112288
Lol, thanks. It's nice to have some support. Maybe he'll finally wake up now.

>>9112143
With regards to pic related, that would be fine. All we need is to put all our money that we spend on prolonging the life of old hags like that, and put it into welfare systems to help support all the babies. Problem solved. Impregnating people is fucking hot.

>>9111504
its not bait

>>9107890
To easily change form as a convenience is very different from feeling a debilitating need to do so at great cost, difficulty and risk.

>>9108049
Ass preceded dick. Look up the development of a fetus. Sorry if I'm being anal about this.

>>9108821
dear christ man, trans folk can have hobbies too.

>>9103876
>tfw I will probably never read a heideggerian analysis of transgender