What is a woman?
-
Combination of:
-
People don’t really buy it but don’t want to appear “transphobic”
-
People haven’t thought about it enough to spot the glaring contradictions
-
People have been successfully seduced by the so-called “scientific” justifications of “sex as a spectrum”. Combine this with general ignorance about definitions of sex (biologists base it on gamete size, lay people on chromosomes or gonads or secondary sex characteristics, all of which are more variable - there are XXY and intersex people, but there are no “intermediate” gametes)
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
-
- General confusion about categories, confusing fuzzy boundaries with non-existence of the categories themselves. But this is applied selectively, race and sex don’t exist, yet species and dog breeds and even hills do exist, all of which are subject to the same fuzzy boundary problem.
-
I’ve tried really hard to read the best “scientific” support for trans ideology. Can’t say my search has been exhaustive, but everything I’ve read boils down to one of two things:
-
Intersex people exist, ergo trans ideology.
-
[Arcane but interesting fact about embryology], ergo trans ideology.
Reading these causes many people to fall into categories 4 and 3 above, respectively.
-
-
-
What do you think about what Walsh said?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
And this is why I prefer Walsh's definition vs. the current nonsense...
-
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
What do you think about what Walsh said?
So far very little, though to be fair I haven’t really look into the totality of what Walsh has said on the subject, just skimmed through snippets of PJ Media/Megan Fox’s creation to what Walsh supposedly have said.
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
Not in our current transgender discussion.
Do you feel the same about Walsh’s answer for “what is woman”?
-
Pretty much.
It's a simple, irrefutable answer to an uncomplicated biological question. Anything else is a bizarre social construct superimposed by people desperately seeking acceptance and validation.
Not to mention, being fucked up in the head.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
Good for Matt Walsh, but what the hell was that "writing" supposed to be? "Getta loada mah boi! Yah das RIGHT, das RIGHT!"
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
Your missing part of the point. Consider the platform, the audience and current national zeitgeist.
No amount of context is going to inject any kind of value into what she wrote.
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
Good for Matt Walsh, but what the hell was that "writing" supposed to be? "Getta loada mah boi! Yah das RIGHT, das RIGHT!"
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
Your missing part of the point. Consider the platform, the audience and current national zeitgeist.
No amount of context is going to inject any kind of value into what she wrote.
And now, this has morphed into a discussion of substance over style, which is what I thought when I posted it.
Care to comment now?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Pretty much.
It's a simple, irrefutable answer to an uncomplicated biological question. Anything else is a bizarre social construct superimposed by people desperately seeking acceptance and validation.
Not to mention, being fucked up in the head.
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
It's a simple, irrefutable answer to an uncomplicated biological question. Anything else is a bizarre social construct superimposed by people desperately seeking acceptance and validation.
What is a bitch? A female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.
Next time you use “bitch” for anything else, know that its probably just you desperately seeking acceptance and validation using a bizarre social construct.
-
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
It's a simple, irrefutable answer to an uncomplicated biological question. Anything else is a bizarre social construct superimposed by people desperately seeking acceptance and validation.
What is a bitch? A female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.
Next time you use “bitch” for anything else, know that its probably just you desperately seeking acceptance and validation using a bizarre social construct.
@Axtremus said in What is a woman?:
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
It's a simple, irrefutable answer to an uncomplicated biological question. Anything else is a bizarre social construct superimposed by people desperately seeking acceptance and validation.
What is a bitch? A female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.
Next time you use “bitch” for anything else, know that its probably just you desperately seeking acceptance and validation using a bizarre social construct.
What's scary is that you actually believe you just made a point.
-
@Axtremus said in What is a woman?:
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
It's a simple, irrefutable answer to an uncomplicated biological question. Anything else is a bizarre social construct superimposed by people desperately seeking acceptance and validation.
What is a bitch? A female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.
Next time you use “bitch” for anything else, know that its probably just you desperately seeking acceptance and validation using a bizarre social construct.
What's scary is that you actually believe you just made a point.
@Larry said in What is a woman?:
@Axtremus said in What is a woman?:
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
It's a simple, irrefutable answer to an uncomplicated biological question. Anything else is a bizarre social construct superimposed by people desperately seeking acceptance and validation.
What is a bitch? A female dog, wolf, fox, or otter.
Next time you use “bitch” for anything else, know that its probably just you desperately seeking acceptance and validation using a bizarre social construct.
What's scary is that you actually believe you just made a point.
You, sir, are right.
-
Hey @Larry,
What is a man?
Do you need anything more than “a man is an adult male” to answer that question? -
@Axtremus said in What is a woman?:
Hey @Larry,
What is a man?
Do you need anything more than “a man is an adult male” to answer that question?No. Because I'm not convinced you're a male.
@Larry said in What is a woman?:
@Axtremus said in What is a woman?:
Hey @Larry,
What is a man?
Do you need anything more than “a man is an adult male” to answer that question?No.
”No“ as in you do not need anything more than “a man is an adult male” to answer the question “what is a man,” is that right?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
Good for Matt Walsh, but what the hell was that "writing" supposed to be? "Getta loada mah boi! Yah das RIGHT, das RIGHT!"
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
Your missing part of the point. Consider the platform, the audience and current national zeitgeist.
No amount of context is going to inject any kind of value into what she wrote.
And now, this has morphed into a discussion of substance over style, which is what I thought when I posted it.
Care to comment now?
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
@Jolly said in What is a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in What is a woman?:
Good for Matt Walsh, but what the hell was that "writing" supposed to be? "Getta loada mah boi! Yah das RIGHT, das RIGHT!"
That's literally the emotional equivalent of what her words amounted to. She has nothing to add other than "get a load of Matt Walsh throwing straight fire!", which, what the fuck. This is journalism now?
Your missing part of the point. Consider the platform, the audience and current national zeitgeist.
No amount of context is going to inject any kind of value into what she wrote.
And now, this has morphed into a discussion of substance over style, which is what I thought when I posted it.
Care to comment now?
That's what I'm saying: she has no substance. The guy in the actual interview does.
Moreover this kind of messaging is bad for the rest of us. It creates the impression that "see, lots of people are talking about this issue" when really it's one person promoting someone else's interview. It's masquerading as substance, which is the problem.
