Thread 16819590

Dawkins thread continued from >>16813862

Rare to see a topic so popular on /sci/ so it'd be a shame to just let it die because it hit the bump limit.

>>16819590 (OP)
Ok here’s how I see it. Dawkins is right. I support trans rights but saying gender isn’t binary is political and not correct.
For all of human history. In 99% of all human societies. Gender has been male and female and it’s not a social construct like race. Everyone used to agree there was Male and Female. Maybe intersex but that’s between X and Y chromosomes. Intersex doesn’t come about from a Z chromosome.
That doesn’t mean I’m against trans right. Sure be yourself, but don’t change science.

>>16819590 (OP)
I wasn't in the previous thread but
>What causes people to think sex isn’t binary?
They're anarchists, simple as. First anarchists rebelled against the order of the absolute kings and the pope, when they replaced them with constitutional monarchies and heretical churches then they also rebelled against them and removed religion and monarchy altogether, then they rebelled against belief in God and whatever form of government they had reached, now they're rebelling against nature and reality itself, ultimately to end up rebelling against life by killing themselves.

They don't actually believe what they're saying, they're rebelling against reality by telling you that something false is true, because they need it to be true to them, because nature and reality are wrong, so they must be corrected, until they conclude that life itself is wrong and must be corrected by death.

>>16819649
I don't support "trans rights" as a distinct category of rights. What's the argument for why they're special?

trans people are a hologram meant to hide the truth about the jews, and their love for nigger dick day and night

>>16819649
>Gender has been male and female and it’s not a social construct like race.
It's a social construct precisely like race, retard.

>>16819682
no it isn't

>>16819682
Gender is just cultural foreplay—everything leading up to sex that isn't actually sex. It has no value to society beyond making sex easier and more natural. Gender divorced from sex isn't just dumb and pointless, it actually makes sex worse and less natural.

>>16819658
define reality, glowie

>>16819879
It's the realm where you'll never be a woman.

>>16819893
So the same one where you'll never get a woman?

>>16819907
almost, however there's a non-zero chance that he will get a woman and a 0% chance that trans people are women

I really, truly believe the transsexual movement is the enemy of science.

>>16819687
Yes it is. Stop using words whose meaning you don't understand.

>>16819649
>I support trans rights
There is no right to act like a mentally ill clown in public and be accommodated, troon. You think you're being clever here but keep in mind that everything you post on "anonymous" boards is still being recorded and associated with your real child-raping troon identity. Sooner or later they will prosecute you. :^)

>>16819943
So you're saying trans men (FtM) and trans women (MtF) are both men?

>>16820149
>leftroon trying to logic

>>16820151
I'm just pointing out the direct logical implication of what you yourself said. "Trans people" includes both people born male who want to be women and people born female who want to be men. You said neither are women.

>>16820153
>leftroon mistakes me for another poster
>leftroon still trying to logic

>>16820160
The direct implication of what that other anon said, then.

>>16820170
That's not the actual implication of what he wrote, it's just you trying to """logic""".

>>16820184
What word did I make up? (And you know all words are made up, right?)

>>16820193
>And you know all words are made up, right?
Mask slips again.

>>16820149
>>16820153
>>16820170
i obviously meant M>F

If you want to get into logic though, there's clear pragmatic logic linking 'trans people' not being a 'woman', i.e. which type of trans person isn't a woman? M>F. The implied premise is pretty obvious, you'd have to be playing dumb to not pick up on it

and the reason I said 'trans people' is because I thought "0% chance that trans women are women" sounded a bit repetitive

>>16820193
"trans"
>inb4 it's a latin root

>>16820195
>The implied premise is pretty obvious, you'd have to be playing dumb to not pick up on it
So you're saying it's impossible for me to actually be dumb? Caught you again, chud.

>>16820215
'dumb' is a social construct :)

>>16820223
If construct construct construct construct, who construct construct construct?

>>16819590 (OP)
I’m the Dick to the Dawk to the D-I-C, I’m smarter than you, I got a science degree!

“Imagine going 200+ posts in about something even cavemen understood”

Are we really going to do this again

>>16820254
The trannies are the ones refusing to get it.

Dawkins is the JKR of /sci/

>>16820442
He's a flaccid amoeba who says whatever the Overton window tells him to say.

Trans people exist and you can objectively show that their brains are different with CT scans. The problem isn't the existence of trans people the problem is that they can self-affirm their gender. Before it became trendy to transition, the data showed that less than 2 in 50 people who sought help for gender dysphoria were actually trans and the rest had other underlying issue and their dysphoria could be treated more effectively in a different way. Then self-affirmation became the talking point and the 48 out of 50 started mutilating themselves for no reason.
As far as what Dawkins said it's true but a bit outdated. Gender truly isn't binary and is a spectrum but it's extremely skewed to either male or female and the ones who fall in the middle are rare. Gametes aren't the only way to determine gender.
The problem is that there is no consensus on how gender is supposed to be defined. Trans activists say it's solely based on brain gender. Biologists say there are multiple criteria but the nuance is that 99% of population fits the bill on all of them. But what do you do for the 1%?
It is simultaneously true that many fetishists hijacked the trans movement and that conservatives are vilifying trans people for political gain.
The most annoying thing is that we had a proper system for this - the Other gender. People understood that this is simply an unfortunate thing that happens and let these people live in peace but that ended where parties from both ends of the political spectrum decided to weaponize it.
It's a really complex issue and it's difficult to please everyone and come up with a definition of gender that won't upset anyone. Now that the problem is extremely politicized you can forget about anyone arguing about it in good faith.
For most intents and purposes, yeah there are males and females. It's a fact. But there's a reason why we'd want to rigorously define this in accordance with modern biology. Don't dismiss the topic as stupid or solved science.

>>16820446
>Gender truly isn't binary and is a spectrum
Gender has no value to humanity beyond acting as a dimorphic catalyst for reproductive sex. Whether that dimorphism can or can't be bled out on a gradient (it obviously can, as thousands of years of Western art will attest) doesn't matter at all. It's like saying someone is on the eagle spectrum because they have an aquiline nose or on the cat spectrum because they have a feline aloofness and playfulness. Have fun writing esoterica about it but it has no structural importance to society whatsoever.

>>16820442
KEK based Dawkins

>>16820446
>you can objectively show that their brains are different with CT scans
no you can't, any papers that say so only passed peer review because of the reviewers' irrational subjective political biases

>>16820446
>Trans people exist
We must do everything in our power to fix that problem.

lol…

>>16820446
>Trans people exist
Proof?

>you can objectively show that their brains are different with CT scans
Whose brains are different? Different from what?

>>16820446
>Gender truly isn't binary and is a spectrum
"Gender" doesn't exist at all. Your post is full of claims about imaginary tranny woo that has never been shown to be real. Prove any of it is real before you start making claims about it.

>>16820134
Come and take it. If you are correct, then I am a man, you take me down man to man.

>>16820732
>>16820733
Didn't take much to get you from regular mask slips all the way to showing your hand. :^) Any directly or indirectly pro-gender-ideology posts ITT can now be automatically attributed to your pic and thus dismissed. Either way, the evil nazifascists will soon be coming for you. What are you gonna do about it? Shoot Charlie Kirk?

>>16820752
>Glowie seething because this thread isn't fondling his stupid feelings like the usual Fox news do

>>16820445
I'd love to hear what he really thinks but he knows he can only push so far into politically incorrect territory before his shitty totalitarian government would arrest him.

>>16820733
holy mother of all tranny incels. imagine posting this unironically

>>16820442
complaining about censorship is something that only sissies who lack the power to censor do

>>16819590 (OP)
Why do you or anyone else care about this irrelevant boomer, still?
>but muh trannies
Okay the same generation of supercilious atheist which publicly avowed homosexuals and dykes cries about the slippery slope they built, and now have to deal with. Reap what you sow.

>>16819649
Race is real. I can show you a picture of a random African and a random Chinese, and you will be able to reliably tell me which is which. It's a 'social construct' in the same way that rocks are a 'social construct'. Humans constructed the definition that defines what materials do and don't count as rocks. This does not mean that rocks are imaginary.

>>16821285
>I can show you a picture of a random African and a random Chinese, and you will be able to reliably tell me which is which.
And if I show you a picture of a whale and one of zebra I bet you could easily tell me which one is a fish.

>>16820442
This shit is hilarious. I pity anyone involved, although Dawkins probably enjoys it.

>>16821294
Neither are fish, but an African person is an African person and a Chinese person is a Chinese person, and I'm not talking about geographic location or culture. You're being dishonest if you say you couldn't tell the difference with a high degree of accuracy.

>>16821393
Gender is like sex. I don't get it.

>>16821393
For some reason "Men are XY, women are XX" is no longer sufficient enough for the special snowflake crowd. We have to resort to the gamete argument because these people are retarded.

I don't hate trannies, but "fuck trannies" suffices here.

>>16821694
>"fuck trannies"
please don't, think of your health

>>16821452
Sex is when penis goes in vagina and baby comes out. Gender is the social norms that are supposed to help that happen. Like when a male bird of paradise does a bird dance. That's gender. Sex is after that when the sperm goes in the cloaca and makes an egg. Transing your gender is both antigender and antisex. A really narcissistic, asshole, art-qua-art thing to do, which is why it flourishes again and again throughout history as a coda to periods of discipline, prosperity, and boomering. Hope this helps.

>>16821450
>Neither are fish, but an African person is an African person and a Chinese person is a Chinese person
Anon... I think you got completely filtered by that post.

>>16821694
>For some reason "Men are XY, women are XX" is no longer sufficient enough for the special snowflake crowd.
Losers who are unwilling to accept that their fate is their own responsibility end up hating reality when things go badly for them. Avoiding blame is key when it comes to being irresponsible.

>>16821694
So if someone has XY but is born with a vagina and had no idea they were XY until genetic testing, they're a man?

>>16822207
What does this have to do with trans?

>>16822228
It calls into question "XY = man, XX = woman".

>>16822237
Swyer is a defect, nothing to do with male, female, or "trans."

the tranny meme peaked two years ago and is now on it's way out

>>16822245
Okay, but are they men?

>>16822258
They're asexual in the only proper usage of that word.

>>16822254
Trans people existed before the current social wave and they'll exist after it, there are just fewer non-trans people pretending to be trans.

>>16822259
How do you figure? They still belong to a sexually-reproducing species. (And what word would you use for "not experiencing sexual attraction" if not "asexual"?)

>>16822263
They literally can't sex. No nads. ("not experiencing sexual attraction"? Frigid, e.g.)

>>16822266
So a man who's lost his testes or a woman who's lost her ovaries are asexual?

>>16822268
>grue and bleen
Google this and apply the distinction to your question.

>>16819590 (OP)
Imagine if perfect transitioning was possible. Whenever, wherever. You are a man and you take a pill and turn into a female version of yourself. It is almost like magic. You lose every secondary male characteristic and gain female characteristics including womb and ovaries etc. Similarly a female may do the same and gain functional male genitalia and whatever comes with it.
In short, this pill turns you from XY to XX and vice versa.
Trans people would become obsolete. Thus yes, there are two sexes. It is very simple.
If such a pill existed, these people who call themselves trans would find another word to either victimize themselves or to slap a unique label onto themselves. Like "I have transitioned 100 times, I am a centransitioner." It is all about that. They are just inventing new labels to feel important as they have no skill or anything of value to offer. I am not saying trans people don't have any value. I am saying those who don't are inventing these bullshit terminologies to feel special than the rest.

>>16822207
It means their path of development has been compromised. They’re SUPPOSED to be XY with a penis, not a vagina.

>>16822297
The fact they have that history would still shape their life experiences even if transition tech was much better.
>>16822298
Supposed by whom?

>>16822299
Supposed by nature. Evolution. Fuck off cunt.

>>16822303
Evolution is not a conscious being, it doesn't have intentions.

>>16822305
Nature is an overly sophisticated blind idiot. This is true. But it still has a non-conscious goal/“goal” of propagation. Life is meant to continue. It fills in the gaps and makes do in accordance with the environment.

>>16822297
>I am not saying trans people don't have any value.
What's the value in being trans in and of itself? At best you might be a muse to someone else's artistic gaze but even that's a questionable valuation.

In the end, people (the trans crowd) just don’t like the words you use, and they insist you use the words THEY like/use, because they’re word Nazis. They hate your vocabulary.

>>16822305
It doesn't have intentions in a conscious sense, but the environment absolutely does shape the course of evolution.

>>16819649
>trans rights
No such thing. Everyone has the same rights in an ideal society. There are no separate "classes" of rights (especially not for mentally ill men wearing dresses)

The gay "rights" and trans "rights" and women's "rights" etc are all new rights they invent because they want new privileges. Such as...

Gays have the same rights as everyone else: marry someone of the opposite sex. They don't get to invent a new right to marry someone of the same sex etc.

Mentally ill troon men wearing dresses have the same rights as everyone else: use the bathroom that corresponds to your sex/gender (same thing) assigned at conception. They don't get to invent new rights to use whatever bathroom their perverted feelings desire.

"Women's rights" gets more complicated because 100 years ago they actually didn't have the same rights as men. But that no longer applies. Anyone screeching "womens rights" today is just trying to invent privileges for women, like having their accusations in a courtroom or an HR mediation have more weight than a man's etc.

>a social construct like race
Also wrong. We can easily classify races with DNA and even bone structure. If a construct correlates with observable scientific phenomena to the point it has strong predictive power then it is not a social construct by definition. To steer my wall of text back to the topic: Dawkins of course acknowledges race is real pic related. He's still a faggot though and pretends it doesn't matter.

>>16822767
>Everyone has the same rights in an ideal society.
This is why you will always lose.

>>16822767
>Gays have the same rights as everyone else: marry someone of the opposite sex. They don't get to invent a new right to marry someone of the same sex etc.
Niggers have the same rights as everyone else: picking the cotton if you are black. They don't get to invent a new right, like not picking the cotton if you are black.

>>16822774
Just because you can make an analogy doesn't mean you should.

>>16822776
What's wrong with the analogy? The same rules apply to everyone. That's equality according to the tard's premise.

>>16822777
There's more wrong than there is right. At least brainstorm until you think of one that doesn't confuse choice with force lol.

>>16822779
>There's more wrong than there
Name something wrong with it (besides your having eaten breakfast).

>>16822780
Finish the first sentence and dive into the second.

>>16822783
You mean the one that says you did eat breakfast? You haven't determined the relevance if this.

>>16822786
How would you feel if you were wearing your reading glasses?

>>16822788
I accept your concession. "The right to marry the opposite sex" in the context of faggots is just the lack of a right to marry the person you actually want to marry.

>>16822789
>I accept your concession.
Indian debate syntax.

>thread bumped
>no new replies
A retard caught by the filter.

>>16822791
>Indian reply syntax

>>16822767
>Also wrong. We can easily classify races with DNA and even bone structure
They’re insane anon. They think because you can deconstruct the human body into its base parts its constructed form doesn’t exist. They will say phenotype or ethnicity (even the woke crowd doesn’t know what to use anymore) instead of race as though it makes any difference. It’s still a biological cluster of noticeable differences. They’re playing word games for all the reasons >>16822730 said. They don’t like the words you use. They demand everyone see gender as totally different and distinct from sex, and it’s the same with race and shit.

>>16822817
If you start looking at the actual "biological clusters", you see they don't really map into muh races because what looks like a bunch of niggers to you can be quite distinct populations genetically.

Dawkins has been based his entire career.

>>16822822
>If you start looking at the actual "biological clusters", you see they don't really map into muh races
I’m white. He’s black. Simple as.

>>16822822
>what looks like a bunch of niggers to you can be quite distinct populations genetically.
Are they all from Africa?

>>16822926
>>16822930
Notice how the 90 IQ /pol/trannie immediately reverts from "biological clusters" to "uhh ack-chually, I can SEE it's niggers and they're from heckin' AFRICA".

>>16822943
That’s literally a noticeable biological cluster thobeit

>>16822946
You looped and outed yourself as a nonsentient spambot. Moving on.

>>16822947
It’s not a loop tho

>>16822822
Your blending together argument is like saying “there are 10 year olds whose biological age is 15 and vice verse. There’s so much overlap that age is a social construct.” Yeah but is there any doubt about the average traits of different age groups? Imagine going around saying age is a social construct. It wouldn’t be taken seriously.

Your own post is almost an admission that “race is a social construct” is at best a meaningless phrase and more realistically, a term of propaganda.

The standard American racial categories give you biological information. If I say “a black guy walked by” you know something that translates to biological information.

>>16822952
>blending together argument
Never happened. Obvious hallucination. Another spambot exposes itself.

>>16822957
>a black person is like so radically different from another black person!
Okay.

>>16823003
>broken bot can't figure out if it's arguing against "X" or "not X"

>>16822822
African populations have a lot of genetic diversity, yes, however the evolutionary pathway between black people has similarities because it's in Africa. Each race emerged due to time spent genetically drifting + location. You are right to point out this with Africans though on the same token, but it doesn't fully capture how races arose and hence why they exist

>>16823042
I really don't care about your talking points. Given a large database of unclassified DNA samples from nominally distinct populations around the world (including all kinds of inbred nigger tribes), explain what data analysis you'd use to categorize them, so that only 4 (or however many races you think there are) distinct clusters would naturally emerge.

Hard mode: without appealing to correlates whose choice is justified by pre-scientific racial theory to begin with.

>>16823063
If you mean specifically a snapshot from right now: each distinct African group would be their own race, europeans their own, etc. There would be FAR more distinct clusters than 4

That's a rough way to do it though, because a snapshot necessarily removes history from the analysis. If you went through a phylogenetic approach then you'd like separate black people (africans) from the group which split apart and became the rest of the races. So you'd have the geographically black race, geographically european race, etc. With the black race itself representing substantially more diversity than the rest of them

“It’s not race it’s ethnicity!”
“It’s not ethnicity it’s phenotype!”
“It’s not phenotype it’s.. it’s…”

Liberals are so retarded lol

>>16823101
>There would be FAR more distinct clusters than 4
Ok, then.

>a snapshot necessarily removes history from the analysis
But you don't need "history" to account for inborn differences; you just need the relevant genetic data. To claim otherwise, ironically, would be a genetic fallacy. "History" is relevant if you want to explain how humanity branched out into the existing clusters. What you're trying to do here is trace distinct lineages backwards in time until they (presumably) converge into a smaller number of branches, so that you could map your racial ideology onto that and claim it's science.

In reality, all you need to justify the common man's plight against "racial genocide" is the common-sense, data-driven heuristic that masses of foreigners (especially from other continents) are a net negative for society. But that's just not good enough for crypto-globalists and their useful golems. They need to drive home the point that a Swede and a Frenchman are "racial brothers" who belong in the same pan-European society. i.e. unify all the operative branches of the global oligarchy on the given continent, to make it easier and more efficient for them to lord it over their goycattle.

Listen. Black people are clearly different from white people. That’s a race. I don’t care if you call it something else. You’re just unhappy with the word.

>>16823203
>sociopolitical concept A is clearly different from sociopolitical concept B
Ok. But why lie about "biological clusters" etc.?

>i'm a woman trapped in a man's body
how could someone possibly know that? they've never been female and have no idea what it means or what its like to be female, so how could they possible know they're "a woman trapped in a man's body"?

>>16823220
>biological clusters
That’s a funny -or more accurate- way of saying race.

>>16823136
Yeah you don't need history in a perfect scientific world where everything is solved for you, we don't have that. We have no idea how the genetics works at the level we're trying to parse here, and the relationship these genes have with speciation-style effects which races appear through. It's why white/black is strangely useful because (1) it is a visual indicator of geographic genetic lineage and (2) these indicators arose in the same environment - i.e. European genetic clusters didn't produce the African genetic markers

If you want to dance around with Africa having more genetic diversity, then ok that's a fair stance and you've picked a strong position, but without real knowledge of how genetics works at this level AND if you are ignoring other ways to obtain this information (phylogenetics) then your argument is stuck in an alleyway

>In reality, all you need to justify the common man's plight against "racial genocide" is the common-sense, data-driven heuristic that masses of foreigners (especially from other continents) are a net negative for society. But that's just not good enough for crypto-globalists and their useful golems. They need to drive home the point that a Swede and a Frenchman are "racial brothers" who belong in the same pan-European society. i.e. unify all the operative branches of the global oligarchy on the given continent, to make it easier and more efficient for them to lord it over their goycattle.
I agree with the subtext here that 'race' as a category is not useful in that particular topic, yes. Race science itself is quite crude and low resolution. It's frustrating however that people just deny it exists. Not only does it show up in data but it's in front of everyones eyes and people pretend its not true

Are they black? Are they white? Are they slanty eyed? They’re different races.

>>16822314
You don't think the experience of suffering from transsexualism (which is, in at least some cases, a medical condition) could inspire art?

>>16822767
>Mentally ill troon men wearing dresses have the same rights as everyone else: use the bathroom that corresponds to your sex/gender (same thing) assigned at conception.
What exactly is your working definition of sex/gender for who gets to use which bathroom?

>>16822952
In the American context it translates to biological information because most black people in America are part of a specific ethnic group formed out of the descendants of freedmen, most of whose ancestors are from West Africa. In a global context it translates to much less information.

>>16823254
Because they have a strong and inalterable desire to be female, the suffering associated with which cannot be alleviated except by altering their body to be more like a female one so far as current medical technology allows. (And the tech is only going to get better.)

>>16823525
There's no question that it can and has for thousands of years. It's the best (only) counterexample to my own blanket statement that being trans has no value per se. Presuming a value can be assigned to decadent art.

>>16823544
Why must such art be decadent? A person can't help suffering from a medical condition.

>>16823549
"Falling." It's the part of the cycle that breaks down social and moral conformity. You don't have to take it as a pejorative.

>>16822918
More like a stupid haughty nigger that attracts buffoons like (You)

>>16822305
>>16822309
>>16822742
All three of you are wrong and arrogant. To suppose you know more than nature is cope.

>>16823534
someone who isn't female can't possibly know what its like to be female. women aren't just "a man with tits and a vagina"

>>16823623
I didn't say they know what it's like to be female, I said they desperately want to be female and are incapable by nature of not doing so.

>>16823629
they don't want to be female, how could they want something if they don't even know what it is?
they want to be men with tits and a vagina, which is not what a woman is

>>16823532
It still translates to “this person is from Africa”. The African race. I don’t care how many subgroups there are.

>>16823679
But there's massive genetic diversity within Africa.

>>16823683
And?

>>16823673
Why do you assume they don't want to have a body that's as female as possible? They generally do, if you ask them.

>>16823528
>What exactly is [the] working definition of sex/gender for who gets to use which bathroom?
body utilizing the Y chromosome for the phenotype = use men's bathroom


>>16823534
>Because they have a strong and inalterable desire to be female
Which is a delusion by definition because a male cannot be a female. They should be locked up in a mental institution if they can't accept this. No different than a lunatic thinking he's a spaceship.

>the suffering associated with which cannot be alleviated except by altering their body to be more like a female
That is a lie. Trooning out doesn't fix their mental illness. The alleged "improvements" are not scientifically proven because there has never been a control group in any study, ever.
It's snake oil. Show us a study where 100 men who want to wear dresses are chosen to have their dicks cut off via coin toss and show us which group does better
You can't because it's pseudoscience and conducting a test like that would prove it thus it's never been done.

>>16823728
>body utilizing the Y chromosome for the phenotype
What do you mean by "utilizing for the phenotype"?
>Which is a delusion by definition because a male cannot be a female.
We do not have the technology to change sexes perfectly, but what interventions we have are often able to significantly alleviate distress.
>The alleged "improvements" are not scientifically proven because there has never been a control group in any study, ever.
How exactly is that supposed to work? If you divided up a group of gender dysphoric natal males and gave half of them estrogen and half of them sugar pills, the latter half would notice within a few months that they weren't growing breasts.

>>16823683
So fucking what?

>>16823741
that one would be funnier if anyone under 50 years old had ever even looked in a real paper dictionary once in their entire lives

>>16823732
>What do you mean by "utilizing for the phenotype"?
Not gonna teach you a basic biology lesson
If you're too clueless to understand how the body utilizes the Y chromosome then don't pretend biology does not define gender
>How exactly is that supposed to work?
Not gonna teach you a basic science lesson
If you're too clueless to understand the most ideas of the scientific method then don't pretend you "understand" if some "treatment" is not a placebo
>If you divided up a group of gender dysphoric natal males and gave half of them estrogen and half of them sugar pills, the latter half would notice within a few months that they weren't growing breasts
It obviously would not be a double blind study you idiot (I couldn't have made that more clear), and that's perfectly acceptable when proving something does NOT work, yet they still refuse to perform that kind of study. The fact you think it has to be a bind study proves you fundamentally don't understand this stuff.
>Show us a study where 100 men who want to wear dresses are chosen to have their dicks cut off via coin toss and show us which group does better
>You can't because it's pseudoscience and conducting a test like that would prove it thus it's never been done
And of course you FAILED to provide one as I said.
Thanks for proving my point. No actual scientific study has ever been done to validate your delusional claims that troon lunatic men growing breasts or chopping off their dicks helps them

hence your claim...
>what interventions we have are often able to significantly alleviate distress
....is unfounded snake oil pseudoscience. It's a lie. There is no evidence it helps them alleviate anything. It's a short term placebo effect at best.

>>16823732
>What do you mean by "utilizing for the phenotype"?
Not gonna teach you a basic biology lesson
If you're too clueless to understand how the body utilizes the Y chromosome then don't pretend biology does not define gender
>How exactly is that supposed to work?
Not gonna teach you a basic science lesson
If you're too clueless to understand the most basic ideas of the scientific method then don't pretend you "understand" if some "treatment" is not a placebo
>If you divided up a group of gender dysphoric natal males and gave half of them estrogen and half of them sugar pills, the latter half would notice within a few months that they weren't growing breasts
It obviously would not be a double blind study you idiot (I couldn't have made that more clear), and that's perfectly acceptable when proving something does NOT work, yet they still refuse to perform that kind of study. The fact you think it has to be a blind study proves you fundamentally don't understand this stuff.
>Show us a study where 100 men who want to wear dresses are chosen to have their dicks cut off via coin toss and show us which group does better
>You can't because it's pseudoscience and conducting a test like that would prove it thus it's never been done
And of course you FAILED to provide one as I said.
Thanks for proving my point. No actual scientific study has ever been done to validate your delusional claims that troon lunatic men growing breasts or chopping off their dicks helps them

hence your claim...
>what interventions we have are often able to significantly alleviate distress
....is unfounded snake oil pseudoscience. It's a lie. There is no evidence it helps them alleviate anything. It's a short term placebo effect at best.

>>16823108
/thread

Shut. Up. Dawkins. You old man.

>>16819590 (OP)
There are all kind of gauges in the head. They tell you whether you're alive or dead, and whether you have 4 limbs or none, whether you're male or female. Like in a car, sometimes these gauges get stuck and you think you are dead when you are really alive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard%27s_syndrome
Similarly, people with gender dysphoria likely have a gauge in their head that tells them they are one sex when their body is the other:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/
So Gender Dysphoria is likely neurological not psychological.
So I guess what (((they've))) done is create a new axis by separating gender from sex and saying that there are male women and female men. The sex (male/female) is based on the body and the gender (man/woman) is based on how a person neurologically perceives their gender.
I'm not making a judgement on any of the above but I think we should treat people that have gender dysphoria with kindness as it must be absolutely horrible. I also don't believe arguments like "it doesn't happen anywhere else in the animal kingdom" are fair arguments because the human mind is far more complex.

>>16824623
a woman you will never be

>>16824623
>>16824719
lol

>>16823594
How can an unthinking process know anything?

There are only two sexes and to anyone who isn’t insane this extends to gender — and I don’t care if some exotic bing bong culture in the east invented a third or fourth one

>How science works in the west: establishment wants to prove an ideological point so they
>issue a research grant for research that proves said point, 'scientist' provides study that
>proves the point in exchange for money, and the establishment has a 'scientific study' that
>proves they are right.

How accurate is this assertion made in picrel thread that I found on a different imageboard?

Dawkins is right and faggots can only seethe

>>16825746
41% of them can do more than that

>>16825437
pretty accurate
It neglects to mention that most scientists know this scheme and work on their own material while 'proving' the government their narrative is correct.
>when I say most scientists, i mean all that get funded.
Those that don't understand fail to secure funding and are forced to move into industry where they become wage slaves

Cope. All of you.

>chuds worship the man who promotes atheism and bullshit theories based on shoddy 90s research like OoA
kek

>>16826410
I don’t like atheists much and I still support him on this one. Fuck off.

>>16826289
>>16826410
>Indian reply syntax

>>16826410
>atheism
correct and true, god doesn't exist, grow up
>sex is binary
also correct and true, large gamete small gamete, grow up

>>16824374
>If you're too clueless to understand how the body utilizes the Y chromosome then don't pretend biology does not define gender

Please explain how you believe the body "utilizes" the Y gonosome lmao
kinda ironic how you're actually talking to yourself in your reply

>>16821402
100%. He loves being a smartass (which he is)

>>16826410
Dawkins quit atheism a couple years ago, he is Christian now

>>16826645
>The SRY (Sex-determining Region Y) gene is located on the short arm of the Y chromosome and is the primary gene responsible for initiating male development in humans. It acts as a switch that triggers a cascade of events leading to the formation of testes, which then produce hormones that direct the development of male physical characteristics. Without a functional SRY gene, the default path of female development is followed, even in individuals with XY chromosomes
Your parents wish you were dead

>>16826980
Richard Dawkins is not a Christian; he has recently identified himself as a "cultural Christian" to express his appreciation for Christianity's cultural and ethical significance while still maintaining his atheism. He clarifies that he is not a religious believer, but he finds the Christian ethos, hymns, and carols comforting and would be upset if cultural aspects like churches were lost. His stance is a preference for Christianity over other religions, which he feels is a "fundamentally decent religion".

This isn’t really surprising when what pros can be found in religion aren’t necessarily exclusive to it. The Jews used it to foster better family ties and community values. Christianity made an immensely beautiful time of celebration — Christmas — and you can just as easily argue you’re a Christian for celebrating Christmas just as easily as you can argue you aren’t.

It’s just Art. Even atheists find churches and cathedrals beautiful. That’s true and raw appreciation right there. Faith isn’t necessary to appreciate it.

>>16819688
If cultural values prevent me from sex, why should I uphold those values?

>>16827053
>Richard Dawkins is not a Christian
>he has recently identified himself as a Christian
you trannies always want two mutually exclusive things to both be true

>>16827062
They don't. Gender roles make sex easier, not harder.

>>16827053
Dawkins is a turbo faggot and he's only changing his tune against Christianity, after a lifetime of mocking it and indirectly trying to destroy it, because he realized the Muslims that will replace Christianity are 100x worse. They'd literally kill him for saying "allah does not exist" if they could get away with it. They'd currently try to kill him for drawing a picture of Muhammad for sure.

>>16823136
Your world view is so fucking contradictory and strange lmao. If there is a global mass migration conspiracy by the global elite (there is), then how does it benefit them to stimulate racial consciousness? If true white racial consciousness developed, we would take one look at our birth rates and put an immediate moratorium on ALL immigration to the United States and Europe. I understand the idea that a divided world is theoretically easier to lord over (or maybe it is a unified, no borders, diverse one), but regardless, they wouldn't promote both in the same places. There are exceptions in individuals like Trump but as a whole the global elite supports mass migration.

>>16827080
You can’t do nuance. You’re a faggot or something.

>>16827086
Atheists are always funny.

Christopher Hitchens famously despised religion and especially Muslims but he was like “nooo you can’t build Israel nooo” (and to be fair he’s not wrong that it was retarded to just make your home next to a people who’ve historically hated Jews) as though it’s not worse than the amount of Jews that were kicked out of Muslim lands or how it was purchased fair and square or how sand people have literally everywhere else to go in the Middle East (but the fact that no other Muslim land will take them in is just showing just how insane and unwanted Palestinians are even to other Muslims) but for some reason will piss and shit and scream when Jews come out a bit ahead (Jews also lived in Palestine prior to the establishment of Israel and the word ‘Palestinian’ also referred to Jews for centuries) because Muslims only care when Jews (and white people) do a thing, and the world never cares when Muslims do 100x worse shit to each other. The Muslims who stayed in Israel became Israeli-Muslim.

For some reason atheists don’t want to make Muslims seethe as much as they could. Shouldn’t this be their goal?

>>16827497
>For some reason atheists don’t want to make Muslims seethe as much as they could. Shouldn’t this be their goal?
You’d think. Since Islam hasn’t benefited a single nation in history and is never not scientifically or culturally backward. They are proof that religion can be a counter or a lag to progressive society.

>>16827101
>how does it benefit them to stimulate racial consciousness?
The post you replied to literally just explained it but you're inbred white trash who can't read.

there's two aspects to it, i reckon:
first, the idea of sexuality/gender identity in the first place is a sham. lot of people don't realize that by denying *qualities*, they are inherently accepting and integrating the idea of these identities that enable this shit in the first place.

THIS IS A PURPOSEFUL AND CALCULATED STRATEGY BY MARXISTS. by muddying the waters and confusing definitions, it allows them to purposefully destabilize the culture that was here before.

the second thing is that sexual development is a path-dependent process, and so male/female ends up being a fuzzy category that's more about consistency of a collection traits than any one specific trait. you know, it's a neuron thing. fuzzy categories are often exploited because, by their very nature, they don't have an easy description because there isn't any one trait that marks the category.

>>16827491
you trannies always want two mutually exclusive things to both be true

>>16827044
>Your parents wish you were dead
Yep, they're liberals who hate me btfo'ing trannies in denial with science. You didn't even fully read what you have had to generate with chatgpt, which implies and then illustrates how you actually have no clue about even the basics of biology and are suffering from a massive dunning-kruger delusion

>>16827497
>>16827511
Please end your whole bloodline, Mossad creeps

>>16827973
kys achmed

>>16827902
That you call everyone you disagree with trannies says a lot about you friend

>>16827080
He thinks Christianity is better for society than other religious but he doesn't believe its supernatural claims are true. What contradiction is there in that?

>>16828050
*than other religions, typo

>>16828050
>He thinks Christianity is better for society than other religious
Is that how trannies define """culturally Christian"""?

>>16828055
Or more broadly "was raised with Christian traditions and is shaped by Christianity in cultural outlook but doesn't believe Christianity is true". Again, what contradiction is there?

>>16828055
Do you understand how etiquette and manners work?

>>16828057
Why would someone who rejects Christianity call himself a "cultural Christian"?

>>16828068
Because he still has large Christian cultural influences even though he doesn't believe Christianity is literally true, we've been over this. What would you call someone who goes to the shrine for hatsumoude but doesn't believe the kami actually exist if not a cultural shintoist?

>>16828055
Do you really think all religions are equal, culturally?

>>16828068
Christianity has influenced western society. It just has. Pretending it hasn’t is retarded. There are aspects to Christianity that even atheists can appreciate. Namely scholasticism.

>>16828073
>Because he still has large Christian cultural influences even though he doesn't believe Christianity is literally true
The same is true for most Western atheists as well as quite a few normal Christians. Are they all "cultural Christians"?

>>16828083
Depends. Some may go out of their way to reject Christian cultural influence, while others respect and lean into it even while disbelieving the factual claims of Christianity.

>>16828093
>Depends.
Not according to your own statement. They are all "culturally Christian". If you don't like this logical conclusion, please revise your mouth-breathing explanation of what makes one "culturally Christian".

>>16828083
NTA but yeah if you act on reflex instead of faith, you're a "cultural" Christian or whatever other euphemism you want to use.

>>16828100
Can there not be a greater or lesser extent to which they reject or accept those cultural influences?

>>16828107
>Can there not be a greater or lesser extent to which they reject or accept those cultural influences?
I'm not engaging with this jewish slop. Please revise your obviously wrong statement, or accept its logical consequence.

>>16821294
Rerun that, varying with all animals, and most of the time the preconceived notion of what is or is not a fish will accurately discriminate non fishes from fishes most of the time, sufficient for most requirements to know fish from foe.

>>16822261
Mentally ill people will continue to exist, but it’s less cool to pretend to be mentally ill.

>>16822297
Ah, but such a person would still not be the same as a conventional/real woman: as a conventional woman’s life history is to be born a girl and grow up into womanhood. Whereas this hypothetical magically transfigured man to woman’s life history is once to have been male, then converted to a biologically indistinguishable interpretation of a female version of the original male individual.

This difference might not bother most people, but it exists and would still likely “not be enough” for many transgender people; they’d still be chasing a greater high just like now. An analogy to the difference would be how we wouldn’t consider a 90 year old in a 20 year olds body the same as a conventional 20 year olds body, due to all their experiences etc.

In short trying to transfigure people to the opposite sex to treat their mental illness is futile.

>>16828609
You also got filtered by that post. Why is the "Math & Science" board full of sub-midwits?

>>16828645
Not either of those anons but don't you think it's more likely that the point of that post was so basic as to be recognized and moved on from without comment?

>>16828668
>the point of that post was so basic as to be recognized and moved on from
You're clearly suffering from some kind of delusional condition. Both replies to that post attempted to counter it by essentially reiterating the error it illustrates.

>>16828670
You're clearly not doing any better if you think
>a whale looks like a fish
is some sort of high IQ filter lol

>>16828674
>completely misses and point and gets filtered
You people are seriously below average intelligence. No way around this.

>>16828681
>a whale looks like a fish
>everyone is somehow filtered by this
Aww it's retarded

>>16828687
Whom are you quoting? Did you forget to take your daily dose of prescribed medications?

>>16828690
>daily meds
Real high IQ dialogue tree you got going there, fish boy

>>16828695
Call me back when you stop hallucinating quotes.

>>16828698
>filtered by greentext
>also thinks he's talking on the phone
The hits keep coming

>mentally ill retard gets filtered by basic point
>starts having repeated tantrums about nothing
Nice "science" board.

>>16828701
No, I understand, a whale looks like a fish!!!!!!!

>>16828701
>Indian reply syntax
>>16828703
>Indian gang rape syntax

>>16821294
>And if I show you a picture of a whale and one of zebra I bet you could easily tell me which one is a fish.
This but unironically. To any normal person a whale is just a big fish. The distinctions you're alluding to are only relevant to zoology autists.

>>16821294
You certainly could tell which have evolved based on morphological traits determined by their environments. Similar to how you can tell different races based on their morphological environmental lineage

>>16828707
>>16828714
Sorry to break it to you two low IQ gents but you've both been filtered by the extraordinary insight of that post.

>>16828707
Ok. Well, the word 'fish' used to mean any sea-dwelling creature. If you ever wondered why clams and lobsters are "shellfish", now you know: they live in the sea and they have shells. Under this perfectly reasonable, common-sense definition, a whale doesn't "look like" a fish but simply is a fish. There's nothing objectively wrong with this categorization; it's just not that useful scientifically. Scientific categories aren't about what makes it easier for normies to categorize things but what makes it easier for scientists to organize knowledge with respect to scientific explanations.

>>16828714
>You certainly could tell which have evolved based on morphological traits determined by their environments.
That's just a pseud way to say "you could certainly tell which one belongs in the sea".

>>16828717
care to elaborate?
>>16828720
That's valid too I guess but we don't even need to use 'belong', I was trying to hone in on evolution converging based on the environment, e.g. "we call it a fish because it evolved to live in water", or "we call black people black because they evolved to live in Africa"

>>16828787
>care to elaborate?
No, but I can use the words filtered and medications in a sentence that doesn't actually say anything if you'd like me to.

>>16828791
>No
Why not?

>>16828787
>I was trying to hone in on evolution converging based on the environment
You were trying to make a non-scientific category scientific by using scientific terms alongside it.

>>16828794
You're getting filtered by a filtered retard's attempt at trolling. He's still seething because he thought the post was pointing out that a whale looks like a fish.

>>16828794
Well look at that, I didn't even have to. My ball washer did it for me.

>>16828795
Why do you think convergent evolution is unscientific?
>>16828796
oh lol thanks

>>16828801
>Why do you think convergent evolution is unscientific?
Why do you think I think convergent evolution is unscientific? I was talking about your use of an unscientific category, not about convergent evolution.

>>16828802
Well i'm confused then because the category I was referring to was convergent evolution, can you explain what you think is different with what I said and with convergent evolution?

>>16828809
>the category I was referring to was convergent evolution
Ok. Feel free to continue that conversation with the voices. I was talking about racial categories and other "common sense" classifications of living things. In particular, how having objective criteria for a category so that you could classify things reliably isn't enough to make it scientific.

>>16828811
>how having objective criteria for a category so that you could classify things reliably isn't enough to make it scientific.
That's the basis of science, what alternative method would you have to deem something "real science"?

>>16828813
>That's the basis of science
At most, it's the basis for a potentially useful category.

>what alternative method would you have to deem something "real science"?
At the very least, the criteria should be scientifically relevant in their own right. Looking like a tar-black gorilla nigger is at best a correlate of the actual factors that determine the nature of the beast.

>>16828820
>At the very least, the criteria should be scientifically relevant in their own right
And geographic ancestry is objective & predictive, which is what made my original argument relevant in its own right.
I'm not linking merely just aesthetics of dark skin = African person, I was saying that long-term environmental pressures in Africa produced stable, measurable population structures with things like genetic drift, selection, and other evolutionary mechanisms shaping morphology. This category of analysis is quite easy and fruitful for study. Saying "thats not real science" is itself unscientific if you can't explain why other than because you want to ignore it for some ulterior motive

>>16828833
>geographic ancestry is objective & predictive
"Geographic ancestry" is not a trait of the organism. Try again.

>>16828834
Ancestry is a property of lineage. Or are you going to say evolutionary biology isn't 'real science' too now?

>>16828847
>Ancestry is a property of lineage.
Once again I am reminded that most people are biological token stringers generating meaningless rhetorical slop that makes them "feels" right and take this for an argument.

>>16828849
I can re-explain if you didn't get it,
Lineage = who that specific organisms ancestors were
Ancestry = maps lineage relationship over generations through time

These are objective and measurable metrics. Feel free to point out where i'm wrong substantively when you feel comfortable to do so

>>16828858
See >>16828834

>>16828859
Why do you think lineage isn't objective and measurable?

>>16828864
>why do you think [thing I hallucinated]
There really is no relevant difference between your inbred "white" ancestry and a bunch of dumb shitskins.

>>16828866
Could you show me why you think that what I said is a hallucination?

@16828871
Mentally ill retard.

>>16828872
Why can't you engage with anything? What's wrong?

>>16828875
I was asking you to explain why you think I'm hallucinating something. You know like... justifying statements and stuff? Thinking?
Do you have thoughts?
Or do you just obfuscate with memes and insults because you have none?

>>16828884
>explain why you think I'm hallucinating something.
Because you asked me to explain why I think something I didn't state or imply anywhere, even remotely. Your tendency to post irrelevant word salad also suggests a delusional mental illness.

>>16828872
>>16828875
>Indian reply syntax

>>16828886
You said:
>why do you think [thing I hallucinated]
To me that read as you think I'm imposing a belief onto you, that you don't hold, e.g. hallucinating it
So I asked you to explain why you think that's a hallucination, as denying lineage as objective is what your position has been thus far. If not then please correct me

Similarly too:
>Your tendency to post irrelevant word salad also suggests a delusional mental illness.
This is a declaration, and I know that if I ask you to explain why you think this you never will.
You seem to be very defensive and dislike engaging with actual arguments <--- I can explain why I think this btw if asked

>>16828891
>denying lineage as objective is what your position has been thus far
Since you just keep doubling down on obvious symptoms of your psychotic illness, we can call it a day.

>>16828893
goodbye arbiter of Real Science™

>goodbye arbiter of Real Science™
Another stunning victory for the mentally ill retard.

>>16828902
>Indian reply syntax

Trannies would rather die and throw themselves off the tops of buildings than admit they’re wrong about biology.

Hypothetically, how do you deal with this sort of person who doesn’t WANT to be educated? To learn?

Do you just let them exist in society? But what if they’re legitimately making people a lot dumber and indoctrinating children?

>>16828963
You’d have to throw them into re education camps since there’s no other way. Violence isn’t the answer anymore. You have to let these people have their freedom to express themselves. Quality of freedom of speech is going to be a big fucking problem. Go right ahead and allow people to freely voice their opinions, but don’t be surprised if it makes people retarded. This is why education is so important.

>>16823679
The issue is that the "african race" is paraphiletic. Arguably polyphyletic if you include modern north africans
In contrast, whites and east asians are monophyletic

>>16828972
All life on the planet is monophyletic.

>>16826410
Creationists are the most ignorant and disgusting people on this planet after indians

>>16828978
>t. illiterate american public schooler who doesn't know where the entire Western intellectual tradition comes from

>>16828972
Retard missing the point

>>16828980
Christianity =/= creationism
Believeing in creation in 20XX has to be one of the most willfully ignorant things you can do
Evidence for evolution is everywhere and it's not a difficult topic to understand if you are capable or rubbing two neurons together

>>16828982
meant for
>>16828976
i caller myself retarded, fitting

>>16828986
There is no "point" in race pseudoscience. It's an arbitrary drawing of lines.

>>16828984
>Evidence for evolution is everywhere
Too bad there's an infinite chasm between what you actually believe and the interpretation of this statement that's actually true.

>>16828993
Elaborate.

>>16828976
You know perfectly well what they mean. There is no common ancestor of all Africans and no non-Africans.

Rejecting the existence of God is 100% a gateway drug to rejecting biological essentialism. Richard Dawkins's professed ignorance to the egregore he had a hand in forming in no way absolves him of his responsibility in its creation.

Look into your heart, you know it to be true.

/lit here, wtf is this /v/ tier thread

>>16828990
>arbitrary
lol, cope.

>>16829346
>There is no common ancestor of all Africans and no non-Africans.
There is. All life on the planet is monophyletic.

>>16829497
There is a common ancestor of all Africans, yes. But you're ignoring the "and no non-Africans" part; that is, the most recent common ancestor of all Africans is also the ancestor of some non-Africans.

>>16829345
Everything indicates that life evolves but this doesn't prove your delusional fairytale about random mutations and natural selection being responsible for all forms of life being as they are.

>>16829500
What's the alternative?

>>16829498
>the most recent common ancestor of all Africans is also the ancestor of some non-Africans.
And if you go even further, there is a common ancestor to all Africans and non-Africans. Meanwhile if you look at the the present, you have way more objectively distinct populations than your 4 races. So your racial pseudoscience just picks an arbitrary point between the two that could plausibly match your non-scientific normie classifications.

>>16829503
For one, it's been known for a while that mutations aren't random. There's an intelligent mechanism behind them. How intelligent is still to be determined.

>>16829510
I think you must be confusing me with someone else, I agree that the notion of "four races" is nonsense.

>>16829513
Then I don't know what you were challenging me on. I'm disputing the relevance of this claim:
>whites and east asians are monophyletic
I object to getting lumped together with people who are genetically and culturally distinct from me to the point that their presence is alienating. I especially object to it being done on account of a common ancestor. The people who insist on this have a common ancestor with niggers and are therefore racial brothers to niggers. I'm sure "whites" make sense in a certain cloaca gentium but not in any normal context.

>>16829512
How exactly is such a thing determined?

>>16829527
>How exactly is such a thing determined?
You do statistical analysis and observe that there is structure in the data. Then you figure out what causes the deviations from randomness and observe that they optimize the adaptation process in response to the environment.

>>16828900
Hello Anon. :) I spent some time analyzing your discussion with the Arbiter™.

I believe the highest information-density was when the Arbiter™ said:
> Looking like a tar-black gorilla nigger is at best a correlate of the actual factors that determine the nature of the beast.
This supports that the Arbiter™ models people as consisting of a stupidity gene and a color gene which inherit independently of each other.
Therefore, while knowing the "geographic ancestry" of someone's color gene might give you the ability to make statistically better-than-even guesses as to their stupidity gene, it wouldn't be reliable at avoiding a significant fraction of mistakes as well.

Then working backwards to the Arbiter™'s original intent:
> And if I show you a picture of a whale and one of zebra I bet you could easily tell me which one is a fish.
They were probably emphasizing that despite a whale looking more like a flounder in where it lives (or a dolphin looking more like a shark, if you want to filter out the size discrepancy); a whale (or dolphin) actually shares more ancestry with a zebra (since both are mammals).

However, I agree that the Arbiter™ lost the plot when they began using "non-scientific" as a gatekeeping slur/synonym for "not genetic" and then shutting down rhetorically when they realized their mistake. I admired your persistence attempting to extract value from the conversation and would like to converse with you further using any possible means.

I call myself Huxley, after the defender of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in the 1860 Oxford debate. I trace no genetic ancestry to Huxley, but I consider myself to share the ENFP phenotype with Huxley and view them as a role model for open scientific debate. To bring us back to the thread topic of Dawkins, you might say I trace a memetic ancestry to Huxley. [math]k_\text{B}T_\text{r} \approx 4.1 \, \text{pN} \cdot \text{nm}[/math]

>>16829769
Meds.

>>16829772
>Meds.
Names.

>>16829774
Don't care. See >>16823136, >>16828718, >>16829510, >>16829525
My position stands unrefuted.

>>16829784
NTA but >>16828718 is such a dumb post in context that I'd disavow it rather than point to it.

>>16829786
You're seething because you can't refute any aspect of it.

>>16829816
Concession accepted.

Watch there be a third fucking thread on this shit because you dumb fucks cannot understand something even cavemen understood

>>16829837
Point to one misunderstanding in this thread that isn't a troll, bot, or jeet.

>>16829840
Or tranny.

There’s no way to deal with low iq people you just have to learn to do exist with the freaks

>>16829837
>>16829840
>>16829859
>>16829860
>obsessively assblasted retards

>>16829863
Dilate

>>16829865
>tranny projects

>>16829867
Dilating doesn't count as a project, sorry

>Dilating doesn't count as a project, sorry
Updooted.

>>16829870
>up dooted :^)*

Threadly reminder that mentally ill retards have zero impulse control.

Mentally ill retards know who they are and will respond with mentally ill posts even if you never addressed any one of them in particular.

>>16829926
>He thinks it's clever

Mentally ill retards have zero impulse control. They literally can't help it.

Since life is conceived at the interaction level between the two gametes, wouldn’t this mean that life is made with the goal to produce more gametes for this pivotal interaction to take place?

How is this not binary?

>>16819664
The argument for "trans rights" is that "gender affirming care" is very profitable and if you oppose it you are going against a business that covers a large chunk of the US economy largely dominated by a (((certain group))). That is why they are special and why questioning them is a hate crime.

>>16830105
Large chunk of the US economy? More testosterone is used by bodybuilders than FtMs, and similarly with estrogen and postmenopausal women.

>>16830107
>t. ((()))

>>16830109
Not an argument.

>>16830110
Neither is your irrelevant and kiked response to that poster.

>>16822207
It is a disorder, not a gender classification. Claiming otherwise is no different than arguing against the fact that humans are bipedal by pointing to someone in a wheelchair.

>>16830107
I'm talking about the medical industry as a whole, not just trans shit. Also your picking out one minor part of it to make your disingenuous argument just shows the shape of your nose.

>>16830121
But are they a man?

>>16819649
If Dawkins is right, there is no soul and what follows is that morality is subjective and rights are nothing more than privileges and immunities conferred on the basis of sentimentality from the former, ergo, how you see it is completely 100% wrong being predicated on an assumed objective morality. Being oneself implies their existence and lifestyle choices are justifiable and exempt from scrutiny which is anti science and on the tier of being "a child of God". Total retard.

>>16830404
>But are they a man?
He already answered your 90 attempt at a gotcha: their condition can't be accurately described by either label (man or woman); it's its own thing (a kind of disorder).

>>16830447
>if there is no soul, what follows is [a slew of things that don't logically follow]
The basic sense of right and wrong is neither objective nor subjective. It's not independent of human minds but neither is it dependent on any mind in particular.

>>16830447
>rights are nothing more than privileges and immunities conferred on the basis of sentimentality
This is true whether or not you have faith.

>>16830447
>If Dawkins is right, there is no soul
he recanted atheism and acknowledged that it was a stupid idea

Make another thread

Please don’t