The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

The term alt-right was coined by Richard Spencer on his website Alternative Right.

Sex isn't exclusively binary in nature, occasionally non-human animals are intersex (the ones who are hermaphrodites don't count), just like people. Further, gender identity isn't understood in the same way across all cultures, many cultures have some sort of 'third gender'. Since gender identity isn't determined by any specific physical characteristics, it's much harder to use hard evidence for or against. I've read that studies support the notion that gender dysphoric individuals brains often appear more similar (in terms of the size of various parts relative to each other) to what's typical for their gender identity than for their physical sex.

And that's not even touching on various intersex conditions. Chimerism is also potentially relevant.

Yes, you made some points that are correct, but at the same time you are neglecting the fact the gender is still recognized by these other species also, thus there is a slandered that can be pointed out especially when focusing on a particular species like humans. Throughout all species there is a clear common denominator, that denominator is that typically it is the male whom is the fertilizer and the female whom reproduces the specimen. Even species whom may 'change sex' to reproduce don't actually Chang sex and males still exist to give genetic differences which aid greatly in future adaptations. Thus it is more thought of as a clone when a particular species reproduces without aid of genetic variations given by a 'male'. Within the human species, clearly the woman is identified as not having the extra 'Y' chromosome and offers the genetic variations while the female is the reproducer. I know of no human that is capable of reproducing without the male when focusing on humans, am I missing something?

Further more this kind of sex changing properties do not exist within mammals, and even within the species this behavior does exist an original male never reproduces, it's only the female whom may have the ability to 'clone' and in even more rare cases be able to 'change to male'. Never do you see a 'born male' covert into a female. This is also a characteristic that evolution provided, it's no where near the same thing as a human feeling they are the opposite sex and getting doctors to 'try' to convert them by pumping hormones into them. And even after a human does this, it does not remove their biological identifier the 'y' chromosome or lack of. Also a MTF can't reproduce and a FTM can't fertilize with aid of hormone treatment.

If you feel gender can't be determined by biology within the human species, please lead me to the creditable biologist who states this.

Sorry, I forgot to comment on this one...

Doesn't matter who coined the term, one would be in denial to insist the term Alt-Right isn't constantly used by the left to label someone as a racist or bigot.

Indeed, since they are synonymous.

Dr. Joshua D. Safer
Defining gender as a condition determined strictly by a person’s genitals is based on a notion that doctors and scientists abandoned long ago as oversimplified and often medically meaningless.

P. Z. Meyers
Some things are complex and culturally determined. Biological sex is strongly canalized to produce a bimodal distribution of physical properties, but intersexes do exist. The brain is a plastic organ that responds to its environment in sophisticated ways, and carries both predispositions and the potential to develop in new ways, and gender is less strongly specified by genes than is the reproductive tract. If anyone is anti-science, it’s these people who want to argue for a less responsive, less adaptive, less diverse pattern of possible behaviors from the human brain.

Neither of these people are saying that gender cannot be defined within humans. They are simply pointing out that it's not as simple as people used to think. Like I already stated, in species where there is male and female genders, the male offers genetic variations and the female reproduces. There are very rare cases where females can offer each other slight genetic variations but males still exist within the species. It's an evolutionary tactic to allow adaptation.

They are saying that certain biological factors can be useful in a limited context to determine some biological outcomes, but that gender is a complex interaction between genes, chromosomes, actual gene expression in cells, hormones, genitalia (including intersex conditions), environment, brain development, and external social factors. There can be no one biological determinant for gender. This is the modern state of science on the subject.

But there can be a way to determine when focusing on a specific species. If not, the term male and female wouldn't be used and we would be in a state where no one admits that different genders do exist. Of course that is not the case, with humans, it is very easy to determine. Sure, the same rules do not apply to all species, that's not saying humans do not have male and female genders. A male fertilizes the female, the female produces an off-spring. No one is saying this isn't true.

It's like you are trying to make it out that gender is completely unknown, that is not the case. We, as humans labeled females and males. If you want to remove the label, female = a, male = b. within the human species, it is very well known and acknowledged & confirmed that it takes A and B to produce an off-spring. A and A cannot do so, B and B cannot do so. If A feels like a B, that confused A cannot reproduce with another A. To remove the labels female and male is ridiculous.

I see, the argument from "English doesn't have a word for it". Most people identify as either male or female, but that belies it's actual complexity. Many cultures did acknowledge more than one gender, including the First Nations in the Americas, India, and the Babylonians.

The argument from reproduction is also simplistic, since we assign genders to people too young to reproduce, or too old, or sterile.

I thought we were talking about science, not your discomfort at the notion that binary gender is an obsolete and incomplete idea.

I'm arguing something that is very simple to observe. That's why i striped the label, pointed out that we gave the label, and pointed out that it's ridiculous to strip the label. The only outcome that could come from science is to re-label gender. It's not a matter of discomfort, it's a matter of observation that every person is very aware of.

Within humans, females share way more in common than reproduction but reproduction is the common denominator, all the other characteristics may vary, giving birth does not vary between sexes(among humans). Both sexes are in fact humans, so it's clear that even males and females can have a lot in common. It doesn't change the fact that out of two genders, one fertilizes and the other reproduces. That I wouldn't call over-simplified, age isn't a factor to consider when discussing gender either. All females(without some other kind of problem) within the human species are capable of giving birth, no male with a penis can give birth. It's only 'over-simplified' when compared to other species.

So what do they suggest we call humans capable(under normal circumstances) of giving birth, and the other very clearly opposite 'gender' that cannot and has the tool to fertilize? And what exactly is this 'third' gender? Can it reproduce without a male?(within humans, not plant life??)

Last edited by Crimadella on 28 Jan 2019, 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You can't easily observe internal differences. The argument from popularity doesn't work scientifically. Males with a penis have been born with a uterus. I'll respond when you start discussing science.

So logic doesn't count...interesting. So i guess we should have a different gender for every possible indifference between people, even though it's clear that it takes a fertilizer and a reproducer to mate to produce an off-spring. But we can't give them labels?? That's so freaking weird, and I've heard evolutionary biologists discussing this, they repeatedly used the terms male and female. They discussed a lot of these other species, they specifically said that 'males offer genetic variations', 'females produce off-spring'.

Not even all scientists are in agreement, thank god! People insisting we cannot label humans that reproduce and humans that fertilize have seriously lost their minds!

Last edited by Crimadella on 28 Jan 2019, 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Those are unfounded cultural assumptions, not biology. I never said there weren't differences between male and female, only that it's not a complete picture, and sex isn't gender.

Nice that you threw in some good old fashioned sexism, just to prove your anti-scientific political bias.

Fighting words to a physicist.