The analysis is much more rigorous than I expected, and I agree with most (but not all) of the initial presentation.
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
Click to watch 31 minutes,
Thanks for sharing this link.
The analysis is much more rigorous than I expected, and I agree with most (but not all) of the initial presentation.
However, one glaring omission the speaker makes is a condition called ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY.
ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY is when a person has XY chromosomes (apparently the "gold standard" for "sexgender" which happens to be quite a strange "bald assertion" ontologically, specifically because chromosomes weren't even discovered until the mid 1880s, WTF).
ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY is when a person has XY chromosomes (this speaker might call them "male") and yet, even though they have XY chromosomes, their cells are ANDROGEN INSENSITIVE and therefore are unaffected by that specific hormone and are therefore fully female in physical appearance, bone structure, girly parts and everything else.
In case you missed that.
There are people alive today with XY chromosomes who are physically indistinguishable from female.
They were literally born this way.
Now, you might say "this is extremely rare and therefore can be dismissed out-of-hand as a statistical fluke".
However, because we do not TEST FOR THIS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW "RARE" IT MIGHT BE.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
And, to be generous, EVEN IFF it was found to be "extremely rare", it still proves that "sexgender" is not 100% dictated by your magical biblical chromosomes.
AND there is absolutely no way for anyone to KNOW this without violating personal privacy.
There are also cases where a person has what might at first glance appear to be an XY, but the Y itself can have a 4th stub (leg) of various lengths (imagine an X with a short leg), the shorter the stub, the more "male" they appear, and the longer the stub, the more "female" they appear.
THE KEY TAKEAWAY FROM ALL OF THIS IS THAT IT IS A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY TO DEMAND THAT ANYONE "PROVE" THEIR GENDER.
IT IS A MATTER OF FUNDAMENTAL PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
The classical Problem of Identity is and has been and always will be a PRIVATE PERSONAL JOURNEY.
SOCIAL NORMS ARE FLUID.
THERE IS NO REASON TO CODIFY SOCIAL NORMS.
WHAT WE SHOULD CODIFY IS PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
WHAT WE SHOULD CODIFY IS PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
This kind of RED-HERRING petty divisive bickering ("moral outrage") is EXACTLY what our OWNERS need in order to keep the working class and poor people pitted against each other.
I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
Essential HIVE links,
https://hive.vote/
https://beeme.icu/?account=logiczombie
https://hiveblocks.com/@logiczombie
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero). In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy). Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
thank you very much for an interesting article, good luck to you
:)
Haven't the time to watch the video as yet. But just a couple observations on this dynamic that has gripped the nation here these last few years.
As with many aspects of the identity movements, there is much militancy involved that appears to draw in quite a few vocal angry voices for the sole purpose of pushing the envelope against what many would find decent, daring a reaction to create a new battleground. As with most of the identity movements, setting out to create enemies and forcing change on others that treads on their personal sovereignty is sure to achieve the enemies and disgust you claim not to want.
I've noticed that in many cases such as this, (going along the thoughts above) there is a push to force us to not believe our eyes and instead believe an assertion contrary to what the eyes behold. You mention above:
That is a two edged sword, that could logically based on appearances, imply the eyes are correct the majority of the time.
All of this raises a few questions. At what point does the majorities of society end up telling the vocal militant minorities that they will not be accommodated at the expense of the many when it doesn't involve a real trespass against their person. I'm not understanding how my having to allow a biological female use the same restroom as me (and all the other men) is some victory other than some need to punish men for why I don't really get. I also know that no way if I had a young daughter would I want some biological male alone with her in some public restroom.
It seems that iffy science like this is being used to push extremes on the majority just to piss us off really.
Yeah, well, just accompany your daughter into the restroom as necessary to maintain security.
If that becomes impossible, don't allow her to use public restrooms, and use technology as necessary to alleviate the need.
Are you kidding me? Everyone should already be doing that. Women are assaulted by men in public washrooms all the time. Men are assaulted by men in public washrooms all the time.
Would you prefer having armed police officers guarding every door, asking for your "bill gates vaccine microchip medical history mastercard sexgender and human fertility" scan??
What I'd prefer is all children armed with firearms after the age of ~3, and properly supervised by their parents at all times until they reach majority, and start supervising their own children.
End of problem.
Would pepper spray perhaps be a "better" solution?
I'm not sure I'd like to be staring down the barrel of a loaded gun when trying to convince a 3 year old to brush their teeth, or take their medicine, or go to bed at a reasonable hour.
I never did have to stare down armed resistance to household duties and I did start training my sons to bear arms ~3. When I went to high school in Alaska it was not uncommon for students to bring firearms to school on the bus, so they could hunt on the hike home in season. Normal peer pressures and shenanigans were constant factors at school, including fights and such, but no one ever threatened anyone with guns.
Guns are tools, and tools are useful for specific jobs. Guns are for killing, not for competing over Mary Jane's rotten crotch or the like. When kids are raised to be competent with tools like guns, cars, and chainsaws, they tend not to misuse or abuse those tools at all.
It's the incompetent you have to watch out for.
Edit: I should add that I started firearms training ~3, Chainsaws ~8, and cars ~10. This reflected the relative dangers and difficulty of handling each type of tool, and how necessary they were to my sons. Firearms are simple, easy, and utterly critical to survival. Kids are competent to survive under fire from an early age, and this is revealed in the history of humanity in the fossil record.
I guess it makes sense.
If everyone, including the gays and the hippies and the SJW's and the homeless lunatics all had a six-shooter strapped to their belt, then nobody would ever be the victim of a crime.
Remember the good-old-days when we'd just shoot people we didn't like?
I mean, look, I understand that in smaller communities where people actually know each other, it's easier to build trust with your neighbors. And teaching children responsible tool use might be a reasonable option for specific parents and specific children.
I just don't think that giving everyone a gun is going to make you safer.
There are too many lunatics already.
The last thing we need is to make them even more deadly.
It would be nice if every parent trusted their child with a loaded weapon.
I just don't see that as being realistic.
(1) What "iffy science" are you referring to?
(2) What "extremes" are the "majority" being forced into?
My definition of iffy science is when something is isolated, and then broad speculations are derived from it that aren't logical conclusions. I believe the gender science that has emerged in recent years is one such example. I base this on personal observations on who is utilizing the assertion, and the context they are using it. Loosely falling into this observation will be an extreme majorities are forced into that are not healthy.
At my previous place of employment, a young woman asserted that she identified as a male. She was extremely shapely, Wore extremely feminine clothes showing off her figure. Her genetic makeup evidently not getting the message from her chromosomes (using the science you quote) that she was actually a male. She was allowed to use the men's restroom, which was the reason for her proclamation.
No man working there was comfortable for this. And given the current political climate of Metoo/believe her where the man is considered guilty until proven innocent this uncomfortable feeling is magnified into a potentially dangerous situation for any man finding themselves in that restroom with her alone, especially if their genitalia is out as is often the case there.
Another example of this was when my partner addressed on of her clients children as a boy (he clearly was) and the mother reprimanded her recognizing the physical attributes. In this case the boy who evidently identifies as a female was dressed as well as a normal boy. My partner was later written up by her employer for concluding the boy was a boy and not somehow intuiting that the boy identified as a girl. Dangerous stuff, can cause loss of job and possible imprisonment. In the case of the female at my previous employer, I guarantee that if she decided she was offended by any of the biological males in that room, Human Resources as well as the judicial system would suddenly offer her all of the protections afforded a female.
It really comes across as a manipulation by those I've encountered using this "science" to justify their actions that they demand accommodation for. None of which sets well with me. I know what I see, I know what the possible ramifications are and it doesn't add up to anything positive from my vantage point.
And in 2 minutes and 38 seconds (actually just the first 30 seconds),
just turn yourself away from authority :)
And recognize the "appeal to authority" con game.
haha YES
Congratulations @logiczombie! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board And compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 7/21)