"Always" to ax female symbol from sanitary products packages in nod to trans users....GOD HELP US!

[Half-Life]

Trans men and women are insulting to men and women. These people claim gender is a social construct and we only act like "men" or "women" due to societal expectations, then these same people turn around and say, "I'm a man!" or "I'm a woman!" which totally contradicts their previous statement.

"Not even wrong".

I've explained it enough times to you by now, that there are a few aspects to this, between the gender roles (societal expectations), and gender structures (largely brain structures which impact body image and perception), and hormones (which have synergy or dissonance with various brain structures).

You've conflated like, three different things here; I wouldn't expect more from a bot, though...

Wait, are you suggesting that men and women have fundamentally different brains?

 

[Patooka]

Sorry, I reject your premises. Penises don't make the man. It's something else that you clearly don't have.

Speaking like a brainwashed cultural post-modern Marxist.

What the fuck does that even mean you proto-pseudo-neo hiplotide?

 

[Half-Life]

Trans men and women are insulting to men and women. These people claim gender is a social construct and we only act like "men" or "women" due to societal expectations, then these same people turn around and say, "I'm a man!" or "I'm a woman!" which totally contradicts their previous statement.

"Not even wrong".

I've explained it enough times to you by now, that there are a few aspects to this, between the gender roles (societal expectations), and gender structures (largely brain structures which impact body image and perception), and hormones (which have synergy or dissonance with various brain structures).

You've conflated like, three different things here; I wouldn't expect more from a bot, though...

Edit: I mean seriously you do everything you can to avoid the reality of the fact that everything you are utterly unwilling to do the work to develop all the qualities that you wish to have.

"Being a man", or at least recognized as one, requires more than an over-inflated clitoris and some testosterone. To put it in the translated words of a bronze age author

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

Being a man, even in your own religion, requires something that isn't simply "having a penis".

And you don't have it. Because you refuse to put in the work.

No we recognize how stupid it is. Rachel Dolezal is white and she identifies as black. There was also a white man on facebook who said he identifies as Filipino and he was being dead serious. Transracialism is now becoming a thing, which is what we conservatives warned would happen when you start with slippery slopes. But, the left refuses to listen.

The majority of people who support transgender people laugh away transracial people as not being a real thing. But I can asure you it's becoming a very real thing. You might want to reflect on how stupid society is getting.

Why is thi shappeneing? Because people said, "gender is all in your brain!" so these new transracialists say, "Then race is all in the brain, too!"

 

[Jarhyn]

Trans men and women are insulting to men and women. These people claim gender is a social construct and we only act like "men" or "women" due to societal expectations, then these same people turn around and say, "I'm a man!" or "I'm a woman!" which totally contradicts their previous statement.

"Not even wrong".

I've explained it enough times to you by now, that there are a few aspects to this, between the gender roles (societal expectations), and gender structures (largely brain structures which impact body image and perception), and hormones (which have synergy or dissonance with various brain structures).

You've conflated like, three different things here; I wouldn't expect more from a bot, though...

Wait, are you suggesting that men and women have fundamentally different brains?

YES!

Have you FINALLY started to understand this?

And here's the really important part: the brains are NOT formed through the same processes which impact genital development, which are both only indirectly and imperfectly driven through chromosomes.

So, someone can have XY chromosomes, be born with a vagina and ovaries, and have 2/3rds of major dimorphic brain structures be the "male" version. Though there may even be multiple expressions of brain structures even within a given "gender". A lot more research on this is necessary.

Though there's another really important thing to understand: within group variances on pretty much every trait you look at exceeds between group variances.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Sorry, I reject your premises. Penises don't make the man. It's something else that you clearly don't have.

Whatever Half Life might lack, it does not make them a woman/female. It's rather insulting to women to think that it does.

Trans men and women are insulting to men and women. These people claim gender is a social construct and we only act like "men" or "women" due to societal expectations, then these same people turn around and say, "I'm a man!" or "I'm a woman!" which totally contradicts their previous statement.

The idea that something is a social construct doesn't mean it has no value or meaning. We are social creatures. Social constructs impact us.

The idea that I am 'insulting' to women is nonsense. My existence is no statement on women one way or the other. Transition, in my case is a matter of resolving a disconnect between my cognitive experience and my anatomy, likely--thought not conclusively--the result of a neurological issue.

Changing my cognition is less practical or fruitful than altering my physiology to the extent possible. The idea that I am a 'woman' has more to do with sociological concepts and how my gender identity and expression relates to them.

 

[Half-Life]

Wait, are you suggesting that men and women have fundamentally different brains?

YES!

Have you FINALLY started to understand this?

And here's the really important part: the brains are NOT formed through the same processes which impact genital development, which are both only indirectly and imperfectly driven through chromosomes.

So, someone can have XY chromosomes, be born with a vagina and ovaries, and have 2/3rds of major dimorphic brain structures be the "male" version. Though there may even be multiple expressions of brain structures even within a given "gender". A lot more research on this is necessary.

Though there's another really important thing to understand: within group variances on pretty much every trait you look at exceeds between group variances.

At least you admitted that men and women can not be equal based on brain differences, then. We conservatives knew this for years. Leftists are just now understanding how different we truly are.

Finally we can stop this nonsense of, "Women can do ANYTHING men can and better!"

 

[Half-Life]

Trans men and women are insulting to men and women. These people claim gender is a social construct and we only act like "men" or "women" due to societal expectations, then these same people turn around and say, "I'm a man!" or "I'm a woman!" which totally contradicts their previous statement.

The idea that something is a social construct doesn't mean it has no value or meaning. We are social creatures. Social constructs impact us.

The idea that I am 'insulting' to women is nonsense. My existence is no statement on women one way or the other. Transition, in my case is a matter of resolving a disconnect between my cognitive experience and my anatomy, likely--thought not conclusively--the result of a neurological issue.

Changing my cognition is less practical or fruitful than altering my physiology to the extent possible. The idea that I am a 'woman' has more to do with sociological concepts and how my gender identity and expression relates to them.

Then why do people get mad when Piers Morgan says, "I identify as a penguin!" or Rachel Dolezal says, "identify as black!"

After all it's a social construct, why can't these be valid?

 

[Jarhyn]

Wait, are you suggesting that men and women have fundamentally different brains?

YES!

Have you FINALLY started to understand this?

And here's the really important part: the brains are NOT formed through the same processes which impact genital development, which are both only indirectly and imperfectly driven through chromosomes.

So, someone can have XY chromosomes, be born with a vagina and ovaries, and have 2/3rds of major dimorphic brain structures be the "male" version. Though there may even be multiple expressions of brain structures even within a given "gender". A lot more research on this is necessary.

Though there's another really important thing to understand: within group variances on pretty much every trait you look at exceeds between group variances.

At least you admitted that men and women can not be equal based on brain differences, then. We conservatives knew this for years. Leftists are just now understanding how different we truly are.

Finally we can stop this nonsense of, "Women can do ANYTHING men can and better!"

Read that last paragraph one more time.

Edit: also, you are straw-manning again. The accurate statement that characterizes the position of the left is "SOME woman MAY be able to do some particular thing better than a given man, depending on the man."

Between-groups variance (the differences seen between men and women) are smaller than the differences seen between men and other men, or women and other women; thus while women are on average different from men, many individual women will be better at tasks men are "good" at on average.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Then why do people get mad when Piers Morgan says, "I identify as a penguin!"

In most cases when people say shit like that, it is a disingenuous claim to belittle trans* identities. It follows the bizarre 'logic' that if a person can identify as a different gender, they can just as meaningfully identify as another species. However, species and sex are two rather different things. Genetically, humans have much of the genetic information to express male and female traits depending on a whole host of genetic and epigenetic variables. We don't have a similar capacity to express penguin traits. The 'joke' of identifying as a penguin (or jet aircraft or whatever) is vaguely like saying "If I can eat eggshells, I can eat a car battery."

I say 'most' as there are various forms of role play or otherkin who might possibly say 'I identify as a penguin.' I have no comment on that. I don't know much about it.

...or Rachel Dolezal says, "identify as black!"

Similar reasons to why people complain about transgender people (in particular, transgender women). There is a belief she is a member of a privileged group trying to take up space within a disenfranchised group. Or that she is trying to appropriate black identities.

I can't comment much on her issue specifically. I am not aware of any evidence that transracial identities--in the sense that the term would apply to Dolezal--have any biological roots, or at least the support of mental health experts. Perhaps, sociologically, there are some parallels we can draw to trans* rights, here, but there is no logic by which we can assume she is transracial in the way I am transgender.

After all it's a social construct, why can't these be valid?

You seem to be under the impression that 'social construct' means something is entirely imaginary or in no way maps to material reality. Currency is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it has no tangible connection to material resources.

When we talk about terms like 'male' and 'female', they obviously bear some connection to biological sex. But much of the baggage associated with these terms is based on social concepts rather than biology. How we assign these terms is typically based on appearance, not biology. And even the idea of a simple male/ female binary is more down to convenient categorization than the messiness of biological reality.

 

[Metaphor]

In most cases when people say shit like that, it is a disingenuous claim to belittle trans* identities. It follows the bizarre 'logic' that if a person can identify as a different gender, they can just as meaningfully identify as another species.

While I agree that nobody who says "my gender is attack helicopter" actually believes it, the idea of the statement is that 'merely saying you are x does not mean you are x'.

I can't comment much on her issue specifically. I am not aware of any evidence that transracial identities--in the sense that the term would apply to Dolezal--have any biological roots, or at least the support of mental health experts. Perhaps, sociologically, there are some parallels we can draw to trans* rights, here, but there is no logic by which we can assume she is transracial in the way I am transgender.

But why not? Indeed, most sociological race theorists contend that race is entirely socially constructed; that there's even less, biologically speaking, to race, than there is to sex. So if somebody can declare they are a gender that conflicts with their underlying sex and we should accept that, how much the less can we then object to somebody stating something about their race that has no underlying biological conflict?

A feminist philosophy professor made an argument that we should accept transracial people in the same way we accept transgender people and for the same reasons. The article was published in a philosophy magazine.

The reaction was swift and deeply hostile. The article was withdrawn, the editors resigned and the magazine made craven apologies. The same feminists who think TERFs should be put on a pyre could not tolerate a well-argued position consistent with their premises but conflicting with their beliefs.

 

[Jarhyn]

In most cases when people say shit like that, it is a disingenuous claim to belittle trans* identities. It follows the bizarre 'logic' that if a person can identify as a different gender, they can just as meaningfully identify as another species.

While I agree that nobody who says "my gender is attack helicopter" actually believes it, the idea of the statement is that 'merely saying you are x does not mean you are x'.

I can't comment much on her issue specifically. I am not aware of any evidence that transracial identities--in the sense that the term would apply to Dolezal--have any biological roots, or at least the support of mental health experts. Perhaps, sociologically, there are some parallels we can draw to trans* rights, here, but there is no logic by which we can assume she is transracial in the way I am transgender.

But why not? Indeed, most sociological race theorists contend that race is entirely socially constructed; that there's even less, biologically speaking, to race, than there is to sex. So if somebody can declare they are a gender that conflicts with their underlying sex and we should accept that, how much the less can we then object to somebody stating something about their race that has no underlying biological conflict?

A feminist philosophy professor made an argument that we should accept transracial people in the same way we accept transgender people and for the same reasons. The article was published in a philosophy magazine.

The reaction was swift and deeply hostile. The article was withdrawn, the editors resigned and the magazine made craven apologies. The same feminists who think TERFs should be put on a pyre could not tolerate a well-argued position consistent with their premises but conflicting with their beliefs.

In the best of worlds, a world where racist proxies were no longer used against people like a cudgel, I would wholely argue that trans-racial identities be accepted, and that people be allowed to freely take up cultural models, mix them, and synthesize new culture from the old.

In today's world, though, there are issues with doing so because racial culture is imparted through shared trauma.

It would, to me, be similar to someone claiming to identify as a soldier having never fought in a war or conflict, never having training or experiences that actually create what I would charactarize as a soldier. If you have not shed blood in the mud, I object to your appropriation of the label.

As such, because racial identity is sadly, in today's world, a product of getting ground up through the gauntlet of racism, it is not something that someone can rightfully transition into without also taking on the traits and experiences that such an identity is predicated upon.

 

[Half-Life]

While I agree that nobody who says "my gender is attack helicopter" actually believes it, the idea of the statement is that 'merely saying you are x does not mean you are x'.



But why not? Indeed, most sociological race theorists contend that race is entirely socially constructed; that there's even less, biologically speaking, to race, than there is to sex. So if somebody can declare they are a gender that conflicts with their underlying sex and we should accept that, how much the less can we then object to somebody stating something about their race that has no underlying biological conflict?

A feminist philosophy professor made an argument that we should accept transracial people in the same way we accept transgender people and for the same reasons. The article was published in a philosophy magazine.

The reaction was swift and deeply hostile. The article was withdrawn, the editors resigned and the magazine made craven apologies. The same feminists who think TERFs should be put on a pyre could not tolerate a well-argued position consistent with their premises but conflicting with their beliefs.

In the best of worlds, a world where racist proxies were no longer used against people like a cudgel, I would wholely argue that trans-racial identities be accepted, and that people be allowed to freely take up cultural models, mix them, and synthesize new culture from the old.

In today's world, though, there are issues with doing so because racial culture is imparted through shared trauma.

It would, to me, be similar to someone claiming to identify as a soldier having never fought in a war or conflict, never having training or experiences that actually create what I would charactarize as a soldier. If you have not shed blood in the mud, I object to your appropriation of the label.

As such, because racial identity is sadly, in today's world, a product of getting ground up through the gauntlet of racism, it is not something that someone can rightfully transition into without also taking on the traits and experiences that such an identity is predicated upon.

If I walked into a black ghetto and shouted, "I identify as black just like you guys!" I am fairly certain I would get beaten to death.

 

[Patooka]

While I agree that nobody who says "my gender is attack helicopter" actually believes it, the idea of the statement is that 'merely saying you are x does not mean you are x'.



But why not? Indeed, most sociological race theorists contend that race is entirely socially constructed; that there's even less, biologically speaking, to race, than there is to sex. So if somebody can declare they are a gender that conflicts with their underlying sex and we should accept that, how much the less can we then object to somebody stating something about their race that has no underlying biological conflict?

A feminist philosophy professor made an argument that we should accept transracial people in the same way we accept transgender people and for the same reasons. The article was published in a philosophy magazine.

The reaction was swift and deeply hostile. The article was withdrawn, the editors resigned and the magazine made craven apologies. The same feminists who think TERFs should be put on a pyre could not tolerate a well-argued position consistent with their premises but conflicting with their beliefs.

In the best of worlds, a world where racist proxies were no longer used against people like a cudgel, I would wholely argue that trans-racial identities be accepted, and that people be allowed to freely take up cultural models, mix them, and synthesize new culture from the old.

In today's world, though, there are issues with doing so because racial culture is imparted through shared trauma.

It would, to me, be similar to someone claiming to identify as a soldier having never fought in a war or conflict, never having training or experiences that actually create what I would charactarize as a soldier. If you have not shed blood in the mud, I object to your appropriation of the label.

As such, because racial identity is sadly, in today's world, a product of getting ground up through the gauntlet of racism, it is not something that someone can rightfully transition into without also taking on the traits and experiences that such an identity is predicated upon.

If I walked into a black ghetto and shouted, "I identify as black just like you guys!" I am fairly certain I would get beaten to death.

I don't believe you. Prove it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As I said, I'm practically buried in trans men, thanks to my husband. The first I heard of this was from Halfie.

Edit: just brought up the change to him. Apparently he was already aware, because CIS TERFS were bitching and moaning about it on twitter

So, confirmed that the only people shaming Always are, well, the conservative crybaby brigade.

Did you not read the OP? It started because somebody called Melly Bloom Tweeted negatively about Always having the symbol.

Why are you taking Underseer's parody post seriously? I've been telling you they are parodies but you've been agreeing with them. Don't you know how ridiculous that looks?!

 

[Jarhyn]

As I said, I'm practically buried in trans men, thanks to my husband. The first I heard of this was from Halfie.

Edit: just brought up the change to him. Apparently he was already aware, because CIS TERFS were bitching and moaning about it on twitter

So, confirmed that the only people shaming Always are, well, the conservative crybaby brigade.

Did you not read the OP? It started because somebody called Melly Bloom Tweeted negatively about Always having the symbol.

Did YOU not read it?

“Could someone from Always tell me why it is imperative to have the female symbol on their sanitary products?” Twitter user Melly Bloom, one of those advocates, tweeted over the summer. “There are non-binary and trans folks who still need to use your products too you know!”

That's the tweet. It's not shaming. It's not even strictly complaining. It's asking a pointed question, and making a simple statement of fact on a channel that will have multiple perspectives see the issue.

 

[Half-Life]

Why are you taking Underseer's parody post seriously? I've been telling you they are parodies but you've been agreeing with them. Don't you know how ridiculous that looks?!

For the last time, I am not that guy. I am not doing parodies. Stop saying this.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why are you taking Underseer's parody post seriously? I've been telling you they are parodies but you've been agreeing with them. Don't you know how ridiculous that looks?!

For the last time, I am not that guy. I am not doing parodies. Stop saying this.

Obviously. You are clearly a bot being run by LionIRC.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why are you taking Underseer's parody post seriously? I've been telling you they are parodies but you've been agreeing with them. Don't you know how ridiculous that looks?!

For the last time, I am not that guy. I am not doing parodies. Stop saying this.

Hahahahahaha. Good one.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What I do find strange is that transgender people can complain and whine about a packaging symbol so much that it ends up being taken off the package and I am the one that gets made fun of for complaining about the complainers.

Yep.

Imagine if a popular coffee shop chain, Queequeg's, put 'Happy Kwanza!' on their coffee cups.
Some Christain customers let Queequeg's know they feel ignored by this sentiment.
Queequeg's shifts their message to 'Happy Holidays!' in order to market to celebrants of Kwanza AND Christmas AND Hannukah AND New Years AND the Solstice AND whatever else y'all may celebrate.
Some SJW gets outraged by the change to a more inclusive product, and charges Queequeg's with anti-black racism?

You'd expect the SJW to be made fun of, right?

Keith, haven't we discussed this to death? You don't even personally believe this. You would be on the SJW side.

no, we haven't discussed it to death, because you discuss exactly fuck-all. And, no, i would not be on this SJW's side. The purpose of the analogy is to make mock of someone being incensed about pretend discrimination, just for tge sake of pretend outrage.
Or, more precisely, to mock you getting your menstrual cup in a twist.

Remember "black lives matter" Keith?

yeah, my son had an article published about it. Then had a plumber explain the purpose of BLM to him. He had only met me, not my wife.

White liberals (because it wasn't even started by blacks, but by rich white liberals) say , "Black lives matter!" Other groups feel offended for being left out so they say, "All lives matter!" We then get accused of anti-black racism, despite black lives being included in "all lives."

the point if BLM was a perception that blacks were treated worse than everyone else by the cops.
All Lives Matter, in that context, would be a claim that EVERYONE was treated worse than everyone else by the cops. That's grammatically and nathematically gibberish.
But as the obvious purpose of ALM was to marginalize BLM's message, it fits.

By your logic, we have the obligation to make fun of the ones who only say, "black lives matter!"

Show me this logical argument, dearie. I doubt it will stand up to scrutiny.
No where have i said to make fun of people who say Merry Xmas. Can you adequately read my posts to figure out who i DO wish to make fun of?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think Halfie is a man.
Halfie has definitely asserted that women are emotional, and men are logical.

But Halfie's posting history has little logic and lots of emotional outbursts (such as the title of this thread).
Halfie also insists that the individual is not to be trusted in reporting their own gender. We must use objective rules to always always always determine the gender we're going to assign them. So, not having access to Halfie's DNA or birth certificate, we're left with the emotional/logical rubric.

Therefore, by Halfie's standards, Halfie is a woman. And by Halfie's example (also in her thread, here), that means we must label her as a woman. It's SCIENCE.

i have not attempted to chart her more egregious outbursts against a 28-day cycle, but it seems clear that this would explain quite a bit.

Stop referring to me as "she", Keith. I have a penis. I am a man.

i have not seen your penis, if it really exosts. I have seen your misogyny. But that could be self-hatred. I have seen your total inability to use logic, which you claim is a manly trait. So i myst conclude you are a woman.

I know it seems so much harder than that to identify as your own gender because you're woker than woke, but penis = man and vagina = women.

No, i have never claimed wokeness.
But you have identified manly traits. Such as military service. I went. You didn't. That's another point against your attempt to self-identify as a man.

Stop making up semantic games to cater to the wokies.

Semantics? Do you know what that word means?
This isn't a 'semantic' game. No word play at all.

It's actually logic. The consequences of your own pronouncements.
Which you clearly suck at.