This is new! I usually don’t get rape fantasies, but Thunderf00t’s angry rabble have opened up exciting new vistas.
The whole point of free-thinking is to express what you have been thinking to others; what would the point of Socrates’ trial have been if he had not made the impressive speeches he made? If the people judging him had simply written him off as ‘too out there’ and simply condemned him five minutes into his talking? The point I’m trying to make is that as much as I think Watson is at a minimum misguided, you are culpable for much worse. Free Speech is the fundamental human right; without it, we are all doomed. You removing his website because you disagree on a matter of opinion makes you as bad as the papacy banning books, or Iran banning books, etc. etc…. In other words, by shutting off free expression you have sauntered effortlessly to lines the old and evil; too much information is bad, we decide what you should be exposed to, let’s have Salman Rushdie killed for writing something we don’t agree with. You have not tried to have Tf00t killed yet(my, what restraint you have), but at this point I wouldn’t be surprised to see that either. You’re supposed to be a scientist; a little open-mindedness goes a long way in investigating the truth.
In this modern world the only way to survive and live well is to laugh, rather than cry… A little cynicism never hurt anyone.
Anyway, I don’t believe I shall be reading your blogs any more; at least until you apologize to Mr. f00t; if you don’t all I can to is hope you get raped to death by Jaguars in the Yucatan. Next time think with your brain instead of your balls, and maybe over time I’ll grow to trust and respect you again. until then, eat shit. I mean, you’re supposed to be a scientist, for Christ’s sake.
I could swear some more but based off what I know of you you’re probably bawling already. Nobody likes a crybaby. You old cunt.
Thanks for your time!
Phil Krstulich,
someone who actually believes in equality of right for all humankind, and who isn’t a two-faced fuck who pretends to be in favor of free speech while trying to stamp it out.
Curses! My plan to have Thunderf00t killed has been exposed!
I have now seen a teeny tiny fraction of what Anita Sarkeesian gets.
Look lurkers, Unreasonable fuckwit simply can’t change its mind, or shut the fuck up. It is as closed as a bank vault over the weekend. No new facts or empathy allowed. It can only repeat well refuted slogans over and over, and thinks that is an argument, just like liberturds. It is an attempt to bully us.
Reasonable Fellow,
Do you think it’s reasonable, or even a healthy facet of a sceptical attitude, to ask others to do your homework for you?
Rather than wind people up on the net, which you seem to think is what you are doing, why not, in fact, read back, and avail yourself of those materials? It won’t take you more than ~45 mins at the most. You could then do your own independent research, believe me when I say it’s a good thing to do.
Louis
True, your attitude, by your own admission, is that you will just do what you want anyway because no fucker is going to tell you what to do.
You are still a bully.
Oh, FFS.
Here you go:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/06/i-get-email-20/comment-page-3/#comment-389459
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/06/i-get-email-20/comment-page-3/#comment-389524
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/06/i-get-email-20/comment-page-3/#comment-389616
Unzips trousers. Opens the envelope flap. Still male.
And, oddly, I feel very at home here.
The support of human rights for all humans, male, female, straight, gay, lesbian, transgendered, disabled, neuro-typical or non, is refreshing.
And I have been reading here for about 4 years and commenting for about 3. What’s your point? That you lack the ability to grok written English?
MY guess as ‘Christian.’
The Tpyos is strong in this one.
Both have the same presumptions about gender identity. The notion of difference stems from the idea that equipment == identity, that is the framework from which bullies work as well.
You’re also suffering from #4.
I’m not asking people to do my homework. I’ve been asking for people to put across a genuine argument as to how its severe bigotry and harmful for me to think of trans-gendered people as trans-gendered people rather than male/female depending on the case.
So far, i’ve got “fuck off bigot”, “read more”, and “troll”.
You got those because of your wilful ignorance. You need to go away and learn. For some reason you don’t want to do that. You are so lazy you demand people provide the links you won’t read again, because it is beyond to scroll back.
I haven’t attacked your grammar or spelling once. I don’t care about that stuff so long as the point comes across.
@nightjar
Thanks for that. I’ve only had a quick skim through the links so far but all seem to be saying that trans-gendered people have issues with gender identity – something I don’t deny.
This was one of Jadehawk’s big points yesterday– besides the fact the r**s*n*bl*fellow is pretty much a flat-out asshole, they seem to be unable to drop the notion of mind/body dualism.
So sad. An asshole and an idiot.
Let’s add “liar” to the list.
reasonable fellow
<blockquote cite="If someone describes themselves as happy or sad, would you believe yourself entitled to ignore that and decide on your own description?"
<blockquote cite="Of course, i’d make a judgement based on their behavior. Though if somebody outright came out and said “i’m happy” that’d be enough reason alone for me to doubt it. Whats your point again?"
The point is that such matters are subjective, as are matters of personal identity. You seem to want to impose your own assessment in preference to the assessment others have of themselves. Overriding other people in this way and telling them what they are or what they feel makes them unhappy. Why do you do that?
Lets, its about as true as the other examples.
“this person is different from me*, and in a weaker position** so I can do whatever I want***”
* looks like a guy, wants to be called a lady.
** there are only a few of them around and us normal people don’t talk about them in polite conversation because… eew. (see *)
*** They’re obviously a guy, so I’ll naturally address them using male pronouns.
Bullying on all counts. They’re different, they’re in a socially difficult position and you insist on doing what you think is normal rather than respect their identity. See?
(Psssst jessie: [blockquote] text [/blockquote] (replace with angled brackets) will work. I have no freaking idea why blockquote cite is such a pain in the ass.)
Well you are an idiot. Only an idiot could look at someone with AIS and think it appropriate to call them a man. Yet you would do just that.
Reasonable Fellow,
I hate to point this out to you but you’ve received a far sight more than that. Sure you’ve received those things too, and you’ll get more of them. Look at it this way, you are coming into a conversation and making comments about an established field of study, like it or not, that has a good deal of evidence behind it and you are coming in ignorant. No crime there, we’re all ignorant of many things.
In addition, you are demonstrating your ignorance to a group that contains people who a) know this field of study well because it is their own, b) suffer from the discrimination/effects of the ideas that your comments are, perhaps inadvertently, reflecting, and even perhaps c) both. So you’re “just asking questions” of people who know the topic and for whom it is not merely an intellectual exercise. Some of those people are not going to be kind, rightly so, in dismissing you as yet another fool in a series of unpleasant fools.
This is also why “just asking questions” is in scare quotes. Some people are just honestly asking questions out of ignorance, no crime again, as I say. The problem is that many are not, it’s all too familiar a refrain “hey I’m just asking question” when they are doing anything but honestly just asking questions. More than that, and this isn’t particularly the case in this thread, “just asking questions” can frequently derail conversations where people are talking about issues pertaining to vulnerable people. So, for example, people “just ask questions” about male circumcision on a thread about female circumcision, moving the topic from the problems facing women to those facing men, which may or may not have wrinkles and subtleties that are not identical. It’s something to be aware of. Just like I was saying in reference to humour above. It’s very possible to accidentally tread on toes.
Louis
I’ll add idiot to the list if it makes you feel special Matt.
I note you have been unable to explain why people with AIS should be referred to as male. Presumably because you know what however you answer it will destroy your argument.
I get what you’re saying Louis. You can hardly blame someone for adopting a bunker mentality when they’re being constantly insulted and likened to a middle-school bully though. I’m reading through some of the articles that have been linked, but so far they’re addressing issues that aren’t exactly what i’ve been talking about.
You’re not just thinking, though, are you?
that are “lying to themselves” and in delusion (“king of mars” and all that), right? Yeah, you’re so totally not being an ignorant and harmful bigot.
Because who cares about the brain when it comes to humans and what gender they perceive themselves to be. Not you, right?
reasonable fellow,
The way we think usually influences what we do. When you say that you would be polite to trans* folks, but think to yourself that they are just deluding themselves, it is highly improbable that what you think would in no way influence your words or actions. And I’m not talking just about politeness, I’m talking about situations when you hear someone insulting trans* people for who they are (where you agree with them in part, so would you be able to put all that aside and defend them?) or situations where you might have to vote or sign a referendum or petition that would support trans* people.
Then we also come to situations like this one here, where you decided to voice your thoughts. Now that your thoughts have been let loose on the unsuspecting readers of Pharyngula, they are not just innocent thoughts floating around your head. Now they are having an influence on the outside world, on people who read your words.
And what you are saying is that trans* people are just deluding themselves. That Natalie Reed (whose blog you should really start reading to educated yourself : link) can call herself a woman all she wants, but she’ll never be one. That is harmful. It hurts the individual who reads that, and it’s harmful because it perpetuates the false belief that many other people share.
Audley #15. Thanks. I think I missed off the second part of the bracket. Then I hit submit rather than preview by accident.
I haven’t had time this weekend to be an active participant in this thread, but I just wanted to say that I totally love the Pharyngula Horde. You make me want to stop waxing my annoying ladybeard and instead grow a long luxurious under-chin beard which I can festoon with Harley themed charms and pretty hand dyed silk ribbons.
For RF, how about this: you say you’re a human, but I, because I know the Truth™, decide to view you as a sea urchin. Won’t this color how I treat you? Why yes, it leads me to contemplate the use of your lovely innards as sushi. It leads me to figure that I need not make the restrooms of Teh Humanz accessible for your use. It leads me to shape my behavior towards and about you in ways more suitable for an echinoderm – I carry salt water about so as to be able to splash you with it. I make sure to wear sturdy shoes so that if I step on you, I don’t get a nasty spine through my foot. I contemplate whether there’s money to be made drying you out and selling your dessicated form as a tourist souvenir.
Yep, how I view you makes no difference at all…
((It would be very very wrong to sell dessicated troll exoskeletons to unsuspecting tourists. This image was just for hyperbole. Also, just think what would happen if they got rehydrated. ))
On the upside of all of this, I’ve been googling interesting genetic permutations of biological sex and chromosomal… stuff. Intersex things.
SO. INTERESTING.
Reading up on gynandromorphic organisms themselves is incredibly cool. Seriously, and on a lighter note reasonable fellow, you might like to even just read the wikipedia Intersex article. It’s gosh-darned fascinating, and sheds a lot of light on the ambiguity of even biological sex.
Reasonable Fellow,
I’m not worried about your bunker mentality, it is understandable, not necessarily forgiveable but understandable.
The culture at Pharyngula is such that when you start getting brickbats lobbed at you there is a very high chance you need to step away and shut up. Hell I’m relatively regular here and I’ve fallen foul of this a few times. Almost everyone has. I might get a post, or two posts more benefit of the doubt than you, but not much more than that. That’s the value of this place. Well, that and the amazing orgies. ;-)
I’m not being mean when I say “go away, stop commenting for a bit, and read”. It’s not from a desire to get rid of you or silence you, it’s from a desire to believe my fellow humans can really learn no matter how hard it is. It’s tough as hell, I’ve doubled down a time or two myself, I KNOW!
Start reading, you’ll be amazed. If you truly care it’s time for you to do the work, debate is a shitty way to educate yourself or learn about a topic, it’s a superb way to motivate you to learn, but a shitty means.
Louis
Here is a photo of some people.
reasonable fellow considers everyone of them to be male, and says he would insist on calling male to their face.
*the asshole who does the insulting
**trans people
(I suck at writing)
Scroll up and read my post before I said “good night”. I tried to make this as clear and concise and I could.
Please ask any questions if you still don’t understand.
INORITE??
Why, it’s like reason-resistant failure here is allergic to information or something. Strange, I always thought “Skeptics™” liked learning things.
And has apparently never heard of Google or Wikipedia.
Delurking! I’ve been reading for Pharyngula for some time (found out about you all over at Manboobz where I post as Ithiliana–I’m coming in here via my yahoo account because wordpress blog issues are giving me hives). Over the last month, I find myself reading more and more blogs in the group, and more and more comments, and wanting to talk *MORE* (especially on this amazing thread). I’m a queer woman and an academic in rural Texas–my *fun* project the last few years is working on starting a Safe Spaces program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-space) at my university (the straight cis white male administrators cannot understand the problem because everybody is so nice to them!).
To be fair, he said he’d put aside his “integrity” and be “polite” and call them female if they wanted even though they are “lying” to themselves.
…so he doesn’t understand what the problem is.
I wish I had a pubmed or nature subscription. I can only read the synopsis of the really interesting sounding stuff.
I accept the correction, and you are right, he does not understand what the problem is. Have you noticed how he has totally ignored the issue of people with AIS ? It is almost as if his tiny brain cannot cope.
I’m Just Asking a Question here, but:
Do the fuck-head trolls wait for PZ to be out of town before launching their pathetic little attacks, or does it just seem that way?
Because there have been several of them on this thread who have been so repetitive, so obnoxious, so obtuse, so repetitive, and so insensitive, that had the Overlord been here their asses would have landed in the dungeon long ago.
BTW, and FWIW, I feel that “grotesque insensitivity” deserves its own bullet-point in the Pharyngula Standards, because recently there have been some breathtaking examples thereof displayed here. Examples if the “I’m ashamed to share a species with these people, let alone a gender” scale. :-(
But I’m wondering what he’d do if it wouldn’t be just about using female pronouns for someone, if one of the women in the picture actually struck a conversation with him. Would he be able to keep his thoughts about how she’s deluded to himself or would they spill over with little prompting, like on this thread?
drbunsen:
Oh… I’m always the idealist. Anyone can learn, it’s getting them to actually want to that’s the challenge.
Still, I’m following the Pharyngula Brand Fang-snininess TZT Chewtoy Regime and it’s done WONDERS. I’ve lost simply LOADS of ingrained societal prejudice and gained argumentative and insult capability beyond my Wildest Dreams!
I’ve yet to take Porcupine Insertion 101, it’s not the sort of thing we folks talk about back home, and plenty of my friends are porcupine fanciers but you know… they should really keep it to themselves. Not that there’s anything WRONG with that…
… sorry, apparently I’m tired.
I haven’t been here for very long, but that is my impression too.
I am not sure they wait for PZ to be out of town, but more that when he is out of town there is less control of them spewing their bigotry. I’m pretty sure if PZ was about, reasonable fellow
would have at the very least been banished to TZT.
Back from vacation, missed most of the party. But I’ll chime in on this:
Are you fucking serious? All kinds of things trump biology, because we have big brains. Why should glasses trump biology when biology says you shouldn’t be able to see clearly? Why should insulin trump biology when biology says you should die young with a shitty pancreas? Why should clothes trump biology when people’s bodies aren’t worth crap in cold climates? Biology is not a trump card. The entire history of humanity is finding ways around biology.
Chas – I know where you’re coming from, but come on. You’re defining genetic and physiological maleness, which is separate than gender identification maleness, and you know it. Science words are not the same as common words all over the place; community was a good example as used earlier. And as was also mentioned, the idea of male and female as referring to gender presentation was around long before biologists discovered gametes and matched the small one to the gender they already called male.
I’m pretty good at keeping quiet in those sorts of situations. I’d be thinking it though, sorry.
Now address the issue that is pertinent to the discussion we were having. Because you just proved my point: super-tunnel vision caused you to casually disregard the first part of my post. It had nothing to do with grammer[sic].
Your insistence that trans-people are not the sex they identify as, but rather trans-people, otherizes them. You do lend credence to the development of a hierarchy with your dismissal of self-identity as not reflecting their (according to you) true physical nature, thus not their whole self.
Self-identity IS the whole. Self-identity is the end-all, be-all of gender identity. Brain trumps penis, brain trumps vagina. It’s OK to say that they were born with male anatomy, but they’re really female and vice versa – that is the truth. It is reality. “They’re identifying male (but really female because of the titties and lack of a Y chromosome)” is not approximately true since it doesn’t acknowledge that what and who we are is determined by the brain not by the body (which is just in the way.)
It would be like telling a person who is working on sculptures that they’re really a painter because they have a paintbrush for a pinky, but it’s okay with you if they keep on sculpting. If they’re sculpting than they’re a sculptor, their anatomy has fuck-all to do with it. And they definitely don’t need you giving the green light for them to “contradict” their anatomy.
You almost certainly would not know.
How is it tunnel-vision to take all aspects of a person into account. The brain is important but the body is not irrelevant.
reasonable fellow:
I’d say because the first is a relatively recent development, and the second is mutable. We can’t change the biological standard, any more than we can change the scientific definition of theory (though some have tried). But even in biology, sex is not as easy as the simple male/female duality.
But it’s the second standard you list that I’d like to address.
Societal standards provide roles which have labeled male and female. As much as some of us dislike the fact these roles exist in the first place*, they are very much ingrained into society.
I’m not arguing against the behavior associated with those roles. I’m arguing against the fact we’ve defined those behaviors as either male or female, and made them two rigidly-defined stereotypes applicable to the biological happenstance of being born with a penis or a vagina (or both, or neither). This in spite of the fact that behavior is a continuum which pays little heed to the biological definitions.
So the societal standard is based on behavior which is often contrary to the biological standard. So, which standard to you apply? The societal (which is behavior-based), or the biological (which is based strictly on physical attributes)?
I won’t argue we should call folks by their own identity simply to make their lives easier. That’s an argument from consequence. What I am saying is, you’ve already identified the crux of the argument. The tension is based on the disparity between the biological definition of male and female, and the societal definition, which is based on behavior, not biology.**
Yes, much of society still attempts to equate biological identity with societal identity. But, as society is mutable, we can fix that, and bring the definition in line with the way society already defines sexual identity — with behavior.
That’s really all we’re attempting to do, to reconcile the societal definition of gender and sexual identity with itself, to make it non-contradictory. Since the fundamental definition of roles seems to be based on behavior, it’s easier to bring the words into alignment with that, rather than creating new roles with new definitions of behavior.
* Pink for girls, blue for boys? How arbitrary can you get?
** And as we identify with our societal roles***, doesn’t it make sense to use the roles we choose to identify ourselves?
*** I’m a programmer, for instance. That’s how I primarily identify, outside of my own cis-maleness.
I think that when PZed (blessings upon him) is out of town it is not unusual for banhammered ex-commenters to show up under new ‘nyms and with new IP addresses. I haven’t seen that during this troll infestation. What also happens (and muddies the experimental waters a bit) is that, anytime PZed posts about feminism, privilege, or the toleration of misogyny by other bloggers, MRAs tend to come out of the woodwork. A few may be honest, but I think a shitload of them come here, toss some privilege around, and then slink back to their chosen haunts to complain about how mean we are.
Look lurkers, same-old same-old from Unreasonable fuckwit. It couldn’t change its mind if it had to, seeing how the whole concept is beyond its understanding. And won’t shut the fuck up and listen, like any reasonable person would do. No hope for it. Terminally trite, boring, banal, insipid, and shallow in its thinking.
reasonable fellow,
I would like to see a comment on my #22
Liar. You are in one of those situations right now. There are several trans* people who are regulars here. You’ve already grossly offended and hurt one of them.
Now simply be fucking off with you. Go. Read. Google. Wiki. And come back – if ever – when you are less stupid, less egregiously insensitive, and less of a bigoted lackwit.
reasonable fellow,
As drbunsen says, you are not keeping quiet right now, which was addressed in my #22, so I would appreciate it if you acknowledged my second point about actively doing harm on this thread.
So you are aware that your perceptions colour the way you relate to others in meatspace. This is a good thing. Run with it. Think lots about it.
Then think about how your reaction (silence) may be percieved in meatspace. And whether or not your judgement as to who that person is is actually correct.
By tossing that person into a box (a box labeled: “Deluding hirself”), you are ceasing to treat that person as a human being. You are no longer reacting to that person as you would to a human being with whom you are more comfortable. You, whether you say it out loud or not, are treating that person as a thing, not a human.
+5 for being aware that your perceptions colour your interactions with other humans. -45 for making a judgement as to whether a woman or a man is a real woman or man and tossing them into a mental box.
This is not easy shit. But it is important shit.
My question for you, though, is, “What makes Pharyngula different for you?” Seriously, why, when people (and yes, we are all people here, not descriptions) have, either overtly or by allusion, identified as trans, do you continue to deny that they have the right to the integrity of their own self-identification? Seems odd.
But then, what do I know?
You’re giving unnecessary weight to the value of the body in self-identity. Which is more important in those with AIS? An interesting question posed by Matt Penfold that you might have missed. Or chosen to ignore.
I don’t know what you have a problem with. Trans-people were definitely born with parts. But those parts do not define who they are. Those parts are just features of their body, they are not features of their identity, and those parts do not define their gender identity. Do you agree with that?
Asshole.
Did it ever cross your mind that there are transgendered people reading and commenting here? Because you don’t seem too concerned about “keeping quiet” right now. You’re actually making a point of letting them know just how deluded you think they are, and how you’re only going to treat them by the gender they identify as because you’re nice like that. But, oh, they should well remember you will be thinking about how wrong and deluded they are the whole time, right? ‘Cause otherwise they might start to feel just a little bit less discriminated against and we can’t have that, now, can we.
That’s not all I’m worried about. Reasonable fellow probably has friends, family and others that he interacts with and is close to.
Allowing a young person to transition as early as possible when they are transgender is best for hir well-being.
I have two nephews who are going to have to wait until they are at least 18 because their parents are in denial. It has caused both of them psychological harm – including one suicide attempt that I know about, depression, anxiety, etc. The way they have been treated has had real negative effects, that are going to be difficult to recover from – and much of this stress is because their parents refuse to “get it”.
sheeptick (yes, I get how that looks like skepchick), from one insect to another: please stop behaving like an ignorant and boorish wazzock.
You complain about aggression and rude words, yet seem incapable of appreciating the effect your own words have on other people.
How hard is it, exactly, for you to look up those references? Probably as hard as you found it to blockquote. Why should people hold your hand? Yet they have helped you again and again, showing you how to do stuff and recommending things for you to read.
Try going to Natalie Reed’s blog here. On the right hand column you will see a heading Essential Reading, with a list of essays. Please go and read before making yourself sounding even more ignorant, boorish and wazzocky.
And what Louis said. There are a lot of people on here who have listened and learned and changed their point of view. I hope it may happen for you.
And heartfelt thanks to Caine, Jadehawk, Louis, Lyn, Audley, John Morales, ixchel and all the rest of you Pharyngulites for your indefatigability. I’ve been coming to this site and the earlier one at NG since Crackergate, and appreciate the way you all take down the stupid. It is always educational, and there is still so much to learn.
M. A. Melby, if and when you get to see your nephews next, pass along a big *hug* from me, and my best wishes.
:(
Well in response to my posting a photo of a group of women with (probably) complete AIS, he said he would not call them men to their face, but he would be thinking it.
Seeeriously. Is he eight? Is this the first time Mummy has let him use the computer? Has he never heard of Ctrl-F?
I’m still wondering how reasonable fellow can go through life with his thoughts not influencing his acts.
I’m still wondering how reasonable fellow can go through life with his thoughts not influencing his acts.
Except when they do, like on this thread.
I don’t actually care about rude words slung from the depths of the internet.
I’ve been reading through what I can.
M. A. Melby:
Aww, hell. That sucks. It always does.
This, reasonable fellow, is a perfect example of the trouble with your strictly-definitional approach to identity. It fails to account for the contradiction inherent in the societal definition of male and female.
That is, you’re working with a broken definition, one that is self-contradictory. Where you refuse to see the contradiction, we refuse to let it pass without comment.
Then why are you still here talking out of your ass and hurting people?
And, as has been pointed out many times, you do not seem to care that what you write, even without ‘rude words’, hurts people (yes, we are all people here, not categories). Do you really not see that denying a human beings right to the integrigy of their own self-identification?
Washing my hands of hir then. That’s too stupid and hateful of a response to reflect a thoughtful opinion.
Screwed that one up. Lemme try again:
And, as has been pointed out many times, you do not seem to care that what you write, even without ‘rude words’, hurts people (yes, we are all people here, not categories). Do you really not see that denying a human being’s right to the integrity of their own self-identification hurt people?
What is this I don’t even…
Alright, I’ve kept my mouth shut so far because frankly, others are saying what I would have said anyway. Just, you know, better. More succinctly and stuff. But I’ll stick my nose out to make a point of clarification, because as a biologist in a lab that actually studies sex differences in vertebrate brains AND does clinical work with people who are transgendered and/or gay, this “biological sex” nonsense pisses me off, and I don’t think enough people are being careful enough in the terms they’re using. So:
“BIOLOGICAL SEX” DOES NOT EXIST AS A SIMPLE CHARACTERISTIC. PERIOD.
There’s good reason to believe that’s true in non-human species as well, although it’s hard (impossible?) to determine with any certainty what gender a rat identifies as being (for example); never mind all those species without an identifiable ‘brain’.
The brain, the gonads, and the chromosomes are ALL BIOLOGICAL. Even more interesting is that they can each “contradict” some or all of the others! It’s even worse than that, because none of those belong to a a truly dichotomous ‘male/female’ system either! Ain’t life grand? :D
Ahem.
Details, details…
Chromosomal sex: In most* mammals, the presence of a Y chromosome (well, mainly the SRY gene) is used as the defining characteristic; XX, XO, XXX would be ‘chromosomal females’, XY, XXY are ‘chromosomal males’. In birds, the presence of a “Z” chromosome defines a chromosomal female (ZW), and its absence defines a chromosomal male (WW). “Reptiles” are all over the place; some use the XY system, others (e.g. snakes) the WZ system, and some don’t rely on chromosomes to determine their ‘sex’ (e.g. crocodilians). Most fish don’t seem to have a “chromosomal sex” at all. And let’s not forget the cephalopods (OK seriously, has anyone figured that out yet? apparently I’m woefully behind on my mollusk sex determination reading), insects, amphibians… all the plants… and of course those freakin’ fungi (13 “sexes”? What the what?!).
*Don’t get me started on the platypus. Those things are RIDICULOUS.
Gonadal sex: Presence of an ovary = ‘female gonadal sex’, presences of testes = ‘male gonadal sex’. Then there are those individuals that have both, or neither. Let’s not forget those species of fish and amphibian that can convert ovaries to testes when conditions are just right.
I’ll point out here that “biological sex” is what biologists used to use – i.e. prior to the discovery of ‘sex chromosomes’ and the potential mismatch between chromosomal & gonadal sex – as shorthand for “gonadal sex”. I hope you’re beginning to see why the equivalence is not appropriate…
Behavioural sex: This one can be tricky, and requires knowledge of the ‘normal’ sexual behaviours of a species. For example, mounting in rats is a ‘male-typical behaviour’ and its exhibition would be read as identifying a rat as ‘male’, but mounting in mice is (also) an aggressive behaviour routinely performed by both sexes. (There’s waaaaay more to behaviour than that, of course… but that’s another, well, textbook.) Behaviour is controlled by the nervous system (in the case of vertebrates, the ‘brain’ part), and by its interactions with hormones (from the gonads, the brain, and other organs. Y’all know your brain produces testosterone and estradiol and all sorts of other hormones locally, too, right? Oh yeah, it’s JUST THAT AWESOME).
Gender: If it helps, one might think of this as ‘brain sex’ – i.e. whether the brain considers itself ‘male’ or ‘female’. Gender is of course “easiest” (hah!) to study in humans who can self-identify with language. It’s impossible at this point to determine ‘gender’ as opposed to ‘behavioural sex’ in non-human animals. Not so closely tied to hormones, at least not in a simple way that we’ve been able to determine. (Side-note to psychologists with animals subjects: no, you don’t know your rat’s gender. Stop using that word when you’re not talking about humans. At least until you teach your rats Language.)
Sexual orientation: Another bit that’s controlled by that biological organ, the brain. Damned thing’s everywhere! Some hormonal effects early in life seem weakly be related to partner-gender preference, but the evidence is shaky. Another characteristic that’s impossible (so far?) to separate in non-humans from ‘behavioural sex’.
Huh. Well, that’s at least five different ‘biological sexes’. While they often correlate with each other (e.g. humans with a chromosomal sex of ‘female’ have ovaries more often than they have testes, self-identify as ‘female’ more often than they self-identify as ‘male’, etc.), and yep, even influence each other, they are NOT dependent on each other. Nor does one necessarily “determine” any other. There are all sorts of interactions – genetic, hormonal, and environmental – that occur that can/could swing any one or more of those in any direction.
So, the upshot is this: if a person self-identifies as ‘man’ or ‘male’, or self-identifies as ‘woman’ or ‘female’, you’d best take their word for it. You’d have an awful lot of testing to do to prove them “wrong”, and if you’ve got that kind of funding and lack of respect for others as fellow humans then you’ve got bigger problems to blow your money on. Nothing worthwhile is lost if we default to prioritizing what the person(‘s brain) identifies as, over what their chromosomes or gonads have to ‘say’, when speaking with, to, or about anyone.
Now, where’s that person who was complaining about there not being enough biology around here?
(Alright, I’m done now.)
As far as the concept of “trumping biology” or whatever the heck language to that effect has been flying around on here.
That’s not how science works.
I wrote a post about it a while ago:
THANK YOU!!
Stupid and hateful, yes.
I suppose the best we can take from it is that it’s probably just honest. I mean, we all have prejudices. We’re human. RECOGNISING those prejudices and feeling bad about them is the first and most important step. If this reasonable fellow chap can gain a clue from this thread – be it now, in a week or in a year when the issue comes up again – and catch their prejudice when it surfaces, then progress will have been made.
Wishful thinking, in all likelihood, but it is possible.
I always catch myself recoiling at things I shouldn’t. Pretending we’ve moved past those prejudices is just as harmful as being unaware they exist in the first place, I think. Not to say anyone here isn’t, this is Pharyngula, where those touting privilege blindness and race/sex/class blindness are eaten alive by the regulars. :P
ibbica:
Thank you. A pint of grog will soon be pouring out of your USB port. Put a large glass under it and enjoy.
That was an excellent brief overview of an incredibly confusing subject.
Sorry for my html fail – I’m just learning that.
ibbica:
Bravo. Nuff said. Much obliged for the clarification on ‘biological sex’ as it’s a term I’ve used myself.
… I never fail to be amazed at how awesome learning is. :)
ibbica:
I doff my hat to you.
I do ♥ science. And I especially ♥ science in the hands of someone who can wield it like a ♣.
I will add to the plaudits being sent ibbica’s way. A brilliant brief explanation of the issues and the complexity.
I suspect it will be wasted on reasonable fellow, but not on the rest of us.
That’ll be often as in 90%+ of the time.
reasonable fellow:
So, you’re OK with causing distress for the other 10%?
Yeap, totally wasted on him.
I think its a lot less than 10%, and I don’t think my opinion causes huge amounts of distress.
So are you calling us all liars? Because people are telling you right now that it causes distress and harm.
reasonable fellow:
Let me rephrase that into something you might actually care about then.
So you’re OK with being wrong 10% of the time?
I am quite aware that I am a lowly liberal arts major, but I do wish to point out that 90% =/= 100%. Are those ~10% not entitled to be treated as human beings?
They are entitled to be treated as human beings.
*reads responses*
*blushes*
*reads reasonable fellow’s response*
*headdesk*
Well, I tried…
Actually, “reasonable fellow”, at least one of those characteristics don’t line up with all the others a LOT more often than 10% of the time.
Feel free to conduct your own research into the subject. I’ll wait.
You are okay with denying the humanity, and the concommitant human rights, to one person in ten? And you think this does not cause distress? So now you make the claim that ~10% of the human population are not capable of feeling hurt?
Do you understand the term “dehumanizing”?
But you have said you refuse to do so.
reasonable fellow:
Are they not entitled to their choice of roles in society?
How so?
ibbica ,
I will join those thanking you.
And yet you feel quite comfortable denying those human beings the right to the integrity of their own self identification. Denying a human being the right to the integrity of their own self identification denies their humanity.
ibbica:
There’s no reason to assume you might change reasonable fellow‘s mind with something as tawdry as science. Not when there’s privilege-protectin’ to be done.
I can’t deny them anything.
reasonable fellow:
Are they not entitled to their choice of roles in society?
If a transwoman tells you she’s a woman you are going to consider her deluded or a liar.
You deny their identity! You have stated that trans people are deluded and are not who they claim to be. You deny their humanity. And have done so again and again and again and again!
Your very own words:
Sure, but i’m not entitled to my own mind on the subject?
And you’d be wrong about that. If you can’t not be an ignorant thoughtless assclam, because all that of yours, then have the decency to shut the fuck up. Jesis crispy fried christ, this isn’t hard; even the racists have learned to keep their damn fool mouths shut in decent company.
Like here, right now, where you have already hurt people.
GO. AWAY.
/lights the squid-shaped beacon.
PZ, hazmat cleanup squad needed here
reasonable fellow:
You can deny them nothing but decency and respect.
… And I still don’t believe that those thoughts won’t influence how you treat her. If I consider someone a liar, it’s going to color my interactions with that person, same with someone I would consider deluded.
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female: 1 in 100
ibbica, that was wonderfully instructive and fascinating, thanks. Even if it doesn’t right now get through to reasonable fellow, it will help educate a lot of other people out here.
The “opinion” you voiced here is that trans people are lying to themselves and deluded, and you’re wondering how that could possibly cause distress?
Seriously?
reasonable fellow:
Absolutely!
And since your own mind seems to go against the scientific evidence and basic human decency, we’re entitled to call you a bigoted asshole with a ‘nym that is oxymoronic, or at least highly ironic.
Deluded.
1. Your thoughts on the subject are wrong, as has been explained to you
2. You have decided to share those thoughts, from that moment on they have ceased being harmless (if they ever were, which I doubt)
Yes, yes, yes; but do cephalopods have ‘sex chromosomes’? That’s The Important Question everyone seems to have missed in my post. Inquiring minds want to know!
:P
RF (can I call you “RF”?): so, which characteristic are you relying on to tell you a person’s “biological sex”?
Reasonable Fellow,
1) Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.
2) Everyone is entitled to be wrong. Some people abuse the privilege.
Louis
reasonable fellow,
It wasn’t a question. It isn’t much better if you only consider her deluded and not a liar.
Great post by ibbica, thanks for that. :)
Indeed it was.
You’re entitled to be an asshole. Sure, you may have something resembling a human being, such as a conscience or empathy, within your self-identity, but I’ll still think you’re an asshole because that’s the part that is most visible.
That’s you, deluded in thinking you are making any headway on changing our opinions of you and your fuckwitted thinking. Look lurkers, same-old same-old insults to those not like him.
You can have your own mind, but you need to keep it to yourself. Any REASONABLE FELLOW understands that concept. You, being unreasonable and dogmatic, don’t. We must agree with you…
Thanks for otherizing me.
And a nice, juicy borkquote. The last paragraph should not be blockquoted at all. I forgot a ‘/’.
reasonable fellow,
Since deluded seems to be the word of the day, I think you are deluding yourself if you think that your belief about trans* people is harmless.
Just about every human being is an asshole about something some of the time. Your particular brand of assholery hurts people.
So, do you deny even the possibility of a biological component in a transwoman’s identification as female?
As far as I can see, this entire discussion has centered around the premise that I must agree with you, or else be labelled something bad. A bad man.
The irony, it burns
You have no concept of that. Thanks for the fuckwitted and irrelevant attempt to make you like the victim here. Another piece of prima facie evidence you aren’t REASONABLE, but dogmatic. You are the bully and bullshitter by denigrating those who aren’t like you. There is no way you can be victimized like them, since you are in the majority.
reasonable fellow:
Do you deny even the possibility of a biological component in a transwoman’s identification as female?
You don’t have to agree with us. You do have to stop vain attempts to convince us you aren’t a bad man. You are a bad man, and your own words show that. Silence is your best remedy.
I’m not in the majority here am I?
I’ll just repeat this
Wow… This level of cluelessness (I am talking about you here “reasonable” fellow) has to merit some kind of reward.
I hereby grant you the “Most clueless person in this thread” award, and that’s quite the fucking achievement, all the other idiots considered.
(A bit of friendly advise: it’s not the kind of award you want to put on display for others to see in case you didn’t get that, which all things considered you probably didn’t)
reasonable fellow:
Do you deny even the possibility of a biological component in a transwoman’s identification as female?
.
Yeah, all hope’s gone out the window. Not honesty, just an elephantine degree of odious privilege.
Each one of these erodes my hope-for-general-humanity glands a little more.
No, you are the majority in real life. You are the fuckwitted liar and bullshitter here. You can’t shut the fuck up like any REASONABLE FELLOW would have done last night. You dug your hole with stubbornness and stupidity. Now you live in said hole until you get yourself out of it. SILENCE is the proven method.
If I say “real women bleed” am I being transphobic?
reasonable fellow:
So, they are entitled to choose their role in society, but if it differs from your arbitrary assignment, they’re deluded.
Nice ‘n’ rational, Ace.
Please tell us “Y chromosome”.
I’m reasonably sure less than 10% of the population roundabouts where I live is black. So, I’m OK to assume everyone is white, because what’s 10% here or there, amirite?
If you are talking about menstruation, YES
No.
If you’re talking about periods, that makes you particularly clueless.
reasonable fellow:
The biology of sexual identification has been explained. Explained in a way that even I, a liberal arts major and historian, can grok in fullness. Given the explanation by ibbica (comment #68 on this page of comments), do you deny even the possibility of a biological component in a transwoman’s identification as female?
preamble and disclaimer: This long comment concerns a specific tangential discussion from waaay above in this megathread, and should not be interpreted as a contribution to the more general discussions and/or trollery around it here where it happens to show up in the thread (the recent comments of which I have not yet read). Nor is it an attempt to derail, silence, deny, discriminate, or strengthen a kyriarchical system of structural discrimination. I am just replying to specific comments.
If the reader is not interested in this particular semantic issue, xe is cordially invited to skip the whole comment via page-down or killfile.
No one should draw unwarranted conclusions about my motivation, intent, or character via the ‘why do you care so much about this’ line of inference. The truth is I have a great deal of unpleasant work to do and I am mostly procrastinating desperately over here.
first the touches and direct hits.
It is another instance of this, but your example made me think. So thanks for that.
And here’s what I (eventually) thought: It’s not the actual usurpation or co-optation that bothers me (even if my complaints might well have been phrased that way). I have two problems: one is the imprecision of communication and pointless time-wasting that results when people are having a plain-English discussion but using key terms differently (and this happens all the time around here), and the second is the insistence that the newly-informed-by-social-science-consensus definitions are the only correct ones, to the extent of policing blog-comment threads for plain-English speakers who didn’t get the memo. More on this below.
I would never use the word ’community’ in a plain-English discussion (not even when teaching a non-ecology biology course) without the adjective ‘ecological’, if that’s what I meant. And you’ll note that I didn’t police CripDyke’s use of the term in the middle of her (otherwise stupid and insulting) comment.
That’s an excellent point.
The original definition of ‘male (adj.)’ seems to have referenced some sort of ineffable qualium of the manly masculine macho man-ness of manly men, afaict.
I acknowledge your point.
hmm. That would be bullshit, hypocritical bullshit even, I agree.
But first, while that’s indeed when and perhaps what I ‘whine’, it’s not what I’m ‘whining’ about; see above. Second, it’s not reproductive-biology jargon; people use the word ‘male’ in plain English all the time to refer to birds and fish and mosquitoes and marijuana plants, and while they may not know consciously that they’re referring to gametes, they sure as hell are not talking about gender identities. Third, let me remind you of the origin and context of this tangential discussion:
see, it was jadehawk who first conflated ‘man’ and ‘male’ but and then wanted to redefine the plain-English word ‘male’ to mean something specific to (human) social science.
Not me.
Nonsense; see the word ‘human’ in the parentheses above? You asserted that the word ‘male’ does not mean X (a definition applicable to at least all mammals) but instead means Y (a definition applicable only to humans).
What? I never said anything like that.
Out of curiosity, how would you test your hypothesis?
OK. The descriptivist plain-English thing. I’d suggest without data that most people who use the word ‘male’ in plain English are referring to something much more like the gamete thing than the gender-identity thing.
so…
what?
OK. The word in question, however, is ‘male’.
Your example is of two terms being arguably mistakenly used for the same concept. I’m talking about confusion resulting from use of the same term for different concepts (e.g. sex and gender and gender-identity).
If ‘you’ refers collectively to all the people commenting on Pharyngula, then yes! that’s my point.
Right here on this thread alone people have used the word ‘male’ to mean (or to conflate its meaning with) all the following at minimum:
‘Male’=
man
he
a sex
a gender
a biological sex
a gender identity
has a penis
has a Y chromosome
has sperm-producing gonads
exhibits species-specific phenotypes (appearance and/or behavior)
In plain, anthropocentric English, all of these are arguably legitimate usages.
That’s why I ‘whine’ about the one-two combo of redefinition and enforcement. Clarity of communication. Stuff like this:
Those terms are usefully precise. It can be done. You don’t have to confuse people inadvertently or on rhetorical purpose by using existing plain-English terms in specialized ways (whether via academia or identity politics) and then castigating them for not knowing what you meant. That’s my beef.
———————————-
tangential even to the tangent:
Sincere, possibly ignorant, non-JAQing question:
How is it that when in the past I have taken exception to declarations of ‘radical anti-essentialism’ and the like, I’ve been pummeled with copies of Cordelia Fine, but in this context people say stuff like this without comment?
hee hee
kemist:
I’m pretty sure reasonable fellow got his sex education from Kindergarten Cop.
And not just transphobic, totally clueless about the problems women can experience with regards menstruation and fertility.
*sigh*
Reasonable fellow, y u no respond to simple questions? :(
From Ogvorbis:
Do you deny even the possibility of a biological component in a transwoman’s identification as female?
From me:
So, which characteristic are you relying on to tell you a person’s “biological sex”?
(@kemist… shhhh… I’m hoping to convince them to offer me some of their sweet, sweet cheap-as-free genetic testing services that they must have… in a lot of species, juveniles are just so very hard to tell apart…)
Oh, and RF: do cephalopods have sex chromosomes? You seem like someone who might know something like that.
So a woman who has had a hysterectomy is not a woman? Or any woman suffering from amenorrhoea or something similar?
Come on Reasonable Fellow, I’ve treated you…reasonably…why on earth would you post something so obviously trolling as your #129?
You’re just going to get abuse for that, and rightly so, why should anyone take you seriously when you clearly don’t want to engage the topic seriously and are just here to troll.
Louis
What about post-menopausal women? Are they no longer real women? What are they, then? They self-identify as women but, according to your definition, they cannot be. So what are they?
And, do you deny even the possibility of a biological component in a transwoman’s identification as female?
So people with AIS aren’t real women?
So people who have had hysterectomies aren’t real women?
So people who are post-menopausal aren’t real women?
So people who use IUDs aren’t real women?
So people who haven’t reached the age of menarche aren’t real women?
So people who have amenorrhea aren’t real women?
Lets amend that to: Real women bleed, or will, or have.
If I say “real men don’t shoot blanks” am I being hurtful?
Matt Penfold:
Exactly.
My niece lost her ovaries to cancer. She no longer bleeds. (I really wish I didn’t know that, but our family has a habit of TMI.)
According to RF’s proposed criteria, she’s no longer a Real Woman™.
reasonable fellow:
Would you please answer this question: do you deny even the possibility of a biological component in a transwoman’s identification as female?
That does not help you much. Why not try a different criteria ? One that is not quite so silly.
No she has bled, therefore a woman.
And in some cases, thankfully rare, women who are genetically female, who identify as female, do not bleed because there were developmental abnormalities that resulted in the internal sexual organs not forming correctly, or the eggs never developed.
It is amazing someone can be so clueless.
reasonable fellow:
Except those that don’t, won’t, and never have, except when cut, scraped, gouged, or punctured.
You’re getting very close to a good solid definition, Ace. One that’s not particularly accurate, or very useful, but good and solid.
Talk about an unreasonable fuckwitted definition. But then, given how unreasonable this fuckwit is, not surprising. What loser if it thinks we are going change our minds without that evidence it never presents…It’s OPINIONS are worthless, as they don’t jive with reality, but rather its presuppositions and dogma.
Could you rephrase the question? I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking.
YOU ARE A TRANSPHOBIC PIECE OF SHIT
Clear enough?
Of course not, as it is the key to our argument. You’ve ignored it all night. Notice how this happens again and again lurkers.
Poor Reasonable Fellow, you have Opinion Disphoria Syndrome. Everyone here thinks your opinion is wrong. You think your opinion is correct.
That feeling you have of being ganged up on? That sense that your opinion should be treated with a little respect? That anger and frustration you feel because you have a right to your opinion and everyone here keeps saying you have a right to it and would never discriminate against you because of your opinion in Real Life, but still, your opinion is Wrong. That feeling you have that we really would discriminate against you, and would certainly treat you with contempt in Real Life? Think about those feelings.
Now think about how you would feel if it wasn’t about an opinion, but about who you fucking ARE.
reasonable fellow:
So, to you, the only thing that matters is whether a woman has a working uterus, is fertile (or was fertile), and whether or not she menstruates? See, this is what I (and others who are far more eloquent) have been speaking to! Rather than see a woman as a human being, you insist on defining her as a machine for making babies. You do not see women as human (using this definition) but only as incubators with an inconvenient brain.
And, do you deny even the possibility of a biological component in a transwoman’s identification as female?
reasonable fellow:
Right. We crossed our posts, as I took a while to write mine.
However, had she been diagnosed with cancer just a couple of years before, she wouldn’t’ve ever menstruated.
So the logic still stands, if not this particular instance.
You are harming any trans woman reading this, you fucking asshole. Does that makes you feel all tingly inside?
I seem to remember PZ putting forward a taxonomy of creationist arguing styles a while back. One of them was based on appearing to be reasonable, and continuing to ask questions while refusing to budge on their position. Those trying to convince the creobot become increasingly frustrated, and the creationist “wins” by appearing to be the reasonable voice.
I think this guy has taken his cue from the creationist playbook. This is not about learning; he’s just poking the hornet’s nest for fun.
Given the explanations and evidence that have been presented to you within this thread, do you think that a transwoman’s self identification as a woman has a biological component or not?
No.
The premise, as it always is at Pharyngula, is that if you have something to say, back it up with facts and evidence.
If you spout , and provide nothing to back it up, we will expect you to put up said facts and evidence, or shut up.
Similarly, when others provide you with facts and evidence that indicate you are mistaken – which they have done, amply and repeatedly – we expect you to take that on board.
This applies to everyone here: every single one of us has been slapped upside the head with facts after saying something dumb. Seriously, it’s not because everyone has randomly decided to get a hate-on for your
But that couldn’t possibly hurt now, could it? You festering worthless pustule on the face of humanity.
You have provided ample empirical evidence to make this a reasonable conclusion.
Why, yes, I never do quite give up tryng to get through to someone, even if I’m terrible at it and history suggests the chances are very, very low.
And BTW, y’all are my heros. I’ve missed the last 50 or so because I need to get moving this morning, but you are appreciated. And often very funny.
Except his opinion is right, and yours is WRONG. Thanks for playing unreasonable fuckwit. You lose again due to terminal idiocy. It will happen regularly until fade into the bandwidth.
That you are transphobic is a fact. While you are not literally a piece of shit, metaphorically the description fits you nicely.
Had she not been diagnosed with cancer there’s every reason to suppose that she’d have started menstruating in her early teens, no?
I’m really sorry about your niece by the way. Honestly.
Meanwhile, fuck off and google.
Here is an NHS page on why women may never have had a period.
Our resident (for the moment) idiot thinks every single cause means the person is not “real” woman.
Alright, so ‘reasonable fellow’ there has offered a working definition of ‘woman’* which amounts to
“A human who produces and sheds an endometrial lining in the uterus, has produced and shed such an endometrial lining in the past, or will produce and shed such an endometrial lining in the future”.
RF: is that a reasonable assessment of your stance?
(Others… hush, please. Never mind for the moment how anyone is to go about determining this.)
Now, reasonable fellow, what characteristic are you using to define a ‘man’*?
*I’ve noticed we’ve moved away from ‘female’ and ‘male’. What am I to make of that, I wonder?
No actually its your opinion.
reasonable fellow:
Thanks. I know you’re mostly just having a go with the whole “women bleed” thing*. You could almost write a song or something.
Really, though, while the cancer was a scare, and a bad few months, she came through it, and as she likes to point out, she no longer bleeds. She never wanted kids, so except for the scare, and the constant hormone treatments, she’s taken the whole thing in stride. She’s a strong person, thanks to my wife (we basically raised her, because my brother is a fucking worthless human being).
* Not that stirring folks up for the sake of amusing yourself is acceptable behavior.
1) You don’t grok biology. At all.
2) Societal standards? No. You want everyone and everything to conform to your bigotry, that little corner of vile toxicity you call home.
@reasonable fellow
You might as well make the argument that real women are women who have had children. It’s equally as ridiculous as saying that real women are women who have, will or do currently experience a menstrual cycle.
And if there is only gender binary and self-delusion, then that must mean that all women who do not fit your criteria (see the paper that Matt Penfold linked in #168) are de facto men. This is not the case.
One presumes that you accept that there’s a biological component to peoples’ sexual orientation. Why is it so hard for you to accept (as ibbica’s amazing and informative comment explained) that sometimes there is biological disagreement among characteristics that determine gender? Why would you presume to know more about it than the people who experience such disagreement, and the people who study it?
reasonable fellow
Hold on, are you moving from:
“A woman is a human who produces and sheds an endometrial lining in the uterus, has produced and shed such an endometrial lining in the past, or will produce and shed such an endometrial lining in the future.”
to:
“A woman is a human who would reasonably be expected to produce and shed an endometrial lining in the uterus, to have produced and shed such an endometrial lining in the past, or to produce and shed such an endometrial lining in the future”?
I wouldn’t want to misrepresent your position.
mythbri:
I suspect it’s because of the single toughest sentence in the English language:
“I was wrong.”
Hm, do you deny that trans women are women, considering them deluded? Yes. Have you been educated on why you are wrong? Yes, multiple times. Have you proceeded spewing your shit, without giving the evidence any consideration? Yes.
So yes, it’s a fact.
What do we do with all of the unwomen, those females who will never bleed?
I suspect it’s because to “reasonable” fellow debating is all about winning and since they have no arguments and are utterly clueless, the only way to “win”, is to turn the debate into a contest of stamina.
Oh the battle cry of the lone bigot, sounding out their loathsome hate, all the while telling themself “”
*
Nod along with their little delusions and dismiss them as silly wannaberealwomen?
But that’s what we (the society) already do with women. Ergo, they are real women after all!
/bitter
Holy crap, this thread is still going on?
Out of curiosity, what’s the record for post count?
Shut the fuck up you worthless piece of shit.
reasonable fellow,
Did you read what ibbica wrote in her #68? Go read it, think about it and then come back.
reasonable fellow @ #170(1670)
You admitted that you think trans* people identifying as something other than their birth sex are deluded.
Deluded. As in, disjointed from reality.
That is evidence of your transphobia. So no, that you are transphobic is not a matter of opinion anymore. You are trying to defend an opinion that contributes to a societal atmosphere so toxic that 90% of trans* individuals report harassment and mistreatment on the job, and 40% report having attempted suicide
FORTY PERCENT ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. TWO OUT OF FIVE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY FULL OF FUCKING DIPSHITS LIKE YOU WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT THEM FOR WHO THEY ARE.
You are pond scum. Please fuck off somewhere far away from other people. The concrete sarcophagus at Chernobyl’s Reactor 4 would do nicely.
Unreasonable Fellow: Lots of good evidence from the biological and social sciences is coming your way, and you feel free to ignore it.
I’m not going to add to it, but will note that your claim about “real women” is a hotbutton phrase that you are a misogynistic as well as transphobic fellow: you want to separate out “real” from unreal, or fake, or in your words deluded or lying to themselves or both, women.
You reserve the authority to distinguish what is real.
Your authority is suffering because you’ve clearly shown that your knowledge of biological sciences is out of date (let me guess, you probably are open to the ‘real’ scientific opinion from the 19th century that too much education makes a woman’s womb break loose and zoom around her body, amirite?) if not, you might as well be, with your tossing chromosomes around, and “real women don’t bleed” (what’s wrong, would saying “menstruate” be too much for your delicate reasonable facilities), despite the fact that not all women menstruate (for multiple reasons).
I also love the “words on the internet don’t hurt” vs. “you’re hurting me by calling me naaaaaaaames!” (you do realize that many people on the internet don’t mind reading back on threads and can see the contradictions?).
reasonable fellow,
Would you say to a trans woman’s face that she is deluded in thinking she is a real woman?
Only pre-pregnant women are real women.
I can’t see a situation ever arising that i’d have to. If the question was directly asked “do you think i’m a real woman” i’d have to answer no I suppose.
I thought only pregnant women are real women.
Given the explanations and evidence that have been presented to you, reasonable fellow, within this thread, do you think that a transwoman’s self identification as a woman has a biological component or not?
Janine:
I don’t have words to express just how much I utterly loathe that stupid, hateful fucking “argument”. I went 20 rounds with another woman on a forum some years back over that – she insisted it just wasn’t fair that someone could just “up and decide to be a woman and do it the easy way, so they could have the pretty clothes and manicures, etc., without paying their proper dues, i.e., a lifetime of menstruation.”
Auuuugggh!
And ftr, I’m childfree and haven’t had a period for 18.5 years. Guess I’m not a woman. Nope.
Janine
Not call them ‘females’ either, apparently…
To make things easy, in ‘real life’ we could refer to everyone as, oh, I don’t know, “people”? “That person”, “they/them”? Or, you know, if you have a hard time with the them/they-as-singular thing, just use her/him/he/she as that individual prefers? I know! Brilliant, right?
Ooo, I just had another novel thought: if we’re doing a science-y (scientificky, even!) study that requires separation of human subjects by chromosomal or gonadal sex, by reproductive status or sexual orientation or gender, or any other feature that falls under “sex”, how about we talk about our results in terms of, you know, the thing that we actually used to separate our subjects into groups. “XX/XY/XXX/XXY/XO”, “ovaries/testes/none/both”, etc. Of course, it might take a millisecond or two of extra thought when writing up your paper, of course, but producing useful science requires one to be meticulous.
@reasonable fellow
As has already been explained to you (ad nauseum), biology is not as simple as you think it is. And since you’ve given no indication that you’re expressing anything other than opinion, your opinion does not trump biology. There can be biological disagreement between multiple indicators of gender. Gender is not biologically binary, and slowly gender is becoming less societally binary. Why is this so hard for you to accept? I’ve no doubt that you have the theoretical capacity to understand.
Yet you have no problem at all saying to their faces here. Why the difference?
Oh, and, given the explanations and evidence that have been presented to you within this thread, do you think that a transwoman’s self identification as a woman has a biological component or not?
1. Do you realize that there are trans women reading this blog?
2. Your opinions that you claim are totally innocent are harmful after all.
And you claim that you are not a transphobic piece of shit? You would deliberately hurt this woman, you are proving that you don’t have empathy.
Delurking to point out that an actual reasonable fellow would have given up arguing a long time ago.
I used to think a little bit like Unreasonable Asshole here.
It was during my pagan moon goddess phase. There was something mystical and essential about bleeding that had to do with my womanhood.
At the time, I wasn’t aware of the existence of transwomen, but who knows. Perhaps I would have been as bigoted as Unreasonable. I doubt I would have stuck with it after being presented with so much evidence, which I was unable to counter with evidence of my own.
In any case, letting go of that belief allowed me to accept that I didn’t have to bleed in order to be a woman, which has now allowed me to embrace hormonal birth control treatment which prevents me from bleeding any more. Now, not only do I not have to go through headaches, aches and pains, and emotional ups and downs every month, I’ve also reduced my risk of ovarian cancer.
See, Unreasonable Asshole’s unreasonable belief about “real” women being women who bleed hurts not only trans woman but also cis women like myself.
It’s a false belief.
Why are you so devoted to your false beliefs, Unreasonable Asshole? At a certain point, you have to realize that your opinion contradicts all the available empirical evidence. How much evidence do you need before you’ll accept that you’re wrong and change your mind?
Do you ever change your mind? Or are you always right?
Yeah, you are a transphobic piece of shit. Thanks for removing all doubt.
What choice would I have? I wouldn’t be deliberately hurting anyone, they’d be putting me between a rock and a hard-place.
Beatrice:
Oh, no! That’s not it at all. reasonable fellow is just being truthful.
Even though that truth doesn’t line up with, y’know, science and shit.
I’m saying that the every-day language use for “male” and “female”, as well as “man” and “woman” does not refer to sexual organs.
Just like the “real women bleed” thing. It’s really NOT TRUE. Unless nearly every “female” over the age of 60 is no longer “a woman”, that’s NOT how the word is actually used.
Cis-women without reproductive organs are still referred to as “female” – because of their gender identity. Cis-men without testicles are still referred to as “male” – because of their gender identity.
Everyday language is usually really vague and annoying. I get it, trust me.
A better example: using the terms “heavy” and “light”. In every-day speech they can refer to weight, mass, density, molecular-mass or EVER boiling point (usually when referring to distillation). They are really sort of awful terms, and they are a great teaching tool to show how scientific jargon is different than every-day speech and that (even though it makes science less accessible) is necessary for accurate communication between scientists to avoid those “everyday” words.
What makes gender unique here – is that using the wrong gendered term to refer to a transperson is sometimes very damaging to them. It should be avoided on that basis alone. There is no INCREASE in accuracy to do so, in fact there is an increase in misconception, vagueness, and problematic connotation to do so.
It’s a LOSE/LOSE to do so.
“Biological sex” is a great example of a phrase that is so problematic as to be completely useless and that causes misconceptions. There is good evidence that gender identity has a physiological basis; and may depend very heavily on hormone levels during gestation which effects the brain in ways that we can actually measure. The term implies that there is no “biology” involved in gender identity since in transgender people it is different than the supposed “biological sex”.
As far as how to find out if other animals are transgender, I suppose we could ask the chimpanzees that know sign language if they are a boy or a girl and see if any says that zie is a different gender than we assigned to them due to their appearance. We already know that some animals assume gender roles within their social groups that are different than their “gametes” might suggest. Heck, I had a cat that did that.
However, ibicca already covered that issue – better than I could and with more experience and expertise on the topic.
Yeah, those assholes should really have some sympathy for your difficult position.
And you would be deliberately hurting them or are you somehow forced to speak every little thing that comes to that excuse of a mind of yours?
You brought up this ridiculous hypothetical. Did you expect a different answer or something?
reasonable fellow, given the explanations and evidence that have been presented to you within this thread, do you think that a transwoman’s self identification as a woman has a biological component or not?
Ridiculous hypothetical? THERE ARE TRANS WOMEN READING THIS BLOG AND THESE COMMENTS. YOU ARE HURTING THEM RIGHT NOW. YOU HAVE BEEN TELLING THEM FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS THAT THEY ARE NOT REALLY WOMEN.
reasonable fellow, is it rational to admit people are entitled to select their roles in society, but claim they are deluded when they don’t select the role based on possession (or lack thereof) of a penis?
I’m going to get some food.
Can I suggest a cyanide biscuit?
How is it hypothetical ? You will have met people who appear to be women, but who do not meet your criterion for being a real woman. It is not therefore hypothetical to ask how you respond, or even to to ask what steps you took to determine if the female looking person was in fact a real woman ? Do you want evidence in the form of used tampons or pads before you will the person “she” ?
“I have no choice: I cannot help but hurt you because I have an erroneous understanding of biology which contradicts both scientific facts and your own self-identification… You are the asshole here.”
Logic, how does it fucking work?
You always have choices. If you choose to hurt someone because you privilege your opinion over empirical evidence (regarding both the science of gender and sex and the social science research that demonstrates the harm of your attitudes) then that definitely makes you a bigot.
You’ve had that evidence repeatedly explained to you here, so you can no longer claim ignorance. Hence: a bigot.
Forget the fact that the “harmless opinions” that RF help to contribute to the toxic environment that transgendered live through. Reasonable Fellow is the victim here.
Before you go and eat, could you please answer this fucking question:
Shoot, borked my tags…
“I have no choice: I cannot help but hurt you because I have an erroneous understanding of biology which contradicts both scientific facts and your own self-identification… You are the asshole here.”
Logic, how does it fucking work?
You always have choices. If you choose to hurt someone because you privilege your opinion over empirical evidence (regarding both the science of gender and sex and the social science research that demonstrates the harm of your attitudes) then that definitely makes you a bigot.
You’ve had that evidence repeatedly explained to you here, so you can no longer claim ignorance. Hence: a bigot.
Addendum: Are you also in denial that there are trans men, trans women, and gender queer people reading this right now? I don’t know of any commenters here who are intersex but that’s also not outside the realm of possibility.
Why is it so hard to imagine the possibility that REAL LIVE trans people are reading what you write?
I actually preferred it all in bold, Sam; it needed ramming into the screen.
Emrysmyrddin:
♥
Or how about a more basic question: Do you understand that if it’s true that a trans woman’s self identification as a woman has a biological basis, that means it is objectively false to call her “delusional” for believing she is a woman?
Sam Strange:
Well, the vile bigot already triggered one person (Codobus) and all they had to say was “oh, come off it.” Yeah, lots of empathy there.
I’m glad Kat Lorraine isn’t in this thread.
He’s ignored it (by my count) four times already. I think we’re at the point where we can consider it deliberate evasion.
SamStrange:
Oh, that’ll be a great follow on (assuming xe gets the first one right).
I agree, actually.
I think I’ll say it again, just for emphasis:
If you choose to hurt someone because you privilege your uninformed opinion over actual empirical research and reality, then what you are doing is bigotry.
That’s basically the essence of bigotry, actually.
And xe even claimed not to understand the question, so I fucking rephrased it for hir. I think it is evasion.
Reasonable assessment and charitable criticism of the unreasonable nimwit: His standard of judgement about purpose is in its utility. He doesn’t see people, he sees functions as the deciding factor in deriving a person. His view on what constitutes gender is fractional and obsessive of minutiae. The belligerence to relinquish a point, and to have his responses remain short-spoken and especially abrasive, is indicative of an idiot beyond his capacity to argue in good faith. He is no more than a shit-spewing bilge-dwelling barnacle on the ass of humanity. He is the ineffectual bully resorting to poking a stick into an anthill – because punching down is all he can find the courage to do. What a detestable laughingstock. What an evolutionary dead-end he would be if ideas were genetic. There will be no cathartic moment for him, not one he’d be willing to admit, since appearing right is more important than being right, since rhetoric and semantic victories are unrivalled opposites to understanding and thoughtfulness.
While I’ll never say a person is worthless, I will say that there are more worthwhile things his atomic structure could have contributed to. Like a marriage certificate for a same-sex trans couple. The ink on a bill which protects trans from discrimination because their gender-identity, their real gender, doesn’t match their gonads. The sparkle in the eye of someone loved long ago and missed terribly today. I would trade all the ‘reasonable fellows’ in the world for a bit of anything positive.
Can I say “actually” one more time?
Actually, I hate it when a word gets stuck in my head and I accidentally use it, like, 15 times in one paragraph.
“reasonable” felllow: you are not reasonable. You’re done. You’re now confined to the TZT thread — do not post here anymore. Posting anything anywhere else will get you banned.
Because you’re an asshole.
Well, the toxic asspimple is on borrowed time now, as PZ is on his way back.
One has to wonder, for every lurker like Codobus who comes forth, how many lurkers are thinking “Oh shit, not again.”?
PZ, thank you.
Thank you, PZ!
Hey, Unreasonable Asshole, TZT is here.
There is not a cluebat big enough that could knock enough sense into this commenter. We’d have to train up cluebat architects for years to execute such a massive project. Whole new levels of cluebat physics would have to be devised in order for the existing Universe to contain its mass. There just isn’t enough cluedust to feverishly coalesce into the needed cluetonium to contruct something that would Just. Educate. This. Fuckhead.
Hey, wait –
-Believes themselves to be correct even in the face of an onslaught of scientific evidence to the contrary
-Refuses to either listen to or learn from repeated corrections
-Treats their Opinion as Fact, and an Entitlement, and you’ll take it out of their Cold Dead Hands
-Mindlessly repeats questions that have already been answered
-Deliberately says inflammatory things, we suspect For Teh Lulz that the backlash contains
-Discards the entire weight of decades of psycho-social research, careful study and superior technologies such as MRI scanning in favour of old-fashioned sloganistic binaries set down by Something They Do Not Wot Of
-Is a douchcake™
…Ken Ham, me old piggy, is that you?
PZ, check out the work of sheeptick within this long thread.
If Unreasonable Fellow were really a barnacle, he’d be neither male nor female, or possibly both, depending on how you define those categories.
He’d also have a hot sex scene with Isabella Rossellini.
Janine:
Exactly. It’s infuriating, too, how hard we work to make this a safe space and then someone like Unreasonable Asshole wanders in, making it a very unsafe space.
Thanks from me also, PZ
Walked right into that one, didn’t you?
It’s the “had she not been” that’s the operative part there.
“Had she not been diagnosed with cancer…”
“Had she not been developmentally infertile…”
“Had she not been born with mutated ovaries…”
“Had she not been born without a uterus…”
See? Do I have to spell it out for you? I will, just in case.
You yourself just gave every woman (cis and trans) an “out” from your definition by adding an exception for differing physically from the norm. That given, “Had she not been born with androgen-influenced reproductive organs instead of estrogen-influenced reproductive organs” is a part of that exception. If you’d like to try to argue that it isn’t, where exactly would you draw the line and why? And since you’re so invested in the idea of biological definitions, you need to use the appropriate terminology and conditions in doing so. In case you (gasp!) aren’t fully educated on the topic you’re so interested in arguing, here’s a handy list of conditions that affect reproductive organ development and function.
unreasonable shithead reminds me so much of the interlocutors referred to in “the terrible bargain we have regretfully struck”.
unreasonable shithead, are you still pretending not to have seen the information offered you by those who, unlike you, actually know what they are talking about (in ibbica’s #68, for example, as well as many other comments)? When you saw it, did you refuse to read or fail to understand? If the former, you offer further evidence for the fact that you are indeed a presuppositionalist and revolting bigot incapable of decency; if the latter you offer further evidence for the fact that you are also not very bright.
Willful ignorance or lazy thinking? Or outright lying in the defense of privilege?
The commenting history so far suggests a combination of all three; I’m just not sure about the proportions.
And may I just add that the take-down has in many instances been a thing of beauty, combining knowledge, passion, skill and snark of the highest order: both an education and an inspiration.
I had a hot sex scene with Isabella Rossalini once. True fact.
Or was it with a barnacle? Tsk, memory’s gorn!
Louis
I’ll check to see if he answers on TZT, but I assume he won’t.
It was probably Rossellini and a barnacle.
LykeX:
reasonable fellow has ignored my similar question, though it should be far easier to answer, as I don’t even directly include the biological component. Admittedly, my question is drawn from two contradictory statements made by RF, and is in that regard a trick question, and easily recognized as such.
RF turned out to be nothing more than a troll. Maybe they were not knowledgable enough to support their claims and not intellectually honest enough to admit they were wrong when their ignorance was corrected, and ended up trolling just to avoid admitting they were wrong. Perhaps they chose to troll for the sake of trolling as suggested by Ernst Hot in #178.
Either way, RF ended up being just another tedious troll, avoiding the questions that would require contradicting their position should they reply, and ignoring the posts that presented real, y’know, evidence.
[Way OT by this point, and dead long to boot!]
I suppose that’s true to an extent, although I’d argue that in societies where misogyny is no longer treated as a self-evident truth – that is, societies with legislation outlawing it (even if groups and individuals within those societies still cling to it) – it’s the entrenched patriarchal hierarchy from which misogyny derives it’s agency, and which is wholly responsible for perpetuating and enabling it – hence, it’s an undercurrent that guides and informs society and culture.
Not to say that baseless prejudice will simply cease to exist once the patriarchy is dismantled, but without that support it’ll be a lot easier to limit misogyny’s agency with a view to eradicating it entirely.
Yeah, I wanted to fit all that in there but my post was already quite long.
So what I did was, I thought to myself, “All of the other stuff surrounding the incident – like the fact RW had been drinking, that she was in a foreign country, that she had publicly stated her opposition to being sexualised by her audience and how oppressive women find the atmosphere at these events sometimes, the fact she had been talking to this man at the bar, how well accquainted were they, did he have reason to believe she would be receptive to an invitation, blah di blah… is any of that pertinent?”
I decided it wasn’t, really. The circumstances aren’t COMPLETELY extraneous, and indeed serve to make Elevatorgate a rather egregious example of just how intrusive and objectionable men can be with their advances when they put their minds to it (or fail to do so, as the case may be), but at the end of the day propositioning a woman, particularly a woman you’re not well accquainted with, while she is stuck in an elevator alone with you is a ridiculously insensitive invasion of her privacy regardless of any other factors.
Once I’d come to that conclusion, I decided not to bother including all the detail pertaining to Elevatorgate and just left the statement as it was.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but ad-homs give me an excuse to swear at you.
Fuck off.
Remember the first thread I posted in? How I said “fuck what you believe, I’ll do what I do and you can think what you like”?
Yeah; that, reiterated.
Also, in case you missed it the first time; fuck off.
I said something indefensibly stupid, compounded the error by pig-headedly refusing to acknowledge my mistake and baiting people who called me on it. That’s not me taking a position; that’s me being a complacent, inept fuckwad – and a hypocrite to boot.
I resolved not to do it again. Can’t promise I won’t, because I am a fuckwad sometimes, but I can promise to be a lot more gracious about accepting my fuckwaditis next time.
The two are kind of intertwined symbiotically, especially in Western countries, to the extent that I think tackling one necessarily means taking on the other. In that respect I don’t think my post was an overstatement; it’s more of a strategic assesment of the situation as I see it than a tactical one.
Your complete lack of sorrow for M. A. Melby’s nephews is noted.
warning: threadrupt and out of patience
Do you have empathy? Oozing out of you? Will you ever? Have you ever?
Because that’s my standard for being human. It’s not necessarily a good standard. It may even be as crappy as your standard for ‘womaninity’.
If I think you aren’t a real human being because you appear to have some kind of different expression of an important human quality, do you think that will bias how I treat you, either here in words, or IRL in my behavior? If I imagine that you are departing from my acceptable norms and I make it clear that I find your stance unacceptable, isn’t that harmful?
Are you happy to accept my opinion of you, formed out of a large pool of my ignorance of you? And are you happy for me to continue to propagate this opinion to the large number of people who don’t know you enough to know better?
I guess I’m never going to find out the answers… awwww.
Janine: Fucking Dyke Of Rage Mountain, & Caine, prémédité méchante langue:
This lurker was moved to delurk in part because of all the active ‘whack a troll’ and pushback against bigotry done in this thread (not just this one, but it was an epic one), not to mention all the compassion and encouragement amongst the people doing the pushback.
I can understand why many would still lurk for all sorts of reasons (I never commented on blogs until Manboobz sucked me in, and I started liking to play whack a troll), but I like the atmosphere here.
Ban me.
A reasonable fellow sized hole is left in this thread.
I had prawns with pasta and a cheese sauce by the way.
reasonable fellow:
Oh, yay! Now RF can go whine about how he was censored and abused, and we just don’t tolerate opposing viewpoints here.
Quick, before you’re banned, answer this:
Is it reasonable to admit people are entitled to choose their role in society, but are delusional to pick one that is contrary to the role you expect of them based on their possession (or not) of a penis?
Hm, does that mean you’re the kind of masochist who wants to be banned because you’d like it so much, or the kind who likes being told no, you can’t have what you’re asking for?
Who the fuck cares, reasonable fellow? You were asked some reasonable questions, multiple times, and you are too fucking scared to answer because you know the answers and the answers disagree with your particular brand of transphobic misogynystic bigotry. Next time, try the decayed porcupine in habanero sauce. Sideways.
I’m not going to whine. I don’t care.
Not going to answer this either.
I had a lemon pie for dessert.
Holy shit, I missed that.
Maybe it’s a good thing I missed that.
Just so you know, he is thankfully alive and well (the attempt was many years ago). He still faces challenges, but is old enough to have the freedom to associate with supportive people. It’s actually his birthday today.
Ominous chanting. Mist rises from nowhere.
…is that organ music?
Now he is just hoggling.
reasonable fellow:
Oh, you already have, just not directly.
I just wanted to see if you were intellectually honest enough to own up to your answer.
Who gives a shit about a fuckwitted loser like you?
Proving you are a loser if banning is the only thing that will shut you up. No self-control. Show us you are an adult, and ban yourself by deleting Pharyngula bookmarks.
*sits back with grog and splat shield*
Any person with any amount of empathy would be horrified that their opinion was causing that much distress.
I mean, fuck. African Americans make up around 13% of the population of the US– would you be so callous about causing distress to that particular group of people?
:) Wish him a happy birthday for me, M. A. Melby.
Oooh, reasonable fellow is being a tough guy. I can just imagine him, that defiant look on his face. Sort of like when he tells women that they are not really women. Everyone is against him, but he has his principles.
Will you answer this one before you leave:
Given the explanations and evidence that have been presented to you within this thread, do you think that a transwoman’s self identification as a woman has a biological component or not?
FIFY
Why should I make it easy on some assholes blog. Keep giving it page-views? Its retarded.
Fuck you. Again. Come on, you’re not even trying now.
Fuck you, asshole. Shove a porcupine up your arse. Your head can use the company. Schiessekopf!
open your thighs
a sex change surprise
for thee
I’m just a poor boy
i need no cis-pathy
because i’m easy come, easy go
get real high, go girl mode
any way the gender flows
doesn’t really matter to me
reasonable fellow:
Privileged use of ableist slurs aside, this makes no sense in context. You are giving it page-views. And I’m not sure what you mean by “make it easy.” Easy for what, exactly?
Y U MAKE NO SENSE?
*yawn*
Internet tough guys. Such sad, bewildered little children in grown men’s bodies.
Yeah, the site is totally dependent on your page views. Uh-huh.
Why should you be so unreasonable given your ‘nym. Oh that’s right, you only intended to troll the blog, and not engage in honest discussion where you might be wrong.
Freddie would have kicked your arse, chumpola.
This is the equivalent of a troll Walk of shame now. Ineffectual bully gets his arguments trounced and must make a big show about how edgy and assholish he can be. How low can you go, how far down can you punch? Are those grapes sour? Buh-bye now!
I knew one transgendered woman who was diagnosed with GID when she was rather young. Her father was a doctor and her mother was a nurse. They quickly understood what they had and she was able to transition while still in her teens.
If only this was the norm instead of the exception.
Damn. We broke another troll.
At least we got some milage out of this one.
How many times have we heard trolls whining about how much they hate Pharyngula/PZ? Dude, if you hate it so much, no one is keeping you here.
For fuck’s sake.
By the way, rancidass nugget, TZT is that way. You can hoggle and JAQ off all you want in there.
Hej, reasonable fellow, does hurting trans women make you feel good? Because you have spent a lot of time doing it on this thread.
They’re not women.
reasonable fellow:
Here’s a chance to be reasonable. Answer this question: Given the explanations and evidence that have been presented to you within this thread, do you think that a transwoman’s self identification as a woman has a biological component or not?
reasonable fellow,
Does it feel good for you, hurting people? Or is it just hurting women who are already made vulnerable by most of this fucking society?
You really are a despicable little shitstain.
You get caught with expressing toxic opinions and you respond with this?
Oh, no, you are not fucking harmful at all.
reasonable fellow:
Oh, I think it’s been well-established they are, both scientifically and societally.
I made a mis-statement earlier. You’re wrong a lot more than 10% of the time.
/dons splatter goggles
So yes.
Jesus Christ.
I’m going to have a cup of tea.
Drown in it.
See, this hurts people. DO you enjoy hurting people?
So, you you wonder if rf thinks it is impossible to rape a transgendered woman?
reasonable fellow:
Moar better trollz, pleez. ibbica and Ogvorbis broked this one.
Many happy returns to M.A. Melby’s nephew.
.
unreasonable shithead isn’t even trying now. Toy’s losing its squeak.
Answer my question. Do you enjoy it? Is that it, is that why you keep ignoring all the evidence that shows you are wrong?
I already know you are a piece of shit, but I want you to admit that you enjoy it.
Janine:
I really don’t want to know either way. There’s no way that fucker can answer the question without making me feel like I’m gonna puke.
4 the LULZ eh?
Yawn.
What question?
At this point I am just witing for ‘reasonable’ fellow to look up, see the banhammer approaching at speed, and yell;
“See! Proof I am a martyr to free spee-”
Followed by a loud splat and a spray of troll guts flying in all directions.
It is probably time to put your waterproofs on, everybody. Troll guts stain like hell…
What a repugnant, insecure, feeble excuse for a human being you really are.
Beatrice, that fact that he still is spreading his trollness while he can should answer your question.
He is enjoying this. He is the brave fellow standing up the bullies.
You have been presented with evidence from the biological side and the societal side. Yet you still spout this same hurtful shit. You have been shown how denying a persons right to personal integrity is destructive. Yet you still spout this same hurtful shit. You refuse to answser questions, questions to which you know the answer (but you also know that the answer will make your bigotry even less acceptable (if that is possible)). Yet you still spout this bullshit.
Conclusion? I think you are here to build up your bonafides at a blog in which ableism, misogyny, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bigotry and general sliminess are not only tolerated by encouraged.
So, once again, I invite you to take the porcupine cure.
opposablethumbs:
If ibbica hadn’t savaged it so thoroughly, and Ogvorbis hadn’t pounded on it with the +3 mallet of logic, we might’ve gotten a couple more squeaks.
Now it’s just lying there, limp and almost lifeless, giving a last few reflexive spasms.
I blame them both.
I am enjoying this, but not for that reason.
Will you show your reasonableness and answer my question?
Janine,
I know he is, but I want to see him admit it. He pretends that he’s only being honest and that we are piling on him.
(Also, some small part of me hopes there is still some empathy and shame in him)
This is because you are a bully.
… although it is leaving a nasty stain in its wake, and the smell of putrescence may linger a little while. I’ve come across things under rocks that were more interesting, and better company.
I take it back, you are worthless.
Mine too, Ogvorbis.
I’ve thought for a while that trolling PZ’s blog has become a rite of passage for pitizens. Like a bunch of drunk teenagers playing chicken.
My question was whether you enjoy hurting trans women. Because you are certainly good at it.
Fuck we busted this one eh? I was even nice to it! Poor wickle twoll.
Here, Reasonable Fellow, just for you
Louis
Oh, we have a pretty good idea why you are enjoying this. You like to hurt people. I suspect that if this thread were about child abuse, you would be mocking and denying the experiences of those who have been abused. If this thread were about rape, you would be finding ways to hurt those who have been raped. If this thread were about obesity, you would be laughing at all the overweight people and enjoying their discomfort and pain. If this thread were about torture, you would be denying that something like waterboarding is torture, especially if there were someone who experienced it. You have my pity. But you also have my anger and disgust.
No, I was arguing honestly and for the most part fairly.
I suspect risible fool enjoys hurting whoever he can get his hands on.
drbunsen:
More like the jocks who mercilessly tease the geeks and the gays. They hope for a reaction, as it’s the only control of their own lives they can muster — inciting others to react negatively.
Me, I’m kind of amused reasonable fellow has been reduced to blatant, bare-assed trolling. It’s yet another demonstration xe realizes xe holds an untenable position. It’s the whole, “Contrary for the sake of contrariness,” thing that gets conflated with holding an honorable position.
No, you were not. No matter what evidence was served up on a silver platter, you ignored it. Just as you ignored the questions. Such as: Given the explanations and evidence that have been presented to you within this thread, do you think that a transwoman’s self identification as a woman has a biological component or not?
The facts and the experiences of other people be damned.
This world is supposed to conform itself to rf’s ideals.
And now a brief musical interlude, while awaiting the banning of RF. (and sheepstain, though I will not be surprised if they are the same wretched excuse for an human being)
♪ Just a fucking troll
everywhere I go
people know the part
I’m playing
Taking every chance
to spread my shit and dance
in the stink, that I’m
laying
There will come a day
when I will pass away
then what will they say
about me?
When the end comes I know
they’ll say just another troll
as life goes on
without me
‘Cause I aint got nobody
nobody nobody cares for me
I’m so sad and lonely… ♪
You have repeatedly been told that you are hurting people with your words here and yet you persisted. You still do.
YOu may not want to admit it, but it obviously brings you enjoyment. You are disgusting.
It might be unfortunate or uncomfortable for you to hear but the world does roughly conform to my ideals.
Actually, we’re the ones bullying “reasonable fellow”. Haven’t you seen the hashtag?
reasonable fellow:
Are you kidding?
You made no case for your opinions. When it became clear your opinions are self-contradictory (“People are entitled to choose their role in society,” vs, “Someone who choses a gender role that differs from their biological equipment are deluded,” for instance), you devolved into terse one-liners that even you don’t believe.
You are very intellectually dishonest. The saddest part is, I think you believe you were arguing in good faith, even as you ignored, y’know, actual science.
nigelTheBold
*shuffles feet*
*mumbles “sowwy”*
Can someone please tell me if cephalopods have sex chromosomes now?
*ducks*
Yes, you did honestly reveal the utter worthlessness of your , ungrounded as they are in any form of fact or evidence. You did quite honestly reveal yourself to be a scum-fucking opportunistic sadist.
But fairly? That’s just taking it too far.
Pay attention to the RED TEXT upstream, worthless sharkfood.
Well, the world where trans people (especially women) are being murdered for who they are, where they are being pushed into suicide probably counts as conforming to your ideals, such as they are.
reasonable fellow:
It’s not unfortunate or uncomfortable, no more than it’s unfortunate or uncomfortable when a Christian tells me I’m going to hell. Their self-assurance in their own view of reality doesn’t make that view any closer to actual reality. It just makes them wrong.
And in the case of gender identity and biology, you have been proven wrong. Several times. Sometimes by your very own words.
Odd. A little while ago you claimed to be an abused minority. Now you claim that most of the people in the world are transphobic. You are probably right on that. Then again, 200 years ago, most people on earth thought that slavery was right. It is possible that a mojority of the people in the world think that, in the right circumstance, rape is okay. Just because a majority wants to deny human rights to a group of humans does not make it right.
He who has rarely been outnumbered, (I would guess), suddenly notices that being outnumbered can be a dreadful feeling.
How long does it take for PZ to heave himself up and waddle over to the computer to ban someone anyway.
reasonable fellow:
You’re right. Transwomen are over a thousand times more likely to be murdered than the average person. A quarter of women get raped. Reflect on those values of yours, and then hang your head in shame.
One could not find a more purified form of the privileged asshat.
I missed this:
Janine:
Hey now!
Fucker:
LOL. Sure, if we ignore the fact that 1) you refused to look at any of the evidence that was provided and 2) you’ve been consistently dismissing other poster’s feelings and experiences.
The science doesn’t.
And so what of society does? Once upon a time, the “societal ideal” included slavery of black people. Was that right?
reasonable fellow:
Oh! The originality is strong in this one.
In case you haven’t noticed, being an ignorant fuckwit and all, PZ has been at a con, and his computer for administrating Pharyngula is on the fritz. But then, why would you care about anything other than you? You are as bad as a liberturd with egotism. Banning must mean something to you, so PZ should just limit you to TZT.
@rf:
How convenient! Does reality change on your say-so as well?
I’m not surprised if this thread is indicative of the way they talk to regular people.
I have a slight feeling Reasonable Fellow is one of our old chums in a new guise.
Mind you, the awesome quantity of stupid in the world is such that I am likely wrong.
Louis
Unusual trifecta. Fat shaming, transphobia and ableism. That’s an unusual combination of cruelty and bigotry.
Except you aren’t a regular person. You are exceptionally stupid, egotistical, and incapable of learning. But then, that is expected from a “reasonable fellow”.
Once again with the denial that trans people are human beings. Holy fuck! Is there any group that you do not look down upon? Do you see yourself as the only real human on earth?
Oggie,
Sadly I fear it’s all too usual. It’s just a vicious little troll lashing out to cause maximum damage before the banhammer falls. That was all it was here for anyway.
Louis
It’s quite pitty though, eh, Og? Specially with the obsession with PZ’s weight and all.
Your foot-shooting is noted.
Your ableism is noted.
Your lies are noted.
Your megalomania and narcissim are noted.
Your Consevapœdianism is noted.
Your doubling-down on bigotry is noted.
Louis:
Well, usually outright misogyny is including in the Trollfecta. The transphobia and fat shaming aren’t used that often.
You should listen to Louis. He’s been the only one talking sense here.
reasonable fellow:
God, you’re disgusting.
reasonable fellow: WILL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION?
Am I allowed to murder you now? Because I sure as hell don’t like the way you talk. Nor does anyone else here.
What with the way everyone who nyms themselves {rational/intelligent/reasonable} {male identifying} turning out to be the precise opposite, I’m tempted to change mine to drbunsen, dumber than a sack of hammers, and see if I magically gain powers from Oppositeworld, like our sad little ragdoll troll here.
Louis is making fun of you. He’s one of our comics. You were satirized, and didn’t recognize it. What a loser.
Beatrice:
No, reasonable fellow only thinks that people he doesn’t like deserve to be murdered.
rf:
Victim blaming. Color me shocked.
BINGO!
What was the purpose behind his “I’m not surprised [that transwomen get murdered] if this thread is indicative of the way they talk to regular people” comment? Was it just plain hate, or is he one of those narcissistic little manchildren, so obsessed with his own emotions, that he genuinely believes himself to be the wronged party?
Even if he is, he’s got a point. Plus its put in a much better fashion than the rest of you idiots clawing and your monitors and attempting to find the right combination of curse-words to adequately express your feeble rage.
Audley beat me to it. Now the assclam has moved on to victim blaming.
Troll-logic:
The only people who would ever bother to defend trans* people must be trans* people themselves – because who else would care about those freaks, amirite?
Having been informed that >1 trans* people hang out here, I conclude that everyone here must be trans* – because who else would want to hang out with those freaks, amirite?
Therefore, everyone here is trans*
Oh by the way “reasonable fellow”, most of the people here aren’t transwomen. They’re people from all walks of life*. They only common factor, is that they’re not damaged, like you are.
[*] Including the tragically persecuted white heterosexual non-trans middle-class able-bodied male.
reasonable fellow:
Sorry, Chief. You haven’t made it above “slight contempt” on the troll-o-meter. “Feeble Rage” is quite a few notches up. You’re gonna have to do better than that.
Hell, if you weren’t so transparent, you might’ve at least made “marginally miffed.”
Being a wise guy (and perhaps a great guy), rf knows that all of us just bully proper people like rf online and do shit in the real world.
And a “calm down/you’re all so angry?” Damn I’m so close to a bingo.
Your acknowledgement that you don’t have free will is noted.
Change it to drbunsen, reasonable fellow. ;)
Why do I get the feeling the troll is either drunk or an Asimovian 12-year-old whippersnapper?
drbunsen:
The question remains: are we allowed in the pool? Are we all trans-women who are lesbians?
Good question, Dr Audley! Shit, this gender identity thing is hard, yo.
You know… bullying.
Troll #1,000,007 shows up and starts posting calmly and stupidly, and rapidly descends to “Trans people deserve to be murdered if they talk rudely to me” and FtB is accused of being bullies for being rude to suspected Troll #1,000,008.
Back when I was a less-enlightened poster, I’d get hugely angry when I’d be accused of trolling when I very clearly wasn’t, or at least clearly in my own head which is really the only place that matters. Seeing enough actual trolls, and seeing how closely my “ignorant but not intentionally evil” posts resemble the beginnings of the troll progression from calm to evil, I bit down hard and decided that people were right to kick my ass. Better that I get shouted down and maybe I stop saying stupid and hurtful things, and my intent doesn’t really matter more than someone not having to read my stupid and hurtful things. I wasn’t being bullied, I was being prevented from bullying other people, and I support the hell out of that even if I get my hand (correctly) slapped every now and again.
Victim blaming and othering in one comment! It’s a toxic twofer!
*spits in raging fuckface’s eye*
Sorry, Nerd, I do not understand what you mean by Asimovian. I was under the impression that being compared to Asimov was positive.
You don’t have to be either drunk or young to be a sadistic narcisstic asshole.
The last refuge of the bigotted piece of shit, argumentum ad populum. Never you mind that this too, shall pass, just as it slowly has with sexual orientation, or with other struggles.
I’d say it’s a shame you aren’t actually reasonable, but anyone surprised by *That* needs a reality check.
drbunsen:
Oh, I’m sure someone will take the time to tell us who we all are and how we all identify.
Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart:
I’m sure at that point, it will all be so simple and so clear.
The angriest person here seems to be you. By quite a large margin. (The comment about murder was a bit of a tell.)
Hmm, no I think I summed you up adequately, as have others, without words-of-curse (spoOOoky language!) With the caveat that you’re shit-spewing has rendered you an unremarkable addition to a list of halfwits who think odiousness is more offensive than pitiable.
hyperdeath:
And considering the best reasonable fellow can muster is victim blaming, fat shaming, and other impotent constructions, I’d say hir’s rage is quite feeble.
@ Janine #365:
“Asimovian” as in “precocious, nerdy and inclined to argue for argument’s sake”? Or is he some sort of robot? A troll-bot? Now, there’s a scary thought!
Since Ing isn’t here, this is for you, reasonable fellow:
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
Its like watching chimps throw shit around their cage.
Thank you, Irene.
*yawn*
Doesn’t he mean, baboons.
If anybody is interested, “reasonable fellow” translates into Spanish as “gilipollas”.
Asimov considered the most inane questioners to be 12-year-olds, as they were smart, but tended to play “gottcha” as they hadn’t been civilized yet.
We’ve been watching you do that since last night. Poo jokes, not very mature. Must be a drunk 12-year-old.
It is just to wrong to argue that transgendered people have equal worth to “regular people”.
How fucking mean.
Your hypocrisy is noted.
Thank you, Nerd.
Yes, but we’re on the outside of the cage, looking at the vile murder-trivializing ape within. Can you point out any bad behavior by anyone here that doesn’t amount to (awww…) being rude to you?
Spend a lot of time doing that, do you?
reasonable fellow:
Really? In what way?
(I figured I’d give you a chance to defend at least one of your assertions, as you’ve been unable to do so previously.)
In the sense that its taken on a life of its own and the only posts left will be attempts to tell me how digusting/worthless/sub-human I am in the angriest/smuggest possible tones. There’s no controlling it. Those chimps are mad as hell.
mythbri #374:
reasonable fellow #375:
Obvious twig-wearing person is obvious.
reasonable fellow:
So, you took on an angry/smug attitude, telling people they are disgusting/worthless/sub-human, and that wasn’t flinging shit?
*yawn!*
The ‘Reasonable’ one has, among other things,:
1: petulantly told PZ ‘Ban me!”
2: Butchered ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ with terribly clumsy transphobic lyrics (A songwriter you are not)
3: Compared us all to shit-flinging chimpanzees.
How very reasonable of you, fellow.
We’re not the ones excusing murder of trans people.
You truly deserve the gold metal for the Most Disgusting Statement of the Thread competition.
I’m bored now.
The comparison to monkeys flinging shit. How pedestrian. It reminds me of a simpler time, when we were all young and ignorant of the insults which passed the lips of our elders.
Come on cupcake! You can do better!
And shouldn’t we be mad about your shitty victim blaming antics, rf? What kind of evil person wouldn’t find what you said disgusting?
I think “cabrón trenzado” is more accurate in this case.
reasonable fellow:
Took you long enough. You’ve been boring us for hours. It’s just a good thing everyone else here is amusing.
And for what it’s worth, you rate pity at most. It must really suck being proven wrong all the fucking time.
Contempt does not equal anger. There is not enough to you to be angry at. See, if we thought you were honest, we might be really angry. But we recognize someone just being ugly for lulz, and wanting a ban so he can show off to his friends in the pit (if you were really wanting to continue to argue, you would have moved to the TZT). It’s pathetic. As has been said, the only purpose now is to show lurkers that we will not back down no matter how tired of it we get. We had what, 3-4 trolls in this thread, of which only 2 had any staying power, and we are pushing 2000 comments.
Ah, the “I was only half-assing my argument with you and be shown wrong by everyone so that I could resort to condoning murder and rustle your jimmies” gambit. Well played, troll. Well played indeed.
Poor persecuted reasonable fellow; forced to say on a blog that transgendered women are deluded and when called on it, said that it is no wonder that transgendered women end up getting murdered.
HE IS AN INNOCENT MAN!
We really should stop throwing shit at him and let him down from the cross. He is a great guy and should try to be more like him.
Except for the real women. They would just be delusional.
1) Nerd, I am not just a comic…I hope I’m not just a comic anyway! Admittedly I can rarely be bothered to engage in more than comedy… fuck, shot myself in the foot there didn’t I? ;-)
2) Reasonable Fellow, please don’t co-opt me as even vaguely supportive of your transphobia, trolling and various bigotries. I am not. You wander into to this thread, post idiotic opinions about trans people, refuse to correct your own ignorance when given every opportunity, and whinge about “ZOMG NASTEE WERDZ” when what you are doing is not so subtly demonstrably contributing to a climate of oppression against a generally vulnerable subsection of society. Bravo! Carry on brave warrior!
3) Apparently naughty words bother you, I’m a big fan of them myself, so in that vein please do not in anyway hesitate to take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
Oooooh two fucks in one post…EDGY!
Louis
There’s always mumblety-peg. Try the solitaire version.
Your bullshit has been already debunked thoroughly by people more knowledgeable than you are in every single relevant way. You have been demonstrated to be actively causing harm with your posts here. And you act superior because evidence and reason haven’t managed to break through the wall of your blithering obtuseness and willful idiocy, making it obvious that there’s no point in engaging with you as anything other than the useless fucking troll you are.
Sad specimen.
Your doubling down on hypocrisy is noted.
Your lack of free will is noted.
And can we stop slurring chimps, please? I have a vastly higher regard for chimps in general than internet trolls.
I would walk across a road to piss on a chimp who was on fire. Reasonable Fellow? Not so much.
Louis
reasonable fellow #387: Have you ever thought about why they might be mad?
Don’t worry, we accept that you identify as human, which, if I understand your argument, is good enough.
(/sarcasm)
“Reasonable fellow”, why in the name of Paula Kirby are you still here? Do you briefly hope that each new post will be some kind of ultimate put-down, to put all those others (who aren’t as wonderful and entitled and pure as you are) firmly in their place, thus ending your tragic persecution?
Louis:
Me too, because, Chimp on fire! I mean, how often do you see that?
No more than once a month, I’d say.
Julien Rousseau:
Yes, but we’d still consider hir delusional.
And the flounce timer is ticking…
Nigel,
Well this one time I lived in the flaming chimp district of London,* they were horribly common. To be honest I shouldn’t have set fire to so many, I blame myself…
Louis
* Balham, pre-gentrification.
Louis, they still keep a few chimps burning as a nod to tradition.
Many slugs and snails and such are able to switch sexes based on environment, such as proximity to others of a particular sex, or age, such as being male when young and female when older. That says, well, not much at all about cephalopods, but they’re kind of related.
This is about intersex squid, but I can’t get to the full article. The high prevalence of intersex specimens seems to indicate that they either change sex or have environmentally determined sex (like temperature), so that leans to it not being genetic in that particular species.
I don’t think he was. He was — briefly — being honest, and acknowledging that you were 100% correct @#338 when you wrote:
“It’s just a vicious little troll lashing out to cause maximum damage before the banhammer falls. That was all it was here for anyway.”
Hyperdeath,
Good, good. I am a close, personal friend of the Night Mayor of Balham, it’s good to know he helps the old ways continue.
Louis
Oh I know, Louis. After all, who among us can honestly say that they haven’t set fire to one of the higher primates of London? I know I have.
Or possibly “reventado”. “Reventado de porquería”, “asqueroso de mierda”, “adoquín” ….
I’m thinking boluduo and pelotudo are both gendered, which is almost a pity in this case.
Although the chimps are getting difficult to source. Increasingly they’re using dyed orangutans.
Owlmirror,
Dear shit! Was I right about something? Oh this will not stand!
Louis
rf:
Ooh, I get it now: that’s meant literally! Troll’s head has been bored hollow, and there’s no brain left in there. *brrr*
Well, bloody hell! Here in the states, primate immolation is not nearly as widely practiced. We do have that one celebration out in the desert, but it’s not chimp-based.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: London is a far more civilized place than Cleveland.
Also, too, I must continue my consumption of beer. It appears one must always be prepared to piss out a chimp fire.
TLC
I missed that comment completely. Where is it?
I was insufficiently caffeinated when I posted my Lament of the Lonely Troll at #315.
It should be sung to the tune of
Just a Gigolo
by the fabulous Louis Prima. I find it much easier to laugh at stupid trolling when I have such a great soundtrack running through my head.
Is this going to be the latest Pharyngula meme?
Holy cow but UnreasonableAss is toxic with his transphobia.
For shame.
Dr Bunsen,
Indeed, indeed.
{Puffs seriously on pipe}
Why I was just leaving Boodles the other day when I poured a can of lighter fluid over a gibbon and caused it to combust in a most delightful manner.
Louis
P.S. Hyperdeath, dyed orang utans? Not on my watch! I shall write a sternly worded letter to my member of parliament immediately.
Janine:
With any luck. I’m not sure what it means, other than, “Troll cleanup in aisle twelve,” but I’m hoping.
(nigel gives Louis a celebratory high-five)
nigel:
Mind you, I love me some Cleveland*, but isn’t just about anywhere more civilized than Cleveland?
*Best pizza in the world.
And I say this as a New Yorker.
carlie
Haha, yeah that’s about as far as I’d gotten too ;)
*clickity clickity clickity*
Got it! Ok… Important component of the food chain… Short lifespan… Some species live a few years… Bingo!
“One aspect of reproduction that all cephalopods seem to have in common is that they are gonochoristic, that is that sex is predetermined genetically, individuals develop as males or females and remain the same sex throughout their life span (Nesis, 1987). Until now, intersexuality, hermaphroditism or sex change has not been reported for cephalopods.”
Cool!
*checks reference list*
…Dammit, “Nesis 1987” is a textbook, pah-tooee!
OK, not really “pah-tooee”. Just adds a couple extra steps to finding the source info. Off to the library tomorrow I suppose…
Nigel,
Well, so many places are.
I fear we need to set the bar higher.
I heard there was an earthquake in Cleveland recently, it did $1 million worth of improvements.
Try the waitress, tip the veal, here all week, etc.
Louis
So let me see if I understand:
1) One sets a chimp (or orangutan) on fire (because tradition).
2) One crosses the street.
3) One crosses the street back to the flaming chimp, and pisses on him or her.
I do not understand these native folkways.
I wish to strongly oppose this hominidophobic incendiarianism.
Because someone must.
Please give generously to People Against the Practice of Incinerating Sympathetic Hominids.
Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart:
Yes*. And thus my confidence I shall repeat that statement in the future.
* We shall not mention Detroit.
I can give you two suggestions. You can either answer some of the honest question which have been tossed your direction, or you can juggle chainsaws and porcupines. Either one would work for me.
Owlmirror, #432,
Racist!
Louis
So “pendejo” is out too, then? That’s my favourite one :-(
@ reasonable fellow;
This is argumentum ad populam again – the fact that the world is infested with cretinous transphobic bigots like you does not mean that your bigotry relfects reality, only that your brand of prejudice is sadly widespread in society. As pointed out by other commenters, there have been periods when the vast majority of people believed that the world was flat, or that the earth was at the centre of the solar system. History is replete with examples of popularly mandated bigotry, such as the widespread idea a couple of hundred years ago that it was legitimate to enslave people of a darker skin tone. Many times in history the belief that it was a moral imperative to torture and kill those who did not share your religion was nearly unanimously held. Until the 1970’s, the official policy of the US was to treat homosexuality as a mental illness.
These are but a small selection of the countless examples of popular pogroms, hatred and violence, and each would likely have had plenty of champions just like your less than reasonable self. What the majority believes has precisely nothing to do with what is supported by scientific evidence. Reality is not ratified by popular referendum.
Body shaming now, I see. You really are a one-stop-shop for all our idiotic bigotry needs, aren’t you?
We are talking about the wilfull murder of actual people here, and you are excusing the use of lethal violence against a transgendered person in the event that they are ‘mean’ to you, or some other odious, oblivious, privileged dudebro like you?
Really? You really want to engage in apologia for fatal episodes of transphobic violence because your feelings are hurt?
Remind me how you aren’t really a bigot again…
… Actually, don’t bother – I don’t care to listen to more of your transparent rationalisations for your inveterate hatred of trangendered people. PZ will find the time to banish you and your foetid, bigoted stench from the blog with one swift application of the TrollAway(TM) brand banhammer soon enough.
Owlmirror, it is not your place to question tradition. You have just drunk a six pack. You have a match. You have a gallon of kerosene. You have a chimp.
You know what must be done.
It is like shooting an elephant.
Not sure if I would piss on a bonobo to put out a fire. Never know what kind of kinks those bonobos have.
Correct insofar as it goes, Owlmirror, except that one is not always the same one.
Owlmirror:
Ah! I see the misunderstanding.
The practice is not for urinary firefighting on hominids you have conflagrated. Rather, you cross the street to relieve yourself (and thus the chimp) for another person’s chimpanzee pyre.
It’s confusing, but scores are kept. Also, too, tradition. It’s as immutable as social gender roles.
Tethys: The thing can be found at comment #267.
Well, reasonable fellow ended on a pretty pathetic note. Could have at least flounced with some dignity.
I would contend that Cleveland is far more civilized than London (I presume we mean England and not Ontario?). My reasoning is as follows:
1. Anywhere there is civilization, pollution will follow. Quickly.
2. Both London and Cleveland have a river running through the city.
3. While both the Thames and the Cuyahoga are polluted, only one of them has been so polluted that the river actually caught fire.
Therefore, since Cleveland is more polluted, it should be considered more civilized.
How does one make a primate go “whoof!”?
But Folkways has released some really good albums over the years, right?
Beatrice,
He could have started, posted, argued, continued, acted and generally behaved with some dignity. Apparently that was too much to ask.
Louis
In any case, it appears trolls have been ruled out from the tradition. It is, apparently, both unnecessary and discouraged to urinate on a flaming troll. At least, as per Louis at #405.
I believe this is a new ruling.
Oggie,
You make an excellent point and thus I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Louis
It is not possible to flounce with dignity.
It is easier to piss on a flaming chimp with dignity.
(There is a sentence I never thought I would say. That is until now.)
Err, okay? Is this in reference to juggling chainsaws and porcupines? or whether Cleveland or London has had more civilization done to it?
Cleveland Rocks
Louis,
I strongly oppose the false label of racist. I am Public Enemy and 𝕳𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖘𝖎𝖆𝖗𝖈𝖍 № 𝟙. I have a charter, and a job to do, and no amount of slurs and smears should be used instead of simply acknowledging that I am who I am.
Besides, there are common, secular benefits to joining PAPISH. The more non-incinerated chimps there are, the more chimp poo there can be, along with the chimps themselves to fling said poo at trolls who have the unmitigated gall to call themselves .
It’s win-win-win!
and Louis? I don’t have a newsletter. I’ve had experience with them and detest them with a purple pluperfect perfection.
How about if we place bags of flaming chimp shit on the front porch of the house that reasonable fellow lives.
Yeah, I see where using dignity and reasonable fellow in the same sentence is a mistake.
“piss on a flaming chimp”
…. I like it.
@ Owlmirror;
Oh no – you can’t do that. Burning hominid is now the vital new energy source powering a steampunk technological revolution in London. We already have massive airships and chimp-fueled steam exoskeletons for our soldiery, not to mention the awesomeness inherent in bringing back Victorian fashions with a steampunk twist…
Issues of sustainability and hominid welfare have been raised, but a solution has been put forward by our premier thinkers in the field of hominid fuel technologies – Professor Albert Heironimous Chesterfield, Esquire, and Professor Drusilla Monkton, Dutchess of Winterbottom.
Their revolutionary new technique involves adapting the new technology to use the sustainable source of fuel provided by the inexhaustible resource of online bigoted trolls; a groups that no one will miss overmuch, and that contribute nothing to biodiversity in any case.
The more narcissistic and offensive the troll, the purer the fuel yielded. The highest class of troll – known as ‘RF’ or ‘reasonable fellow’ grade trolls – combine many different types of bigotry and so yield the finest fuel of all, and has shows great promise as a means of providing energy for our new particle accelerator cannons (and you thought CERN was created to find the Higgs Boson…) and Tesla generators, and as such are already trading at three shillings an ounce, but your common or garden misogynist MRA troll will certainly suffice for most applications…
*Dons monocle and top hat*
It is a glorious new dawn for the British Empire! Huzzah!
Ah, purple newsletters. That takes me back. Aye, tis like I can smell the solvents this very minute.
Threats are cool.
IT’S A TRAP!
Louis
London Calling
Ah. The smell wasn’t solvents then, I see.
says the monster who thinks that murdered transgendered women deserved their murders.
Fuck off.
Depends. Were you in Cleveland on the banks of the Cuyahoga?
♥
I’ve never seen the video!
@reasonable fellow
Despite the twig, I still don’t believe you are a tree. Welcome to the Hotel Pharyngula.
Hey, reasonable fellow, are you going to answer my question? The question you asked me to rephrase (and I did)? C’mon, bigot yourself up to the bar and show us all just how resistant to reality you really are.
Ogvorbis:
Oh, you don’t even need to be down by the banks anymore. The government-mandated cleanup resulted in a lot of “free fill dirt” delivered right to your yard in company trucks.
Flaming poo bag = murder of trans-women, huh?
Jesus Christ.
Burn On
Janine:
Damn! I’d forgotten about that album. I played the hell out of that on vinyl damned near thirty years ago. You Can Leave Your Hat On was, to me at the time, one of the sexiest songs written.
City Of London
Your stupidity is noted.
Corporate America – Boston
rrede:
Thank you, rrede. Post more!
Why am I not surprised that rf shows such shitty taste in music?
Well, in reasonable fellow’s mind, trans women aren’t regular people, so it probably is, to him, equivalent.
Dirty Old Town
Cuyahoga
Whats the comment number?
The Pogues were in Zagreb a year ago. I had no one to go with, so I didn’t go to the concert. I regret it.
Beauty and the beat
reasonable fellow:
#213.
Fuckin CTRL-F, how does that work?
Lazy, willfully ignorant fuckhead.
—
Guess what! I have Hogfather on my Netflix again! *squee*
Cleveland: Toledo without the glitter.
I have asked the question, in two forms, about a dozen times. And I know that you are lying when you ask what comment number because you asked that I rephrase the question. I also asked the question on TZT (where you are supposed to be). Here it is again:
Given the explanations and evidence that have been presented to you within this thread, do you think that a transwoman’s self identification as a woman has a biological component or not?
Yes, but I don’t think its the only thing that needs to be considered.
I assume you’re talking about some of the research done on the brains of transgendered people?
London’s Burning
reasonable fellow:
What else should be considered, and why? And in what proportions? What is the rubric of consideration?
So you admit that there is a biological component to a trans-womans self identification as a woman but still think her to be deluded if she identifies as a woman? You really are a hate filled bigot.
Now I’m convinced that you’re rationalizing and being willfully ignorant, because before it was ALL ABOUT biology.
reasonable fellow:
Pretty much everything by ibbica, #68.
Audley,
I don’t know, it’s all so confusing! One day it’s No-Women-On-Pharyngula (except for Nerd of Redhead, naturally), the next it’s Only-Lesbians-and-Male-Lesbians(?)-On-Pharyngula, and now apparently it’s Only-Rude-Transwomen-On-Pharyngula. I want to be allowed in the pool but the rules keep changing. Not fair!
A persons body, their physicality, their genes.
Its been lost in this thread, but I don’t actually think transexual or transgendered is a lesser term for anyone. If it were up to me it’d be on the same level as male or female without being either.
No, we all got pendejos.
Are You Man Enough To Be A Woman?-Jayne County & The Electric Chairs
transphobic fellow, fuck off already.
You disgusting fucking liar! You have already stated that, if a trans woman is murdered, she asked for it. Asshole.
Yeah, sure, which is why you think trans people are . Even if you weren’t a lying piece of shit, you’d be completely disregarding what trans people actually say about the issue. Fucking spare us your sanctimonious babble.
Beatrice, what is it about what i’ve just said that you have issues with. How is it transphobic to simply categorize them as something other than male or female?