Veeky Forums, do feelings matter more than biology?

Can you give us dox, so we can check/remind you of your Veeky Forums promise? I'm the (you) on that post by the way.

What you said is not only factually incorrect, but stupid, which amplifies the hypocrisy of your patronizing tone.

The next time you decide you want to play at being le ebin science man, do your research first, and stop trying to turn scientific and medical information into a utility in whatever cultural or political crusade you're caught up in.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohermaphroditism

Get it next to your quote of Neil D. Tyson saying "I f*cking love science" on a background of CGI nebula

here, my name is Samuel.

This is atypical behavior.

I'm a part-time /pol/ack, I highly doubt that legendary creature is you. That is, unless you have a power-level over 777?

This is more of a philosophical question than a science question. If I adopt an orphan, and I teach him my values and we bond with each other like father and son, I might end up calling him "son" even though he is not related to me at all. I could even end up risking my life for him even though it doesn't increase my fitness like saving my biological son might. In this example, feelings are more important than biology.

BTFO OP

Isn't that the guy who stabbed people at OSU today?

But it's still a fact that he's not your biological son born of your gamete, no?

here you go

It is all still biology at the end of the day - your neurobiology is operating in a way that satisfies itself but also subverts the function it performed in order to emerge (to protect, through the formation of bonds, it's genetic material).

The notion that because something emerged or was adapted to human biology through a certain mechanism, it should always perform that mechanism through some kind of sententious moral requirement, is purely a religious hang-over of right-wingers that they're now trying to paint over with pseudo-secular varnish to disguise it's ill-begotten roots. /pol/acks don't understand that both our biology and the purposes it's serves are in dynamic equilibrium, both influencing and being influenced by, our social and material environment.

Hearty kek

/thread

Yeah, sure, that's still a biological fact. But it's not what is most important in our relationship, the feeling is most important in this case.

>Giant object strikes Earth, BTFOing 99.9% of all life.
>Bunch of transgender fuck-ups are left and have to propgate the human race.
>End up dying out because they can't figure out which one is the man and which one if the polyarmous polygendered toasterkin.
>Tough-shit ancestors.

On a serious note:

I'm accepting of those going between two binaries, male and female. I am not okay with the faux-transgenders who want to be one of 10^99* genders.

Not to mention, your argument is an argument as to why we should let it happen. Surely, we should attempt to culture successful biology?

Also, because the 'mutation' is probably caused by our rampant use of chemicals without thought of consequence (xenoestrogen).

kek

> says we should hold bizarre views based on hypothetical arguments based on the outlandish probability of an asteroid selectively annihilating the population

Do you realise how similar you are to religious people when you need to invent highly specific otherworldly threats to justify your claims?

>Takes joke seriously.
Veeky Forums really is autistic? Fuck me.

Now answer this bit, Mister Brainiac:

"On a serious note:

I'm accepting of those going between two binaries, male and female. I am not okay with the faux-transgenders who want to be one of 10^99* genders.

Not to mention, your argument is an argument as to why we should let it happen. Surely, we should attempt to culture successful biology?

Also, because the 'mutation' is probably caused by our rampant use of chemicals without thought of consequence (xenoestrogen)."

> Not to mention, your argument is an argument as to why we should let it happen. Surely, we should attempt to culture successful biology?

It doesn't threaten our fitness as a species. We've already ground any threat to our collective survival into the dirt, apart from the nuclear and environmental threats we've created to ourselves entirely separate to reproductive problems.

Let intellectually sound adults make their own decisions about their lives so long as they don't infringe upon anyone else's, if there is any point in our existence, it is so that we can live authentic, happy lives, and unravel a bit more, and a experiment a bit more, with the nature we have found before we pass out of it.

>Let intellectually sound adults make their own decisions about their lives so long as they don't infringe upon anyone else's, if there is any point in our existence, it is so that we can live authentic, happy lives, and unravel a bit more, and a experiment a bit more, with the nature we have found before we pass out of it.

I agree, wholeheartedly. However, I do not agree with causes of those who wish to claim they part of a pantheon of genders, whilst in their adolescent stage.

Or worse, when adults try and superimpose it upon children as young as six. These are the dangerous aspects of transgenderism, that is, faux-transgenderism made acceptable due to the political climate.

>It doesn't threaten our fitness as a species
That's debatable.
Social issues have caused social unrest and civilization collapse before.
Survival isn't solely dependent on physical and genetic fitness.

To be honest, I see poltards as having such regressive and silly views that I can never tell when you're joking or dead serious. Your totally baseless claim, not even worthy of being described as specious, that hormonal disturbances are purely a result of modern environmental contamination, not only lacks any evidence or proof beyond an intuition that satisfies your confirmation bias, but would defy the strong historical record of hermaphrodites and other gender abnormalities both in ancient religions and folklore.

Of course it's a "mutation", but so is your ability to drink milk. Calling something a mutation isn't a pejorative, and whether it is beneficial or detrimental is totally dependent on environment, on the context it is occurring in.

When you make arguments such as these, it's no wonder I have to cover all of the bases, including your jokes.

Partly true, we created society to improve our ability to survive.

You know what? I cede that point, as I don't have any proof for my theory.

However, you're yet to address this:

>I'm accepting of those going between two binaries, male and female. I am not okay with the faux-transgenders who want to be one of 10^99* genders.

> I agree, wholeheartedly. However, I do not agree with causes of those who wish to claim they part of a pantheon of genders, whilst in their adolescent stage.

Sure, they're delusional if they think their feelings are fungible with genetic or material reality (though not every person who proposes an alternative gender identity thinks this, there are some quite reasonable people who think they fall somewhere in between, or that they have a certain fluidity between the dichotomy, which is fair enough) and it is arbitrary - but why are you mean to them? If they are really that wrong, but they still cannot control having the feelings they have, it is the same thing as attacking a schizophrenic for having delusions, and trying to argue with them, or making fun of someone with bipolar disorder for being depressed.

I'm not mean to them, user, I just don't agree and have a distinct distaste for it when they try to force it upon another person. Be it in the clipping of their vernacular, or simply how they act around them.

In your argument, a libertarian argument, we should have the freedom to act as we wish, unless it infringes upon others.

I accept it, I do not accept it when they show no compromise either. Or, when they openly ridicule the hetronormative.

Anyway, what about this:

>Or worse, when adults try and superimpose it upon children as young as six. These are the dangerous aspects of transgenderism, that is, faux-transgenderism made acceptable due to the political climate.

This conversation is why I come to this fourm. Real thoughtful, enlightened discussion.

I agree with you here that they should have no right to force someone to recognise their delusions, and people should be under no compulsion to do so. I'd do so in real life, though, simply because it's polite and respectful - like when you put up with a friend who is always telling embellished stories because you don't want to embarrass them or hurt their feelings, and even play along.

I agree that children should be left out of it and not encouraged or pushed towards any gender besides their biological ones, unless they spontaneously show a strong inclination at a pubescent age. Unfortunately, it's a human failing to want our children to be like us, and to preserve our way of life - it's the same failing that sometimes causes fundamentalist or traditionalist parents to sometimes alienate their kids - the emotional need for self-validation and the continuation of their way of life. This needs to be opposed in all of it's iterations.

Veeky Forums boards outside of the obvious containment ones are the revolutionary salons of the 21st century, user. You can talk about issues passionately without any of the distracting responsibilities of identity, and with no connection to your audience and need to cater to them, you don't have to simplify your approach for anti-intellectual considerations, and you don't have to self-police.

Well, I'm glad we came to an agreement.

These are my only grievances with it, when it affects those who do not understand the notion of gender and those who try an force it upon others, be that via de jure or de facto means.

I agree, we only have one chance at existence and that nihilism is the probability, but shouldn't leave us with despair. - Rather, we should aim for happiness, fulfilment and attempt to leave a measure of legacy.

Those might be platitudes and entirely subjective, but I consider them more conducive than leading a withdrawn, unfulfilling and ultimately depressing existence.

Carpe diem and all of that.

State for the record exactly which boards you consider to be relevant to this "positive" scheme that you have just outlined, and which boards are your containment boards, not to be taken seriously, to be dismissed.

The reason for my command is that I have have a sneaking suspicion that you personally would like to dismiss certain boards that you can not actually dismiss. Whatever the case, I would suggest in connection with your very intelligent point that there is a continuum of the usefulness of discourse in quasi-anonymous fora which extends even (albeit in greatly diminished form, to your point) to the shit-postiest of anonymous boards. /People are still in the habit of arguing things based on their own merits, and with the near-total absense of ego unless they falsely infuse their ego into the conversation by means of a tripcode, a celebrity thread, etc./

The thrust of my suggestion (telegraphing my jabs, now) is that pretty much any Veeky Forums board with a level of discourse above that of either /b/ or s4s is meaningfully along the lines of what you've suggested, since cogent thoughts are regularly expressed and argued at most such boards. People even take their pornography seriously, though admittedly pornography is by cultural definition lower on the hierarchy of culture.

Are you Marcus Tullius? That is, this is like sixth form/college (high school) classics all over again.

>and you don't have to self-police.
Is this your first day here?

You're dumb as fuck, OP. Any Psych 101, NeuroBio 101, or even fucking Bio 101 student can tell you that there is a difference between Sex and Gender.

Yes, but as everyone knows, for /pol/ feelings>facts.

This is true, you can find exceptions to most rules especially those regarding human biology due to genetic variation and the sheer amount of people. However, the point is Dylan is not one of these people. How do i know this? I don't, but I'm 99.9% confident that I am correct

Nah that's just being a cuck

>calls things he doesnt like pol
Gender is not a subject of science you mouthbreathing SJWtard. You either have a penis or vagina,

>Gender is not a subject of science you mouthbreathing SJWtard
It's pretty clearly covered by psychology. Or do you pretend that's not a science?

>You either have a penis or vagina,
I'm glad you figured that out.

>psychology is science
so is anime and videogames right?

...

>hermaphrodite
>self fertilize
Nigga what

This shit is why i stuck with math based sciences
However, Ill have you know that ive taken bio at a collegial level and at no point was the distinction between gender and sex made
Youve either got a dick or a cunt, the rest is psychology, not that I have anything against psychology, mind you
Letting trannies run around and get their dicks cut off and their clits extended is like telling a schizophrenic that the voices in their head is real
Even then, gender dysmorphia is an extremely rare condition with most trannies simply being histrionic

>Youve either got a dick or a cunt, the rest is psychology
That's basically the distinction between sex and gender. One's biology, the other is psychology.

>Letting trannies run around and get their dicks cut off and their clits extended is like telling a schizophrenic that the voices in their head is real
It's really not.
Even without digging into the details of it (identities aren't beliefs, and disphoria isn't the same thing as delusion), it's pretty obviously different from just the outcomes. Transitioning clearly improves patient quality-of-life in basically all of the studies I've seen.

>most trannies simply being histrionic
[citation needed]

Provide evidence for any form of fluidity or non-binarism plox, you just simply can't be in between or flip flop between genders, otherwise, you would undermine the entire scientific argument for transgenderism that it is general, due to the structure of the brain.

>you just simply can't be in between or flip flop between genders, otherwise, you would undermine the entire scientific argument for transgenderism that it is general, due to the structure of the brain.
What? How is non-binarism incompatible with gender being linked to brain structure?

there are (very rare) exceptions to XX & XY tho
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome

but genitalia don't always match chromosomes

1.) We'd have no fucking clue how to define it in the case for non-binary genders. Do we use a fucking complex number with length 1 or a 2D vector to quantify how much of the brain is male and how much is female? Suppose there's a gender in no way linked to male and female, in what way would we be able to objectively verify that is another gender. Most certainly I think it follows that a spectrum of genders thus would be highly unlikely. Thus question if there are,l multiple distinct genders.
2.) I've seen literally no established scientific evidence through a biological argument which hints at the possibility of non-binary genders. (If anyone actually knows of any studies on this issue tackling non-binarism I'd like to read some)
3.) In the specific case of 'fluid genders', the idea of switching between the n genders one chooses at any arbitrary time, would require an arbitrary, random restructuring of the brain to match that of the gender.

At the very least, non-binarism seems highly unlikely.

Who cares?
I mean seriously. Does it pose a fucking practical issue to you?

The vast majority of them dont want to take away your verbal freedoms and they do not want to redefine biology.

Why the fuck do you care if they define themselves as this or that?

Its a non-issue.

Just live your fucking life.

>do not want to redefine biology and take verbal freedoms

No, im not.

Sure, maybe the cringiest SJW's on youtube and pop-culture have given you that impression but contrary to popular belief transgenderism is not an ideology.

You only need one autistic fucker to shit everything up though.

>We'd have no fucking clue how to define it in the case for non-binary genders. Do we use a fucking complex number with length 1 or a 2D vector to quantify how much of the brain is male and how much is female?
You'd just describe it as "a mixture of male and female structures". I don't really know how you'd quantify it, but I don't really see why that's a big deal.

It's a big deal because it doesn't seem based in any form of reality. If there's an extremely slight change in brain structure in the relevant areas, from one person to another. Does that mean that both people are of completely different gender? Regardless, one must first prove that such a thing can and does exist.

By extension, does a slightly effeminate man constitute as a combination of male and female, thus being another gender? Or do we assume the more logical case that they are simply an effemanite man.

Holy jews I spelled "effeminate" wrong the second time around, I'm sorry for my autism.

Gender is not necessarily defined only by strict biological factors.

Ones sex, however, is.

This is actually quite an old way of defining both words so as to avoid confusion.

How is gender not defined by strict biological factors if our evidence for it is due to specific neural structure and the notion that we are biological creatures? That definition of gender sounds like it allows such to be changed at one's whim if I am interpreting it correctly. Furthermore, what is this definition based on?

No a transgender should not be called a boy or girl until every fucking chromosome in their cells is the XY or XX chromosome.

Gender is not an evidence-based word.

It is not a rigorous scientific definition.

Sex is the word youre looking for.

This is some SJW-level retardation.

I call whomever i want whatever i want, i dont care about what you think "should" be the case.

Thats the whole fucking problem with this debate in the first place.
I SHOULD call this person this or that.

i say whatever the fuck i want, bitch.

Well yeah, in this case I pissed the sjw off, and couldn't fuck her.

thats how it usually works when you want to fuck someone.

>If there's an extremely slight change in brain structure in the relevant areas, from one person to another. Does that mean that both people are of completely different gender?
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. It's possible to divide something into groups without every member of each group being exactly identical.

Which is exactly what I am proposing. By defining a gender to allow a combination of both male and female (e.g. 0.2f+0.8m) you run into these issues. It is much simpler to say the slightly feminine man is just that, a man. I was pointing out the flaws with having a handwavy unproven definition of gender which allows this inbetween-ness of genders, through the use of an example, because it is true that everyone in a group does not have to be exactly identical.

All of this shit comes from post modernism

>By defining a gender to allow a combination of both male and female (e.g. 0.2f+0.8m) you run into these issues.
What issues? I don't understand how the problems you've brought up are actually connected to this.
Genders are categories we've built to describe people, because the vast majority of people fit neatly into those two categories. But there is a (very small) minority of people who don't fit well into either category, hence the idea of "non-binary gender".

Feelings are biology, dumdum.

However, there is the discrepancy as to whether the claims of said people are true and/or if non-binarism is just a result of say, a mental health issue instead of an actual gender.

I don't even see how anyone could say that they are neither male nor female, what criteria are they going off? It seems more like they're just claiming to be non-binary so that they are 'special snowflakes'. And unlike others, I myself cannot just accept someone's proposal based entirely off of what one feels.

No one is really proposing anything to you, though.

Absolutely behemoth'd

He might be MillionDollarExtreme, but he will never be BillionDollarExtreme.

Was Caeser a cuck for adopting Octavian as his heir?

Once you become emperor of Rome we can talk about politically motivated adoptions