Once you label me you negate me

>Tumblr will say if you don't conform to your socially enforced sex role you must be a tranny and have your dick lopped off.
(not true, btw)

Retard. It's perfectly fine to be gay, butch, effeminate, act how you want and suck and fuck who you want. However if you are one sex and claim that you are the other, you're are just an image conscious child playing pretend.

Baby's first day at liberal arts college.

Nobody cares what you want to call yourself. You're a dipshit child for expecting me to play along.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation

So um guys what does his quote have to do with tumblr gender wars?

I dont think that was the point of the quote

I'll say again. Fuck your image conscious pronouns. When I call you "He" or "she" I'm referring to a biologically male or female person. Just because one day you decide to play pretend you're something new doesn't mean the world has to play along. Develop a skill if you want to be special.

has nothing to do with the post you're replying to but thanks for playing

He or she does not determine biological makeup they are just words you are accustomed to

sex is biological

gender is social

you're referencing chromosomes, which are biological

therefore, sex is biologically determined but gender isn't

what are you not getting here, you're just wrong, i understand you might not like that some people want to identify with a gender other than what they have been socially labelled but the biology part is just factual my man

>circular reasoning

wew lad

you're right, i fucked that up

but i know that you know what i'm getting at

everyone who tries to describe him is going to fail because you cannot grasp his Geist with human language

>hurr im a walking paradox dont touch me

le epic language puzzle

good on you for being so opinionated but gender is still not a chromosome.

He's a white boy so he's sensitive and gets affected by being labelled.

I only know this from Wayne's World and could only find it in a book of quotes a few years back. From whence does it come? I assume a letter or something.

I suspect it's a cheeky backhander to old Hegel but some context would be nice.

99%+ of people identify with the same gender as their biological sex.

objectification is ossification

I know that the only thing separating gender from sex is somebody decided they didn't feel special enough and decided to call themselves something new. There is no difference and they're still image conscious children who refuse to earn being special.

>being a sheep is an argument on Veeky Forums

shut up you fucking bigot I bet you don't refer to wolfkin as wolves you bigot

Species is not biological. Species identity is social and some people were born the wrong species. ok?

>racism
Get out nigger

t. sensitive white cuck

>sex and gender are synonyms
>>the current year
>>>ur trolling is this out of date

when you laugh, the whole world laughs with you, but when you're wrong you're wrong alone.

basic dialectics of universal/particular. unfortunately kierkegaard assumes too much of his subjectivity, but the argument is that "naming" a subject this or that negates or nominally cancels its other particularities—like a many faced diamond whose faces cannot all be named in the same breath; there is always some qualium of excess that escapes the label.

but subjectivity is a generic floating point, like an anonymous camera, prior to its egoic self-representation, so he's wrong.

Pretty sure that was Dick van Patten.

>like an anonymous camera

Interesting simile, explain yourself.

I bet ur gay

>subjectivity is a generic floating point,
But it is not

im basing this on my interpretation of lacan on the mirror stage and aggressiveness, but basically the infant subject experiences itself as disjointed, uncoordinated, etc, consequent of its lack of muscle control. the body is fragmented. then it seizes its image in the mirror, and "misrecognizes" its reflection as itself—not as a reflection OF itself, but precisely AS itself. this misrecognition is of course quite automatically repressed, because it provides a way of thinking the body as united: when "i" raise my arm, i can see "myself" do it (in the mirror). this then becomes the basic pattern of every object investment. but underneath all this is a blank subjectivity, a kind of phenomenological sieve through which sensation flows, the anonymous camera staring blankly at the sensory apparatus.

it is as though the categories themselves—to use the language of kant—just kind of sit and watch, empty of all content, automatically sorting and structuring sensory information. it is only when they catch sight of the body that they are reorganized "around" its image—this we call the ego, and it is THAT which can be negated by labeling kierkegaard. but the subject pretty narrowly comprehends itself.

Reminds me of when Lacan says

"Thus the subject, too, if he can appear to be the slave of language is all the more so of a discourse in the universal movement in which his place is already inscribed at birth, if only by virtue of his proper name"

The symbolic order and all that innit

>99%+ of people identify with the same gender as their biological sex.

57%of women work outside the home.

Nothing because he never said that

on the other hand though this dialectic pretty quickly breaks apart into the absolute negativity of the subject: the very fact that it cannot be named, that when naming the ego some quality escapes, and that this is the subject that cannot ever fully be extracted from it—from a positivist standpoint, the difference becomes negligible so quickly as to be non-existent, the smallest infinitesimal that vanishes into 0.

but it is from this that the subject derives its power of negativity, and it's only by becoming conscious of itself as a subject, as an empty, generic, floating point, that it can begin to cancel the world around it, to locate itself as the blind spot staining the uniform envelope of the real—only with this self-consciousness can the project of critique begin.