I’m just picturing that robot from Star Trek (the one thinking about “this sentence is false”) going “huh” and then blowing up…
it’s hilarious that i see more press coverage/ discussion about the scandals every olympics than i see anyone talking about the winners. for the same reason reality tv ever became a thing
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Why are you making up lies? The Olympic Committee requires transgender female athletes to have been on estrogen and T blockers for at least two years before competing in the women’s league.
Which would be relevant if the athletes were trans.
But they aren’t. So it isn’t.
Which makes bringing it up pointless.
The lies are not pointless. The point is to spread fear and hate.
I’ve seem more coverage on this than the Netherlands sending a convicted child rapist to represent their country
conservatives hate women and trans people more than they hate child rapists. one guess as to why…
What’s his name?
Was at a kid’s birthday party and one of the dads brought up the subject, I asked if Michael Phelps should have been disqualified for having a genetic advantage over the people he was competing with and if Imane Khelif would have been treated that way 20 years ago, that shut him up real quick.
Only genetic clones from poor families are eligible now, everything else is advantage.
Removed by mod
No, as a matter of fact, I’m not
Imane Khelif has XY chromosomes
Even if it mattered (it doesn’t), we don’t know this. We know that the IBA says she failed some kind of gender test, and that one member of the IBA later and unofficially came out and gave more detail about that. But we have no reason to trust any of it, because the IBA’s official statements have been vague and evasive, and anyway the IBA is so corrupt that even the IOC refuses to deal with them, which is why the IOC is operating boxing directly itself at this Olympics.
Most internally coherent right wing opinion
(I’m like 80% sure it’s a parody, you just can’t tell these days)
You say that like the right wing isn’t 80% parody by this point :)
Parody implies humor. The right wing is deadly serious.
this is why more people should take college level biology/anatomy. Testosterone don’t mean shit if you have a broken gene for testosterone receptors. A Y-chromosome also needs a functional SRY to trigger male phenotypes.
Education isn’t the problem. Bad actors with malicious intent are.
Back in the 90s, we used to say, “If people were more educated then…” and saw the internet as a way to deliver that education. Look how that turned out.
We used to have great quantities of much higher quality information available at our fingertips at every city library. The problem was never lack of access to information.
Ultimately it comes down to fuckability.
Christ, is this why anti-trans people are so focused on this shit? Because they can only think of people in terms of their fuckability through their own experiences? And through their tunnel vision, anyone with complex sex gene and hormone biology, and who present differently than the anti-trans person’s gender or the gender they’re typically attracted to, is automatically a filthy gender-bending subhuman??
“I am hot man. This is hot girl. These here are neither hot men like me nor hot girl like her. EX*CUTE THEM!!!”
That’s part of it, yeah. A major part
Women are only good for one thing, that’s the idea behind it all. Any time a woman isn’t fuckable, they become lesser, no matter what other traits they have.
It’s misogyny all the way down. Now, to the sides, there’s also other prejudice involved, but the basis of the anti trans thought is the same basis as misogyny.
You can bet your ass that if she had some conventionally beautiful face, none of this shit would have happened.
Or they’ll confuse them the wrong way around.
“You look like a woman so you’ll never be a man!” - “I used to be a man.” - “I don’t believe you!”
Almost. It’s only fuckability, but through a lens of their own sexual repression. Gay is bad by definition and now they have to answer the question: Is it gay to find this attractive woman attractive if it used to have a penis?
The answer is: Labels don’t matter. Everything’s all individual, anyway. This person is attractive to you or not, period. There’s a) no implication on your sexual preferences and b) if there was, who cares? Or rather, it’s only you and your likes who care, and none of you have to.
“I am hot man. This is hot girl. These here are neither hot men like me nor hot girl like her. EX*CUTE THEM!!!”
This is basically Jordan Peterson’s entire brand
I dunno man, people have a wide range of what they consider fuckable.
Frankly the fact that she can break me easily with one hand is a massive turn on. And with her determination and heart, she’s WAY out of my league.
Coming to the MCU next fall: Vagina Man.
Starring Robert Downey Jr.
You’re about 16 years too late. He’s already world famous for his portrayal of Fe Male.
Aaayyoooooo
Fucking lmao
All women are men and everyone is gay. There problem solved.
EDIT: Ah, so this is what happens when you use imgflip in a browser that disables HTML5 canvas. Good to know. Lemme try again.
That’s better.
They’re actually a lot more consistent than this post makes them out to be. If you’ve got every single thing on their list that makes you a man - from the genitalia, to the physique, to the likes and dislikes, to the sexual orientation, to the behavior - you’re a man. Same for a woman. If you’re anything less, then they’ve just found their excuse to revoke your humanity in their own minds. You’re different from them, and so now you’re lesser than them. The same thing applies to people of different skin colors, religions, etc.
That’s how those types of people have always been - they think of themselves as “nice people, but only to those who deserve it” which essentially just means a horrible person to everyone but people exactly like themselves. They honestly believe that any less means they’re entirely justified to hate you. All they need is one little thing to point to, and any amount of harassment or worse is “only fair.”
I know it’s easy to believe there’s some consistency there in the form of consistent hatred, but they actually aren’t consistent in their hatred.
I agree with your premise philosophically: They demand that you must have every man trait, to be a man; and similarly for woman traits, to be a woman.
But, consider: only a tiny subset of people would ever be men or women in this formulation. If they believed this strictly and consistently, if they enforced it socially, they would be hopelessly outnumbered. Nobody would ever join the fascism club because nobody would be able to. They’d be wiped out quickly, too, because there would be very few opportunities to pass this ethos down to a following generation.
So in its application, they let all the rules go out the window, as long as you’re saying you agree with them. Jewish person joining an anti-semitic hate group? You’re on the team. Trans person calling for the end of trans healthcare? Welcome aboard. Latino group that opposes immigration? Come on in.
Fascism is about claiming you stand for one thing (which is, due to the nature of fascism, some kind of hate). But then actually taking in any person who is strategically useful to you as long as they don’t rock the boat. The second there’s a good reason to eject someone from the boat, they walk the plank. When it comes to gender, they’ll accept any number of “disqualifying” characteristics–tall and broad-shouldered women, effeminate intellectual men, even literal trans people–as long as you’re on board with hating the bad person of the week.
While that’s true, they still believe you’re lesser if you’re different. The jewish person in the anti-semetic group and the trans person calling for the end of trans healthcare will still be the first on the chopping block if the goals of those groups come to fruition. They’re like pets to them - animals that aren’t on the dinner table only because they serve a better purpose alive than dead.
I think the way I would phrase it is that they are very consistent in their belief that there are clear lines for defining gender.
But that view breaks down the moment their definitions have to engage with reality and they are faced with the difficulty of actually making thos classifications when faced with biological realities.
Instructions unclear, got ceiling fan caught in my vagina
Doctor: Okay, but when was your last period?
NORMAN, COORDINATE!
That text reminds me of:
It’s very simple, Who is on first base…
Aneurysm posting
Removed by mod
that’s, like, a third graders understanding of biology and reality is nowhere near that convenient
What is incorrect about it?
That gender is at least partially a social construct and even if you have XY chromosomes and you’ve been brought up as a woman you shouldn’t be forced to live as a man in case you do a chromosomal test and it turns out you have XY chromosomes.
Imagine the opposite - you’re an XX man with a penis and you’ve lived as a man your whole life and then you do a random chromosomal test and somebody tells you “you see I know you have a penis and I know you’re fine being a man but your chromosomes says you’re “female” so we have to chop off your dick and you have to grow titties so you can fit into the binaries we’ve established because it’s too hard for others to believe you’re a man”
The idea that the use of the term “Man” is at all related to chromosomes, as opposed to how you interact with society. If you were talking about biological sex that’d be a cogent view, but even there there’s a ton of nuance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determining_region_Y_protein
More important (but still not all-deciding) than the XY phenotype is the presence or absence of SRY, which depending on mutations and faulty crossovers can be present on either X or Y
To oversimplify, every human has an X chromosome and it is necessary to survive. The Y chromosome is optional and codes for some additional traits that make a person male. Chromosomes aren’t foolproof and genes and in some cases entire chromosomes can essentially be turned off. However, since we have two of each chromosome this is often not a problem. So, if parts of the Y chromosome turn off, you potentially turn off the mechanisms that make a person male. In which case the person would remain the default of female.
Here’s a series of Tweets from 5 years ago by @RebeccaRHelm.
Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex…[a thread]
If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well…
Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?
Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?
A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer…
Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??
“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And…
…if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this… Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer.
What does this all mean?
It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.
Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?
Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you…
The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.
Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?
Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.’
Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn’t classified as binary. You can’t have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others.
Biology is a shitshow.
Be kind to people.
deleted by creator
T H A T S T H E J O K E . J P G
