[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 510 KB, 1080x1191, 1703376052064743.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15938679 No.15938679 [Reply] [Original]

>trans women ARE women
>trans women are males who feel suicidal about not being women, so we should use she/her pronouns for them and pretend that they are women so they don't kill themselves.

Which sentence is scientifically true?

>> No.15938691

>>15938679
No one cares, shut the fuck up.
Let the retards cut their dicks off, just tell them to shut the fuck up about it and stop recommending it to kids.

>> No.15938697

>>15938679
>god makes guy tall
>would be handsome if he exercised
>also makes him want to literally become his mother and cut off his dick
If they would just say the second one then I would actually support them.

>> No.15938701

>>15938691
> Just tell them to shut the fuck up about it and stop rec
They wont do that, the whole idea of a disease is to spead.

>> No.15938733
File: 1.39 MB, 1331x882, Damazonia latex femdom.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15938733

>>15938679
trans women are men with an Oedipus complex, same with femdom. Hot right?

>> No.15938734

> those eyes
It is about to commit sepukku
The best thing about degeneracy and mental illness is that they are self destructive

>> No.15938737

>>15938733
Dom females have an Oedipus complex?

>> No.15938747

>>15938737
Don't be a tard, femdom referring to men who have a femdom fetish.

>> No.15938789
File: 323 KB, 680x473, bec.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15938789

>>15938679
Obsessed

Go back, Chud.

>> No.15938815

>>15938733
>trans women are males
FTFY

>> No.15938817
File: 50 KB, 547x470, 1703360702097281.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15938817

You know what to do

>> No.15938837

>>15938817
Where is the trolling exactly?
Please answer

>> No.15938974

>>15938679
Neither is true. They are men and should be called men. If they kill themselves, that is their own fault.

>> No.15938976

>>15938679
>post srs
And another one ruined

>> No.15939010

>>15938679
>Which sentence is scientifically true?
The first one, of course. Science doesn't care about your chud feelings.

>> No.15939081

>>15938789
>chud
you don't belong here. You should fuck back off to tumblr/reddit/club penguin

>> No.15939084

>>15938679
Those drooping lower eyelids are indicitive of serious mental illness.

>> No.15939088

>>15939081
>you don't belong here
What I love about 4chan is that everyone is anonymous, therefore you are forced to consider people's arguments without assumptions about their person!

>> No.15939095 [DELETED] 

The second one.

>> No.15939100

>>15939088
what arguments?

>> No.15939101

>>15938974
Absolutely true. 'politeness' should never require outright denial of the truth.

>> No.15939105

>>15939101
Indeed, women should not be forced to call themselves men because a bunch of broke-brained conservative weenies can't cope with it.

>> No.15939126

>>15939105
What makes them women?

>> No.15939134

>>15939126
Gender is a performance

>> No.15939137

>>15938691
redditor detected. this is 4chan.

>> No.15939138

>>15939100
A fallacy is a type of argument, but it is considered a bad or flawed one due to errors in reasoning. In an argument containing a fallacy, there is a failure in logic, relevance, or structure that weakens the overall validity or soundness of the argument. While the term "fallacy" is often associated with faulty reasoning, it is important to note that not all arguments are fallacious, and recognizing and avoiding fallacies is a key aspect of constructing strong and persuasive reasoning.

T. ChatGPT

>> No.15939141

>>15939137
4chan, the website that embraces true free speech

>> No.15939143

>>15939141
Be real.

>> No.15939145

>>15939134
And what must a woman perform to be called a woman?

>> No.15939147

>>15939145
Femininity

>> No.15939149

>>15939105
Are tomboys not allowed to call themselves girls?

>> No.15939153

>>15939147
Definition of femininity?

>> No.15939154

>>15939143
Yeah you're right, it's a nazi baby playpen where people amuse themselves and nothing of importance is discussed. I just never cease to be amused by the fact that the same people who always go
>4chan is the last bastion of free speech, where arguments are considered fairly, and anyone can join the conversation, and no viewpoint is safe from scrutiny, and that's why it's conservative
are also always the ones to go
>ew, a person I disagree with, go away, you can't do that on 4chan

>> No.15939156

>>15939154
free speech does not mean freedom from being made fun of.

>> No.15939157

>>15939145
She must merely be born and live until adulthood. No gaping wounds required.

>> No.15939158

>>15939149
I won't stop them
>>15939153
qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of women or girls.

>> No.15939159

>>15939158
such as...?

>> No.15939161

>>15939156
Yes, and guess what: they hate it when you make fun of their hypocrisy about that, too
lol

>> No.15939162

>>15939158
>I won't stop them
Would you call them girls, though?

>> No.15939164

>>15939159
Depends on the culture

>> No.15939165

>>15939164
give examples within the USA.

>> No.15939168

>>15939161
>their hypocrisy
Do you keep racking up bans for being a retarded shitlib here, then?

>> No.15939169

>>15939162
Suppose I would. "Tomboy" specifically is a girlish identity, the identity of a girl with certain masculine interests.
>>15939165
I'm not overly familiar with the USA.

>> No.15939170

>>15939169
give examples from your country

>> No.15939173

>>15939154
Those who spam, flood and argue in bad faith are jews.

>> No.15939174

>>15939168
No, why would I?

>> No.15939175

>>15939174
Where's the hypocrisy about free speech if you don't? Do you often just use random words for no reason?

>> No.15939176

>>15939173
Must be that Jewish self-loathing because those types really seem to hate Jews a lot

>> No.15939178

>>15938679
freudian slip
nigga want to fuck his mother so bad, he became her

>> No.15939179

>>15939170
Wearing a dress

>> No.15939180

>>15938679
top 10 malicious threads

>> No.15939181

>>15939175
The hypocrisy is in their impotent seething about seeing opposing viewpoints, can you keep up?

>> No.15939182

>>15939179
So since this is a part of the 'performance' that is womanhood, a person who did not wear a dress would be performing fewer aspects of it? Making them less of a woman?

>> No.15939184

>>15939169
A "tomboy" is a term traditionally used to describe someone who exhibits behaviors and interests that are typically associated with boys or men. Tomboys may engage in activities that are considered more stereotypically masculine, such as climbing trees, playing sports, or enjoying traditionally male-dominated hobbies.

>> No.15939186

>>15939182
Generally, yes. Gender is a spectrum, though, not a binary, so of course the wearing of a dress or not doesn't make all the difference.
>>15939184
>used to describe someone
No, that's not true. It's not used to describe a boy or man who exhibits behaviors and interests that are typically associated with boys or men.

>> No.15939187

>>15939181
You're making no sense. There is no hypocrisy about someone not liking what you say. Free speech is not about agreeing with everything you vomit out of your retarded shitlib peabrain. Reddit is for such things. Free speech is for not banning you despite you not being able to be consistent for two messages in a row.

>> No.15939189

>>15939186
>No, that's not true. It's not used to describe a boy or man who exhibits behaviors and interests that are typically associated with boys or men.
Are you saying that "a boy" or "a man" describes some inherent quality unrelated to behaviour, then?

>> No.15939191

>>15939187
There is a hypocrisy in singing the praises of 4chan for not filtering out dissenting opinions so that people are exposed to criticism, then telling people with dissenting opinions they don't belong so you never have to consider criticism. You're trying to change my words because you're exactly who I'm talking about.

>> No.15939192

>>15939189
I'm saying a few masculine interests do not a man make

>> No.15939193

>>15939186
And if a biological female who calls herself a woman decides to wear pants, works as a car mechanic, smokes frequently, slays pussy, drinks massive amounts of beer, and performs generally masculine behaviors, is that person a man or a woman?

>> No.15939194

>>15939191
>You're trying to change my words
>There is a hypocrisy in singing the praises of 4chan
I told you to get real. Because I know that free speech on 4chan is a flimsy thing. I know it because I DO get banned a lot. Precisely for arguing like this with brain-dead zombies such as you.

The only hypocrisy you've so far managed to show is yours. And yes, you do not belong. Starting to fling shit at people because you do not like free speech is indeed a reason for you to go back.

>> No.15939195

>>15939192
A tomboy's interests are entirely masculine. And you rejected ChatGPT-sama's definition of a tomboy just because you took objection to the word "person".

>> No.15939196

>>15939194
> I know it because I DO get banned a lot. Precisely for arguing like this with brain-dead zombies such as you.
Weird, didn't realise there was a rule against being a hypocrite.
>The only hypocrisy you've so far managed to show is yours. And yes, you do not belong.
lol, now who's using words he doesn't understand? Go on, show my hypocrisy. You've just shown yours. If you go around telling people they don't belong and should leave, then you are saying you want 4chan to be an echo chamber. Pointing out that it isn't in spite of your wishes is not a defence of your hypocrisy.

>> No.15939199

>>15939193
Not enough data, but you're starting to get how gender is socially constructed.

>>15939195
>A tomboy's interests are entirely masculine.
No, I don't think so. A tomboy's specific interest is in being a girl with masculine aspects.

>> No.15939200

>>15939196
>Weird, didn't realise there was a rule against being a hypocrite.
Well if there were, you'd have gotten your entire country rangebanned by now, that's for sure. The actual rule is "do not disagree with shitlib jannies or mods". It's an unspoken one, but it's enforced with an iron fist on many boards.
>If you go around telling people they don't belong and should leave, then you are saying you want 4chan to be an echo chamber.
Oof. The little sophist can't keep up, can he? I'm telling you that if you're against free speech, you should leave. I'd love for 4chan to be a bastion of free speech. Which it isn't because there really are many jannies and mods who are infected with the same mind virus as you.

>> No.15939202

>>15939199
>being a girl
Again with the inherent qualities. All her actions are masculine. But somehow this inherent quality keeps her from being a boy, which is what all her friends are. Curious, as a redidtor would say.

>> No.15939204

>>15939199
The problem is that nobody defines gender in this way. A definition doesn't just have to be logically consistent, it also has to reflect the intuition behind the concept. If I define 'truth' to be a metal, yellow, cylindrical object, I haven't really given a proper definition, because I fail to depict the concept that is already meant by the word.

You define 'woman' to be a person who performs feminine behaviors. Conservatives such as myself would object to the definition because we use it to refer to biology. Trannies and libtards would also object to this definition, because they would assert that a tranny was a woman even before he began to act in feminine ways. What is the use of this definition, when it reflects something completely alien to our idea of gender? It would be better to use this definition to refer to 'gender roles'.

>> No.15939207

>>15939200
>The actual rule is "do not disagree with shitlib jannies or mods"
The jannies and mods are all /pol/tards and have been for ages, don't know what you're doing so wrong but I'm thinking you're probably just a little bitch who can't stay on topic.
>The little sophist can't keep up, can he?
I don't know, can you?
>I'm telling you that if you're against free speech, you should leave.
And I'm telling you, that's an inherent hypocritical position. It's also a flagrant strawman: I never said I opposed freedom of speech. You're saying i'm opposed to freedom of speech because I'm opposing hypocrites who claim to be for freedom of speech.

Let me use an example:
If I say that black people should all be deported to Africa, but my country doesn't actually have a law in place to do so, do I get to praise my country and by extension myself for being so tolerant and accepting? For some reason you're using "your opinion" (which I'm calling you a hypocrite for) interchangeably with "the rules of 4chan" which are entirely irrelevant to the conversation.

>> No.15939208

>>15939202
>All her actions are masculine.
If ALL his actions are masculine then he is a boy, not a tomboy. You are the one insisting that there is some hypothetical platonic tomboy who is perfectly masculine in every single way yet in some undefined way still a girl. I am telling you, if she is a tomboy, then she must have feminine qualities to balance out the masculine.

>> No.15939216

>>15939204
Gender roles are associated with gender but they are not the totality of gender. A role is caretaker, breadwinner, protector, mediator, etc. but as you can see, "pants wearer" or "beer drinker" or "frequent smoker" isn't really a societal role.

>> No.15939218

>>15939207
>The jannies and mods are all /pol/tards and have been for ages
Yet somehow you do not keep racking up bans, by your own admission. How is it that leftists live in an imaginary world where they are the oppressed ones even when the data they agree with shows that that's now the case? Is is mass psyhcosis?
>I don't know, can you?
I thought you were smart when I last talked to you, but I must have been mistaken. That's so weak.
>And I'm telling you, that's an inherent hypocritical position.
What nonsense. Shitlibs always use words they've associated with "bad", and they toss them around like candy. If I want you gone because you go against free speech, and I like free speech, it's not hypocrisy. Why don't you call me a nazi, a fascist, a bigot, and all the funny buzzwords too? Words don't have a meaning for you, so it gets a bit repetitive to hear you use just this one.
>I opposed freedom of speech.
That's precisely how you started. Going on about how it's hypocritical to disagree with and to get angry at you. Which is just ridiculous, as I've already demonstrated.
>If I say that black people should all be deported to Africa,
Based.
>"your opinion"
Is not hypocrticial. I really do like free speech, and I really do want those against it gone.
>"the rules of 4chan" which are entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
I agree. The rules of 4chan suck. Especialyl the unspoken ones.

>> No.15939220

>>15939208
>I am telling you, if she is a tomboy, then she must have feminine qualities to balance out the masculine.
Yup. There sure is. She has a vagina.

>> No.15939222

>>15939218
>Is not hypocrticial.
Oh wait, I get it now. I'm a hypocrite because Free Speech should include ALL speech, including that which says that we should not have free speech.

Very clever. I guess I really am a hycpocrite.

>> No.15939227

>>15939218
>Yet somehow you do not keep racking up bans, by your own admission.
Yes, probably because I'm not a retard who keeps making off topic threads. You're not being persecuted, you're just an entitled little shit who immediately jumps to the conclusion that he is being unfairly victimised when the slightest thing doesn't go his way.
>Words don't have a meaning for you
Ironic
>That's precisely how you started.
No, what you just revealed here is that you're unable to consider my argument rationally. Rather, the moment you face any opposition, your immediate kneejerk response is just to say "OH SO YOU OPPOSE FREEDOM OF SPEECH THEN HUH??!?"

The actual reason you told me to get out was that I said you were a hypocrite, and that was after you told someone else to get out for saying "let the retards cut their dicks off". Nothing at all about free speech.

You'll notice I don't address most of your points. That's because they're frankly impertinent drivel full of baseless assumptions.

>> No.15939229

>>15939216
then what is the 'totality of gender'? I asked you to define what makes a woman a woman, and you gave me a definition of roles.

>> No.15939232

>>15939218
>Going on about how it's hypocritical to disagree with and to get angry at you.
Wait, I have to specifically call out this phrasing, though. No, I'm not saying it's hypocritical to disagree with me. Because you didn't simply "disagree". Your very first response to disagreement was to say "get out" and THAT is what elicited my calling out your hypocrisy, when I was simply disagreeing with you before. This is blatant projection on your part. You are the one who can't stand disagreement but you can't square that with your self-image.

>> No.15939234

>>15939229
Actually it was "qualities or attributes"

>> No.15939236

>>15939227
>That's because they're frankly impertinent drivel full of baseless assumptions.
That''s all your message is. However, I do want to point out that"let the retards cut their dicks off" wasn't me. I probbly would agree with that snetiment, though, but it wasn't me, and I don't bother to go check out who it was.

Let's just agree to disagree. I forgot what we were really arguing about, but I already admitted that I'm a hypocriot. IF I'm honest, I kind of like it that you're here. I've argued against you many times before, and I really do think you're smart.

>> No.15939238

>>15939232
>"get out"
No it wasn't. My first message in the thread was "get real".

>> No.15939246

>>15939234
and I asked for an example. You gave me 'wearing a dress', which is obviously a part of gender roles. Do you have a definition?

>> No.15939251

>>15939246
>You gave me 'wearing a dress', which is obviously a part of gender roles.
No? How is that a role? It's an article of clothing.

>> No.15939252

>>15938679
I believe this is a scientific, specifically a sociology and anthropology issue.

If you study culture, you will see different cultures have different gender roles. Now not all individuals fit perfectly into these standards. The individual in OP's pic is very attractive with his feminine appearance. Now this doesn't mean he should think himself as female but because of gender roles, he thinks he must "transition" into a female for his feminine personality to match his gender.

Some males have a feminine personality and some females have a masculine personality. People are who they are and I believe they should embrace who they are, and for society and them to realize that they don't have to transition. They can remain their sex and be who they are without thinking they must be the opposite sex.

If you study ancient cultures you'll come to understand cultures like the Romans viewed individuals in the framework as dominants and submissives. They didn't have words to describe sexual orientation or believe this dominant/submissive disposition was tied to biological sex.

>> No.15939257

>>15939252
>You should embrace who you are but you are what I say you are and if you disagree you're wrong
>Express yourself how you want, but not like that

>> No.15939259

>What role did you perform at your last employer?
>I wore a hat

>> No.15939264

>>15939257
I mean obviously you can draw the line when it becomes dysfunctional. I don't see how bodily mutilation or wanting to change your gametes is conducive to personal expression.

>> No.15939289

>>15939251
you're retarded. goodbye