Yes, gender is the cultural construct, hence "referring or relating to people whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex." How is this concept hard to understand? This is shit most people learn in middle school.
If you're talking about "relating to or denoting a person or animal that has both male and female sex organs or other sexual characteristics" you're taking about intersex, which is still more commonly referred to the plebs as hermaphrodite, but that would only explain one such rarity found in nature.
Says the guy that doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender.
That’s my line. I explicitly stated the difference. I’ll state it again.
Sex:
Male: “Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.”
Female: “Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.”
Gender (given to nouns):
Masculine
Feminine
Indeterminate (When we don’t know whether its female or male from the word. The noun ‘cat’ could be either. Cats have a sex, not a gender.)
Neuter (Tables, cups, gadgets. Objects. Not male or female.)
2) If humans were designed to be monogamous then we wouldn't need so many religious/societal rules governing our sexual relations.
Never mind. Maybe you were never good at rational thought if you actually fucking think that.
Numerous studies show that male behavior is heavily influenced by the operational sex ratio–or the ratio between fertile females and sexually active males. If male and female numbers are equal then the best strategy is for a male to find a female, pair off, and protect/provide for his own kids. If there are more fertile females than males, the best mating strategy for males is to put less resources caring for their kids and more resources trying to mate with multiple females. (note l: urban blacks in America fall into this category because of the amount of young black males either in prison or killed by other black males. result is that black males spend more time chasing other women and less time being fathers) (note 2: possibly bigamy became common in these societies to prevent the excess of available females from encouraging men to sleep around instead of be fathers)
If there are more males than females, the males that have mates get obsessed with protecting them from the surplus males, who form rape gangs to try to get access to the smaller numbers of females. In polygamous societies, every man that has two wives creates a man who can never mate unless he rapes. Bigamy effectively turns a balanced operational sex ratio into a heavily male-biased one. Islam is a codified set of behaviors for protecting females from rape gangs (burka, can’t go outside without male guardian) and exporting the surplus males to neighboring societies so they don’t bother the local females (jihad). That is, essentially, Islam–a code of behaviors designed by a guy with multiple wives in a bigamous society to keep womanless men away from his wives.
The surplus males generated by bigamy are told, “These women are off-limits; they’re spoken for by more powerful men in your society. If you want to get laid, your only option is to go out and conquer something and take their women.” This is how Islam spread so quickly in its first few centuries and this is the driving force behind the huge amount of young men flooding into Europe today. They are not refugees, they are sex tourists. It should be no surprise they are so rapey.
Monogamy is how a society encourages the weakest males to be productive, since it ensures they’ll be able to find a mate. Another argument you can use is that polygamy brings about social instability. Due to the fact that older, richer, more established men grab all the women, it means that the search for a mate among the younger males is all the more desperate, and violent. Polygamous societies are inherently unstable, prone to great social unrest from the younger men that cannot find a woman. Now, this is fine and dandy if you want to motivate those men to join the army and go conquer someplace else and steal their women, as well as the fact that war attrition will get rid of plenty of those young men, but once your empire has expanded as much as it can the same problems crop up, but this time with no possible outside outlet.
It is no coincidence that enduring civilizations made the switch from polygamy to monogamy over the course of their history, and I highly suspect the troubles Arab civilizations faced around the 14th and 15th century were in large part caused by their reliance on polygamy. You can argue that current Arab societies are what they are because of polygamy. Women are a rare commodity that are fiercely guarded, hence the restrictions placed on their behavior and the need to have a male relative escort them when they are out, lest they be stolen by some other family. The high level of inbreeding could also be part of this, with a family trying to keep all the wealth and power among themselves.
I'm happy to see that most of you support the LGBT community. Having seen a transsexual woman transform from a person that couldn't live with herself to a woman that is one of us and full of joy has been an eye opener for us. She tried everything not to change in fear not to be accepted but whe couldn't live like that, so she reached out to her manager and the team.The team and company helped her and she brought us with her during her journey. Now she's even client facing.
There are no such things as animals who are monogamous for their entire lives.
I can't be the only fucking person on Earth who does research before spouting off on shit.
[blah blah blah blah]
We all know you're talking about something else. You're also wrong about that, too.
Wait. What?
You're really going to go with the "do research" thing as a rebuttal?
Seriously?
One Wikipedia article, against how many references I offered you?
You're the one talking about doing research??
Wikipedia is a starting point to find source materials, not the end-all be-all of all knowledge. You yourself pointed out its status as being easily edited.
Is today self-contradiction day or something? [looks at calendar]
As for that second part, no, I'm pretty sure no one knows what you're going on about. Some kind of "liberals are [insert bizarre blanket statement of defamation here], therefore it must be disregarded out of hand" kind of argument, no doubt.
There's one thing you're right about, though: urinals are disgusting and uncivilized.
Says the guy that doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender.
That’s my line. I explicitly stated the difference. I’ll state it again.
Sex:
Male: “Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.”
Female: “Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.”
Gender (given to nouns):
Masculine
Feminine
Indeterminate (When we don’t know whether its female or male from the word. The noun ‘cat’ could be either. Cats have a sex, not a gender.)
Neuter (Tables, cups, gadgets. Objects. Not male or female.)
2) If humans were designed to be monogamous then we wouldn't need so many religious/societal rules governing our sexual relations.
Never mind. Maybe you were never good at rational thought if you actually fucking think that.
Numerous studies show that male behavior is heavily influenced by the operational sex ratio–or the ratio between fertile females and sexually active males. If male and female numbers are equal then the best strategy is for a male to find a female, pair off, and protect/provide for his own kids. If there are more fertile females than males, the best mating strategy for males is to put less resources caring for their kids and more resources trying to mate with multiple females. (note l: urban blacks in America fall into this category because of the amount of young black males either in prison or killed by other black males. result is that black males spend more time chasing other women and less time being fathers) (note 2: possibly bigamy became common in these societies to prevent the excess of available females from encouraging men to sleep around instead of be fathers)
If there are more males than females, the males that have mates get obsessed with protecting them from the surplus males, who form rape gangs to try to get access to the smaller numbers of females. In polygamous societies, every man that has two wives creates a man who can never mate unless he rapes. Bigamy effectively turns a balanced operational sex ratio into a heavily male-biased one. Islam is a codified set of behaviors for protecting females from rape gangs (burka, can’t go outside without male guardian) and exporting the surplus males to neighboring societies so they don’t bother the local females (jihad). That is, essentially, Islam–a code of behaviors designed by a guy with multiple wives in a bigamous society to keep womanless men away from his wives.
The surplus males generated by bigamy are told, “These women are off-limits; they’re spoken for by more powerful men in your society. If you want to get laid, your only option is to go out and conquer something and take their women.” This is how Islam spread so quickly in its first few centuries and this is the driving force behind the huge amount of young men flooding into Europe today. They are not refugees, they are sex tourists. It should be no surprise they are so rapey.
Monogamy is how a society encourages the weakest males to be productive, since it ensures they’ll be able to find a mate. Another argument you can use is that polygamy brings about social instability. Due to the fact that older, richer, more established men grab all the women, it means that the search for a mate among the younger males is all the more desperate, and violent. Polygamous societies are inherently unstable, prone to great social unrest from the younger men that cannot find a woman. Now, this is fine and dandy if you want to motivate those men to join the army and go conquer someplace else and steal their women, as well as the fact that war attrition will get rid of plenty of those young men, but once your empire has expanded as much as it can the same problems crop up, but this time with no possible outside outlet.
It is no coincidence that enduring civilizations made the switch from polygamy to monogamy over the course of their history, and I highly suspect the troubles Arab civilizations faced around the 14th and 15th century were in large part caused by their reliance on polygamy. You can argue that current Arab societies are what they are because of polygamy. Women are a rare commodity that are fiercely guarded, hence the restrictions placed on their behavior and the need to have a male relative escort them when they are out, lest they be stolen by some other family. The high level of inbreeding could also be part of this, with a family trying to keep all the wealth and power among themselves.
Dude, those charts... do you know the CDC also endorses male genital mutilation? For zero health benefit. I guess you believe circumcision is "normal" too, just because the CDC endorses it and because so many people believe the myth of its necessity?
More problematic: You're trying to use charts to prop up your position when they don't support it. Those charts do not declare the causal relationships you are implying. For all you know, and for all the CDC data collectors know, the women who have multiple non-marrried sexual relationships are having them BECAUSE they are or were married to idiotic (shitty at sex and relationships) or abusive men that did emotional damage to those women, DRIVING them toward other relationships and the resulting unhappiness, etc, being a direct result of their marriages (not their extramarital sexual relationships).
As for the way you've described men and women... just wow. You seem to have been educated by bad wildlife videos, men's rights activists propaganda, and pickup artist websites.
wow again:
Instead of drawing the oddly specific conclusion that "polygamy damaged Arab civilizations", have you ever once considered it might be the antisocial and toxic masculinity, insecurity, and egos of the men and their tool of religion brutally dominating women (including with allowing men to have multiple women as sexual partners but NOT allowing women the same freedoms) that might've caused the social troubles? (And also the stupid Christian crusades causing so much chaos in the Middle East that the followup invasion that brought them their current dominant religion seemed pleasant in comparison to the way they were treated by the Christians)
Women are not a commodity. They're people. Maybe you haven't noticed. It might be something to think about, unless their autonomy threatens your identity as a man. No wait, you absolutely SHOULD think about it, especially if your sense of self is threatened, because there's a serious problem there that needs to be addressed within your perception of yourself and women. Instead of looking at them as sex vending machines, or "commodity", try seeing them as people with their own free will and agency.
I'm happy to see that most of you support the LGBT community. Having seen a transsexual woman transform from a person that couldn't live with herself to a woman that is one of us and full of joy has been an eye opener for us. She tried everything not to change in fear not to be accepted but whe couldn't live like that, so she reached out to her manager and the team.The team and company helped her and she brought us with her during her journey. Now she's even client facing.
Yeah, try to ignore the loud voices coming from the fearful and intolerant ignorant people who don't support LGBTQ+ (human) rights. Those people either have zero personal experiences to teach them empathy for others, or they're also suffering some kind of misery of their own and have adopted the position of the bullies because it seems to be the safer and stronger position. These people are losing ground. Without them killing us all in some weird cultural civil war, they'll die off entirely some day and be replaced by more tolerant children, grand-children, etc (the ones they don't successfully inculcate into intolerance ideologies).
This is out of control! Use the damn bathroom for the gender you were born as! Isn't everyone tired of the scammers out there saying that they're a woman when they are really TS or TG?! Enough is enough!
If my half-sister did that in a redneck state she'd be lucky to get out alive. She's a male to female transsexual and finished her transition 10 years ago. She is legally a woman right down to a birth certificate, but had the misfortune to be born into a male body. She was a wreck as a person before she came out. Now she runs a very successful business ($20M revenue last year) because she can be herself. If this goes through she will add TX to the list of states that she can't travel to along with NC and OK. That is their loss not hers.
If she's not local to TX but went there, then needed the toilet and went into the ladies to do so... Who would know anything was amiss? I'm sure she doesn't broadcast her past, or wear a sign, or warn other patrons as she enters. Whether this becomes law or not, makes no difference to most people going about (and doing) their daily business, it only affects the extremes in society - those hard core religious republicans on one side and the equally overly extreme/sensitive politically correct folks that claim to speak for everyone and everything is an outrage. Public opinion should be based on an average in society; you disregard the extreme results at either end and focus on the centreground majority in the middle, find the median.
My workplace has 2 toilets; "staff" and "visitors/clients". It's never even been a thought to split things based on gender.
This is out of control! Use the damn bathroom for the gender you were born as! Isn't everyone tired of the scammers out there saying that they're a woman when they are really TS or TG?! Enough is enough!
No one is born a gender. Gender is a cultural construct. What you're thinking of is sex.
Based on your comments I'm guessing you'd be unhappy if a male dressed as a woman came out of a bathroom for men, and yet you stated you seem to want that person to use the bathroom for men. Should we assume that you also want that person to dress in a way that makes you feel more comfortable regardless of how it makes them feel?
What about naturally intersex individuals. Do they get no bathroom rights because they are born with both male and female genitalia or are you saying that the percentage is so low that we can disregard their existence in society altogether because it doesn't fit into a neat the simple like construct that make us feel safe?
Restrooms are currently constructed based on biology. Are urinals going to be required in all restrooms? What about someone claiming they're a third sex? Will governments and businesses be required to provide some facility for them? Where does it stop?
Some stadiums have installed urinals in the female toilets with disposable tubes to direct things in the right direction. Speeds up the half time imtermission rush. Oh and it saves water. It was a respone to women bring there own tubes and ducking in to the mens urinals as the queue for stalls in both tand to be really long.
Personnally can't see why the fuss. To me the aim is to get the job done and get out with clean dry hands. Why are people so concerned about what other people are doing in there?
Men and women should use separate bathrooms. Period. there is freedom for those who want to "identify" however they please. Great.
But it shouldnt trample on the values values of others. No daughter should have a mans sexual way of identifying himself, surgically or otherwise, invade her privacy and vice versa.
Apple amd and other tech companies shouldn't be voicing their CEOs personal values in trying to influence state governments in such matters.
Ever been on a plane? Even the massive A380 does not have separate toilets for males and females. This bathroom non-issue is whipped up into a frenzy by the right wing only in a few very conservative states in order to drum up political support. At the core of it, these are laws designed to humiliate and harass transgender people and drive home the message that they are unwanted second class citizens. It's unconstitutional, unamerican, and shameful. Apple has a large number of employees in Texas and has every right to speak in their defense. These are not just Tim's values, they are American values.
But lets throw that out the window for politics. Yay!
That's not what the science says, even if you're talking about sex rather than gender.
As you probably already know, human males tend to have an XY chromosome pair and females XX. However, XX males, XY females, XYY, XXYY, XXX, XXXX and XXXXX are all possible too.
Nature and science are a lot more complicated that religious conservative politicians would have you think.
This is out of control! Use the damn bathroom for the gender you were born as! Isn't everyone tired of the scammers out there saying that they're a woman when they are really TS or TG?! Enough is enough!
If my half-sister did that in a redneck state she'd be lucky to get out alive. She's a male to female transsexual and finished her transition 10 years ago. She is legally a woman right down to a birth certificate, but had the misfortune to be born into a male body. She was a wreck as a person before she came out. Now she runs a very successful business ($20M revenue last year) because she can be herself. If this goes through she will add TX to the list of states that she can't travel to along with NC and OK. That is their loss not hers.
If she's not local to TX but went there, then needed the toilet and went into the ladies to do so... Who would know anything was amiss? I'm sure she doesn't broadcast her past, or wear a sign, or warn other patrons as she enters. Whether this becomes law or not, makes no difference to most people going about (and doing) their daily business, it only affects the extremes in society - those hard core religious republicans on one side and the equally overly extreme/sensitive politically correct folks that claim to speak for everyone and everything is an outrage. Public opinion should be based on an average in society; you disregard the extreme results at either end and focus on the centreground majority in the middle, find the median.
My workplace has 2 toilets; "staff" and "visitors/clients". It's never even been a thought to split things based on gender.
Yes, you are right but she would be breaking the law. That could result in her being sent to a MALE Jail because that was the gender to which she was born. How long would she last in there? A day? Probably less.
So it is better to NOT go to those places that a deluded enough to think that someone born a male and goes into a female toilet is going to rape the other women in there. Self-presevation rules ok!
Men and women should use separate bathrooms. Period. there is freedom for those who want to "identify" however they please. Great.
But it shouldnt trample on the values values of others. No daughter should have a mans sexual way of identifying himself, surgically or otherwise, invade her privacy and vice versa.
Apple amd and other tech companies shouldn't be voicing their CEOs personal values in trying to influence state governments in such matters.
So you want this guy using the bathroom with your daughter:
...since that's a trans-man (born female).
Anyway, transgenders using the appropriate facility doesn't trample on your values. And your values aren't rights, they're just opinions.
And yes, companies and CEOs should absolutely influence government. Corporations are people too, remember!? Per Hobby Lobby they can even have religious convictions.
Says the guy that doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender.
That’s my line. I explicitly stated the difference. I’ll state it again.
Sex:
Male: “Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.”
Female: “Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.”
Gender (given to nouns):
Masculine
Feminine
Indeterminate (When we don’t know whether its female or male from the word. The noun ‘cat’ could be either. Cats have a sex, not a gender.)
Neuter (Tables, cups, gadgets. Objects. Not male or female.)
2) If humans were designed to be monogamous then we wouldn't need so many religious/societal rules governing our sexual relations.
Never mind. Maybe you were never good at rational thought if you actually fucking think that.
Numerous studies show that male behavior is heavily influenced by the operational sex ratio–or the ratio between fertile females and sexually active males. If male and female numbers are equal then the best strategy is for a male to find a female, pair off, and protect/provide for his own kids. If there are more fertile females than males, the best mating strategy for males is to put less resources caring for their kids and more resources trying to mate with multiple females. (note l: urban blacks in America fall into this category because of the amount of young black males either in prison or killed by other black males. result is that black males spend more time chasing other women and less time being fathers) (note 2: possibly bigamy became common in these societies to prevent the excess of available females from encouraging men to sleep around instead of be fathers)
If there are more males than females, the males that have mates get obsessed with protecting them from the surplus males, who form rape gangs to try to get access to the smaller numbers of females. In polygamous societies, every man that has two wives creates a man who can never mate unless he rapes. Bigamy effectively turns a balanced operational sex ratio into a heavily male-biased one. Islam is a codified set of behaviors for protecting females from rape gangs (burka, can’t go outside without male guardian) and exporting the surplus males to neighboring societies so they don’t bother the local females (jihad). That is, essentially, Islam–a code of behaviors designed by a guy with multiple wives in a bigamous society to keep womanless men away from his wives.
The surplus males generated by bigamy are told, “These women are off-limits; they’re spoken for by more powerful men in your society. If you want to get laid, your only option is to go out and conquer something and take their women.” This is how Islam spread so quickly in its first few centuries and this is the driving force behind the huge amount of young men flooding into Europe today. They are not refugees, they are sex tourists. It should be no surprise they are so rapey.
Monogamy is how a society encourages the weakest males to be productive, since it ensures they’ll be able to find a mate. Another argument you can use is that polygamy brings about social instability. Due to the fact that older, richer, more established men grab all the women, it means that the search for a mate among the younger males is all the more desperate, and violent. Polygamous societies are inherently unstable, prone to great social unrest from the younger men that cannot find a woman. Now, this is fine and dandy if you want to motivate those men to join the army and go conquer someplace else and steal their women, as well as the fact that war attrition will get rid of plenty of those young men, but once your empire has expanded as much as it can the same problems crop up, but this time with no possible outside outlet.
It is no coincidence that enduring civilizations made the switch from polygamy to monogamy over the course of their history, and I highly suspect the troubles Arab civilizations faced around the 14th and 15th century were in large part caused by their reliance on polygamy. You can argue that current Arab societies are what they are because of polygamy. Women are a rare commodity that are fiercely guarded, hence the restrictions placed on their behavior and the need to have a male relative escort them when they are out, lest they be stolen by some other family. The high level of inbreeding could also be part of this, with a family trying to keep all the wealth and power among themselves.
What a huge, steaming pile of bullshit (i.e., personal opinion) masquerading as fact.
Time for Apple to get out of the loo and back to tech
How are they not into tech? Republicans have declared corporations are people, so why should Apple not make its opinion known? They have workers and customers affected by this.
One Wikipedia article, against how many references I offered you?
Number ≠ better. Like I said, edit the page if it’s wrong.
Wikipedia is a starting point to find source materials, not the end-all be-all of all knowledge.
Thanks for asserting something that no one questioned. When the starting point does better than your alleged time-taken research, what does that say about it?
I'm pretty sure no one knows what you're going on about.
Then you should probably pay more attention to what you yourself have written before posting it.
Dude, those charts... do you know the CDC also endorses male genital mutilation?
Not a fucking argument. Do you people not know what an argument is? Do you know how logic works? Fuck’s sake, educate yourselves.
Every single “doctor” responsible for mutilating people in this way–male or female–should be stripped of his license and imprisoned or executed. I say this now specifically to jews: I don’t give a flying fuck about your religion. The time has come to be reasonable.
For all you know, and for all the CDC data collectors know
So prove their methodology is wrong. We already know that it’s right; so prove it wrong. You realize that women are more depressed now than they’ve ever been, right?
the women who have multiple non-marrried sexual relationships are having them BECAUSE they are or were married to idiotic (shitty at sex and relationships) or abusive men that did emotional damage to those women, DRIVING them…
Yes, yes. The standard feminist response: Men are the only beings with any agency whatsoever. Everything is the fault of men. Women have zero power or ability, because we say so, and therefore are not responsible for our own actions. But we’re exactly the same as men and can do exactly what they can do, tee hee! Again, prove your claim. Prove their correlation incorrect. I want to see the data–not a paper, mind you, just show me some corroborating evidence for this claim.
As for the way you've described men and women... just wow. You seem to have been educated by bad wildlife videos, men's rights activists propaganda, and pickup artist websites.
So no argument, then. Got it. Where’s your response? Where’s your refutation of my statement “WOW JUST WOW LIKE WOW I CAN’T EVEN” is not a reply. Are you mentally challenged? This isn’t an insult. It’s a legitimate question. I don’t know anymore. If this is how people behave, statistically, as a majority these days, then I don’t ever want to talk to anyone new ever again. This is disturbing. This is depressing. It’s one thing if YOU YOURSELF don’t know anything about the topic at hand, as is being shown with each passing sentence. That’s FINE. You just sack up and say, “Oh, I didn’t know that. I guess I’ll read some more about it.” or even just to yourself, “I don’t really know anything about this other than what I’ve been told by shills or a public narrative. Maybe I should ask myself why I believe what I believe before continuing to repeat it.” It’s one thing to be wrong; it’s another to be a relativist and claim that no one is ever wrong because your feelings would be hurt by being wrong and you just can’t take it.
Instead of drawing the oddly specific conclusion that “polygamy damaged Arab civilizations”…
So oddly specific you’d think that there’d been research done on the topic or something.
toxic masculinity
Could you please reframe your argument without using buzzwords from marxists?
…their tool of religion brutally dominating women…
You meant to say tool of Islam. I’m not trying to say “it’s not a religion”; I’m saying that you’re being nonspecific because you have an axe to grind, but you’re holding the handle up to the grindstone and you look like an idiot.
And also the stupid Christian crusades
LOL THOSE STUPID CHRISTIANS FIGHTING BACK DEFENSIVELY AGAINST CENTURIES OF GENOCIDE, MASS RAPE, AND ENSLAVEMENT AT THE HANDS OF MUSLIMS!
…the followup invasion that brought them their current dominant religion…
Yeah… because the Crusades totally weren’t against Muslims… ??? READ A FUCKING HISTORY BOOK.
Women are not a commodity. They're people.
Once again, thanks for asserting something that no one questioned.
Maybe you haven't noticed.
How about you shut your fucking mouth, eh? Either be literate or don’t reply. Or fucking ASK what is meant by a word, sentence, or phrase. It’s not that difficult, you coward. You want to throw your strawmen at me, I’ll throw them back at you on fire. I noticed, dipshit. That’d be why I wrote about the COMMODITIZING OF WOMEN being done BY ISLAM. Not me. Not a mussulman on this side of the screen. Why the fuck can’t people parse context anymore? Have they stopped teaching that in school? Serious question. Why the fuck can’t people ask what someone means about something anymore? Are they just too stupid, too afraid, or too mentally ill (locked in their own worldview–where no others can exist–and so everything is automatically reframed to fit it)? SERIOUS QUESTION.
[you] [you] [you] [you] [you] [you] [you]
Your responses scream of someone who has no confidence in his own beliefs and no willingness–pick a reason–to question why he believes them.
What a huge, steaming pile of bullshit (i.e., personal opinion) masquerading as fact.
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting it’s all correct.
Mind numbing.
Of course it is. Your mind automatically numbs itself to anything that is outside your worldview. You have nothing in there but what you are told to believe. You’re explicitly brainwashed to shut down neurologically every time you hear anything that runs contrary to what you think you already know. You’re called to vociferously attack–both in word and fist–the new belief. No, I’m wrong. The holder of the new belief. You can’t actually attack the idea itself because it’s not wrong; if you did that, you’d be found out!
Liberalism is a destructive force without reason. These people will create the very world against which they advocate. They defend Islam and women’s liberation in the same breath. They are anti-gun and anti-feudalism without realizing that the former always leads to the latter. Social Darwinism? It’s real. These people are a part of it, even when they scream at Republicans for advocating it. They want to end poverty, entrenching it through welfare programs. They want to “end” racism, empowering it through social reforms that favor race over ability. These people are socially awkward, academically deficient, historically illiterate, and morally bankrupt. They are leeches of the lowest class. They have nothing, can create nothing, and are worth nothing. In their last moments of consciousness before they drift off to sleep, this fact eats away at them because they start to lose their ability to deny it and push it to the back of their minds. They remedy this by blaming everything but themselves for their problems. Human society is eusocial. Where we came from and where we go is entrenched in social interaction. It is our evolution–our survival of the fittest. These people are dead end genetic lines. Through the political sphere, they gain the power to drag useful members of nicety down into their genetic deathbeds with them. Once they obtain their “utopia” after getting their way or sane people do their equivalence of white flight, they are left with a situation. There are not better people to villainize, so what do they do? They find the better off among themselves and turn the knife on them.
StrangeDays said: So you want this guy using the bathroom with your daughter:
I want her in psychiatric care. She’s mentally ill by the definition of the word. Isn’t it pathetic how your kind only sees what’s on the surface? “She looks like a man; she must be a man!” “He looks like a nonwhite; he must be oppressed!” How droll.
That’s not what the science says, even if you're talking about sex rather than gender. As you probably already know, human males tend to have an XY chromosome pair and females XX. However, XX males, XY females, XYY, XXYY, XXX, XXXX and XXXXX are all possible too.
Oh, good. Someone else mentioned it; now I get to talk about it.
Nature and science are a lot more complicated that religious conservative politicians would have you think.
They’re literally not, since it’s not conservatives who ignore science.
The words “gender” and “sex” have been skewed by liberals and feminists with the common belief that human behavior (gender roles, sexual identity) are explained 100% by culture. This disregards biological (evolutionary, genetic) factors, despite evidence to counter their belief. Such fallacies are being implemented into universities today. We do not have a gender, we have a sex: male or feminine. Let’s define the terms again, and since none of you give a fuck about what they actually mean, this is put here simply for those reading and not posting. Sex: Male: “Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.” Female: “Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.” Gender (nouns): Masculine Feminine Indeterminate (When we don’t know whether its female or male from the word. The noun ‘cat’ could be either. Cats have a sex, not a gender.) Neuter (Tables, cups, gadgets. Objects. Not male or female.)
Two sexes. XXX, XXY, and XYY all occur. They are always equal to the same sex and are bodily deformations caused by chemical imbalances/underdeveloped genitals. These are deviations–mutations–not a new sex that we’re only just discovering. XX and XY are by far the most commonly occurring chromosomes, it would be wise to assume that those are the standard and healthy chromosome variations. If you look at the process of meiosis, you’d see that XXY, XYY and the like can only be the result of a flaw in chromosome configuration. If you’d call these genotypes ‘mural’, then you’d have to call people with Trisomy 21 healthy, too. After all, it occurs due to the same meiotic error that causes sexual chromosome diseases.
“Hermaphrodites exist:” True. “There are more than two sexes, in fact, there are at least seven sexes acknowledged.” False. “It’s possible to be something other than what your anatomy implies.” False.
Genetic mutations/defects can occur in prenatal development. This is not justification for classing these as newly discovered sexes.
“What if someone’s body doesn’t start producing hormones when they reach puberty?” “What about people who have both sets of reproductive organs in whole or part?”
A genetic male yet fully functioning female exists in such a small minority that it is a medical anomaly. 99% of XY women never reach puberty and can never reproduce. People with 46,XY DSD require HRT to go through normal puberty. Their anatomy is also abnormal (they tend to be taller than average women). Fertile XX men do not exist at all. If someone is mentally female and physically male, this is due to an endocrine disorder, again, not a justification for classing them as a sex on their own. Take the brain that occurs the most and you will intuitively see that almost the entirety of the human species can be divided into a female brain and a male brain, almost all humans with a male brain possess XY chromosomes, while almost all of the female brains possess XX chromosomes. The point is that during embryonic development, male infants receive a gigantic surge of testosterone. If one or several receptors are not working properly, then certain brain parts remain in the default (female) status that they were in, rather than developing into male parts.
Biological factors–including genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure–are well studied in determining a human sexual orientation. Gender roles and sexual identity are not explained by culture. Sexual orientation is also susceptible to environmental factors: males who have alleles that lead to poor expression of testosterone or are poisoned with chemicals like BPA are far more likely to adopt homosexual/bisexual lifestyles. Soy is high in antiandrogens, and bisphenol A, phthalates, pesticides and herbicides, triclosan and triclocarban, and the added estrogen burden of the water from birth control and HRT also contribute. The picture shows the typical brain differences between men and women (regardless of sexual preference). This supports the theory that gender is not a social construct at all, but rather a biological one, determined at (more precisely, before) birth. This merely acknowledges well studied, biological, genetic effects in prenatal development, whatever part such factors play. They have an influence in the development of a person.
“Gender is a social construct.” “Cisgendered.”
‘Cisgender’ is a term feminists are now throwing around. Gender is fixed by biological constraints, as well. The fact that there happens to be some people who have psychological issues that make them feel otherwise doesn’t change this fact. I may feel like I am a dolphin–it doesn’t mean that species is a fluid concept. I may feel that I am identical to Barack Obama. That doesn’t make me President of the United States. Issues like these, when not overwhelmingly caused by mental illness, are rarely caused by enzyme deficiencies in utero leading to improper hormone levels which cause deformities. Those people are still biologically male or female by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. Their congenital abnormalities don’t change the definitions of the words. A baby born with renal agenesis doesn’t cause the presence of kidneys to be a “social construct.”
“This is a way to discriminate against people who aren’t in alignment with arbitrary rules on who can and can’t be what.”
Anything other than XX or XY is an aberration and should be treated as such. Healthy cells are diploid for every chromosome (one X can be replaced for a Y in men). If this is not the case, then cell division will malfunction and genes can be either over- or underexpressed, with a severe impact on the individual’s health. At most, you can argue two genital expressions are enough to satisfy breeding requirements for evolutionarily consistent breeding habits. There is a reason that XX and XY are the only consistent genotypes. The result in infertile and unhealthy individuals. Again, reason to classify these deviations as a disease, rather than a sex. Personal beliefs and feelings which lack evidence are of no use. There is no sociology required here. Facts are not “discriminatory” or “sexist.” Altering facts so they do not offend people should be of no importance. Implementing flawed, personal beliefs into education cannot be considered progress.
Anything other than XX or XY is an aberration and should be treated as such.
Holy fucking shit!. It's one thing to be bigot, ignorant, or insecure, but now you're saying these natural variations are not welcome in society and should be removed so they don't upset your simplistic view of XX and XY as the only pairings that matter.
These people are not unwelcome to the mature and decent. They are abnormal in the sense that they aren't the norm—but so are aspects about each and every one of us—but they are a nature part of nature. But even if this variance of nature was a single person out of 7.5 billion we still need to consider that this single person needs to use the fucking bathroom along with all other inalienable rights instead of being ostracized because they don't fit into your narrow world view.
Comments
If you're talking about "relating to or denoting a person or animal that has both male and female sex organs or other sexual characteristics" you're taking about intersex, which is still more commonly referred to the plebs as hermaphrodite, but that would only explain one such rarity found in nature.
Holy shit, try so much harder than that strawman. I’ve had it up to here with relativist hypocrites. You used to be so good at rational thought.
That’s my line. I explicitly stated the difference. I’ll state it again.
Numerous studies show that male behavior is heavily influenced by the operational sex ratio–or the ratio between fertile females and sexually active males. If male and female numbers are equal then the best strategy is for a male to find a female, pair off, and protect/provide for his own kids. If there are more fertile females than males, the best mating strategy for males is to put less resources caring for their kids and more resources trying to mate with multiple females. (note l: urban blacks in America fall into this category because of the amount of young black males either in prison or killed by other black males. result is that black males spend more time chasing other women and less time being fathers) (note 2: possibly bigamy became common in these societies to prevent the excess of available females from encouraging men to sleep around instead of be fathers)
If there are more males than females, the males that have mates get obsessed with protecting them from the surplus males, who form rape gangs to try to get access to the smaller numbers of females. In polygamous societies, every man that has two wives creates a man who can never mate unless he rapes. Bigamy effectively turns a balanced operational sex ratio into a heavily male-biased one. Islam is a codified set of behaviors for protecting females from rape gangs (burka, can’t go outside without male guardian) and exporting the surplus males to neighboring societies so they don’t bother the local females (jihad). That is, essentially, Islam–a code of behaviors designed by a guy with multiple wives in a bigamous society to keep womanless men away from his wives.
The surplus males generated by bigamy are told, “These women are off-limits; they’re spoken for by more powerful men in your society. If you want to get laid, your only option is to go out and conquer something and take their women.” This is how Islam spread so quickly in its first few centuries and this is the driving force behind the huge amount of young men flooding into Europe today. They are not refugees, they are sex tourists. It should be no surprise they are so rapey.
Monogamy is how a society encourages the weakest males to be productive, since it ensures they’ll be able to find a mate. Another argument you can use is that polygamy brings about social instability. Due to the fact that older, richer, more established men grab all the women, it means that the search for a mate among the younger males is all the more desperate, and violent. Polygamous societies are inherently unstable, prone to great social unrest from the younger men that cannot find a woman. Now, this is fine and dandy if you want to motivate those men to join the army and go conquer someplace else and steal their women, as well as the fact that war attrition will get rid of plenty of those young men, but once your empire has expanded as much as it can the same problems crop up, but this time with no possible outside outlet.
It is no coincidence that enduring civilizations made the switch from polygamy to monogamy over the course of their history, and I highly suspect the troubles Arab civilizations faced around the 14th and 15th century were in large part caused by their reliance on polygamy. You can argue that current Arab societies are what they are because of polygamy. Women are a rare commodity that are fiercely guarded, hence the restrictions placed on their behavior and the need to have a male relative escort them when they are out, lest they be stolen by some other family. The high level of inbreeding could also be part of this, with a family trying to keep all the wealth and power among themselves.
You're really going to go with the "do research" thing as a rebuttal?
Seriously?
One Wikipedia article, against how many references I offered you?
You're the one talking about doing research??
Wikipedia is a starting point to find source materials, not the end-all be-all of all knowledge. You yourself pointed out its status as being easily edited.
Is today self-contradiction day or something? [looks at calendar]
As for that second part, no, I'm pretty sure no one knows what you're going on about. Some kind of "liberals are [insert bizarre blanket statement of defamation here], therefore it must be disregarded out of hand" kind of argument, no doubt.
There's one thing you're right about, though: urinals are disgusting and uncivilized.
More problematic: You're trying to use charts to prop up your position when they don't support it. Those charts do not declare the causal relationships you are implying. For all you know, and for all the CDC data collectors know, the women who have multiple non-marrried sexual relationships are having them BECAUSE they are or were married to idiotic (shitty at sex and relationships) or abusive men that did emotional damage to those women, DRIVING them toward other relationships and the resulting unhappiness, etc, being a direct result of their marriages (not their extramarital sexual relationships).
As for the way you've described men and women... just wow. You seem to have been educated by bad wildlife videos, men's rights activists propaganda, and pickup artist websites.
wow again:
Instead of drawing the oddly specific conclusion that "polygamy damaged Arab civilizations", have you ever once considered it might be the antisocial and toxic masculinity, insecurity, and egos of the men and their tool of religion brutally dominating women (including with allowing men to have multiple women as sexual partners but NOT allowing women the same freedoms) that might've caused the social troubles? (And also the stupid Christian crusades causing so much chaos in the Middle East that the followup invasion that brought them their current dominant religion seemed pleasant in comparison to the way they were treated by the Christians)
Women are not a commodity. They're people. Maybe you haven't noticed. It might be something to think about, unless their autonomy threatens your identity as a man. No wait, you absolutely SHOULD think about it, especially if your sense of self is threatened, because there's a serious problem there that needs to be addressed within your perception of yourself and women. Instead of looking at them as sex vending machines, or "commodity", try seeing them as people with their own free will and agency.
Yeah, try to ignore the loud voices coming from the fearful and intolerant ignorant people who don't support LGBTQ+ (human) rights. Those people either have zero personal experiences to teach them empathy for others, or they're also suffering some kind of misery of their own and have adopted the position of the bullies because it seems to be the safer and stronger position. These people are losing ground. Without them killing us all in some weird cultural civil war, they'll die off entirely some day and be replaced by more tolerant children, grand-children, etc (the ones they don't successfully inculcate into intolerance ideologies).
My workplace has 2 toilets; "staff" and "visitors/clients". It's never even been a thought to split things based on gender.
Personnally can't see why the fuss. To me the aim is to get the job done and get out with clean dry hands. Why are people so concerned about what other people are doing in there?
Apple has a large number of employees in Texas and has every right to speak in their defense. These are not just Tim's values, they are American values.
As you probably already know, human males tend to have an XY chromosome pair and females XX. However, XX males, XY females, XYY, XXYY, XXX, XXXX and XXXXX are all possible too.
Nature and science are a lot more complicated that religious conservative politicians would have you think.
So it is better to NOT go to those places that a deluded enough to think that someone born a male and goes into a female toilet is going to rape the other women in there.
Self-presevation rules ok!
...since that's a trans-man (born female).
Anyway, transgenders using the appropriate facility doesn't trample on your values. And your values aren't rights, they're just opinions.
And yes, companies and CEOs should absolutely influence government. Corporations are people too, remember!? Per Hobby Lobby they can even have religious convictions.
Mind numbing.
Thanks for asserting something that no one questioned. When the starting point does better than your alleged time-taken research, what does that say about it?
Then you should probably pay more attention to what you yourself have written before posting it.
Or you could read English. There’s that, too.
Not a fucking argument. Do you people not know what an argument is? Do you know how logic works? Fuck’s sake, educate yourselves.
Every single “doctor” responsible for mutilating people in this way–male or female–should be stripped of his license and imprisoned or executed. I say this now specifically to jews: I don’t give a flying fuck about your religion. The time has come to be reasonable.
So prove their methodology is wrong. We already know that it’s right; so prove it wrong. You realize that women are more depressed now than they’ve ever been, right?
Yes, yes. The standard feminist response: Men are the only beings with any agency whatsoever. Everything is the fault of men. Women have zero power or ability, because we say so, and therefore are not responsible for our own actions. But we’re exactly the same as men and can do exactly what they can do, tee hee! Again, prove your claim. Prove their correlation incorrect. I want to see the data–not a paper, mind you, just show me some corroborating evidence for this claim.
So no argument, then. Got it. Where’s your response? Where’s your refutation of my statement “WOW JUST WOW LIKE WOW I CAN’T EVEN” is not a reply. Are you mentally challenged? This isn’t an insult. It’s a legitimate question. I don’t know anymore. If this is how people behave, statistically, as a majority these days, then I don’t ever want to talk to anyone new ever again. This is disturbing. This is depressing. It’s one thing if YOU YOURSELF don’t know anything about the topic at hand, as is being shown with each passing sentence. That’s FINE. You just sack up and say, “Oh, I didn’t know that. I guess I’ll read some more about it.” or even just to yourself, “I don’t really know anything about this other than what I’ve been told by shills or a public narrative. Maybe I should ask myself why I believe what I believe before continuing to repeat it.” It’s one thing to be wrong; it’s another to be a relativist and claim that no one is ever wrong because your feelings would be hurt by being wrong and you just can’t take it.
So oddly specific you’d think that there’d been research done on the topic or something.
Could you please reframe your argument without using buzzwords from marxists?
You meant to say tool of Islam. I’m not trying to say “it’s not a religion”; I’m saying that you’re being nonspecific because you have an axe to grind, but you’re holding the handle up to the grindstone and you look like an idiot.
LOL THOSE STUPID CHRISTIANS FIGHTING BACK DEFENSIVELY AGAINST CENTURIES OF GENOCIDE, MASS RAPE, AND ENSLAVEMENT AT THE HANDS OF MUSLIMS!
Yeah… because the Crusades totally weren’t against Muslims… ??? READ A FUCKING HISTORY BOOK.
Once again, thanks for asserting something that no one questioned.
How about you shut your fucking mouth, eh? Either be literate or don’t reply. Or fucking ASK what is meant by a word, sentence, or phrase. It’s not that difficult, you coward. You want to throw your strawmen at me, I’ll throw them back at you on fire. I noticed, dipshit. That’d be why I wrote about the COMMODITIZING OF WOMEN being done BY ISLAM. Not me. Not a mussulman on this side of the screen. Why the fuck can’t people parse context anymore? Have they stopped teaching that in school? Serious question. Why the fuck can’t people ask what someone means about something anymore? Are they just too stupid, too afraid, or too mentally ill (locked in their own worldview–where no others can exist–and so everything is automatically reframed to fit it)? SERIOUS QUESTION.
Your responses scream of someone who has no confidence in his own beliefs and no willingness–pick a reason–to question why he believes them.
– G. K. Chesterton
Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.
– Aristotle
Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.
– Jacques Barzun
The cultured man has the obligation to be intolerant.
– Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Societies are far gone in depravity when to toleration is considered a good in itself, without regard to the thing tolerated.
– A. K. Chesterton
A country is not only what it does, but what it tolerates.
– Kurt Tucholsky
When I see a tolerant socialist with a human face, I want to kick that face.
– Janusz Korwin-Mikke
Literally laughing out loud.
Not an argument. Either post fact or don’t post.
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting it’s all correct.
Of course it is. Your mind automatically numbs itself to anything that is outside your worldview. You have nothing in there but what you are told to believe. You’re explicitly brainwashed to shut down neurologically every time you hear anything that runs contrary to what you think you already know. You’re called to vociferously attack–both in word and fist–the new belief. No, I’m wrong. The holder of the new belief. You can’t actually attack the idea itself because it’s not wrong; if you did that, you’d be found out!
Liberalism is a destructive force without reason. These people will create the very world against which they advocate. They defend Islam and women’s liberation in the same breath. They are anti-gun and anti-feudalism without realizing that the former always leads to the latter. Social Darwinism? It’s real. These people are a part of it, even when they scream at Republicans for advocating it. They want to end poverty, entrenching it through welfare programs. They want to “end” racism, empowering it through social reforms that favor race over ability. These people are socially awkward, academically deficient, historically illiterate, and morally bankrupt. They are leeches of the lowest class. They have nothing, can create nothing, and are worth nothing. In their last moments of consciousness before they drift off to sleep, this fact eats away at them because they start to lose their ability to deny it and push it to the back of their minds. They remedy this by blaming everything but themselves for their problems. Human society is eusocial. Where we came from and where we go is entrenched in social interaction. It is our evolution–our survival of the fittest. These people are dead end genetic lines. Through the political sphere, they gain the power to drag useful members of nicety down into their genetic deathbeds with them. Once they obtain their “utopia” after getting their way or sane people do their equivalence of white flight, they are left with a situation. There are not better people to villainize, so what do they do? They find the better off among themselves and turn the knife on them.
I want her in psychiatric care. She’s mentally ill by the definition of the word. Isn’t it pathetic how your kind only sees what’s on the surface? “She looks like a man; she must be a man!” “He looks like a nonwhite; he must be oppressed!” How droll.
Oh, good. Someone else mentioned it; now I get to talk about it.
They’re literally not, since it’s not conservatives who ignore science.
The words “gender” and “sex” have been skewed by liberals and feminists with the common belief that human behavior (gender roles, sexual identity) are explained 100% by culture. This disregards biological (evolutionary, genetic) factors, despite evidence to counter their belief. Such fallacies are being implemented into universities today. We do not have a gender, we have a sex: male or feminine. Let’s define the terms again, and since none of you give a fuck about what they actually mean, this is put here simply for those reading and not posting.
Sex:
Male: “Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.”
Female: “Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.”
Gender (nouns):
Masculine
Feminine
Indeterminate (When we don’t know whether its female or male from the word. The noun ‘cat’ could be either. Cats have a sex, not a gender.)
Neuter (Tables, cups, gadgets. Objects. Not male or female.)
Two sexes. XXX, XXY, and XYY all occur. They are always equal to the same sex and are bodily deformations caused by chemical imbalances/underdeveloped genitals. These are deviations–mutations–not a new sex that we’re only just discovering. XX and XY are by far the most commonly occurring chromosomes, it would be wise to assume that those are the standard and healthy chromosome variations. If you look at the process of meiosis, you’d see that XXY, XYY and the like can only be the result of a flaw in chromosome configuration. If you’d call these genotypes ‘mural’, then you’d have to call people with Trisomy 21 healthy, too. After all, it occurs due to the same meiotic error that causes sexual chromosome diseases.
“Hermaphrodites exist:” True.
“There are more than two sexes, in fact, there are at least seven sexes acknowledged.” False.
“It’s possible to be something other than what your anatomy implies.” False.
Genetic mutations/defects can occur in prenatal development. This is not justification for classing these as newly discovered sexes.
“What if someone’s body doesn’t start producing hormones when they reach puberty?”
“What about people who have both sets of reproductive organs in whole or part?”
A genetic male yet fully functioning female exists in such a small minority that it is a medical anomaly. 99% of XY women never reach puberty and can never reproduce. People with 46,XY DSD require HRT to go through normal puberty. Their anatomy is also abnormal (they tend to be taller than average women). Fertile XX men do not exist at all. If someone is mentally female and physically male, this is due to an endocrine disorder, again, not a justification for classing them as a sex on their own. Take the brain that occurs the most and you will intuitively see that almost the entirety of the human species can be divided into a female brain and a male brain, almost all humans with a male brain possess XY chromosomes, while almost all of the female brains possess XX chromosomes. The point is that during embryonic development, male infants receive a gigantic surge of testosterone. If one or several receptors are not working properly, then certain brain parts remain in the default (female) status that they were in, rather than developing into male parts.
Biological factors–including genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure–are well studied in determining a human sexual orientation. Gender roles and sexual identity are not explained by culture. Sexual orientation is also susceptible to environmental factors: males who have alleles that lead to poor expression of testosterone or are poisoned with chemicals like BPA are far more likely to adopt homosexual/bisexual lifestyles. Soy is high in antiandrogens, and bisphenol A, phthalates, pesticides and herbicides, triclosan and triclocarban, and the added estrogen burden of the water from birth control and HRT also contribute. The picture shows the typical brain differences between men and women (regardless of sexual preference). This supports the theory that gender is not a social construct at all, but rather a biological one, determined at (more precisely, before) birth. This merely acknowledges well studied, biological, genetic effects in prenatal development, whatever part such factors play. They have an influence in the development of a person.
“Gender is a social construct.”
“Cisgendered.”
‘Cisgender’ is a term feminists are now throwing around. Gender is fixed by biological constraints, as well. The fact that there happens to be some people who have psychological issues that make them feel otherwise doesn’t change this fact. I may feel like I am a dolphin–it doesn’t mean that species is a fluid concept. I may feel that I am identical to Barack Obama. That doesn’t make me President of the United States. Issues like these, when not overwhelmingly caused by mental illness, are rarely caused by enzyme deficiencies in utero leading to improper hormone levels which cause deformities. Those people are still biologically male or female by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. Their congenital abnormalities don’t change the definitions of the words. A baby born with renal agenesis doesn’t cause the presence of kidneys to be a “social construct.”
“This is a way to discriminate against people who aren’t in alignment with arbitrary rules on who can and can’t be what.”
Anything other than XX or XY is an aberration and should be treated as such. Healthy cells are diploid for every chromosome (one X can be replaced for a Y in men). If this is not the case, then cell division will malfunction and genes can be either over- or underexpressed, with a severe impact on the individual’s health. At most, you can argue two genital expressions are enough to satisfy breeding requirements for evolutionarily consistent breeding habits. There is a reason that XX and XY are the only consistent genotypes. The result in infertile and unhealthy individuals. Again, reason to classify these deviations as a disease, rather than a sex. Personal beliefs and feelings which lack evidence are of no use. There is no sociology required here. Facts are not “discriminatory” or “sexist.” Altering facts so they do not offend people should be of no importance. Implementing flawed, personal beliefs into education cannot be considered progress.
These people are not unwelcome to the mature and decent. They are abnormal in the sense that they aren't the norm—but so are aspects about each and every one of us—but they are a nature part of nature. But even if this variance of nature was a single person out of 7.5 billion we still need to consider that this single person needs to use the fucking bathroom along with all other inalienable rights instead of being ostracized because they don't fit into your narrow world view.