More Leftist Insanity On Gender
- Thread starter wvkeeper(HN)
- Start date
Wait till the rednecks figure this out and use it to their benefit. “Excuse me Mr Game Warden, I shot it, because I didn’t know how that antlered deer identified”.
There’s a kernel of sense in this in that we have to avoid assuming that things that are considered traits of a gender now necessarily were throughout human history.
Of course, refusing to identify the biological gender of a skeleton does absolutely no good, and actually does a lot of harm with regard to finding out what gender meant to that population group.
Of course, refusing to identify the biological gender of a skeleton does absolutely no good, and actually does a lot of harm with regard to finding out what gender meant to that population group.
Seriously? Please don’t tell me you believe that first paragraph and are just messing around. I have always had more respect for you than that paragraph would allow going forward.
Congratulations, your transition to liberal nutjob is now complete.
I think you all are reading something in to what I wrote that I didn’t write. I mean that how women and men have interacted, the social positions they’ve held, their day to day lives and expectations are not consistent through recorded history, let alone prehistory.
edit: to give an example, let’s say a 1800 anthropologist found a skeleton in what looked like religious garb. If the skeleton is female they may assume that since in 1800 no women are religious leaders, it can’t be that. But we can’t project our biases on anthropology or we can miss things.
edit: to give an example, let’s say a 1800 anthropologist found a skeleton in what looked like religious garb. If the skeleton is female they may assume that since in 1800 no women are religious leaders, it can’t be that. But we can’t project our biases on anthropology or we can miss things.
Has nothing to do with them refusing to identify the biological gender of the remains. It’s a woman wearing whatever they have on. You are bringing up a point about culture and the fact that current biases could lead to incorrect conclusions. That’s fine, but doesn’t have anything to do with scientific identification of human remains.
So one day when they open a casket of a small male wearing a dress they could possibly tell he was a cabinet maker in his prime?
That is why I’m being buried with a plaque saying “male / pronouns he and him.” I don’t want any controversy when they dig me up a thousand years from now.
You mean it’s not natural? Not science? I’m not going to go to Yellowstone and see a male grizzly nursing cubs? Not going to see a female moose Impregnate another female moose?? 😂😂
There is no better example of special pleading than seeing "committed gay relationships" in nature. To paraphrase a well-known saying animals were made to do two things. Kill and make babies. To deny either of them to themselves is by definition unnatural. We don't say an animal which refuses to eat is "just trying to find themselves".
Well they were killing themselves an awful lot more when we tried to force them to follow a certain gender, so I’m not sure that’s “love” either.
I agree that appears to nature like that are examples of people who have badly lost the plot in an argument about what humans should and shouldn’t be allowed to do.
Congrats on engaging in a logical fallacy of a causing c because of b.
Providing social and psychological help for those in need is not "forcing them to follow a certain gender" any more than not allowing other people with illnesses to "follow their dreams" is ensuring their destruction.
Denying the human biological self is culturally and civilizationally retrograde.
Actually, when the gay stuff started coming out the suicide rate shot up. It’s copy cat syndrome. Like with anything else, it becomes popular and others jump on the bandwagon. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6630a6.htm
Seems Dr Carl is the only conservative on the board who hasn't contracted the 'obsession with other people's genitals' disease??
Similar threads
