IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags biology , categories , gametes , lexicography , pedantry , taxonomy

Reply
Old 23rd February 2024, 01:23 PM   #641
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,167
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
It seems his arguments are more aligned with those of Trans Rights Activists than he is prepared to admit!
Absolutely. You can't sex segregate children (or infertile adults) if they're sexless.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2024, 07:26 PM   #642
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,170
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Absolutely. You can't sex segregate children (or infertile adults) if they're sexless.
Yup..

Post-menopausal woman? Sorry, no access to female-only spaces for you, so no public toilets, no changing rooms at the local gym, or the local swimming pool, no participation in female sports.
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2024, 10:41 AM   #643
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why would I? You seem to think that the only alternative to your definition is this spectrum approach, but that's a false dichotomy.
You might try reading up on the profound differences between monothetic and polythetic categories:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substa...s-spectrumists


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you're talking about force, then you're talking about ALL mechanics.

Except no. That's stupid. No such requirement exists.
THAT is the false analogy. Of course there are, one might argue, different forces -- electric, magnetic, nuclear, etc. But we are, analogously, talking ONLY about ONE when it comes to biology.

You really don't seem to have a flaming clue about the principles that undergird the whole edifice of biology. Or even the broader field of axiomatic systems.

Those biological definitions for the sexes -- to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either two types, those with neither are then sexless -- are more or less one of the foundational axioms of the whole field.

The parallel postulate is to Euclidean geometry as "females produce ova" is to biology. If two lines meet then they ain't parallel; if an organism doesn't produce ova then it ain't a female. (Q.E.D.)

You CAN come up with other axioms in both cases, but what you then have is neither Euclidean geometry nor biology.
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2024, 10:48 AM   #644
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
You know itís quite easy to reject the sex as a spectrum nonsense and your ridiculous definitions donít you? Most people here manage it.
Most people can manage 3 or 4 impossible ideas before breakfast -- Jesus walked on water, every martyred Muslim can look forward to 72 virgins, etc. But that hardly makes them true.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
By the way, can I still refer to the gametless Shakespeare as he?
Fine by me, go big ...
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2024, 11:04 AM   #645
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
This is incredibly stupid. Some other non-human/non-primate/non-mammal creatures replicate differently ergo human sex is not binary. Insanely dumb.
I most certainly wasn't arguing in favour of the "spectrum hypothesis".

I was saying that the definitions for the sexes are something in the way of a matter of choice. But that if you aren't going to rely on facts, logic, and fundamental principles of biology and epistemology then one definition is as good as any other one.

And the "reasons" behind both that "spectrum thesis" and the claptrap peddled by Hilton and company -- which still boils down into a spectrum -- seem predicated on little more than pandering to transwomen's envy or to women's vanity, respectively.

See this post of mine for elaborations on that theme:

Quote:
Binarists Vs. Spectrumists
Shoot-outs at the Not-So-O.K. Corral ...
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substa...s-spectrumists
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2024, 11:37 AM   #646
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
What is blindingly obvious to me (and very likely apparent to you and Zig and others) is that Steersman's definition (which directly leads to the conclusion that all pre-pubescent humans and all post-menopausal women are neither male nor female) dramatically increases the percentage of humans who are somewhere between male and female. Earlier, in the "Transwomen are not women" thread, I posted these top two diagrams

....

This diagram is a lot closer in appearance to the lower one than the upper one - and that means his definition is a lot closer to the idea he professes to hate... "sex is a spectrum".
Glad to see that your numbers add-up to about the same ones I got some four years ago for the "sexless" cohort -- close to a third:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substa...-of-categories

But "sexless" is NOT a sex. You might just as well argue that "religion-less" -- i.e., atheism -- is a religion.

Just because sex is, by definition, a binary, that does not mean that everyone has to be one or the other, that those two categories are exhaustive.

But sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish -- more like petunias and aardvarks. The problem is generally that there are two antithetical definitions for both "man" and "woman" in play -- which should warm the cockles of Ziggurat's heart. But one based on sex -- "adult human male/female" -- and one based on gender -- "anyone who looks vaguely like a typical adult human male/female".

You might try reading what Merriam-Webster has to say on the topic:
Quote:
Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender).
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

See also my attempt to put "gender" on something of a more scientific footing. To a first approximation, "gender" is simply a range of sexually dimorphic personality traits, behaviours, roles, and expressions:
Quote:
A Multi-Dimensional Gender Spectrum
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substa...ender-spectrum

Of particular note:



Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
It seems his arguments are more aligned with those of Trans Rights Activists than he is prepared to admit!
Yea right. Both me and Hitler are/were vegetarians so I'm clearly engaged in invading Poland and the genocide of Jews ...
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2024, 12:39 PM   #647
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,647
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Most people can manage 3 or 4 impossible ideas before breakfast -- Jesus walked on water, every martyred Muslim can look forward to 72 virgins, etc. But that hardly makes them true.
:
I wasnít talking about what people believe I was talking about what they do. Specifically rejecting stupid definitions and stupid proclamations by TRAs.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2024, 04:17 PM   #648
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 11,856
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
The human menstrual cycle seems one of the more complicated ones in the human body, but there are no mature ova until ovulation...
Lehtonen specified "mature" ova?
__________________
ďKnowledge is power; France is Bacon.Ē
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2024, 04:17 PM   #649
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,167
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
THAT is the false analogy. Of course there are, one might argue, different forces -- electric, magnetic, nuclear, etc. But we are, analogously, talking ONLY about ONE when it comes to biology.
No. I'm not talking about different forces. You will note that the equation F=ma makes no reference to the origin of that force. It applies to ALL forces, and it defines what a force even is.

Except it's incorrect in some contexts. But it's not incorrect in the context of which force, which is what you're suggesting. In those contexts, it's incorrect for all forces, not just some.

Like I said, you're not qualified to lick my boots when it comes to physics. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
You CAN come up with other axioms in both cases, but what you then have is neither Euclidean geometry nor biology.
I don't think you understand what an axiom is. An axiom isn't a definition. We are talking about the definition of the word "sex", not the axiom of sex. And science doesn't have axioms. Math does.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2024, 07:03 PM   #650
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I wasnít talking about what people believe I was talking about what they do. Specifically rejecting stupid definitions and stupid proclamations by TRAs.
Your "reject ... your ridiculous definitions" sure looks like an article of faith because it clearly isn't based on facts or reason.

And it ain't "MY definitions" -- they're the ones published in any number of reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries.

Scientific and pigheaded illiteracy as far as the eye can see ...
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2024, 07:20 PM   #651
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Lehtonen specified "mature" ova?
You might actually try reading the links I provide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oogenesis#Human_oogenesis

There's apparently a progression of the cell from oogonium (third trimester) to primary oocyte to dictyate to secondary oocyte to ootid to ovum.

It doesn't qualify as an ovum, as a mature cell, until ovulation, though the article seems a bit vague on some specifics. It's that final step of "maturation" that qualifies as that "produces ova", the sine qua non for "female".
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2024, 07:49 PM   #652
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. I'm not talking about different forces. ...
Yes, well I AM.
Quote:
Coulomb's inverse-square law, or simply Coulomb's law, is an experimental law[1] of physics that calculates the amount of force between two electrically charged particles at rest. This electric force is conventionally called the electrostatic force or Coulomb force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Like I said, you're not qualified to lick my boots when it comes to physics. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Rather moot, though I might say the same about you "when it comes to" biology. And you're clearly no great shakes either when it comes to the philosophical and epistemological principles that are common to all sciences.

But, if I'm not mistaken, the subject of THIS thread is biology, and NOT physics. If you need confirmation then you might try reading the first comment ...

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I don't think you understand what an axiom is. An axiom isn't a definition. We are talking about the definition of the word "sex", not the axiom of sex. And science doesn't have axioms. Math does.
I quite understand what an axiom is. And I said that "Those biological definitions for the sexes ... are more or less one of the foundational axioms of the whole field." It was clearly an analogy: A is to B as C is to D.

But axioms, and stipulative/theoretical definitions all more or less boil down into premises. You might actually try reading -- a wan hope, I know -- the relevant sources:

Quote:
"premise (noun): a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
"if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true"
Google/OxfordLanguages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipul...ve_definitions

Quote:
A theoretical definition defines a term in an academic discipline, functioning as a proposal to see a phenomenon in a certain way. A theoretical definition is a proposed way of thinking about potentially related events.[1][2] Theoretical definitions contain built-in theories; they cannot be simply reduced to describing a set of observations. The definition may contain implicit inductions and deductive consequences that are part of the theory.[3] A theoretical definition of a term can change, over time, based on the methods in the field that created it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_definition
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2024, 08:34 PM   #653
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,167
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Yes, well I AM.
You tried to invalidate my comparison, but you cannot substitute your meaning for mine when evaluating my comparison.

Quote:
This isnít a definition of force, so I donít know why you think itís relevant to our discussion. But no matter: note that this equation is still context dependent. It doesnít give the force between charges in any circumstance, but only when the charges are stationary. It is context dependent. Being context dependent does make it wrong.

Quote:
Rather moot, though I might say the same about you "when it comes to" biology.
You can say that, but you would be wrong.

Quote:
And you're clearly no great shakes either when it comes to the philosophical and epistemological principles that are common to all sciences.

But, if I'm not mistaken, the subject of THIS thread is biology, and NOT physics.
You keep appealing to things other than biology. You claim these other things are common to all science. I am illustrating why you are wrong about their application to science, using another science. You made the claim that itís not biology-specific, not me. Donít complain because you lost the argument that you picked.

And you still donít seem to understand the purpose of definitions, or language in general. The purpose is communication. And you are bad at it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:23 AM   #654
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Absolutely. You can't sex segregate children (or infertile adults) if they're sexless.
You probably can't segregate by sex if a third of us are sexless -- as is the case by the standard biological definitions.

But that is apparently why so many -- including you -- seem so desperate to redefine the sexes to give everyone a participation trophy. To pander to women's vanity.

Anti-scientific claptrap at best. Just trying to shoehorn the foot of social justice into the glass slipper of biology -- just cripples the former and shatters the latter beyond much use at all.
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:32 AM   #655
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,167
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
But that is apparently why so many -- including you -- seem so desperate to redefine the sexes to give everyone a participation trophy. To pander to women's vanity.
Ah. Now it all makes sense. I couldn't figure out your motivation before, but you've made it perfectly clear. At the end of the day, this has nothing to do with biology, or linguistics, or philosophy, or metaphysics. This here is what it's all about.

The mask has slipped. Nothing further need be said.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:37 AM   #656
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,170
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Ah. Now it all makes sense. I couldn't figure out your motivation before, but you've made it perfectly clear. At the end of the day, this has nothing to do with biology, or linguistics, or philosophy, or metaphysics. This here is what it's all about.

The mask has slipped. Nothing further need be said.
Yeah! Misogyny. "To pander to women's vanity. ...."...he accidentally said the quiet part out loud...

I thought that would come out sooner or later. Steersman obviously believes women need to be put in their place... stay in their lanes so to speak, and what better way to do that than degrading them by refusing to acknowledge their sexuality when they are not, or no longer useful as breeding whores.
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!

Last edited by smartcooky; Yesterday at 11:40 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:00 PM   #657
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You tried to invalidate my comparison, but you cannot substitute your meaning for mine when evaluating my comparison.
Your "comparison" is bogus, is comparing apples and oranges -- or petunias and zebras. You insist that because there are different definitions for force that there should be different ones for "male" and "female". Which might be fine if the different contexts were clearly defined and obvious -- biology and plumbing connectors for example.

But that is NOT the case as the very first comment in this thread emphasizes. Hilton and her merry band of grifters, charlatans, political opportunists and scientific illiterates are clearly attempting to peddle definitions for ALL anisogamous species that simply incoherent, inconsistent, and inapplicable to all those species.

What sex are clownfish? Her "definitions" would have it that they are of both sexes right from conception to death which conflicts profoundly with their description as SEQUENTIAL hermaphrodites.

I think she should be embarrassed to call herself a biologist.

You lot might just as well call for politicians to pass a law stipulating that "2+2=5" because, hey, "context" ...


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Being context dependent does make it wrong.
Sure. But changing horses in midstream is fraudulent equivocation, is bait-and-switch. Like saying that "male" and "female" mean convex and concave mating surfaces so transwomen with their neovaginas have changed sex so they get to play in sports leagues for "adult human females" ...


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You can say that, but you would be wrong.
In your opinion. See next to no evidence that would lead me to change my conclusion.


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You keep appealing to things other than biology. You claim these other things are common to all science.
They are -- more or less. You're just too "obstinate" to read the writing on the wall:
Quote:
Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:23 PM   #658
Steersman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The mask has slipped. Nothing further need be said.
Big LoL. You probably think that all women walk on water -- if that's the case then clearly "nothing further need be said".

Though UK feminist "philosopher" -- and "woman", one assumes -- Jane Clare Jones had a particularly pithy observation which has some bearing on that "vanity" shot:

Quote:
Because Iím going to say that whatís being concealed is the reality of sex, and the conflation of sex and gender enabled by pretending this horrendous [bad word ] is a bun-fight over some mythic essence of womanhood which confers some kind of privilege weíre all so jealously guarding.
https://janeclarejones.com/2020/01/1...alison-phipps/

Too many women have turned "female" into a matter of "mythic essences" -- they couldn't, and wouldn't, say what was the "necessary and sufficient condition" for them or any other female to qualify as such even if their lives depended on it. Which is about the same as what the transloonie nutcases are doing. Pots and kettles, motes and beams. No wonder that UK lawyer Helen Dale argued, quite reasonably, that the "transcult is the bastard child of feminism".

A pox on both their houses.
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:07 PM   #659
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,170
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Big LoL. You probably think that all women walk on water -- if that's the case then clearly "nothing further need be said".

Though UK feminist "philosopher" -- and "woman", one assumes -- Jane Clare Jones had a particularly pithy observation which has some bearing on that "vanity" shot:



https://janeclarejones.com/2020/01/1...alison-phipps/

Too many women have turned "female" into a matter of "mythic essences" -- they couldn't, and wouldn't, say what was the "necessary and sufficient condition" for them or any other female to qualify as such even if their lives depended on it. Which is about the same as what the transloonie nutcases are doing. Pots and kettles, motes and beams. No wonder that UK lawyer Helen Dale argued, quite reasonably, that the "transcult is the bastard child of feminism".
You really are saying the quiet parts out loud now aren't, you... now that the mask has slipped?

Obvious misogynist is obvious!
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:16 PM   #660
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,167
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Big LoL. You probably think that all women walk on water
You really don't know me at all.

Quote:
No wonder that UK lawyer Helen Dale argued, quite reasonably, that the "transcult is the bastard child of feminism".
True enough. But misogyny isn't the only alternative to feminism.

And you're still proving me right. This was never really about science for you.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:36 PM   #661
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,647
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You really are saying the quiet parts out loud now aren't, you... now that the mask has slipped?

Obvious misogynist is obvious!
Yes, the reason for the performance art is now crystal clear.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:06 PM   #662
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,333
Well I guess that brings us full circle back to The Other Thread, where it has been argued extensively that feminism has been ideologically captured and used as a trojan horse for trans rights activism. It's no coincidence that Steersman sees a connection between the two. Many feminists have uncritically accepted the transcult concepts of spectral sex. That is the problem, not overweening feminism, as Steersman imagines.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.