• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

How should gender or sex be defined?

Equal opportunity has never been about "special treatment," in fact just the opposite. This discussion is very much necessary to disassemble the pillars of our current administration, democratic or not.
 
w01fg4ng said:
Yeah, pretty much everything in history.

Ever notice that we've never had a female president? Trump is the right's knee jerk reaction to our first black president as well as a possibility to eventually getting our first female present. The racist and sexist right are completely terrified that they might lose their privilege.
Click to expand...

I for one would love to see a female president.

Just... Not Hillary Clinton. I mean sure I'd rather have had her than trump. But I'd rather have had a relatively intelligent chicken than trump.
 
JessFR said:
I for one would love to see a female president.
Click to expand...
If Trump oversees a regime change in Venezuela, then I might have to throw my support behind Tulsi Gabbard.
The Left hate her which is also a good sign.


Shadowmeister said:
To believe that women have more advantages in society than men, or as many, is to completely ignore the history that has shaped it that is only so recently moving towards equality. I'm a man, a white man, and it helps me out a lot. I'm thankful for it, I consider myself lucky to have been born this way. That's fine, I'm willing to admit I'm lucky. I don't feel bad about it. I think all I owe anyone else, regardless of their gender identity or ethnicity, is equal consideration and respect. But if I deny that I have an advantage, and that everyone else's opportunities and sets of challenges are the same as mine, I am implicitly denying that the hardships other people face are real. And that's not only disrespectful, it's insulting.
Click to expand...

Did anyone read the WashPo article? Also nobody gave any evidence for their claims. I'm not talking about history either, people are saying TODAY that the white male has the most privilege, so this should be easily evidenced. Also a woman just won the popular vote to become the most powerful person IN THE WORLD. So what exactly are people talking about?
 
I recently saw the use of "they/them" instead of "he" in something I was reading. So instead of "he" went to the store you're supposed to say "they" went to the store. That's just silly. I think people should be who they want but it's just gotten ridiculous. I don't think there needs to be 200 labels for gender, or whatever it is and imo the lgbt agenda has been pushed too far. It's one thing to accept people, another to force your beliefs.
 
Last edited:
nuttynutskin said:
I recently saw the use of "they/them" instead of "he" in something I was reading. So instead of "he" went to the store you're supposed to say "they" went to the store. That's just silly. I think people should be who they want but it's just gotten ridiculous. I don't think there needs to be 200 labels for gender, or whatever it is and imo the lgbt agenda has been pushed too far. It's one thing to accept people, another to force your beliefs.
Click to expand...

While I do agree that some people take this shit way too far. And I also agree that some of this gender neutral pronoun stuff is what I'd classify as going too far.

I just wanna mention quickly that, far as I am aware, nobody is seriously proposing anything like 200 different genders.

This idea seems to have cropped up from that Facebook controversy a few years back when they supposedly offered 60 something genders. But that was mostly bullshit too. By which I mean that they weren't actually offering 60 choices. It was just an autocomplete system that offered 60 different labels, 55 or so of which means exactly the same thing. Kinda like giving people the option of identifying as male, man, cismale. That's 3 labels but they all mean pretty much the same thing. That was the case with Facebook, with only maybe 6 or so options with any real difference.

And even that wasn't actually offering 6 different genders anymore than offering a choice between male, female and not specified, and suggesting that's 3 genders.

I get what you're saying, and I certainly agree that some people take this way too far. And I have absolutely no intention of ever seriously using some made up gender pronouns. But I just wanted to keep this grounded.

Honestly it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, what happened was after hearing the story of 60 genders offered by Facebook, I happened to stumble on what they were talking about and immediately felt like I'd been lied too. Because it was obvious they weren't offering 60 genders. They were offering a write in field for gender, that had 60 autocomplete options, most of which meant the same thing.
 
JGrimez said:
I find that also to be a pretty bold claim. Care to prove that one? Should be easy to explain if it's that simple and obvious.
Click to expand...

Shut up Grimes. You’ll let the cat out of the bag.

“Who holds back the electric car, who makes Steve guttenburgh a star? We do, we do”

I don’t want to lose my secret priviledge parking spot.
 
Women are so overprivileged in the West (& generally more privileged in most other cultures, to varying extents); female privilege is biological in basis. There are fewer women in politics because women are not as interested or as good at politics as men (though most men seem pretty bad too, at least lately). You can't measure male & female privilege with the same Yardsticks.
 
Last edited:
fairnymph said:
Women are so overprivileged in the West (& generally more privileged in most other cultures, to varying extents); female privilege is biological in basis. There are fewer women in politics because women are not as interested or as good at politics as men (though most men seem pretty bad too, at least lately). You can't measure male & female privilege with the same Yardsticks.
Click to expand...

I agree with basically the last sentence, and that's it.

Nature vs nurture?
 
fairnymph said:
Women are so overprivileged in the West (& generally more privileged in most other cultures, to varying extents); female privilege is biological in basis. There are fewer women in politics because women are not as interested or as good at politics as men (though most men seem pretty bad too, at least lately). You can't measure male & female privilege with the same Yardsticks.
Click to expand...

Is your point of view about over privilege based on intuition and experience alone? Or do you have something more scientific backing it up? And to the extent that it's based on intuition and experience, could you expand on that and elaborate?
 
I think I'm probably too privileged in too many ways to speak from PERSONAL experience, but observation certainly bears this out: for example, female characters in games get given way more stuff, & their requests are refused far more often. Women are more likely to receive free drugs, & can offer their bodies in exchange if they want to (though some men can do this with some dealers, both male & female, it's a much smaller number). Women are preferentially offered seats on transportation, or in cafes/bars/clubs. Standard, especially public, education, is much more geared towards females; girls do consistently better in school & for decades more women than men have been going to college etc. Men are more likely to spend money on women than vice versa. Women who are hurt generate far more outrage.

Biologically, we have much easier, more sheltered lives; we don't need to fight & rarely do hard labour (how many women are dump truck drivers or work in sewage treatment?), our parents tends to protect us more, & we are most often at least partially supported by our male partners. Prior to feminism, nearly all women had children, whereas a good portion of men never had any. So we are genetically privileged, much more likely to pass on our genes. We have more birth control options & can get abortions. Men love us more than we can ever love them, and thus we are idolised by them while we take advantage of them to breed & pursue our great love, our children. This is simply the natural order. It's feminism that goes too far, elevating women at the expense of men, making us all more miserable as a result.
 
^Can you be sure about how men feel about women? Idolisation is certainly not something I've ever felt towards women. But I was always taught to be protective of women, given that my gender represents a huge possible threat to females.

fairnymph said:
It's mostly nature.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to how you came to this view...?
 
Last edited:
Something doesn't seem to track here for me (granted I am crazy tired).

On the one hand it seems like you're acting like women have all these advantages. Yet at the same time you suggested that women make bad politicians. That's reduced opportunity.

Having greater options and freedom as a man is an example of male privilege. There's also the greater danger of being the target of assault.

I'm not sure I follow what you're arguing. But in your most recent post it seemed to me like you were pretty much ignoring or denying the existence of advantages men have over women. At which point it becomes a question of if the good outweighs the bad in evaluating privilege.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top