Lurker > HHH is the game

My first thought was Zubat. Its not hard. Its just annoying

Yeah those people are awful too, and again, lol at saying it's just a physical description. So you'd ever see an article that says "Blonde haired girl forced to eat food from trash by lunch monitor?"

By all means the person should be fired but let's not make everything a racial matter with no indication it has anything to do with race. It only stokes further division. That tweet is wrong anyway because they shouldn't be targeting the person's whole family (???) but if it's going to say anything it should be about hurting CHILDREN, not hurting BLACK CHILDREN.

The story is awful and anybody involved should be fired, though I don't know why the headline has to specify people's races when it has nothing to do with the story

As a Jewish person, Jon Stewart is the one being anti-semitic here and anybody that saw that movie and thought they were looking at Jews.

And I have NO sympathy for anti-vaxxers not being allowed at restaurants, no matter what race they are.

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

Theres a reason for that, yeah. I'm more up-to-date with the black community's perspective, not sure about the latino perps

But they hammered everyone with rules and excluded them from participating in activites and then took away their ability to provide for themselves or family. While the intention of this dodnt have racist intentions, it is a policy that affects certain races more than others, and this info was available at the time.

Very nice of them. If the areas are genuinely void of ability to get a vaccine, that's fine and smart but should have happened before they punished everyone

Erm, what happened to the whole screw the anti-vaxxers thing? Now when it's talking about anti-vaxxers of other races, suddenly they should be catered to?

If this was about white people, people would be furious at the idea of them refusing treatment to give it all to the anti-vaxxers and Im someone who thinks people are too harsh on anti-vaxxers.

Elemeno pee was the most charming part of the song :(

CyricZ posted...

I pictured HHH just bolting out of bed in the morning this fine Christmas Eve and shouting "WHAT IS A GIRL" to empty air.

Lol

hockeybub89 posted...

Effeminate men and masculine women exist. That is not what trans people are. They can't just choose to be that instead.

my problem with understanding and believing in all the genders etc is this. I just have yet to hear a sensible explanation of what it means. What makes a trans woman different from an effeminate man if the definition of man is a masculine person?

gunplagirl posted...

Dude you really need to fucking stop. I'm a girl regardless of if I'm hugging adorable anime pillow dolls or if I'm in a graphic tee with my ass out while playing a video game. The girl part is innate and was always there before any of the extra layers of interests and personality formed.

if a girl is not due to your sex, and not due to your interests what makes you a girl? People say its hard wired in our brains. What is hard wired? The word girl which doesnt exist and is a made up word? What is a girl ?

jumi posted...

If you woke up tomorrow and discovered you now had a vagina, would you now consider yourself a girl? Be honest.

If I had a vagina, boobs, etc? Yes

CyricZ posted...

A boy is a young person who identifies as male.

A girl is a young person who identifies as female.

What is a male? What is a female?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


and yet nobody can explain what gender means. You say a boy is not just a male and a girl is not just a female. But then what is a boy? When I say Im a boy Im saying Im a male. So are most people Im sure. I never realized this I just knew thats what boys were.

youre saying thats NOT actually what a boy is or what gender is. What is it then?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


no. I dont get it. To me it sounds like they feel like they fit the stereotypes of the other gender better or something because nobodys been able to explain to me a definition of boy or girl that means anything else. If I had girl parts Id be a girl from my perspective. I dont get how one figured out theyre a boy when nobody can describe what boy means.

its very different from sexuality because I can understand what it means to figure out youre gay. Because you realize youre attracted to other boys. I dont get how you figure out youre a boy or know youre a boy when theres no definition of what boy means.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


this is again where Im very confused. I figured out I was a boy when I found out boys have male parts and girls have female parts and I have male parts. There was no figuring out any more than figuring out I was a human.

i realize people who talk about this are talking about some different definition but I never figured out anything about that because to me it was as simple as sex. The problem is nobody can still explain what a boy is so Im so confused how anybody could figure it out in the first place

CyricZ posted...

Fine. Now what about that 1%? What do we do with them?

Nothing really, they will just have to live with having a different definition than most of society, there's nothing to be done. Unless I guess, they get to a time where people change their minds and that becomes the majority.

gunplagirl posted...

You can be Jewish without being Jewish, there's both an ethnic and religious box you could fit under. Or both. Or neither in which case you aren't unless you convert to the religious variety.

That's true, though in this case that's more a problem of the same term being used to mean two distinct things

CyricZ posted...

Why? Who are you to say what makes a person Jewish?

Because that's not what it means to be Jewish lol. Do you think people wouldn't squint if somebody with white skin from Ireland said they are black because they feel like it? The fact is being Jewish has a definition, being black has a definition. They might not have exact concrete definitions exact to the very miniscule percent, but they are enough that given a description 99% of people could tell you yes or no on if the person is black or if the person is Jewish.

In the above example if I said is that man black? 99% of people would say no, he is not, because they are all operating under a shared understanding of what black means and that doesn't adhere to it. He can claim that it means something different to him, but that isn't socially accepted.

But I'm still not convinced that boy or girl, in the way they are being used now in progressive circles, even have a definition at all.

CyricZ posted...

This hypothetical person then gives their own definition. Which of you is right in this case?

As I said, there will always be some fuzziness. That's true of all things. But ask 100 people and you will generally get a pretty good idea of what it means. I could write a book and explain what the Jewish people believe, what their traditions are, and if you follow these beliefs, if you want to follow these traditions you can say you are Jewish and these are the reasons why.

If somebody said they're Jewish because they just feel like a Jewish person and that's all they could give me I would definitely squint at them.

CyricZ posted...

What if someone were to tell you that you weren't Jewish because you didn't adhere in a way they accepted?

I would say they're wrong, and be able to give a definition. Yes the definitions can be fuzzy. But I can still give a reason. In my case I'm Jewish because I follow the Jewish traditions, and because my family was Jewish before me. You can say that's not what YOU consider Jewish to be but I have a concrete thing to point to and really for the most part we will be in the same ballpark. You might think belief in God is the most important thing, and I might think its following the traditions.

But if I ask 100 people, most of them will give answers along those lines.

wiiking96 posted...

Sex refers to the physical characteristics of a person's body related to its reproductive functions. Having a womb or producing sperm are sexual characteristics.

Gender refers to certain social behaviors , expectations, and roles associated with sexual characteristics. Women wearing dresses at weddings while men wear suits is an expression of gender.

Does this make sense?

I think it could make sense, but seems very at odds with the ideas of making the genders equal.

It seems like what this is saying is that boys are masculine, they do masculine things. Girls are feminine, they do feminine things.

Under this definition, boys shouldn't be wearing dresses. This means they are girls.

I don't understand how less flexible gender roles can at all mesh with the idea of nonbinary

gunplagirl posted...

I'm not a woman because I like cute cuddly things. I like cute cuddly things in part because I'm a woman.

And see this is where its very different from religion. You are Jewish because you believe in the Jewish god. You dont believe in the Jewish god because you're Jewish. The cause and effect allegedly for gender is different from all of these other things. Its the only one that seems to stem from nothing....and that's what leads to the confusion here and why it can't be explained, apparently

CyricZ posted...

Which denomination?

I dont know enough about the Jewish faith to answer this question (despite being Jewish), but I feel pretty confident there is a concrete answer to this question. The denominations have meanings. For example reform Jews tend to be more casual about traditions. if you don't want to keep kosher, and go to temple all the time, and wear a Yamulka, but you believe in the Jewish god and a more casual expression of your faith, reform Jew could be a good denomination for you.

CyricZ posted...

But you're speaking comparatively. Are there absolutes in such a discussion?

I mean, yes, Id say so, but I don't know the color codes to give you the actual range lol. If you see a person who is black you can very often instantly see it because you know that color is in that category. I'd say its fuzzy in the middle, sure, but very often its pretty concrete.

MrToothHasYou posted...

Its crazy how there arent literal volumes of scientific and philosophical literature written about gender, identity, sexuality, and the meaning of social constructs; and that there arent numerous studies done about gender, numerous texts written by queer people about gender expression and what gender means to them; and just a general assload of information available online about these subjects, that way we didnt have to have arguments about the very simple explanations offered in a book for five year olds.

Alas.

Ok but can somebody in this topic, now, describe it, if its so simple? Not one person has tried

CyricZ posted...

How dark? What shade? Where on the color value chart? Does place of origin on a map have anything to do with it?

Yeah, I suppose it does have something to do with it, if you are from the same 'race' of people who are darker-skinned that all came from the same area. I can't describe exactly what shade, if somebody was right in the middle it might be hard to tell but in general you can easily see the difference between a darker-skinned and lighter-skinned person, it is easily physically observable, and easy to define it as that person is black because they have dark skin, and that person is white becasue they have light skin.

gunplagirl posted...

Concepts like it are fluid. You, personally, are trying to force in these rigid restrictions where they don't naturally exist.

But my point is not once has anybody described what a boy or girl means lol. How are you supposed to choose your gender identity when nobody can describe them? That is not true at all about race or religion.

You're Jewish if you follow the jewish faith, believe in the jewish god, follow the jewish traditions ....its pretty concrete. I don't see how that's similar

CyricZ posted...

How about race.

How about religion.

How about culture.

All things given meaning socially.

If you want to really have a freak out, try to define what "a black person" is.

isn't it just....a person with dark-colored skin, or somebody descended from people with dark-colored skin?

I guess you could look white and be considered black. In that case it would be by being descended from areas that traditionally have dark-colored skin. I don't consider that hard to define....

gunplagirl posted...

Hey. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean others don't.

So could you explain though.

You are a boy if:
XYZ

You are a girl if:
XYZ

How would you describe it? like what does a boy mean , and what does a girl mean, so if I was choosing my gender off the list, what qualities would I be looking for to say which I was, if sex has nothing to do with it?

wiiking96 posted...

@HHH_is_the_game

Question: Do you understand the distinction between sex and gender?

No. To me they were basically different words for the same thing. A boy was a male, a girl was a female. I don't understand them as different concepts, or understand why they should be separated.

I guess my ideal world would be that we remove gender roles and just let them = sex so we can all do whatever we want, as boy or girl, with no expectations. The current social movements seem to be going the complete opposite now

CyricZ posted...

Lots of things are socially invented and there are definitions. We're the ones who gave them meaning.

Of course, but the difference is those are widely accepted definitions. For example "trust". That's not a real thing, its a socially invented concept. But we have a shared understanding of what it means.

That isn't true for the gender identities. Tellingly, the book can't even explain them besides saying two different words with no explanation about what being a boy or being a girl means, where I can explain to you what 'trust' means.

Correct me if Im wrong, but there aren't any other comparable examples to this

greyfox747 posted...

Wow, it took like, 11 minutes for you to agree with the dog comparison

amazing

My real question is this. What makes it all that different when there is no actual definition or understanding about what any of these things mean besides somebody's personal feelings?

fire_bolt posted...

Glad to see the transphobes continuing to get owned left and right because we finally have enough actual scientific data to denounce their tired, repetitive bullshit and they still won't accept the reality that gender isn't a choice lol. Makes it so much easier to discredit and ignore them

I didn't think it was a choice BEFORE, but in 2021 it seems to be. Is it not a choice to say "I am both a boy and girl" or "I am neither a boy nor girl" or "I change boy and girl by day" ? I mean....there is no scientific definition of any of these things. Is that not the whole point? You are choosing an identity that you feel best describes you? I mean its almost like its becoming an extension of picking your own name or something, a term that you feel best describes your inner self, but since none of these terms are scientific terms, and in fact none actually have definitions, it is still sort of a choice.

Like...I know people joke about saying a kid feels like a dog, but at least a dog is a thing that has meaning, how are boy and girl not equally made up? They are completely socially invented, there is no actual definition....so what makes saying Im a dog any different than saying Im "both a boy and a girl"? I feel like most people would understand the first one better than the second lol, and either way its just "thing the kid has decided he is going to call himself today". I mean that's basically the only thing I can understand if it cant even be described what a boy or girl is and how one can be both and neither

CyricZ posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikfUujgFdYA

I just...I consider myself more to the left on social issues than right. But this...I just don't understand. It's nonsense to me. The book says

"There are so many different ways to be a boy or girl - too many to fit in a book!
But not everyone feels like either a boy or a girl
Non-Binary is a helpful word that can describe a kid who doesn't feel exactly like a boy or a girl."

"When Alex was born, everyone thought Alex was a girl, but Alex is both boy and girl"
"JJ is neither a boy nor a girl. Ever since JJ was little, they never felt exactly like a boy or a girl - they just felt like themself. "

What? There are so many ways to be boy or girl, we can't explain what it means to be a boy or a girl, but this person is both of them, and this person is none of them, and some people can switch by day and.....It's just very confusing. What in the world is the point of gender identity? It just sounds like we're making extremely confusing labels to place on everybody.

How is all of this discussion possible when neither 'boy' nor 'girl' is a term with meaning??

Im still so confused by all this. I wish I was more progressive on this issue but I genuinely just can never understand it. Im reading this book posted before and thinking well maybe a book for five year olds can explain this to me.

It says when everyone was born they thought the kid was a boy but then she found out she was actually a girl. I just can't understand it. To me, Boy and Girl are meaningless words...they mean nothing at all about what type of person you are. A boy can be masculine or feminine. A girl can be masculine or feminine. To me, a boy has male parts, and a girl has female parts. If you have male parts, what makes you a girl? Is it liking dresses? Dolls? So boys aren't allowed to like dresses or dolls?

Hadn't we spent years saying boys can like pink things, and dresses, and dolls, if they want to? Does that mean we were wrong to say gender stereotypes are wrong, and in fact we should be enforcing gender stereotypes and just saying if you don't fit the mold you're trans? I just don't understand it at all, genuinely.

I don't get what boy and girl mean to everybody that I'm not seeing.

I think one of the biggest issues though is that we can't even find issues to come together on. How is it that we seem to disagree on everything? I would love to see votes that don't fall along party lines. How is it that all 50 republicans agree with each other on every single issue and all 50 democrats the same besides one? I know that's not exactly true but it often feels like that.

TheGoldenEel posted...

The fundamental problem is that the senate does not represent the people. There are as many republicans in the senate as there are because it was designed to represent land over people

at a federal level, the legislation that affects everyone should not be being held up by a small minority of the population

But having it only represent the densest population centers fails to represent all the types of people in the US. Being dominated by cities would be a really bad experience for anybody that lives in a rural area, and that doesn't seem fair either. Going by pure majority does not represent all interest groups really, and that can be problematic too. Minority opinions should be represented as well and given a voice, or else they will be stomped on.

I don't think it SHOULD be the case that the cities have total control of the government, when rural states might require different things and policies and should be represented as well. I think the way they did it makes some sense. Again, Manchen is one vote. He doesn't have any more power than anybody else. The problem is NO republicans voted for the bill. That is just so weird to me. He SHOULD vote no if he doesn't like the idea, this shouldn't be a team sport. It should be people doing what's best for the country

Isn't the senate's even-ness supposed to make sure that rural states etc have their interests represented too and not dominated by the people who live in cities? Whereas in the House, you get population differences represented. It seems pretty fair to me.

Antifar posted...

No I'm pretty sure it's structural change

But why? Manchin has 1% of the power, as intended, the problem is 50 republicans all voted yes to the bill. Everybody should be voting based on what they think is best, not based off party loyalty

Taharqa_ posted...

https://twitter.com/Sifill_LDF/status/1472586851814981641?t=6_U_mXHgzOIKc9CzScoKvg&s=19

The Senate is where progress goes to die.

Is it structural change, or societal change we need? there are 100 voters, he's just 1% of the vote, why are we so partisan that everybody else is voting just along party lines?