There Are Only 2 Genders | Change My Mind - Louder With Crowder - General

[QUOTE=Loadingue;52951575]Thanks. Now I'd want to argue if it's a social construct, having an "unusual" gender may sometimes mean you may be trying to dodge the original, fundamental issue (the way society perceives the "usual" genders, or the way they're stereotyped or what is expected of them, which is definitely one of the most mentally crippling problems of our age) but that would probably be a deeper topic to explore in another thread.[/QUOTE] It's a complicated AF intersection between biology, sociology, and psychology. This is one of the areas that has made me quite interested in psychology and psychiatry The stance I've mostly settled on is that gender is derived imperfectly from biologically, and is fairly mutable. This accounts for a few things we notice and reinforced by others. 1. Some societies in history do have some other "genders," but we p. much always see man and woman classifications present. 2. Interest in non-binary stuff is going up, this suggests societal change to me. I don't think it's accidental that this coincides with things like people getting married less and at older ages. 3. The roles thereof vary from location to location. They're often pretty practical. Men have strong muscle growth, aren't taken out of work by pregnancy/periods, etc. so male gender roles arose and vice versa. 4. But not all are practical. Nursing is one example, male nurses used to be the majority, until they were fairly deliberately forced out. Colors as gender roles too are funny, where pink used to be a "man's" color.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52951590]Protected classes aren't "socially coercing a result," they're putting in place customized legal protections to keep a group as safe as possible. They're in place because it's legally efficient to do so. This isn't part of some agenda, so don't treat it like one.[/QUOTE] On the contrary, it is exactly trying to socially coerce a result. Also legally efficient isn't really a term. Especially if you think a legally efficient law is the one based on a class using expression and gender identity which are completely subjective ideas in how true they are.

im for equal opportunity as well but the problem is that people aren't treated exactly the same, and its kinda proven a lot when people think that black people, for example, shouldn't be given anything unique or special, when only only 50 years ago there was a huge amount of racism that prevented a majority of black people from doing pretty much anything in life. Shit doesn't instantly go away, it takes a long time, and that needs to be taken into account with a lot of things.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951568]Well if you intentionally refuse to use the pronouns a person chooses that can fall under the criminal code which has given out fines [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#Cases_under_the_Human_Rights_Act]before.[/url] So yes it is a punitive law that forces a person to speak and accept ideas in a certain way. I didn't really say "lock up" for your reference. Although not paying the fines wouldn't really help your case and extend into further punishments logically.[/QUOTE] I also want to ask why you're so hellbent on protecting hate speech under the guise of free speech, and yes, intentionally refusing to use proper pronouns is hate speech. Standing on a street corner and yelling racial slurs at passers-by is probably going to get you arrested, and you should expect the same result for pronouns. You should expect to be punished for going out of your way to hurt people. This is no exception.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52951606]1. Some societies in history do have some other "genders," but we p. much always see man and woman classifications present. [/QUOTE] Could you give an example?

If I’m getting it right, the laws tend to focus on the workplace or in hospitals/government buildings. I can call a black man a nigger on the street and be fine, but I can get my ass canned at work or sued for discrimination if I do it there. That’s pretty normal and I don’t see the problem with it.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52951613]I also want to ask why you're so hellbent on protecting hate speech under the guise of free speech, and yes, intentionally refusing to use proper pronouns is hate speech. Standing on a street corner and yelling racial slurs at passers-by is probably going to get you arrested, and you should expect the same result for pronouns.[/quote] Maybe in your country, but luckily not mine. Nobody should be punished for saying what they want on just a public street corner. [quote] You should expect to be punished for going out of your way to hurt people. This is no exception.[/QUOTE] I am actually just talking about principles and not hurting anyone. Don't be ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951625]Maybe in your country, but luckily not mine.[/QUOTE] "luckily people can yell racial slurs in my country" wow dude, I'm all for free speech and letting people voice whatever dumbass ideals they have, but lets not pretend being able to yell fucking hate speech at people is a positive thing when it comes to free speech, yeah?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951609]On the contrary, it is exactly trying to socially coerce a result. Also legally efficient isn't really a term. Especially if you think a legally efficient law is the one based on a class using expression and gender identity which are completely subjective ideas in how true they are.[/QUOTE] Putting everybody under the same umbrella for equal opportunity doesn't work, because different people need different things. People with broken legs need wheelchairs, other people don't. You're not going to give everybody a wheelchair, because not everybody needs them, and you aren't going to give nobody a wheelchair at all. You're going to legally define what a broken leg is, create a legal group of people with broken legs, and give them what they need. Dividing people into groups which can internally be treated the same is the most efficient and expedient way to handle pretty much everything, and it's why society is organized that way by governments.

[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;52950388] Human identity is the most subjective thing in the world. It's why we have different languages, cultures, etc. Don't look at gender through an objectivist lens based on a flawed interpretation of biology; the anthropological view is far more informative.[/QUOTE] I have to say I rather be objective rather than subjective. This statement seems to try to justify ignoring biological facts.

[QUOTE=nerdster409;52951618]Could you give an example?[/QUOTE] This is probably one of the most cited examples, but the Bugi people of Indonesia have five gender classifications with distinct social roles that roughly correlate to cis man and woman, trans man and woman, and agender/androgynous. There are also Two-Spirited Native Americans, a concept shared by many native cultures throughout the continent. In Samoa, American Samoa and the Samoan diaspora there are the fa'afafine (lit. "in the manner of a woman") who are assigned male at birth and embody both male and female (but especially female) expressions and roles. [QUOTE=Tudd;52951640]I have to say I rather be objective rather than subjective. This statement seems to try to justify ignoring biological facts.[/QUOTE] Which biological facts, pray tell, does my statement justify ignoring? Please spell it out for me like I'm dumb.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951640]I have to say I rather be objective rather than subjective. This statement seems to try to justify ignoring biological facts.[/QUOTE] You're failing to be objective in any way, shape or form.

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;52951634]"luckily people can yell racial slurs in my country" wow dude, I'm all for free speech and letting people voice whatever dumbass ideals they have, but lets not pretend being able to yell fucking hate speech at people is a positive thing when it comes to free speech, yeah?[/QUOTE] It's not just about the racist spouting their opinion, it is the ability to voice any opinion. If you are going to hyper focus that I am willing to defend someone's speech no matter how offensive it is, then obviously need to remind yourself it is on principle I do this.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951625]Maybe in your country, but luckily not mine. Nobody should be punished for saying what they want on just a public street corner.[/QUOTE]I live in America, same as you, I can only assume. Yes, you absolutely will be arrested for that. It's a hate crime and a public disturbance. [QUOTE]I am actually just talking about principles and not hurting anyone. Don't be ridiculous.[/QUOTE] You can't use the "just a hypothetical discussion" card when talking about these issues in the way you have been. This kind of speech does hurt people in real life, and discussing how that occurs and the best ways to prevent it is very important. Please stop trying to sidestep the issue. This affects real people.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951640]I have to say I rather be objective rather than subjective.[/QUOTE] you are really bad at that awful

[QUOTE=Craptasket;52950671]Disingenuous should be the title for Tudd. admins make it happen.[/QUOTE] [I]i will regularly bait people into yet another goddamn boring political debate in the videos section by posting right wing takes about bathrooms or whatever until i reduce myself to serious posting episodes of "louder with crowder"[/I]

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951640]I have to say I rather be objective rather than subjective. This statement seems to try to justify ignoring biological facts.[/QUOTE] Somebody who knows Python should write a bot for me that says "The mainstream scientific community has largely accepted the existence of non-binary genders" because goddamn I have to repeat it a lot on FP.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951650]It's not just about the racist spouting their opinion, it is the ability to voice any opinion. If you are going to hyper focus that I am willing to defend someone's speech no matter how offensive it is, then obviously need to remind yourself it is on principle I do this.[/QUOTE] There is a fine line between "free speech" and "verbal assault," which can also be called things like "menacing," "battery," or "making criminal threats." I can say "I hate jews" just fine, but it is not okay to say "I'm going to kill all you fucking jews." That is violent hate speech and absolutely not protected by the first amendment.

i want a tudd markov chain, it'll spout the same incoherent shit you see from him so it won't be much different lol

I don't care anymore and someone needs to say it. Tudd's a neo Nazi and it's embarrassing that he hasn't been banned yet. People have been banned for less. It's pretty clear he's an extremely transphobic person and would be entirely OK with transpeople being persecuted and denies who they are.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951650]It's not just about the racist spouting their opinion, it is the ability to voice any opinion. If you are going to hyper focus that I am willing to defend someone's speech no matter how offensive it is, then obviously need to remind yourself it is on principle I do this.[/QUOTE] you can be for free speech and defend it "on principle" without directly responding to someone saying "people can't shout racial slurs" with "luckily we can do that here!"

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52951667]I don't care anymore and someone needs to say it. Tudd's a neo Nazi and it's embarrassing that he hasn't been banned yet. People have been banned for less. It's pretty clear he's an extremely transphobic person and would be entirely OK with transpeople being persecuted and denies who they are.[/QUOTE] I don't exactly agree but he closely aligned himself with an established Nazi apologist so pretty much as bad.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52951650]It's not just about the racist spouting their opinion, it is the ability to voice any opinion. If you are going to hyper focus that I am willing to defend someone's speech no matter how offensive it is, then obviously need to remind yourself it is on principle I do this.[/QUOTE] So you would defend the right of your country men to label you as a racist hateful bigot because it's in the principle of freedom of speech for you to defend that

[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;52951641]This is probably one of the most cited examples, but the Bugi people of Indonesia have five gender classifications with distinct social roles that roughly correlate to cis man and woman, trans man and woman, and agender/androgynous. There are also Two-Spirited Native Americans, a concept shared by many native cultures throughout the continent. In Samoa, American Samoa and the Samoan diaspora there are the fa'afafine (lit. "in the manner of a woman") who are assigned male at birth and embody both male and female (but especially female) expressions and roles. [/QUOTE] Huh. Color me surprised.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52951600]I personally do not buy into the whole non-gender/third gender/xe xir stuff, I think gender is indeed a spectrum, however that spectrum still has two distinct halves. That being said, MAN is Crowder kind of an asshole and I wish there were less douchey spokespersons that got the same attention.[/QUOTE] I agreed with you until a nonbinary person entered my life. It's not an enormous leap of logic, honestly.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52951667]I don't care anymore and someone needs to say it. Tudd's a neo Nazi and it's embarrassing that he hasn't been banned yet. People have been banned for less. It's pretty clear he's an extremely transphobic person and would be entirely OK with transpeople being persecuted and denies who they are.[/QUOTE] How did you even get to neo-nazi with this thread? Utterly ridiculous this is where you decide I am a Neo-nazis and announce you think that. :v: Also just want to point out that amongst [b]millennials[/b]: [quote]While 46 percent said they believed people can only identify as “two genders, male and female,” four percent said they didn’t know.[/quote] [url]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/fusion-millennial-poll-gender_n_6624200.html[/url] You have a lot of people you are throwing under the bus as being "extremely transphobic" since they hold the same opinion, and that is just from the millennial generation. I am sure you don't go around looking 46% of the young people as extremely transphobic, so why the hyperbole?

If you're going to start a gender debate atleast post Ben Shapiro instead of Crowder. [video=youtube;QtuqmThPE5c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtuqmThPE5c[/video]

I like how Tudd disagrees with protected classes when he is in his own protected class on Facepunch

[QUOTE=Protocol7;52951664]There is a fine line between "free speech" and "verbal assault," which can also be called things like "menacing," "battery," or "making criminal threats." I can say "I hate jews" just fine, but it is not okay to say "I'm going to kill all you fucking jews." That is violent hate speech and absolutely not protected by the first amendment.[/QUOTE] I have already acknowledged this difference.

I too love the "freedom" we have in the U.S. to verbally harass and degrade other people who are just minding their business, god bless the USA. Just kidding, I've been called a spic enough to be more than willing to give up "free speech" if it means people like me or other people who have been historically berated in a manner of ways can actually like. Live their lives. Y'know. That'd be great.