- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2856 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
50 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 414831
>Oi, u funny, lad! We got much in common just like me m8s at the council estate
>This here's me friend Bertha. U goin' anywhere tonight? We got us an extra spot at the pub for Skrewdriver
>Maybe later we could go back to me place? Got me some Bushmills, and later let's spin me Skullhead LPs and talk about Enoch Powell.
How do you respond?
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 414923
Apparently even facebook is debating this as a matter of deeper philosophical principle. What does it mean to bum a lad? What even is a lad?
Things seem to have been so much simpler in olden days when it was just tops and bottoms.
|>>|| No. 414924
I think we're probably in the last generation that will even think to ask if something is gay - in the future we just won't care. Joking aside that seems like a really good thing.
|>>|| No. 414926
>I think we're probably in the last generation that will even think to ask if something is gay
As fruity as the next generation is shaping up I think even they see sucking another guys dick as pretty gay. I mean the feminine and masculine forms (while having some overlap on such a large pool) hardly match up.
You'd be more likely to see the future go the other way and we start trying to address gender dysphoria rather than brushing over the symptoms with massive amounts of surgery and a lifetime spent taking a cocktail of drugs.
|>>|| No. 414927
You missed my point a little there I think.
I didn't say they'd stop seeing something as gay, they'd just stop asking the question - as in, nobody will care if they or anyone else is gay or not. It won't be a minor life crisis to realise you fancy ladyboys, it'll be as mentally taxing as realising you prefer apples over oranges.
>You'd be more likely to see the future go the other way and we start trying to address gender dysphoria rather than brushing over the symptoms with massive amounts of surgery and a lifetime spent taking a cocktail of drugs.
That'd be nice too, and I think that's how the current 'non-binary' movement might end up.
|>>|| No. 414928
There always seemed to me a fundemental philosophical contradiction in saying gender is meaningless you can label yourself what ever you want the physical doesn't matter, and having physical alterations so that you look like the gender you want to be should look.
|>>|| No. 414929
Agreed. It'd be healthy for everyone to just get over it a bit and call a bloke in a dress she/her if that's what they want, and also for nobody to get offended if someone gets it wrong by accident.
But in a world where a man is going to prison for telling his dog to gas the jews, we may never reach such a point.
|>>|| No. 414930
>also for nobody to get offended if someone gets it wrong by accident
We're in that middle bit of cultural change where "both sides" get offended about something.
|>>|| No. 414931
Our current attitudes to trans* people are very much based in a gender binary, but that's starting to change. Women have a lot more leeway in this respect - there's nothing particularly unusual about a woman with a short haircut, no makeup and masculine clothes. Women can pick any point on the spectrum of gender expression without really causing a stir, but for men there's a much more narrow window of acceptable expression. "Transvestite" is a label that only really applies to men. It's not really about accepting the idea of a spectrum of gender expression, but accepting a spectrum of cis male gender expression.
As with most social issues, I think it's mostly just a matter of waiting for the bigots to die.
|>>|| No. 414932
Look, it is fine if you like the boys in OPs image, but don't lie to yourself and say you're "straight."
|>>|| No. 414944
Gender is complicated, I don't fully understand it myself, but I believe the flaw in your supposed contradiction is that
>gender is meaningless you can label yourself what ever you want
is the underlying theory and ideal, and
>look like the gender you want to be should look
is the practical necessity of living comfortably under the gender norms imposed by Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.
I know plenty of trans women, for example, who say that their penis is just as much a part of their womanly body as any other. But society doesn't see it that way, unfortunately.
|>>|| No. 414945
>underlying theory and ideal
This is part of my issue, the underlying theories and ideals that don't work in practice, and therefore should be viewed with the same level of contempt as other theories and ideals that don't work in practice. There is an attempt to paint these ideas as self-evident universal truths and they aren't, they are a political ideology.
|>>|| No. 414946
OK, well with reference to a published theory or set of ideas, which one in particular do you feel the evidence doesn't support, and why?
|>>|| No. 414947
>I know plenty of trans women, for example, who say that their penis is just as much a part of their womanly body as any other. But society doesn't see it that way, unfortunately.
How dare society not indulge their fantasies.
|>>|| No. 414948
What do you mean by fantasy? I don't see how gender as an authoritarian, preconceived set of rules inconsistently applied by society-at-large is any more fantastical than gender as self-identifiable.
|>>|| No. 414949
That's a false dichotomy. Saying that penises are not feminine doesn't make you "authoritarian" or "inconsistent".
There's nothing wrong with liking willies if you have a willy too, mate, but it makes you a bumder ATEOTD.
|>>|| No. 414951
I'll save you a load of back and forth and tell you I subscribe to the view point put forward In "Higher Superstition" by Gross and Levitt read it if you want, since they make the point better than I could.
I don't feel like taking my time to research and present an argment you might very well just dismiss off hand anyway that I've had on this site plenty of times before on IQ of all places.
|>>|| No. 414953
Penises aren't masculine, and vaginas aren't feminine. I mean what the fuck, when has anyone said 'Wow, you know what I love, a really feminine vagina!'. Masculine has nothing to do with the presence of a dick, and everything to do with ascribing to references about 'men'.
A key problem that I found was people conflating all trans people together. For some, looking like a particular (or opposite) gender is an important part of the issue, while for others it's not particularly important, with some acting more like a 3rd gender, outside of the male/female binary. If we look at men; we have crossdressing, ladyboys, Pre-op, Post-op, etc.
But, a lot of very reactionary people seem to interpret that as a conceptual flaw.
|>>|| No. 414955
>I mean what the fuck, when has anyone said 'Wow, you know what I love, a really feminine vagina!'
Nobody says that because it's redundant, not because it's not true.
|>>|| No. 414956
Those people in the past must have been right idiots thinking they were identifying people by the role they played during procreation and were relevant to the continued existence of the species. If only someone was there to tell them that the labels they assign to those properties had no basis in objectivity and were just a social construct.
|>>|| No. 414961
He never said "don't procreate" though, dickhead. Do you need specks or just a clip round the ear?
|>>|| No. 414962
So is it okay to self-identify as an attack helicopter, or are we not progressive enough yet?
|>>|| No. 414965
No he just said hedging bullshit that doesn't mean anything instead.
You are more than welcome to take yourself out of the gene pool in fact I encourage you to do so, but propagation of the species is still the most important factor in the continued existence of humanity. And acting like it isn't relevant is farcical.
I'd actually argue nearly all other things humanity does are actually more trivial.
|>>|| No. 414966
Your point was that binary gender based on sex organs is the only way to see gender, because of how procreation works.
My point is that we are far, far beyond JUST existing to procreate. We're overpopulated as it is, not everyone wants children, we require a far, far lower number of births to sustain our society than any other point in human history. Not to mention that transgender men or women could still contribute to the propagation of society if they retain their sex organs.
To believe that every human should be popping out at least one kid or they're not contributing to society is dangerously wrong. We're fast reaching a point where the birth rate is just too much. Japan is already there.
|>>|| No. 414968
All this because you don't want to give the man in OP's pic a blowjob. Useless.
|>>|| No. 414970
No my point was the concept of gender is not a social construct. It has an important biological communication and to co-opt it and act like that point isn't important is a myth. (even if it isn't is as important to an individual it is certainly highly important to humanity as a whole, slippery slope fallacies about this point only make you look like a philosophical charlatan). It is intellectually dishonest to pretend it isn't. Gender isn't the social construct even beasts and the fishes of the sea have a concept of it.
The divorcing labels from the very clear classes they describe by letting the tail wag the dog (I can see you now crying "but what about the exception of those obscure corner cases!") They are exceptions, exceptions do not destroy a trend. We don't stop teaching things fall down because balloons float. We don't make everyone else acknowledge that YHWH is the one true god and miracles and angels are real because otherwise it will hurt the feelings of believers.
|>>|| No. 414971
>Your point was that binary gender based on sex organs is the only way to see gender, because of how procreation works.
Look, we get it that a bloke can sometimes wear a dress and you might think from a distance 'yeah I'd fuck that' but it's asinine to think that anyone but a tiny minority thinks that said bloke in a dress is the same as a woman. We're hardwired to find a certain form attractive for a reason and while you might (wrongly) claim that creating life is no longer important for our species it's not going to change the fact that a bloke in a dress is never going to do it for me.
I mean to look at it another way if sexuality is all bullshit then you don't need to put a dress on or have your cock hacked penis off to feel secure in who you are.
>To believe that every human should be popping out at least one kid or they're not contributing to society is dangerously wrong. We're fast reaching a point where the birth rate is just too much. Japan is already there.
What the fuck are you smoking?
Not him by the way.
|>>|| No. 414972
I love a good .gs cunt-off
Also, Darwinism will take care of these 'more than two genders' idiots
|>>|| No. 414973
You'll have to elaborate on that, sparkinganothercuntoffwithyourinflammatorycommentlad.
|>>|| No. 414976
I am concerned about unfit parents forcing their children into whatever gender they please. In America, they start pumping hormone blockers into the wee ones, and I'm sure it will start happening here soon.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 414979
Overpopulation is a problem until someone finds out how to cope with it, like any inevitable side effect of humanity's progress. Obvious sex education could be a whole lot better in a whole lot of places, but an increasing amount of people bring up overpopulation with *wink wink* "let's just kill all of them". Fortunately it's just fringe figures at the moment, like Spectator opinionist Toby Young.
|>>|| No. 414982
The last stats I saw said that the population of the earth is leveling out. And will taper off at 8 billion something. This due to industrialized nations having less children and the world becoming more industrialized.
|>>|| No. 414983
Not really no and I don't even know what point you're trying to make about Japan whose population is collapsing.
At any rate, this anti-natalist argument seems to ignore how important having a family is to people and how we in Britain already have a below replacement (and falling) birthrate with the associated long-term collapse of the British welfare state. Is it somehow immoral for me to have a family because the third world demographic slowdown hasn't matched the predictions? Do these species wide discussions impact how I don't want to spend the rest of my life doing anal and sucking a cock?
I'll save you the bother and answer that no it bloody doesn't. Most people, even if they never intend to have kids, are still attracted to the opposite sex.
|>>|| No. 414984
> I don't want to spend the rest of my life doing anal and sucking a cock?
Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.
|>>|| No. 414990
>we are far, far beyond JUST existing to procreate
This was the right line of argument to go down.
>Do you not think the earth is overpopulated?
This was not.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]