search results matching tag: hermaphrodite

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (9)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (0)     Comments (56)   

Neo Feminist gets SCHOOLED by a Toddler

newtboy says...

Hermaphrodites and neutered? Those two?

You are wrong….as usual.

There ARE (🤦‍♂️) even more than only two distinct sexes, like those shown above…and gender is a different concept and word, that’s why they’re spelled and pronounced differently. 🤦‍♂️

Placating hateful xenophobic ignorami only hurts everyone in the long run, ya froot loop.

bobknight33 said:

There is only 2.

Anything else is wrong.
Placating fruit loops only hurts them in the long run.

Missouri tries to legislate reality away

newtboy says...

100%.
Rhonda Rousey could kick my, or your, ass.
Her 23 & 24th chromosomes being different from ours doesn’t negate that.

On average is what you said somewhat true….mostly (there are athletic disciplines that benefit female physique strongly, and there are exceptions to every “rule”)…. but sports are played by the exceptional, and a shitload more than chromosomal arrangement and genital assignment determines how exceptional a person is in a given field.

It is possible that the best woman in a sport is better than the best man, true in almost all sports, equally possible a man born a girl could be better, or a woman born a boy…If you can’t accept that, then yes, we must live in two separate realities.

What about hermaphrodites? Can they play for either team, or none at all?

Again, denying a citizen their right to participate in publicly funded sports is pretty damn unAmerican. If your not American and your culture differs, that’s on you and not my business.

Kicked Out of Class for Saying There are Two Genders

newtboy says...

You posted it happily as fact. If you post/repeat someone else's lie, you are a liar.

The teacher knows better why he acted than the ignorant obstinate disruptive kid that won't listen. Derp.

Still lies. You LOVE lies. Grow a pair and stand by them. I get that, in your efforts to support Trump, you have trained yourself to believe any right leaning lies and claim any non right wing fact is fake news, that doesn't mean the rest of us must support your psychosis.

Sure, kid gets to lie, you get to repeat it and claim it's not a lie because you didn't create it, just repeated it. That's pathetic, Bob. Infantile, dumb, and pathetic.

Bob. Learn to read. I'm not going over it again. I answered that question in the previous post. Doubly pathetic.
Do you still have any teeth?

Bottom line, the kid is an ignorant obstinate idiot who believes his uninformed opinion outweighs any other, including the school boards, and that he may exercise his right to free speech anywhere at any time with impunity.

Bottom line, kid is a disruptive, ignorant dumbass....and I'm not a bit surprised you're backing him and contradicting rules, laws, authority, the English language (that you seriously need to learn better, Vladimir), logic, civility, and fact to do so.

Guess you've never heard of hermaphrodites or neuters. Not surprising. The words/concepts are only a few thousand years old, created by those Greek libtards to muddy the language and hurt Trump. Your arguments get dumber every day. *facepalm

https://www.etymonline.com/word/hermaphrodite

bobknight33 said:

I did not write the title -- still not lies.
Kid say kicked out for gender questioning. Teacher indicates kicked out for being disruptive.

Its the kids video - he get to title it.


On big issues like this ( ie debating on school lunch) , if one believes that school policy is wrong , is not acceptable to speak up?

Granted a better forum would be a school board meeting.

Bottom line the teacher is afraid of loosing his job and hence pushes the position of national policy.

Kicked Out of Class for Saying There are Two Genders

John Oliver - Mike Pence

bcglorf says...

@newtboy

"saying humans are born with either a penis or vagina isn't a hateful statement against people."
It absolutely is hateful to hermaphrodites, clearly saying they aren't human. Use the qualifier "usually" or "almost always".


Alright, if used to deliberately dehumanise someone, almost anything can be hateful. Omitting "almost always" is just convenient, like stating the sky is blue. Sure, the sky isn't always blue, but it's correct often enough to be treated as an accurate general statement. As I gave in my example, saying humans have five fingers and five toes isn't hateful or dehumanising to people with a different number, it's just a generally true statement.

I argue it's in the brain, which today can't be changed. Gender is different from sexuality, clearly, no?

Let me try to be more succinct.

Physical sex is a birth attribute, not as my opinion, but as a provable objective fact.

Gender is in the brain, is an opinion. I do not share that opinion. This is a point on which we should have the liberty to agree to disagree.
Edit:My opinion is that if not defined as biological sex, gender has no real meaning aside from societal norms.

John Oliver - Mike Pence

newtboy says...

"saying humans are born with either a penis or vagina isn't a hateful statement against people."
It absolutely is hateful to hermaphrodites, clearly saying they aren't human. Use the qualifier "usually" or "almost always".

"As for gender being something different than sex, if you define it that way"
No, you said that. I'm saying all the physical attributes of gender are changeable besides the brain, and many humans with male gonads have female brains, and vice versa. Today, gonads can be surgically changed, so where is gender? I argue it's in the brain, which today can't be changed.
Gender is different from sexuality, clearly, no?
Edit: I guess I do think gender is different from "sex", if sex is determined solely by your gonads.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction
....as to who cares about gender....the bigoted bakers do. ;-)

We're talking perceived race, gender, sexuality, ethnic group, as identified by the discriminating individuals. They don't DNA scan or brain scan customers before serving (or denying) them, they react based on perception.

Skin color, that's totally changeable. Never heard of spray tans or bleach? Try watching Eddie Murphy's 'White like me'.

Odd you might argue against perception being the measure, since you seemed to argue that gays could be perceived as acceptably heterosexual by not acting on their uncontrollable urges and desires, bypassing the bigoted discrimination, essentially by lying.

Again it's about perceived ethnicity, not actual genetic heritage. Like you say, your actual heritage is unidentifiable by strangers, so less important to this discussion of public business discrimination.
If I want my wedding cake for me and Chris, and I wear my pink paisley silk shirt, leather chaps, choker, and heavy makeup to buy it that doesn't make me gay but the bigot baker would still deny me because he would assume I was.

Roger Waters Performs On The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

eric3579 says...

If I had been God
I would have rearranged the veins in the face to make them more resistant to alcohol and less prone to ageing
If I had been God
I would have sired many sons and I would not have suffered the Romans to kill even one of them
If I had been God
With my staff and my rod
If I had been given the nod
I believe I could have done a better job

If I were a drone
Patrolling foreign skies
With my electronic eyes for guidance
And the element of surprise
I would be afraid to find someone home
Maybe a woman at a stove
Baking bread, making rice, or just boiling down some bones
If I were a drone

The temple's in ruins
The bankers get fat
The buffalo's gone
And the mountain top's flat
The trout in the streams are all hermaphrodites
You lean to the left but you vote to the right

And it feels like déjà vu
The sun goes down and I'm still missing you
Counting the cost of love that got lost
And under my Gulf Stream, in circular balls
There's ninety-nine cents worth of drunkards and fools

Social Justice Warriors vs Logic

newtboy says...

Um....I was about to upvote at 1:15....then the video kept going and went batshit insane and was terribly edited.

At 5:32, sorry woman, there's more than two, there's also multi gender/non gender/ambiguous gender people (for example, hermaphrodites).
Sorry feminist woman, but your sexual identity is not the same thing as your gender.

Tig Notaro's Lessons in Remaining Present on Conan

smooman says...

me too. thought for sure i heard double vasectomy and thought.......she had two dicks?! is she a hermaphrodite? or a post op female to male transgender? or a pre op male to female? i had so many damn questions

but double masectomy, thats rough =(
my mother has been battling breast cancer. fortunately they didnt have to perform that surgery tho

hpqp said:

I was extremely confused for the first minute, even Wiki'd Tig Notaro, until I realised I had heard "vasectomy" and not "mastectomy".

You're not a scientist!

bmacs27 says...

@dirkdeagler7

You keep saying I'm being fanatic, or aggressive. Nothing in that quote could be construed as such. It was a direct response to the following quote from your previous post:

"Explain to someone who has no insurance or has a problem with medical bills or has no job or has family members fighting abroad or is getting foreclosed on....that we need to spend money to better understand hermaphroditic snails and the intricacies of their mating rituals in order to better understand evolution and reproduction to maybe one day apply that technology to genetic research or fertility programs."

Presumably you would also argue that they would not be convinced by the need to study the intricacies of sea-slug gill withdrawal reflexes. Your posts seem to suggest that someone other than scientists (some vaguely defined "greater good") should be dictating which specific research aims should be funded. You suggest we should be "asking" these people if that money should be spent.

My contention is that scientists have spent their (already meager) funds with remarkable efficiency. My example was meant to illustrate that asking lay people what science should be funded is likely to have prevented some of the most critical research of the last century from ever having taken place. They don't understand the broader impacts of the research, and thus lack the expertise necessary to evaluate its merit. Sure, someone in pain will probably balk at those sorts of studies. However, if you ask them "are you glad someone did the necessary research to develop ____insert_medical_procedure here____," then I think you'll find they're happy their forefathers spent a few pennies studying snails. The fact is the reverse argument does not hold up. We all, scientists not withstanding, are experts in basic human needs and suffering. For many, scientists that's what drove us to the work. You act as though we can not evaluate the merit of research with respect to the larger picture. I think you're wrong. We do it all the time.

Also, I'm a bit insulted by your reference to people with medical bills, or family members fighting abroad as I fall into both categories. We all have our cross to bear. I don't think I'm alone in responding "I'll be fine, spend the money on the future."

You're not a scientist!

dirkdeagler7 says...

I was attempting to say that people should not be fanatic on either side of this argument, as not all scientific research is the most efficient topic or use of resources and not all research deemed "insignificant" is actually insignificant.

The fact that people reacted so strongly to ANY criticism of current research or justifications for it shows just how fanatic some people are about the need to defend any and all research.

It's the nature of a scientist or science minded people to find value and merit in almost any scientific pursuit. But in a world of limited resources and with many other problems, we have to accept that there is an opportunity cost to any and all research, no matter how important.

For some the valuation of this opportunity cost will differ.

Explain to someone who has no insurance or has a problem with medical bills or has no job or has family members fighting abroad or is getting foreclosed on....that we need to spend money to better understand hermaphroditic snails and the intricacies of their mating rituals in order to better understand evolution and reproduction to maybe one day apply that technology to genetic research or fertility programs.

Then watch them give you the look of "thats great but why do I care about that now?" and understand that they are part of the greater good too.

bmacs27 said:

I'm sorry, but there are lots of bogus points in here. First of all, no one is arguing that the scope or impact of funded science should be anything less than great. The question is who should decide it. It seems the republicans want to take the awarding of scientific grants out of the hands of peer review, preferring that politicians micromanage the appropriation of research grants. Personally, I think that will lead to an end of basic science. Politicians are bound by their sponsors whom for the most part have an interest in public funding of applied rather than basic research.

This particular research is not about ecology or the environment, or some squishy bleeding heart first world problem. It's about the relative value of sexual and asexual reproduction. This particular snail can reproduce in either fashion, and it raises fundamental questions about when and why sexual reproduction would be preferred. It will likely lead to a deeper understanding of the genetic mechanisms that underlie sexual recombination, and how they relate to the success of progeny. Sounds like it's got some scope to me. The competition for grants is so stiff within science today that it's highly improbable that narrow research aims will be awarded. The fundamental question you need to ask yourself is "should basic science be funded, or should the only funding available be for applied science." My answer is an emphatic yes to basic science. It has proven its value beyond all doubt. Further, I personally feel that the applied work should be forced into the private sector as anything with a 5 year pay off will be funded naturally by the market anyway.

You also sing the praises of defense funding. I agree, many great discoveries have been funded by, say, DARPA. However, break it down by dollar spent. Because the money isn't allocated by peer review, but rather the whims of some brass, I personally don't feel it is efficiently allocated. Our impression when dealing with ONR (for example) is that they had absolutely no clue what they were interested in as a research aim, and had no clue what we were actually doing. They just thought we had some cool "high tech looking" stuff. Further, we as researchers didn't really care about their misguided scientific goals. It was sort of an unspoken understanding that we were doing cool stuff, and they had money to burn or else they wouldn't be getting anymore. All the while, the NIH is strapped with many of their institutes floating below a 10% award rate. Most of the reviewers would like to fund, say, 30-40% of the projects. Imagine if a quarter of that defense money was allocated by experts how much more efficiently it would be spent.

Winner of the Cooking Channel Cuntess, TBA..NOW! (Food Talk Post)

chingalera says...

Real men don't use garlic presses, choppers, or (winces) pre-peeled cloves or minced (pre-chewed) bits in jars. Any man who does is the catcher on an all-hermaphrodite baseball team.

dag said:

Quote hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

A cooking cuntess? (Hands on hips, head cocked). Oh Choggie!

Men staring into camera to help women overcome shynes

Kim: Youngest Person To Have Gender Reassignment Surgery

Ryjkyj says...

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
WTF, people are born with two half/completely whole sets of genitals are the time. I think the numbers for hermaphroditic birth are about one in a hundred, and the doctors and parents decide right then what gender the child is going to have. For better or worse, this happens all the time. It always amazes me that people act like this stuff is so new just because the person chooses their own gender later in life.

It's nowhere near as common as you think. 1 in 100 is ridiculously common... This german study found it to be '2 per 10,000 births with ambiguous genitalia per year in Germany. ',
So, no, it's not super common at all. Not to say it doesn't happen, but also what you're describing is a different thing to this. Gender association and having the deep feeling you are not the sex your body is, is a different thing to having ambiguous genitalia. Also... there are horrendous cases of babies having their sex chosen by doctors/parents in those cases and it being the opposite of what they identify with, and becoming horrendously unhappy people. Very sad.


Yeah, it's been a long time since I took that sociology class. 1 in 100 "differ from standard male or female" and 1 in 1000 have surgery to "normalize genital appearance".

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Anyway, my point wasn't really that a gender change later in life is the same as an operation at birth. Merely that surgery "down there" occurs all the time. We act like the surgery is so uncommon when it's not. It's really just the changing of gender that most people have a problem with. But the point everyone misses is that this girl didn't change her gender... she's always felt she was a girl. She just simply had an operation that changed her physical appearance.

And just wait until the public finds out that she's a lesbian!

Kim: Youngest Person To Have Gender Reassignment Surgery

spoco2 says...

>> ^Ryjkyj:

WTF, people are born with two half/completely whole sets of genitals are the time. I think the numbers for hermaphroditic birth are about one in a hundred, and the doctors and parents decide right then what gender the child is going to have. For better or worse, this happens all the time. It always amazes me that people act like this stuff is so new just because the person chooses their own gender later in life.


It's nowhere near as common as you think. 1 in 100 is ridiculously common... This german study found it to be '2 per 10,000 births with ambiguous genitalia per year in Germany. ',

So, no, it's not super common at all. Not to say it doesn't happen, but also what you're describing is a different thing to this. Gender association and having the deep feeling you are not the sex your body is, is a different thing to having ambiguous genitalia. Also... there are horrendous cases of babies having their sex chosen by doctors/parents in those cases and it being the opposite of what they identify with, and becoming horrendously unhappy people. Very sad.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon