Posts by Sam Martinez9

Lawrence Rodriguez11 said:You could probably draw a similar parallel with the students over at the College of Liberal Arts. They follow Goldstein and Josipovic blindly, only to come out the other side demanding equality and tolerance—but strictly for people who already agree with them.

The whole point of a College of Arts and Sciences education is learning not to take anyone’s word at face value, including your own. Every philosophical or scientific authority is subject to scrutiny. When we discuss a specific philosopher, the goal isn't just to praise their insights, but to examine where they fell short. Scientific theories aren't sacred texts; they are tools provided to researchers specifically so they can be tested—and ultimately dismantled.

I have to say, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what philosophy actually is. It isn't a tragedy, though; it's all something that can be learned, especially nowadays with the internet at our fingertips.

Timothy Nelson5 said:If they’re just nonsense—then why are people actually studying them?
Why on earth are we footing the bill for degrees that teach nothing but fluff?

And by the way—there’s this constant push for everyone to get paid the exact same amount for the same job.
As if we're all somehow "equally valuable."
The idea that a person with an engineering degree from MIT should earn the same paycheck as someone with a gender studies degree.

So, I guess it doesn't really matter if the machinery actually works when it's being designed by people who don't know what they're doing, right?
It's all about feelings and good intentions now, I suppose.

🍿

It isn't nonsense if you know how to cash in on it. Take modern advertising, for instance; those campaigns are engineered using social sciences specifically designed to answer one question: *how do we sell this product as effectively as possible?*

In a massive shopping mall, absolutely nothing is left to chance. From the specific tempo of the background music to the lighting levels and the way the aisles are laid out... everything is meticulously calibrated to ensure the customer walks away with more than they intended.

And all of it is built upon the foundation of the social sciences.

Timothy Nelson5 said:I suppose there are actually some legitimate scientific papers out there that attempt to find references to modern technology within biblical texts. It’s not all just nonsense, I guess. At the very least, you have to admit they’re... interesting. Intrigued, maybe? They certainly provide food for thought if you're into that sort of thing.

It’s just so typical, really. And honestly, pretty pathetic. The way our entire education system handles this kind of "work"... it’s just sad.

So, what exactly makes that undergrad thesis "subpar"? I mean, if we're looking at it through that lens, then why wouldn't a doctoral dissertation on the mitski aspekt ekofeminizm be considered acceptable? It’s all a bit subjective, I guess. Maybe.
I mean, I guess you’d think a doctoral dissertation would actually require... well, more than this. It feels like there's a baseline expectation for depth, isn't there? Or maybe I'm just being cynical. Either way, it feels a bit thin.
I mean, honestly... a bachelor's thesis? That's mostly just a formality at this point. You check the boxes, you follow the rubric, you move on. But a PhD dissertation? That’s an entirely different beast altogether. It's not just paperwork.

I suppose we might even see creationists showing up in the natural sciences department... maybe. It feels like one of those inevitable shifts, doesn't it? Everything seems to be blurring lately.

If you sit down and actually compile a list of those massive names in scientific history—you know, the heavy hitters from Europe and beyond—you start to notice a pattern that most modern textbooks tend to gloss over. It’s a bit unsettling, I guess, when you realize that the vast majority of them were actually creationists. They weren't looking to tear down the idea of a Creator; they were often trying to understand the mechanics of how He put everything together. It makes you wonder if we've lost some perspective along the way.
If the architects of the natural sciences were all creationists, does that mean we should just toss the whole field out the window? I guess it’s an interesting thought, if a bit heavy. Maybe. It makes you wonder about the foundation of everything we claim to know. If the people who laid the groundwork were operating under a completely different set of assumptions than what we teach in schools today, does that invalidate the math? Or the physics? I don't know. It feels like a slippery slope, honestly. It's a messy question, and I suspect there isn't a clean answer to be found anywhere.

Even now, I suppose most scientists fall somewhere into the agnostic camp.
A true scientist should probably be an agnostic—not quite a believer, yet not strictly an atheist either. I mean, looking at the way today’s "activists" act, they aren't even really atheists; they're more like anti-theists. It's all a bit messy, I guess.

Fair point, but so what? Einstein was a Jew, but the theory of relativity isn't exactly *Jewish physics*.

There is no such thing as Christian agriculture, no Islamic economics, and certainly no Catholic mechanical engineering. Religion eventually retreated from those fields because it simply wasn't effective there. Prayer won't end a drought; irrigation solves a drought.

A scientist might belong to a religion, but faith—be it their own or anyone else's—has absolutely no business interfering with science, least of all the specific field they are currently working in.

rapidnomad322 said:Well, nothing, I guess, because you guys just shut down my job without even having a clue what I actually do, and then you're all left to deal with the mess that follows. Honestly, I'm just so over the constant exaggerations about how every single government employee is basically useless. Maybe if you actually showed up and did the job yourselves, you might get a little hint of how things actually function. I'm really not going to bother responding to condescending posts anymore. It’s not anyone else's fault that I'm making this salary, since I'm the one who agreed to this position, but seriously, just get off your high horse and see how much work goes into these different agencies before you start judging. And please, spare me the "my taxes pay your salary" routine—it's not like we aren't all paying taxes. 🤣

I never once suggested that your position was useless. My point was simply identifying where there is more room in the budget to offer workers a meaningful raise. We are discussing economics here, aren't we? It seems only logical to take certain fiscal realities into account.

I argued that this senseless friction between public sector employees and private sector workers is a distraction, and that people really ought to move past it. But, predictably, that won't happen. It’s much easier to point fingers at some other struggling worker or an immigrant to justify a meager paycheck than it is to face the real issues.

What I actually said is that your true *adversary* is the employer, because they are the ones who ultimately hold the power over your salary.

Jessica Torres63 said:But seriously, whose fault is it if you don't just go grab a job at that store instead?

If you actually look at the effective hourly rate for government workers compared to the private sector, it’s actually massive...

Because, okay, if that lady (who probably has just as much schooling as you or anyone else mentioned here) were actually working five days a week, like, a standard 9-to-5 or 8-to-4 schedule, and had actual vacation time and sick leave similar to what we get in the public sector, her pay would top out at maybe $1333.

And yeah, what Sam Martinez9 is saying is totally spot on.

I see it all the time, in so many different departments, even across different cities and counties... sorry, but with the way things run and how efficient everyone is...

Let me give you an example.

Take PersonA working at 7-Eleven versus PersonB working for UPS or FedEx.

Now, sure, PersonB is definitely making more money, no doubt about it. But once you see their actual downtime, the sheer volume of packages they have to move, the state of the delivery trucks, and the fact that they're grinding for 10, 11, or even 12 hours straight whenever there's a surge—instead of that nice 6-to-2 shift where if anything is left over, it just waits until tomorrow...

I've spent time looking into these kinds of situations and seeing how much work people are actually putting in. Trust me, if one guy is making $8.25 net, then the other guy in the private sector deserves at least 40-$15. But he isn't getting that.

There is something else fundamentally wrong here: you workers are turning on one another. People in government jobs lash out at those in the private sector, retail employees attack service industry staff, restaurant workers insult office drones... and the list goes on. You spend all this energy arguing that the "other guy" is getting a paycheck he hasn't earned.

The real adversary isn't your fellow worker; it's the employer. They are the ones who decide what your wage will be. Your salary doesn't fluctuate based on someone else's earnings—it's not as if my pay increases just because a waiter makes less than me.

That is precisely why I suggested in my initial post that you should be demanding higher wages from your employers instead.

rapidnomad322 said:Honestly, I was just thinking about writing something almost exactly like that! I'm a government employee myself, and my paycheck is actually under $1667 (not that it's my fault, right?) ☕ It feels like even the ladies working at the local Target might be pulling in more than me, though realistically, the level of work, the responsibility, and the specialized knowledge involved isn't really comparable—and hey, I’m totally happy for them if they’re making more, I truly am!

Look at it from this perspective:

Take the work of a cashier at a place like Walmart, for example. As they work, Walmart continues to expand, opening new locations and driving up the owner's bottom line. So, regardless of how much that cashier is paid, the corporation itself keeps accumulating massive surplus profits.

But what about your work?

darkorca52 said:Why is there this constant narrative that public sector wages outpace the private sector, when 90 percent of those employees are working for $1667 or even less
? Which private company actually pays salaries that low?

That’s the wrong way to look at it. The more accurate question would be: which employer takes a larger cut of my paycheck.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:A "logical economic reason"?? Give me a break. He picked up that company for pennies on the dollar. We're talking about a facility sitting on nearly 9 acres right in the heart of the city. He managed to lobby his way into getting that land rezoned for residential development. Now, all he has left to do is figure out how to get rid of the employees. And once he sells the whole operation? He doesn't even need to build a new company because all that cash just sits in the corporate account—you can't exactly slip that into your own pocket, right?
But here’s the kicker—he was using his other firm based overseas to contract jobs, funneling everything through the American entity to create these artificial losses. The boss even took out a $10 million mortgage on the property. So, when he sells the American company, the money flows straight to the offshore firm because they're technically the creditor. From there, it's just a matter of using whatever shady accounting tricks he wants to move that cash into his private accounts. Before you know it, he's finishing up his third luxury villa right here in the States. 😬
https://www.nytimes.com/business/investigation/corporate-fraud-scandal/

And then we all sit around wondering why the middle class is struggling and our quality of life is tanking. It's because guys like Al Capone are running the show!

Well, Madonna, what can I say? I still have vivid memories of the 90s, back when everyone was trying to convince me that these companies were worthless just because they were socialist-run. The workers were actually happy to see them handed off, thinking—again, mind you—that they had zero value. Or else they were literally in the trenches fighting one another (I’m thinking specifically of those 5,000 employees at Coca-Cola) while their company was being *sold off* to John D. Rockefeller. Those workers who stayed in the US tried to fight the privatization in court, but naturally, they lost.

The big capitalists defend their wealth at any cost—even using other people's lives, of course—whereas the Communists thought the only way to seize property was through revolution. Instead, the workers' assets were stripped away without much of a fight.

And now, I’m sure some forum users will pop up to try and convince me that this property wasn't even owned by the workers, but belonged to the Communist Party.

In the end, I suppose they got exactly what they asked for: bosses who will only raise wages if they are absolutely forced to, all while squeezing out every last cent of profit for themselves.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:We’ve been asking for years. And look what we finally got: 😬 https://www.nytimes.com/article/company-layoffs-bankruptcy-news.html

GE is laying off 71 redundant employees, leaving basically nothing behind but the CEO and a handful of managers. This was once a legendary powerhouse, but for years now, they've been bleeding money, and now they're staring down the barrel of bankruptcy.

It feels intentional at this stage. From an economic standpoint, there isn't a single logical reason to handle things this way. Look, if a business isn't performing, you wind it down over a year or two and call it a day. You don't strip it bare like this.

Zachary White19 said:The goal is basically to be the first one to hike prices and the last one to give out raises...

A brilliant strategy, truly.

Samuel Sanders6 said:So, let me guess—you asked for a huge raise and actually got one?

From what I've seen on other threads, you're tossing around some pretty high numbers, so I fail to see where the struggle is.

I run my own business. And yes, I’ve hiked my rates significantly, even though my overhead hasn't actually gone up that much. I’ve been flying solo for a little over a year now, but if I actually had employees on payroll, I could easily afford to give them a substantial raise. Instead, I'm doing what most small business owners do—taking that extra margin and tucking it straight into my own pocket.

Dennis Hall41 said:Maybe there are no raises because sales took a hit?

It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. If wages remain stagnant—and we have to remember that employees are also consumers—while inflation climbs, a drop in sales is almost inevitable. If employers actually stepped up and increased pay, people would have more disposable income, which would naturally drive sales back up.

Samuel Sanders6 said:Tourism dominates the economy here, and right now, everyone seems obsessed with chasing that same quick buck. It’s easy to feel smug when you inherit a property or a slice of the pie, allowing you to casually charge $150 a night just to let someone sleep in a tiny studio.

But looking at the broader trends over the last couple of years—and I haven't even bothered to dig through the data because frankly, I lack the motivation—it makes me wonder: how much more miserable are we going to get?

Here is a snapshot of what I see happening in my own city and across the country.

1.) Real estate. In the decent neighborhoods, in those solid, older buildings, rent used to top out around $1,100. We’re talking about a mid-sized American city, not some rural outpost in the Midwest or somewhere near Lake.

Today? You might find a mediocre apartment for $1,400 if you're lucky. A better one? That'll run you $1,600. New construction? You're looking at $2,000 minimum. And this isn't even a tourist hub where prices are artificially inflated.

2.) Cars. I was looking at the car I bought over seven years ago. Back then, I paid a realistic market price for a small, sensible vehicle.

Fast forward to now. That same car is now 15 to 20 years old, yet it’s selling for essentially the same price, or maybe even 10% less than what I paid back then.

3.) Equipment. I’ve been checking the market for small mini-excavators lately for some side work. A year or two ago, you could pick up a decent entry-level machine for maybe $12,000 or $15,000.

Now? Those exact same machines are 50% to 100% more expensive.

4.) Utilities and groceries.

The absolute essentials—bread, flour, oil, milk, dairy, toilet paper, basic hygiene products.

On top of all that, looking at the average net salaries for private sector workers compared to 2022 levels, they are lagging behind the public sector by nearly $1,000.$500

https://tinypic.host/i/prosjek-privatnik.nzhMd

What kind of future is that?🙄
I don't even need to spell it out; we all see it.

And once everything fully transitions to the new currency standard, I dread to think what happens next.

Then there's the income distribution: roughly 1 million out of 1.6 million people are scraping by on $1,100.

https://tinypic.host/i/place1.nzWfq

I honestly don't understand why those of you working for private companies aren't asking for raises. I assume you're valued employees, especially given the labor shortage we're seeing across America right now—so why not demand higher pay? If an employer isn't proactively offering more, you really ought to be the one bringing it up.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Oh, I suppose you could say that, though I feel like we're talking about two completely different responses. But then again, it usually feels like it's either one or the other, since there doesn't seem to be a third option, which is why people tend to group them together.

The real point I'm trying to make is that, in my view, neither of these reactions necessarily implies any kind of hatred, even if that's how you're interpreting it.

Sam Martinez9 said:Have you ever actually stopped to consider what—and why—one feels hate? What is the actual root cause of it? How do people typically react when they are faced with fear, or with the things they are afraid of?

I'm not entirely sure how much of our cognitive process depends on testosterone levels. By that logic, would an astrophysicist like Mike Tyson be considered to have a testosterone deficiency simply because he devotes such a vast amount of his mental energy to astrophysics?

Fear is the catalyst for hate. We tend to loathe the things that frighten us. You see it even in families, where children harbor resentment toward an abusive parent simply because they are afraid. That "fight or flight" concept you mentioned... well, that's mostly applicable to animals. Humans often find themselves paralyzed in situations where fighting back or running away just isn't an option.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:It seems to me that people always respond to fear in the exact same way: Fight or flight.

As for what I’m actually afraid of? Well, I guess it's the sight of crosswinds hitting a jet stream.

😛

That isn't quite right; we're actually looking at two entirely distinct reactions here.

I prefer to engage through actual dialogue rather than commenting on YouTube clips.

Frankly, this feels more like a series of jabs than a genuine conversation, so I won't be participating further unless we can pivot toward a serious discussion.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Wait, what?

It feels like even our vocabulary is undergoing some kind of identity crisis now where words can just change who they are whenever they want!

I mean, at its core, a phobia is just a fear, right? And I really don't think fear and hatred are even remotely the same thing.

Have you ever actually stopped to consider what—and why—one feels hate? What is the actual root cause of it? How do people typically react when they are faced with fear, or with the things they are afraid of?

Jose Edwards16 said:It could also work like this—if that makes sense, I guess.
Hey there.
bok Ž
Send me a nude!
Hey Z.
Man, you really have some nerve...
Ž: I'm a trans woman...
🙄

I guess I could say you’re leaning pretty hard into stereotypes with that last point—maybe just a little bit.

Whenever I'm stuck in some debate and a woman brings up that whole "men are constantly thinking about sex" trope, I usually just counter with—well, I focus on the word "thinking." Because at the end of the day, thinking is a mental process, right? And if we're being honest, isn't philosophy basically the ultimate peak of human thought? I guess it's hard to argue with that logic.
I mean, when I say sex—yeah, I'm a guy. 🙂

I mean, if electronic music, blues, and jazz don't count, then you’re probably missing the point. Personally, I can't stand country music. It honestly hurts my ears—it just gets under my skin—so I guess you could say I'm practically country-music-phobic. My usual solution is just to walk away from it, but if someone actually locked me in a room with nothing but a loop of country hits playing? Yeah, I’d probably lose it and take my frustrations out on the speaker. I'd smash it to pieces.

Basically, I think a phobia implies an active expression of hatred.

I'd have to agree there—sure, actual phobias exist, but it seems like the trans community views any kind of criticism or questioning of their views as an outright assault, immediately slapping the 'transphobic' label on it.
So, I guess I'll just tell them they're clearly acting this way because of excess testosterone, despite being on estrogen.
And wouldn't you know it? They'd probably claim *that* critique is 'transphobic' too. ☕[/URL]

I'm not entirely sure how much of our cognitive process depends on testosterone levels. By that logic, would an astrophysicist like Mike Tyson be considered to have a testosterone deficiency simply because he devotes such a vast amount of his mental energy to astrophysics?

Kenneth Cruz67 said:But really, we’re specifically discussing Wolverine's little thought experiment here, where a guy is trying to connect with a woman online to establish some kind of rapport. We aren't having a broad philosophical debate about the infinite complexities of gender dynamics or the nature of love in general.

I mean, you probably know what this type of communication looks like in like 99% of cases these days on things like Instagram, Bumble, Tinder, or whatever else is out there, right?

Man: Hey
Woman: Hey
Man: Want to see a pic of my junk?

And I don't think I'm even being hyperbolic when I say 😁

'Ben, you'll find that level of complexity 🤣

The subject at hand is the debate over gender dynamics.

People approach any topic based on their own limitations—however much their intellectual, moral, or personal capacities allow them to contribute.

On Reddit or Tinder, communication can look like whatever it wants to look like. But this is the Philosophy subforum, so one would expect a different caliber of discourse.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Though, I guess most men aren't even particularly concerned with a woman's identity, even when she truly is a woman.😁

The atmosphere here in Seattle is just... heavy. It’s one of those days where everything feels slightly out of sync, much like that feeling you get when a planned road trip through the Rockies gets derailed by an unexpected blizzard. Just a quiet, lingering sense of stillness that settles over everything.

It seems to me that you’re reducing men and women to mere drivers of sexual impulse, and in doing so, you're reducing the entire spectrum of human connection to nothing more than sexual encounters. Fortunately, relationships between men and women are incomparably more complex than that. Love itself isn't just "sexual" love. Love is something else entirely—something deeper. When it exists between a man and a woman, it might be fueled by sexual desire, but that certainly isn't a requirement.

We were just discussing this over at the Philosophy department, so I figure we ought to approach the topic from a different angle here. You all are more than capable of doing just that.

Jose Edwards16 said:So, we're looking at this through the lens of some kind of trans-logic—which, let’s be honest, is usually just a fancy way of being illogical. I guess it works if you're into that sort of thing, but it mostly just feels like circular reasoning dressed up in a suit.

Quincy:

I guess it really depends on who you ask, doesn't it? It’s one of those questions where the answer shifts depending on whether you’re looking at a corporate HR manual in Manhattan or just grabbing a beer in some small town in the Midwest. In a vacuum—like, if we're talking about big tech companies or major corporations based in places like San Francisco or Seattle—the official policy is obviously going to be full acceptance. They have all these DEI frameworks in place, so on paper, it’s a non-issue. But actual practice? That’s where things get messy and complicated. People have their own biases, regardless of what the handbook says. Then you have the more traditional parts of the country, where social circles might be a bit more... let's say, conservative. In those areas, the social friction might be higher, and the "acceptance" might feel a lot more forced or superficial. It’s a weird spectrum, I suppose. There isn't really one single way America handles this; it's more like a patchwork of different social realities depending on exactly where you're standing.

So, apparently, the trans activists are out there claiming that if we don't all just collectively decide that trans women are women, then we're automatically labeled as transphobic. It’s one of those things where you're basically handed a script—either follow the lines or get branded with the label. I guess that's just how the whole dynamic works now, though it feels a bit like being backed into a corner, maybe.

Quincy:

Honestly, when I sit back and just picture the whole thing—without really overthinking it or trying too hard to make sense of it all—it pretty much tells me everything I need to know. I guess it just speaks for itself. It’s not really the same thing—and honestly, I wouldn't go so far as to pretend that it is.

Fair point, I guess.

So, here we go again—yet another YouTube video from my favorite critic of the trans movement, Matt Walsh.
YouTube

So, Walsh is out here pointing out this weird little contradiction—I guess you could call it a double standard—where the LGBTQ+ crowd insists that sexual orientation isn't some kind of choice and that people should be free to love whoever they want. But then, somehow, it’s the exact same group deciding you're being "exclusionary" if you say you're attracted to biological women—you know, women born female—and apparently, you're suddenly "transphobic" if your definition of "woman" doesn't include trans women. It's a bit of a head-scratcher, honestly.

Second point—Walsh argues that if you find someone attractive, then they're attractive based entirely on how you perceive them—not based on how they view themselves. I guess it’s just a matter of perception, really.
So, sure, trans people can see themselves as women—that’s fine—but if a straight guy doesn't actually perceive that femininity or find them attractive... well, then you aren't exactly getting anywhere with romance. It’s just how things work, I guess.
It’s really more about the freedom of choice than it is about being transphobic. Honestly—and I guess this is just my two cents—"transphobia" has basically become this convenient little label people slap on anyone who dares to question certain LGBTQ+ stances. It feels less like an actual critique and more like a way to shut down the conversation entirely.

So, my little one—she’s got this thing, I guess—she absolutely lives for rock 'n' roll. It’s her whole vibe. Electronic stuff? Doesn't move her. Blues or jazz? Not really her speed either—it just doesn't click for her, I suppose.
Am I jazz-phobic? Blues-phobic? Or just some hater of electronic music? Not really—it’s more like I just don't listen to it and stick to rock. It's a preference, I guess.☕

If electronic music, blues, and jazz don't sit right with you, then we simply aren't on the same wavelength. Personally, I can't stand country music. It’s grating, it gets under my skin, and I’ll admit it—I have a genuine phobia of anything even remotely resembling a honky-tonk anthem. My usual strategy is just to walk away when it starts playing, but if someone were to lock me in a room with nothing but a loop of bad country hits, I can promise you one thing: all that pent-up frustration would be directed straight at the stereo. I’d leave nothing but scrap metal and broken wires behind.

To my mind, when we talk about a phobia, what we’re really seeing is an expression of pure hatred.

ruggedraven36 said:It’s actually pretty simple—you just have to look at two different levels of reality. On a biological level, they aren't the same; on a spiritual level, they are. People claiming they're identical are talking about the soul, while those saying they aren't are looking at nature. They end up fighting because half the people involved don't even realize what the other side is actually talking about.

Precisely. Men and women—people, more broadly speaking—aren't merely biological vessels driven by the impulse to have sex. Human connection is far more complex than that; sexual intimacy is certainly not the sole thread that weaves people together.

It seems like nowadays, people are far too quick to judge someone based solely on their outward appearance—whether it’s the clothes they wear or how much makeup they're sporting. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard it said, or read it posted here, in the sense of: "Look at how that person carries themselves; there's no way they actually know what they're talking about." If we were being truly consistent with that logic, the only person on the planet permitted to have an opinion on anything would be Brad Pitt.

It’s entirely possible that this is exactly why so many creators struggle to offer anything beyond mere aesthetics and sex.

Look, humans are complex creatures—or at least, we ought to be. When we’re discussing philosophy, we really should be delving into those deeper, more nuanced layers of existence. As for physical appearance or sex? That belongs over in the erotica subforum, not here in Philosophy.

Laura Jones56 said:I'm struggling to see the logic behind that, honestly.
And I can't quite grasp the reasoning used to split identity into such distinct categories as "mind" versus "body" in the first place.

There are certain people who are just completely fascinated by their physical forms. Take professional athletes, for instance, or young, attractive women... they tend to be hyper-focused on their bodies, enjoying the process of grooming, dressing up, or applying makeup. Their physicality is essentially their primary focus; they dwell on it and invest heavily in it. I remember having a conversation once with a young woman where we drifted into a debate about God and the afterlife, and she insisted that her body absolutely had to survive death, because without that specific vessel, she wouldn't truly be herself.

On the other hand, you have people who couldn't care less about their physical selves. To them, the body is merely a sort of biological machine housing their consciousness. They are much more preoccupied with thoughts of the world around them and could easily imagine themselves inhabiting any body at all—they might even find the idea of uploading their mind into a computer quite appealing. They handle basic hygiene, dress in a way that fits social norms, see a doctor when they get sick, and that’s really the extent of it.

I'm feeling a bit drained right now, so my thoughts are somewhat scattered; I hope you can follow my train of thought.

Ultimately, people aren't monolithic, and that extends to how they perceive their own physical existence.

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose I struggle to grasp the logic behind the idea that a woman inhabiting a male body could be considered identical to a woman inhabiting a female body.🤷
How far would society actually go in practice when it comes to accepting a trans woman as a woman?
To me, it all seems quite clear if I just sit back and let my mind wander for a moment without overthinking it too much.
It really isn't the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't pretend that it is.

That really depends on whether you define yourself by your mind or by your body.

Drew Parker2 said:Feminism has always just sort of ridden the wave of whatever philosophical trend happens to be in vogue. Every time the zeitgeist shifts, the narrative gets retold. First it was existentialism, then Marxism, then psychoanalysis, then all that ethnic-mythological stuff about the Great Goddess, and so on. Now, I guess, we’ve reached this latest attempt at a sort of syncretism—a messy patchwork of discourse theory, performative speech acts, psychoanalysis, and social constructivism. It’s a bit of a second-rate Frankenstein’s monster, but somehow its radicalism managed to colonize the humanities departments. Judith Butler became the pop star of feminist philosophy; her *Gender Trouble* essentially became the "communist manifesto" of feminism—something nobody actually read, but which became a massive political project through various NGO channels. The whole "radical" idea was that the "woman problem" should be solved by essentially abolishing the woman, dematerializing the body into raw material for discourse. In this view, a woman is just a construct of power structures she needs to escape. Genders are supposed to be irritated until they’re unrecognizable, which is why they’ve grabbed gender dysphoria and waved it around like a flag. Svenja flaßpöhler, the editor-in-chief of the popular German magazine *Philosophy Magazine*, claims that she and her entire generation of female students were so hypnotized by Butler's *Gender Trouble* that she personally tried to enter lesbian relationships despite having zero lesbian inclinations, simply because she didn't want to submit to "heteronormative" pressure. It failed immediately, of course, because biology is apparently stronger than an ideological construct. Postmodern feminists like Butler argue that nothing about a person is inherently gendered—they even claim genitals are just "gendered." I’d argue the exact opposite: that genitals unconsciously gender the entire person. A human being is physiologically outlined by their sexual anatomy: on one side, you have a tense, directed fullness; on the other, a gaping but productive void. You have epithelium exposed here, something hidden in moisture there; an organ occupying space in one instance, and space occupying an organ in the other; one part is external, protruding, and aiming outward, while the other is internal. When blood flows to these organs, the penis achieves a certain "combat readiness"—it becomes firm, unyielding, and ready to penetrate. When blood flows to the vagina, it gains the opposite quality: a softness that absorbs the collateral damage of penetration. It serves as the receiver, opening up and becoming yielding, providing what one might call "petals" to invite a pollinator. This polar anatomy creates a polarity in the sexual act characterized by a lack of reciprocity. The participants don't fit together like puzzle pieces; rather, one simply enters the other. The male penis occupies someone else's space. It enters a foreign home without even taking off its boots, while the vagina prepares for the intrusion with secretions and elasticity. But Mr. Penis isn't satisfied with just occupying space; he finishes with a shot deep inside the woman. And quite a shot it is. If conception occurs, it completely disrupts the woman’s life, while the man elegantly exits the reproductive process. For him, the moment of sowing his contribution is the finish line, allowing him to withdraw and return to other activities. The woman is left in this extraordinary biological mode where she transforms almost like a werewolf to sustain new life. Her small, pear-shaped uterine muscle stretches to a hundred times its size without bursting; her pelvis shifts and expands, creaking like an old ship. The entire body swells with water and oils, blood thins, the milk factory starts production, and the endocrine and immune systems undergo a total overhaul. Even the psyche isn't spared; the production of hormones like oxytocin puts her into a trance-like state of total care for the fetus. One could say that a woman, during and after pregnancy—and even before—is biologically tuned toward the fetus through her hormonal cycles, the way she carries and nourishes the child, and the subsequent production of hormones and food.
Just as a woman is biologically left alone with her offspring, she is also sociologically isolated when it comes to organizing life—following that old, essentialist formula where the man is out in the world and the woman stays inside. This whole sense of female elasticity—whether we’re talking about intercourse or pregnancy—seems to be a defining characteristic. A woman's readiness (to surrender, to make herself available) isn't just seen in the submissive role during sex when her physical space is occupied, or during pregnancy when another life takes over her body; it's even present in her egg, which waits patiently in isolation for its sperm "Olympic champion" to travel that 400 mm track and fuse with it. You could argue that biology suggests women are inherently designed to provide space for others, while male biology points toward a sort of fascist with an imperial mission—someone who occupies external spaces and handles the rougher edges of existence. As a member of a pack, a male has to "penetrate" the territories of other packs to fight for resources, and as an individual, he has to "penetrate" members of his own group to access quality sexual resources and impress females with his victories. That way, the female gets the most dominant, most penetrating specimen—quality genes that promise the survival of her own lineage. The male is clearly a creature of will, and that will only finds purpose when it is "erect"—when it penetrates by overcoming resistance, whether internal or external. Abstractly speaking, these are always forces of will colliding; one side "hardens" or "protrudes" to triumph, while the other gives way—either by surrendering, essentially "signing the surrender papers" and becoming soft and yielding, or by retreating and ceding space to the aggressor. Historically, this has been true of humans in all their cultural expressions, even when raw biology was heavily masked by layers of culture, albeit in a more sublime way. Even in warfare, it isn't just about occupying a woman's space, but a man's too. For him, terms like being "exposed," "fucked," or "screwed" aren't just random vulgarities; they are linguistic truths born from intuitive analogy. The characterology of our anatomy is obvious in our language: it’s no coincidence we call people "rigid" when they won't bend, or "penetrating" when they are ready for collision; or "soft" when they let someone else's will manifest at their own expense. We call a man with a soft, defensive nature a "pussy," or "limp-dick." Conversely, we call someone with an offensive guard "cocky," or say they are trying to act like a "tough guy." The same aggressive drive exists sublimely in the act of seduction; a primal, healthy woman values persistence and penetrance (alongside some baseline attractiveness). This is the "erection"—the persistence that "opens" her up, causing her to become softer and more receptive, or to put it bluntly, to "wet" herself for the man's erect posture. Many decent men complain that those highly penetrative types have better luck with girls. Well, it’s probably your fault if you're "limp." A woman is arguably a better human being than a man; she is affirmative toward the other through care, social connection, and empathy, and she doesn't struggle with self-sacrifice—which is really just looking at oneself from the outside. While he wants to leave his mark out there, she wants the mark made within.
The man is a high-risk gambler; the woman is a safe investor. Men are inspired, or perhaps "erected," by situations that test their resolve, where huge sums are put on the line. Stock markets are basically men's clubs, especially where people use margin and leverage. Women, on the contrary, tend to experience indecision proportional to the size of the potential loss or the amount of skin in the game, particularly in situations requiring decisive action or responsibility. Take traffic, for example. Out of ten people signing up for driving courses intended to overcome driving trauma or to help those who can't bring themselves to hit the road after passing their test, nine of them are women.

I’m sorry, but this just doesn't align with how life actually works.

As a woman running my own business, I keep my surplus capital in mutual funds. Most of the men I know—neighbors, friends, etc.—aren't entrepreneurs, and if they have any savings at all, it's sitting in a standard bank account; most of them are actually overdrawn on their checking accounts. The entrepreneurs I work with typically *invest* their extra cash into a nice car or perhaps some real estate. In my view, real estate is the ultimate safe bet. Honestly, most of them haven't even heard of something like a 401(k), which is also a very secure way to invest.

It's not as if I was born uniquely brilliant, superior, or braver than everyone else... nor did I set out with some innate "entrepreneurial spirit." Life circumstances pushed me toward entrepreneurship and shaped me into who I am today. This isn't about my "female nature"; rather, it's about how I formed myself within the context of my society.

The men and women in my circle were shaped differently because their family backgrounds and social opportunities were different.