Posts by Drew Lee7

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Moral and marriage were viewed by Left-wing Homosexuality theorists as weights dragging down a petty-bourgeois and capitalist society; therefore, they believed both should be dismantled and destroyed just like capitalism itself...

Depends on how you look at it. ☕

briskpuma23 said:I think there’s something to this. It's obvious that today's social-democratic parties are desperate to brand themselves as champions of minority groups. Since they’ve long since abandoned their base—the working and middle classes—advocating for minorities is nothing more than a substitute activity.
Besides, history teaches us that enjoying sex, and even philosophizing about it, was originally a luxury reserved for the upper class.

So, sex has always been a class issue, and now it's one of the few topics where social democrats can fake having a social conscience.

Uh, uh, uh... you're getting your wires crossed here. 😁

Your conclusion that "today's social-democratic parties are desperate to brand themselves as champions of minority groups" is spot on, but your premises are totally wrong.

First off, most modern social-democratic parties are social-democratic in name only; in both theory and practice, they're mostly just liberal.

And second, it’s true that parts of modern socialist movements have internalized certain liberal ideas regarding gender and sexuality.

But none of that means socialism and liberalism aren't as different as night and day.

One more thing—claiming that sex is strictly an upper-class privilege is something you only say if you know absolutely nothing about ethnology. 😉

lonetrucker4 said:Look, driftingjackal5, it doesn't matter what my take is. What matters is grasping how "freedom" is actually being defined here—it’s a different beast than what most thinkers argue. Plus, you gotta look at the fallout. You can push libertarianism all you want without falling into that Ayn Rand trap where she claims even basic compassion is immoral. That whole "objectivism" thing is its own kind of nightmare.

Look, it’s not like this is some revolutionary new concept I’m just trashing out of spite. Every single capitalist state from around 1870 through the post-WWII era hit a wall where they had to roll out social programs because there was no other way. They basically expanded that whole "minimal state" liberal idea because they had to. It's not a theory; it's just what happened—an *a posteriori* reality.

Before the government took over the whole education scene, hardly anyone actually went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were trash—maybe 1% of people could read, maybe 10% if you were in some high-end area. The little bit of schooling that did exist was tied to the Church, which definitely wasn't exactly a libertarian institution.

I already dropped some basic critiques, like how people insist that everyone’s wealth is strictly just the result of their own hard work. That's obviously BS. In capitalism, if you control the capital, you hire people and bank on their labor—that's literally the whole point. It'd be pretty hilarious to see a libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that logic, just to stop some kid from starting life as a millionaire off their parents' grind.

Wait, what? And then what happens to the property? Are we supposed to just ritually burn it all once someone kicks the bucket? 😂

Come on, libertarians, let’s hear your brilliant plan. 🍿

Charles Campbell7 said:If someone were to rob a convenience store and then go around handing out the cash to those in need, would you call that person a thief, or would you call them a devout Catholic? I suppose it really depends on how one defines the morality of the act versus the intention behind it. ☕

People seem to love this idealistic notion that the government will just swoop in, snatch everything from the wealthy, and hand it out to the poor. Honestly, though? I don’t see a single real-world example where that actually happens. It sounds nice in theory, I guess, but in practice, it's just not how things work.

That depends entirely on who owns the store. 🤷

Nicholas Williams7 said:Look, this thread is actually constructive. It’s a decent spot for people to hash things out and trade perspectives, so I honestly don't see any legitimate reason why it should have been locked up in the first place!

I mean, just look at who’s even left among the long-time users on LJS: Apophis, @Phiber, Miki1988, and div, who basically just pop in to drop their mindless comments.

Every single one of the "controversial" regulars was kicked out ages ago, or they just lost the will to deal with this subforum entirely.

Instead of actually penalizing Sea Princes for being a total troll, I’m the one getting hit with penalty points just for reporting her.

And of course, the moderator in charge is Apophis.

So, this user is playing dumb, acting like she didn't clearly write what she wrote.

Her little argument is basically:

It's perfectly fine to comment on this lady. What isn't okay is continuing to bother her with rude comments after she's already asked to be "left alone."

But look at the actual text:

when a middle-aged man approaches me and stares and/or makes a comment.

When we're talking about harassment, she's implying that just staring counts as harassment. The sentence says "stares and/or makes a comment." That means the comment is optional.

But instead of holding her accountable for trolling, they punish me for calling her out.

I have never seen such absolute nonsense in my life.

Sarah Sanders34 said:And who’s going to protect us women on this forum? It’s honestly super uncomfortable reading your constant rants where you basically imply we should just spread our legs, clean up, cook, and shut up. :/

I mean, we can protect ourselves in this day and age, but seriously, you’re humiliating us. Systematically.

Where exactly did I humiliate you, Alex? Just because I said I’d rather be with a "dumb" woman than a "smart" one, or because I prefer this over that, or because I think X instead of Y...

...what does any of that have to do with you? How on earth am I you insulting?

If my opinions offend you, that’s really not my problem. Your views offend me too, mostly because I find them an insult to common sense.

Nicholas King said:Who knows which time this is: this is a private forum. Dragging in stuff about personal freedoms or constitutional rights is just a totally failed argument. This isn't a place where what’s allowed or banned is decided by "personal liberties."

I'll use your own example: it’s not about someone wanting to ban Pride parades or anything— it's about how you, through your posts, are figuratively insisting on organizing a Pride parade inside a church. (Anyone who takes that as a literal comparison—or maybe even thinks Lumber 🤦 is a church—should probably swallow their keyboard before replying and donate their computer to a local charity instead).

I often compare this forum to a local neighborhood diner: you keep barging into a diner where Mike is venting about someone messing up her hair, people are ordering rounds of shots because they're feeling deep, and you just burst in, climb onto a table, start blasting the latest ladybug's gift hit—and then complain when the customers and staff get annoyed. Let's be clear, I'm not just talking about you: there are plenty of "diners" on this forum that I personally wouldn't even bother stopping at, mainly because the music is trash or the waiters keep messing up my order and serving me lukewarm coffee.

Yeah, the managers have the right to say, "we don't play that kind of music in our diner." Sure, that might grind some people's gears—but all you can really do is fill out the complaint book and wait for a resolution. Expecting the entire diner to be remodeled just to suit your "personal freedoms" is—well, it's ridiculous. It's just as ridiculous to act like this is some "suppression of differing opinions"—there are sparks flying over wildly different views on this forum every single day. But there is a line where people just don't want to listen or talk anymore, regardless of what you, me, or anyone else thinks.

Honestly, why is it so hard to grasp these basic truths?

You haven't understood a single thing I was talking about.

So, if someone keeps insisting I didn't make an argument when I actually did...

If someone keeps claiming I haven't provided any proof (arguments) when I have...

...and then uses that to conclude I'm trolling—that's a flawed conclusion. Basically, you're spitting on your own rules.

By your logic, that would be like walking into a church, leaving a donation every single time, and having the priest call you out for not leaving a donation.

Once again, I'm calling on the moderators to protect me from insults, belittling, discredit attempts, and constant humiliation, and to sanction anyone on this forum who is intentionally lying.

Thanks!

urbantrucker5 said:Look, we have rights. But we don't have the right to insult others, which is exactly what you've been doing across several different discussions and threads. You haven't backed up a single one of your generalizations with actual evidence, which just means you're completely dodging the point of the conversation.

You started this thread supposedly to share preferences, and then immediately tried to trash everyone else's views without making a single real point. One of your big claims was "Clearly, men are just too scared to say what they actually think."


Prove it.

Until you can, you don't have an argument, and you certainly can't use that line as one.

1. I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating my position. If people feel offended by that, honestly, that sounds like a "them" problem, not mine.

2. I have provided plenty of arguments—and if you claim otherwise, you're either lying or you simply don't understand what an argument actually is, much like dustyranger64 over there. I'm asking the moderators to penalize any user who spreads falsehoods, whether they're doing it maliciously or just because they're ignorant. Ignorance isn't an excuse. Thanks!

I'll repeat what I already sent you in a private message: do you even know the difference between an opinion, a stance, an impression, a viewpoint, an argument (proof), the act of arguing (proving), or the distinction between arguing a thesis versus proving a thesis? Etc., etc...

...based on everything you've said, you clearly don't, and unfortunately, neither does someone else here. Then, you went and complained to the moderator, claiming I was provoking you. And because of that, I ended up getting penalty points from our dear rustydrifter10. So, hey, rustydrifter10, care to explain why?

Let's be clear: saying "men are obviously too scared to say what they think" isn't an argument. I wasn't using it to prove a specific thesis; it was just an observation paired with a comment. Fine, I'll admit it—I was wrong. Men aren't scared; they're just fed up. I've had a flood of messages in my inbox from people who are just exhausted with the state of things here at Lumber. People are done. And you know why? Because the second someone disagrees with you guys, you jump down their throat, insult them, and eventually try to get them kicked off the site. Is that a threat being made toward me?

urbantrucker5 said:I agree. On top of that, almost every single post is just trolling. He manages to butcher every topic until it's completely dead. Plus, he insults users and mods whenever they ask him to provide proof for his insane claims.

For constantly pushing lies like this, I think you deserve at least a three-month suspension. Which "thesis" didn't I provide an argument for? If it was just a stance, why would I need to argue it? For example, saying "I prefer blondes" or "I like cottages" or "I like dumb women" is a stance, honey, get that straight. Stances *can* be argued, but they don't *have* to be. That's literally why they're called stances.

Kate Foster12 said:Discrimination isn't the same thing as violence. Your views are just straight-up offensive and demeaning toward women.

There was recently an interview in the papers with Adalbert Rebić where he claimed that Pride parades are offensive and annoying to Christians, yet on the flip side, he said Mass doesn't bother anyone. He’s wrong. There are definitely people who find Mass irritating, but he was right about one thing: Pride parades annoy Christians. You know what your solution to that problem is? Ban both the parades and the Mass. What’s next on your agenda?

Sarah Sanders34 said:It’s the same law that protects against, say, claiming certain races are inferior or that being gay is a disease.

And yeah, you are inciting violence, because I—along with plenty of other women on this thread—feel harassed because you openly claim we exist to, and I quote, "spread our legs," cook, and shut up.

That might be your personal preference, but don't go presenting it as a fact.

And you've done this in several different threads just this month.

For someone who prides themselves so much on logic, you're really acting like you're on my level.

Look, all three major Abrahamic religions claim homosexuality is a sickness. I haven't noticed anyone going to jail or filing a lawsuit against any priest, rabbi, or imam for saying something like that. So those laws don't exist—the only people who aren't allowed to say it are psychiatrists, because homosexuality was removed from the DSM.

P.S. Those are facts; I didn't express my personal opinion on it here.

dustyranger64 said:Nice try.
You've been warned multiple times that you can have your opinions and nobody is stopping you, but you can't present them as absolute, universal truths. Which is exactly what you keep doing.

It seems like your sense of boundaries is some weird, semi-permeable membrane where reporting harassment is somehow out of bounds, but sending a private message telling someone to get lost is perfectly fine.

You're lying and twisting things again, using the same tactics as the worst Stalinist regimes—where exactly did I represent anything as an absolute truth???

Secondly, it was a private message—and yeah, it's totally normal for adults to run to the moderators and complain about every little spat: "Oh, look what he said to me!" Boo-hoo...

Sarah Sanders34 said:There is also a limit to how much people can aggressively push discriminatory material on a public platform (like a forum).

What exactly is your game here? You were recently banned—rightfully so—because you posted on Lumber saying we need to rebuild society and restrict women's personal freedoms.

Now you’re back, just continuing to push the exact same agenda with topics designed to plant those same ideas. That's all you ever write about.

And then you expect empathy and support? From who? What's the end goal here?

Oh, I see. So my freedom to speak is less important than yours? To quote Nicholas King: "...there is no right to public expression for every single opinion." Why are my personal liberties worth less than yours?

So it's perfectly fine to limit my freedom, but I'm not allowed to even question or think out loud whether people should be guided through education and morality to primarily limit certain personal freedoms? I didn't even mention laws once.

Ashley Taylor45 said:I think his goal is to get humanity back on the right track—arranged marriages (wow, Drew Lee7, that guy is a real model of rationality 😂, unlike women who actually choose for themselves), keeping women in the kitchen, banning education, stuff like that.

Unfortunately, in my profession, I run into these twisted views where women are treated as inferior beings, less valuable than men. And it comes from educated men. But hey, at least he isn't as blunt as this guy. I appreciate honesty when it's well-intentioned, but this guy is anything but.

Give me a break, dustyranger64 is a decent moderator, and all the mods on Lumber are incredibly tolerant.

I'm asking the admins to protect the women here from future Greenlander's rants on this forum. For good.

I don't think women are inferior beings or worth less than men, but it seems to me that they are less rational. Now, whether that's inherent to the female nature or just a result of social circumstances, I haven't quite figured that out yet. It seems to me that men are also starting to act less and less rational.

Kate Ward16 said:I'm just adding a +1, based on what's in the PDF and the reasons already mentioned here ->

What reasons? Can you please list them? Look, I've answered everything here, and now I expect you to protect me from these attacks, insults, and slander.

I want all the penalty points given out of pure malice to be wiped, and I want the moderator dustyranger64 to be warned against punishing people just because he doesn't like their opinions.

Thanks!

Kate Foster12 said:Discrimination isn't the same thing as violence. Your views are just insulting and demeaning toward women.

Look, "offensive" and "demeaning" are totally subjective. For some folks, seeing a Pride parade on the street is offensive; for other people, Christian theology is offensive. So what?

The most offensive thing to me is watching common sense get absolutely railroaded by stupidity.

And who am I supposed to file a formal complaint with—the Almighty?

dustyranger64 said:Basically, just like I said in your DMs:

You’ve claimed several times that you’ve proven your theories when you haven't. You were asked to provide evidence, and you didn't. It's just trolling.
We've given you page after page to explain your position, even though you keep falling into misogynistic rants and stuff like that. We gave you the floor so you could voice your opinion, whatever it may be.
And it kept going until, despite the warnings, you started wrecking entire threads—not just one, but multiple—by using your trolling "relativism" (which is nothing like actual arguing or proving a point) to dismiss everything that isn't part of your absolute truths, which you haven't proven once.
This time you got a warning card. Next time, it’s an outright ban. If you keep this up, a partial ban is coming fast right after.

The moderators and site admins will take it from here.

You're lying!!!

I stated exactly what I believed I had proven. Then you come crashing in like a bandit through the door, shouting, "No, you didn't prove it!" and throwing out an argument that I can easily shut down.

I provided arguments for every single thesis I presented, or I made it perfectly clear that it was just my opinion or a general impression.

On top of all that, I’ve been attacked, insulted, and spat on, and I haven't reported anyone even once because honestly, that's beneath me.

Nicholas King said:No.

Look, on a forum—just like anywhere else in the media—there isn’t some magical right to broadcast every single opinion.

Regarding this whole topic, the mere fact that a thread based on the idea that "women are just there for sex and to keep things tidy" even exists is proof of how incredibly lenient the admins are being. Besides, claiming there's personal bias on one specific thread is honestly just a joke.

Take this statement: "I think a woman should only exist to provide sex and keep a house clean; if I said that myself, which law am I breaking???"

Discrimination? No. It’s not discrimination because it’s an individual viewpoint regarding private relationships, provided there’s no violence involved or calls for violence.

Get a grip.

Michelle Phillips54 said:Moderators use warnings to keep the discussion on track. If you aren't backing up your claims with actual arguments, they have every right to call you out on it.
If you actually have a specific grievance, please back it up with some links.

Smith is in charge of Lumber.

Let’s get straight to the point—can someone who lacks basic logic even be a moderator?

Whoever said that just spewed pure nonsense, proving they don't even grasp what an "argument" is. An argument doesn't always have to be an bulletproof fact, but arguing means presenting evidence—whether that evidence holds water or not (which is why we even have the concept of fallacies). But you can't just lazily claim something is wrong without providing proof. To hand out a warning just because I don't fit their narrow definition shows either a total lack of logical understanding or pure malice. Either way, they shouldn't be moderating.

Go ahead, take his statement over to the philosophy subforum and see if I'm right.

And don't even get me started on how he's just enabling a string of intentional distortions and lies just because he shares the same views as those users.

Pathetic!

Yeah, I guess I’m an idiot too. Go ahead and roast me over a bonfire if it makes you feel better. ☕

Michelle Phillips54 said:Where exactly is this supposed "Apple's intolerance" toward you coming from? You don't have a single strike against you from him.

So, what, are you some kind of super-moderator now?

Seriously, his intolerance is getting out of hand. It feels like in every single thread, he’s low-key waving cardboard signs and throwing around all sorts of threats at me.

It’s just too much. Too much.

I get that my takes get under his skin, but seriously... do we actually have the right to express our own opinions here?

Look, I’m asking for some protection here from the blatant personal bias and total subjectivity shown by the Lumber admin, dustyranger64, regarding the whole Cottage and intellectualism debate.

Thanks!

Lisa Hernandez3 said:A few general thoughts (for Drew Lee7):
- Distinguishing between sex and gender is primarily—if we are treating it as a theory or a construct—a sociological matter (anthropological, cultural, etc.); its main goal is to explain the mechanics of socialization, identity formation, and social biases.
- If there’s any doubt about whether this theoretical approach—interpreting reality through a tangible, defined concept—actually makes sense, one might just look at other constructs, like national identity, for instance. We tend to feel those identities are real and exist independently of us, even though they aren't strictly tied to being born into a specific ethnic group; it’s also worth remembering that the very basis for interpreting society stems from these types of identificationsof distinct (independent of the individual) realities, which is an idea found in the recognition of social facts dating all the way back to Emile Durkheim.
- Transsexuality and transvestism might fall under the category of gender identity disorders in a clinical sense, simply because there is a logical discrepancy between one's assigned status and their lived experience that needs to be acknowledged and addressed; however, that doesn't mean it makes sense—or is necessary—to label such people as disordered, let alone ill.

A few quick thoughts (Lisa Hernandez3):

You are being incredibly hypocritical. The insults thrown between me and Brandon Wright54 went both ways. All I did was state that, for me, the whole concept of gender theory is just plain nonsense (and I even made sure to clarify that it isn't just nonsense, because I was pointing out specific things about what the theory claims) while actually providing arguments, which is something most people here fail to do. From the get-go, Brandon Wright54 acted all high and mighty, talking down to me like I’m some idiot who needs a lecture because I don't know jack. She talks big about "gender theory" this and "gender theory" that, acting as if I simply don't grasp the concept. Her attitude toward everyone else in the thread has been condescending from the start—as if she’s the sole authority and anyone who doesn't think exactly like her is clueless. My point was that even if she knows a lot about gender theory, the theory itself is fundamentally flawed. I offer arguments, and she just retreats into theoretical constructs because she thinks I don't "get" it. 🙄 Her entire approach was basically gaslighting; it was insulting because she didn't even try to engage with my actual points. Instead, her move was to claim I was wrong simply because I don't subscribe to her definitions, while she remains "right" because she understands them. In other words, I was refuting her views, not attacking her as a person, until she started (indirectly) insulting me.

And you? You acted like I was some delinquent who needed to be punished first and then lectured on how the world works. Well, guess what, sweetheart? Based on the very tenets of gender theory you love so much, you were just acting like an internalized patriarchal male, resorting to the classic "stick and cane" method of dominance.

The core issue of this entire debate is that there are people who believe a person can be split into sex and gender, and those who believe that's impossible (and as you can see, I'm not alone in that, so your lecturing is pure narcissism). Basically, sex is sex, regardless of how someone perceives their own gender identity. To put it plainly, male is male and female is female; how they choose to perform their roles or how society sees them is a different conversation entirely. As for the whole debate over "pseudo" versus "real" intersex conditions? That's a non-issue. Either someone is biologically capable of reproduction or they aren't. If they aren't, it's a mutation that results in sterility.

From what I can tell, the whole concept of "common sense" isn't exactly a universal truth that everyone just accepts without question.

For most people, the term doesn't even make sense. And honestly? That’s actually logical. It only seems to click for people who are struggling with their own gender identity—either they're in the middle of an identity crisis, or they're capable of grasping abstract theoretical frameworks. Even then, you'll see them split into two camps: those who have just internalized their own issues, and those who view gender in this context as nothing more than theoretical nonsense.

What's funny is how the people who reject this idea are immediately branded as either uneducated or primitive. Oh, sure! Why wouldn't they be? We're just primitives. Hahahaha...

Hahahahahahahah...

Sorry if I'm laughing, but seriously, Brandon Wright54,

I haven't seen this much pure insanity or this many half-baked ideas in a long time. 🤣

It’s honestly no wonder you can’t make sense of anything when you’re being haunted by these... let's call them "unique"... thoughts... from these... weird little... creatures...

When a bull mates with a cow, isn't he actually just part bull and part cow? And the cow isn't fully a cow anymore either, since she's now part bull. Or maybe that bull is secretly part horse, and the cow is part mare? Who knows...

Hahahahahahahah...

Look, as far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and believe in little green men for all I care. 😂

Hannah White2 said:Does gender identity even exist in the animal kingdom? 😕

Of course it is. Someone just bring out a pig that identifies as a sheep and let's see which idiot starts having an identity crisis. 😂😂 😂

Of course you can't be bothered to actually engage when you haven't even addressed a single point I've made. It’s pretty obvious you just don't have an real argument.

What part of my statements is tripping you up? I clearly stated that both transvestism and transsexuality remain listed as mental disorders in the International Classification of Diseases to this day. Plus, plenty of other "pointless" paraphilias are still grouped under sexual preference disorders—homosexuality is the only one that was removed. Those are just facts.

That said, I'm not saying homosexuals or transvestites need to be "cured." It’s obvious that transvestites deal with gender identity issues, regardless of how politically incorrect it is to say that nowadays. On the other hand, transsexual people often seek treatment themselves—meaning surgical "changes" to their biological sex. So, for them, their condition is a clear-cut disorder they want to fix. But the question remains: is that method actually effective, and does it even count as a cure?

You just don't get that the concept of "gender" was basically invented to negate reality: the fact that some people struggle with their natural sexual role (how they relate to the opposite sex) or their gender identity (transvestism, transsexuality). I see why you're confused by me saying gender *is* gender identity; I guess I should clarify: in gender theory, it's often actually a disordered gender identity. That’s why they needed to create a distinction between gender and sex—so they could justify a disordered gender identity. If everything is so perfect and wonderful, then tell me this: why do so many homosexuals want to be parents? Why don't they want to sleep with the opposite sex (since they lack that desire), which is the basic biological prerequisite for becoming a mother or father? And you're telling me that isn't a disorder? So what are they doing then? They're chasing "rights" that don't naturally belong to them based on their own nature: namely, parental rights. Who's stopping them from being parents if not themselves?

And now, I’ll probably confuse the hell out of you again by completely leaving bisexuals out of this whole equation.

Brandon Wright54 said:Your "facts" have already been picked apart by others; I’m not wasting my breath repeating them. The reality is you’ve just rattled off a bunch of nonsense you think is valid, purely because you disagree with gender studies. You’re contradicting yourself constantly, and when we call out the lack of logic, you just lash out and call us parrots or nerds.😂 Look, plenty of people disagree with you. So, let me ask: do you actually have a real argument, or is this just going to be more elementary insults and a total misunderstanding of the subject matter?

Hahaha, this is just too much😂. Oh, I'm sure you've had plenty of little arguments. I'm far too grown up to be bickering over my role in those circles—that's playground stuff. Word of advice: stop embarrassing yourself. It's clear you have no idea how you're coming across on this forum.

Just because you, the "Great Expert," refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't recognized. You're free to hold whatever isolated beliefs you want in your own head, but if you're going to jump into a debate, try bringing actual substance to the table instead of making claims that blame women for being frustrated because they won't accept forced social roles.😂😂

So, you’re out here pushing a Sigmund Freud quote—only to turn around and preemptively deny that any of his theories actually hold water. Real smooth.😂This is honestly way too good.

Look, regarding Sigmund Freud—I’ve never been a fan of his take on female sexuality myself—but that specific idea I brought up, where gender identity isn't some biological destiny but rather an undefined subject position formed once a person enters society and the world of symbols... that’s pure psychoanalytic theory. It just got repurposed for gender identity later on. If you’re out here hunting for a specific quote to back up a concept like that, it honestly suggests you don't grasp the fundamentals of what you're trying to argue about. Ever heard of the Oedipus complex? No? How about identifying with a parent through the choice of a love interest? Or even Lacan’s updates to those ideas? It’s a bit much to demand a "gotcha" quote when you clearly haven't even brushed up on the basic theories. 😁 If you’re actually looking for answers, go pick up Sigmund Freud’s "On Female Sexuality"—look for that 1991 edition out of a US university press—specifically pages 23 through 39. That's where the real info is.

I’m not claiming that it is—I haven't said that once in this entire thread—so that's your own conclusion right there. What I am saying is that you can't just brush off the existence of gender categories that easily, especially not using the kind of logic you're trying to pull here...

What kind of agreement are we even talking about here? You’re out here trying to convince everyone that gender categories don't exist—or rather, you just refuse to acknowledge the concept and scream about some "difference" that you somehow equate with gender. I definitely don't buy that, so how exactly are we supposed to be in agreement? It's pure illogic...

Look, you argued that language isn't just some lump of clay we mold however we want. But sometimes you don't need to say something explicitly for the intent to be obvious. You did exactly that with your choice of words. "Has its own rules"? For someone throwing around accusations that I don't understand linguistics, that's a pretty weak (anti)argument on your part. Language is a system, and the social order reproduces itself through speech. Rules evolve—otherwise, we'd all still be using the same linguistic patterns from 200 years ago, perpetuating outdated notions of masculinity or femininity. We are all speaking subjects who gain our subjectivity by entering into a linguistic system. It becomes a massive problem when such a fundamental social code starts reproducing stereotypes—or are you denying their existence too?—and begins framing certain perspectives as absolute truths.

As far as I can remember, you haven't actually said anything about Butler.☕

1. Glad you finally admit you have no idea what's going on.

2. Oh, I definitely have one. Like a clown or a forum nutcase. Whatever. Just don't forget that a king's jester's "madness" was often nothing more than a mirror held up to the king's own stupidity.

3. It's just like how your belief in something doesn't make it true. Believing in something isn't proof of anything.

4. And what now, am I supposed to run to the library? 🙄 Why don't you just write out the quote you think supports the idea of introducing "gender" as a distinction from "sex"? Let's see if that conclusion can even be drawn from the quote, and only then will I tell you if I agree.

5. "You claim!" Hahahaha... To most people, this is theoretically incomprehensible, let alone something that could be proven or disproven. This isn't the result of a scientific experiment that can be verified in practice. It's a theoretical construct that you can choose to accept or not. I don't accept it. In fact, I think it's incredibly stupid and just pure self-delusion by the group of people who pushed it.

6. Once again, you're missing the point. I disagree with gender theory, not with its terminology. Those terms exist and serve a purpose within that theory. I'm not denying the terms; I'm criticizing the theory itself. But to get that, you actually need to know something about scientific methodology, logic, and argumentation.

7. Linguistic rules are inherent to language. But try explaining that to someone who knows nothing about them. What you're writing has nothing to do with that fact. Honestly, that's just how your "arguments" always work. You simply shift the goalposts and start proving something else entirely. You do it all the time.

8. Why would I? 🤷

vividorca9 said:Look, Drew Lee7, you can't just jump into a debate with people who have already settled on a specific set of terms and expect to win by simply trying to steamroll them with your own vocabulary—especially when, BTW, you haven't even bothered to explain how your terminology actually works.

What kind of argument is that, really?

I've gone over this plenty of times already.

The whole concept of gender was cooked up just to try and separate social identity from biological reality. It’s impossible. It’s fundamentally impossible. You’d have to be blind to even attempt to argue otherwise. And honestly, that is exactly what gender theory does.