554 posts shown.
ruggedraven36 said:It isn't about some phantom phobia. It's about people trying to make life livable without feeling like society has collectively decided to cast them out.
lonegardener said:@Bolaji, we really need to consider that terms like 'transphobia' (along with all those other 'phobias'—homophobia, xenophobia, and my personal favorite, Islamophobia, lol...) are actually misnomers. We aren't talking about a clinical phobia in the medical sense, like arachnophobia or claustrophobia. The term was just coined that way to trigger a specific association, even if the connection isn't actually there. These are essentially 'activist' labels designed to shape perception. George Orwell would be proud of how they use word choice to influence the collective consciousness.
It’s clear this strategy is working on quite a few people in this thread. 😬 I'm looking at everyone who is so terrified of being labeled a 'phobic' of any kind that they preemptively shift their entire ideology just to align with the official progressive dogma.
Sam Martinez9 said: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.
Sam Martinez9 said: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.
lonetrucker4 said:The catch is, you'd probably have to be gay just to agree to marry you. 🐔
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?
Sam Martinez9 said: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.
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.
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.
Sam Martinez9 said: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.
Sam Martinez9 said: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.
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.
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.
Sandra Murphy33 said:That is a incredibly tricky distinction, Volver.
If he hasn't actually seen the person he's talking to, how did he experience them as a woman?
Is it based on their "softness, gentleness, or kindness," etc.—those universal human virtues that, for some reason, are subconsciously tethered to biological females? 🤔
By doubling down on gender ideology, you actually end up reinforcing biological sex even further. I can only hope one of these social experimenters realizes that, or perhaps one of the influential figures backing them might...
It would be far more intelligent and prudent to return to Jungian psychology on this matter—discussing the so-called inner feminine, the Animus, or the inner masculine, the Animus, or perhaps even introducing Yin and Yang concepts that aren't strictly tied to biological sex...
Western politics and the general political direction of the West is profoundly foolish and destructive.
Regarding that, and your experiment reminded me of this, I recalled a time back in the early days of the internet in America, when I met someone in a chat room who I really connected with—even though his nickname was male and my mental image of him was 😎
He was the sensitive, intelligent Yin, and I was the wild Yang (by modern terminology, does that mean he was a woman and I was a man? ... even though neither of us were biologically either 🙂 ).
Then, he got angry with me. He refused to talk to me anymore and would leave whenever I showed up. But to him, I was nothing more than my username (and whatever preconceived notion lived in his head). It turned out all I had to do was change my name to continue talking to this interesting being. First, I switched to another female name, but I didn't find real success until I returned as a male.
Isn't it tragic that in order to reach his soul, I had to "become" a man within a male body...?
There is a film by B. Streisand on this theme, and a novel by Erika Jong, but what I find puzzling is that the women in those stories—who disguise themselves as men for various reasons—still remain in love, as women, with the men who perceive them as men! That is the element that fails for me; it just isn't believable....
The women in those stories where they disguise themselves as men for various reasons still end up staying in love, as women, with the men who see them as men! That part always feels like a major flaw to me; it just doesn't seem believable at all....
swiftmaker12 said:It’s strange how a seven-time world champion—essentially the GOAT—can't manage to overtake an aging legend like Alonso, who is arguably at least 3.5 times less talented than the greatest to ever do it...
who would've thought
keep hoping, I guess
ruggedraven36 said:Yeah. Based on your earlier posts, that was my only logical takeaway. Too bad plenty of people don't catch that.
Quincy:You wrote: "But men generally don't care about a woman's identity even when she actually is a woman." If you meant "generally," then we aren't just talking about the Wolverine experiment. If I misread you, that's on me.
And sure, he cares about someone else's identity—just not within the scope of the Wolverine experiment.
Quincy:No, you've got it wrong. I didn't grasp what you "meant" at all, and I wasn't trying to provoke you.
I think you know exactly what I meant and you're just being provocative. It's insulting.
My bad if it came off as an insult.
My apologies for the insult.
lonetrucker4 said:From what I can gather, this Reddit is pretty much crawling with anti-Možemo activists who seem to troll just about every single thread.
(Just to clear the air here: I don't have any connection to M! whatsoever. Honestly, I checked out of politics way back in 2009, and I’ve actually had my fair share of disagreements with some of those folks in the past.)
wearycyclist57 said:Man, I'm telling you, it's 100% true. Just look at those high-rises downtown. You've got one balcony fully enclosed, another one half-walled off... who on earth would sign off on that kind of inconsistency? Seriously, just look at those buildings. Nobody bothered asking for permission or consensus from anyone else, because if they actually had to follow the rules, it wouldn't look nearly this chaotic.
ruggedraven36 said:Dead wrong. The word "man" has always been synonymous with the species—period. If you’re the type of person who gets tripped up trying to argue whether women are actually people just because the word "man" is being used to describe the whole group, then you're just proving how little sense you make.
ruggedraven36 said:Where’s the double standard? Since when did women stop being people?
Good God, what kind of nonsense are you spewing?
ruggedraven36 said:Debating whether women are people is a question only an idiot would waste time on. Marin obviously wasn't suggesting women aren't human beings. It's the same logic as an Index song like "One Man and One Woman"—it's not implying the woman isn't a person.