/lgbt/ - LGBT

>>7907
Because if gender is an abstract, a set of styles, aesthetics, and attitudes that are subjective enough not to be bound by biology, one has to than admit the oppression therein is baseless. Meaning incels are right, the black pill is right, and it really is all "women"'s fault because what than is a woman besides a self proclaimed status symbol because you're conventionally attractive?

This is why tankies and fascists alike stereotype you as just porn addicted. I'm not saying you personally are, but it forces you to admit this is the case for many.

Or you can just pretend to be outraged because God forbid we cut the nonsense out. Like what would you personally like to see out of more people OP? Here I am, a hetero normative male, and I am acknowledging you as a woman. Are you happy? Would you be happy if i also said you were an attractive woman? How about if a lot of men did so? I can't promise you every man would, but let's assume the majority. What is this actually about for you?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

>>7910
Never took a social science course in your life, I take it?
Your claim that the social construction of (social) facts does not have social consequences falls at the first hurdle in that social facts are exactly only real in their (social) consequence. To put it in another way: women are not women because of any (sub)set of signifiers, but are women because of their treatment based on those signifiers.

If you struggle with this, I recommend re-reading Theses on Feuerbach until lightning strikes.

>>7910
> if gender is an abstract, a set of styles, aesthetics, and attitudes
Engels saw gender and family relations in the context of social relations with regards to capital formation.
>Meaning incels are right
scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist, everytime lmao
>Here I am, a hetero normative male, and I am acknowledging you as a woman
<Women's work is generally unpaid or paid less than "men's work" and is not as highly valued as "men's work"
>What is this actually about for you?
zero historical materialism Christoid thinks his alienated goy cattle love being slaves and merely want his Elliot Rogers class of PMC eugenics farm managers to correctly milk the correct type of feminine commodities or male commodities.

>OP picrel is pointing out the idiocy of so called "progressives" falling for the grift that biology is immutable
>Threads discussion is instead about the influence of social constructs
Both of these are meaningful, but I really fucking wish people would talk more about the first one instead of always arguing for trans rights from the perspective that all the fascist narratives are true.

Twitter poisoning thread

>>7989
Are you manic?

1. Those two greentexts discuss the same topic: exactly the (im)mutability of "biology" (and other spooky concepts).
   
2. There is one (1) person regurgitating fashy narratives and they got two (2) replies, both negative.