So according to rightoids working hard in order to become a billionaire is more doable than becoming a woman.
Actually lol'd
one has a 0.00000000001% chance of happening while the other one is physically impossible with current technology
There's an anime where one of the characters wins a tournament and earns a wish for their empire.
They wish to be a woman.
>>827344A billionaire that buys all the women.
kek
>>827455>With our current technologies, it is possible to alter most of one's sexual characteristics (Epsteinites push the definition that sex = chromosomes/what you are born with – but in reality, it is a combination of sexual characteristics).Do you have that screenshot of that epstein email? The one with the trans stuff about transhumanism and new genders?
>>827459Retarded question. HRT + operations.
>>827459It's not the only thing we can do to people. We can do a lot of cool shit. Have you heard of a donut?
Siiiiiiiiiigh why are leftoids the ones that make more sense in these regards
>>827455how is a belief in sex epstein
but anyways this will be just like the other thread about trans people in sports where anons unironically tried to argue that biological differences in sexes literally dont exist and that men and women should compete in the same categories
>>827663>i'm just huff well i'm just concerned about womens sports is all!go back to /pol/
>>827651Psyop. Sex is changeable, and gender is an ephemeral term to invalidate transhumanists. At least talk about inner sex/gender identity.
>>827655And you call a post where I say that trans women are female "reactionary"? So much for (((allies))).
>>827663You don't believe in it. You believe in Ben Shapiro's nonsense about chromosomes.
>>827663>how is a belief in sex epsteinsex is real, I think the confusion comes from gender vs. sex. some people assert sex and gender are the same thing while others recognize that gender is a cultural construct while sex is biological. for example. biological boys in the "west" used to wear dresses until age 3 in a process called "breaching" that is a gendered practice that is more "traditional" than what we do now but most people are confused upon first learning about it. it has been phased out. pink also used to be considered a masculine color in the "west"
>but anyways this will be just like the other thread about trans people in sports where anons unironically tried to argue that biological differences in sexes literally dont exist and that men and women should compete in the same categoriesI think trans men and trans women should both have their own sports leagues and bathrooms where they can be free from abuse by cis people. we already segregate sports by age (kids never play against adults), ability (special olympics), and sex (men and women have separate leagues) but we should also segregate by gender. The mistake we have made in the "west" is to assume that desegregation is always the solution. That was the solution for race and religion but is not necessarily the solution for sex and gender. Trans are a very small and very vulnerable minority so they need their own spaces.
>but muh safe spaces muh micro aggressionsyes. people deserve to be safe from death by 1000 cuts
In any long drawn out argument it does seem like leftoids win especially morally, because life isn't fair or equal and so it makes them look better if they support leveling out society, but the practicalities of materializing this exactly as they want are next to non-existent
>>827676>Psyop. Sex is changeable, and gender is an ephemeral term to invalidate transhumanists. At least talk about inner sex/gender identity.incorrect. you have it backwards. trans people are trans
gender. changing sex is not possible because we cannot change the chromosomes of every cell or the biological past of what we were born as. with current tech we can only change secondary characteristics on a cosmetic level. what people are really asking for is to identify as whatever gender they feel that they are subjectively. and that is fine. people should be able to do that without humilitation or discrimination.
>>827679> because life isn't fair or equal and so it makes them look better if they support leveling out society,marx actually contradicts this "leveling out" as "crude":
<A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls. An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital. Rapid growth of productive capital calls forth just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and social pleasures. Therefore, although the pleasures of the labourer have increased, the social gratification which they afford has fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the stage of development of society in general. Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature. - Karl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital (1847), Chapter 6
Basically he is saying that being well-off isn't just about what you have, it's also about what everyone else has. If your income goes up but rich people's wealth increases much faster, you may actually feel poorer compared with them. Humans naturally compare themselves with other people, so our idea of what we need depends partly on the society we live in.
<The thoughts of every piece of private property as such are at least turned against richer private property in the form of envy and the desire to level everything down; hence these feelings in fact constitute the essence of competition. The crude communist is merely the culmination of this envy and desire to level down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited measure. How little this abolition of private property is a true appropriation is shown by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilization, and the return to the unnatural simplicity of the poor, unrefined man who has no needs and who has not yet even reached the stage of private property, let alone gone beyond it. (For crude communism) the community is simply a community of labor and equality of wages, which are paid out by the communal capital, the community as universal capitalist. Both sides of the relation are raised to an unimaginary universality – labor as the condition in which everyone is placed and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community. […] The first positive abolition of private property – crude communism – is therefore only a manifestation of the vileness of private property trying to establish itself as the positive community. […] By reducing the worker's needs to the paltriest minimum necessary to maintain his physical existence and by reducing his activity to the most abstract mechanical movement. In so doing, the political economist declares that man has no other needs, either in the sphere of activity or in that of consumption. For even this life he calls human life and human existence. By taking as his standard – his universal standard, in the sense that it applies to the mass of men – the worst possible state of privation which life (existence) can know. He turns the worker into a being with neither needs nor senses and turn the worker's activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. Hence any luxury that the worker might enjoy is reprehensible, and anything that goes beyond the most abstract need – either in the form of passive enjoyment or active expression – appears to him as a luxury. - Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Third Manuscript, Private Property and Labor (1844)
Marx is pointing out that making everyone equally poor isn't real freedom. If you eliminate private property as an institution of class society, but give everyone only the bare minimum, you've solved inequality by making everyone live with less. Human beings need more than food and shelter, they also need culture, enjoyment, creativity, education, and opportunities to develop themselves.
>>827684your strawman says transsexuality but i never said transsexuality. i said transgender. you seem to be trolling.
>>827684can someone decipher the point this anon is trying to make. they seem to be saying there is no difference between sex and gender and actually it's hecking transphobic to recognize a material basis of biological sex while recognizing gender identity is subjective and cultural.
>>827683Well it's just interesting that, in any domestic policy argument, if drawn out for long enough the leftoids will appear to win
I remember my father arguing with my aunt about Social Security or something of that nature, and he supported getting rid of it while she was opposed to getting rid of it. But if one has to be very honest about this, there would be tons of boomers without a comfortable living if they didn't have this social net of a backup. If you get rid of it you would have to rely on your own accumulated savings and this in itself would be hazardous because you don't know when anything gravely wrong is going to happen in the future. And so, such a social net would be a sort of insurance to make sure you're not "left in the dark" by society.
>>827687"Biological sex" is already ideology
It's kinda like the Copenhagen interpretation
You gain the so called "matetial" "biological" sex when a doctor looks at your genitals and writes it down
>>827688to me i think the "long arc of history" (if there even is one) is trading positive freedom for negative freedom. positive freedom is the freedom to do what you want, even if it has negative consequences for yourself and others. negative freedom is the freedom from inheriting unfavorable circumstances and having bad things happen to you. those are mutually exclusive types of freedom. the founding fathers in the USA cared more about positive freedom and they called negative freedom "security" and extolled everyone to never trade freedom for "security." this is why trad guys see socialism as dangerous because they see it as trading freedom for "security" but really the progressive see that we are trading the "freedom" to exploit others and be a tyrannical asshole) for the freedom from being exploited and from having to deal with tyrannical assholes.
So freedom is fundamentally paradoxical and I am always suspicious of any conversation that does not specify what kind of so called freedom is being discussed
maybe the ancients were right and we just have a cycle of oscillation between oligarchy, tyranny, democracy, and only the mode of production and level of technological development creates the illusion of "progress" over this more cyclical process.
>>827686Do I need to create different images because of the differences in the woke/nazi dialect?
>>827687You don't understand the material basis of sex, and your autism score is too low for you to argue with me.
>>827690I disagree. sex is not just your genitals, but the chromosomes billions of cells in your body. It is the secondary sex characteristics. Hormones. Pheremones. Hair. With our currently level of technology (limited by the productive forces and the mode of production) we can change "gender" but not "sex". Gender is more subjective and cultural. A person who has a penis and is very hairy can wear a dress and ask to be called she/her. I am more than happy to oblige this request and do not see it as weird or bad to do so. What I take issue with is pretending that the underlying material conditions she was born with have changed. Unfortunately for her, it has not. I wish for increased capabilities in that department so she can have what she wants. Same for trans men. Make sense?
>>827692Yeah you're trolling or just very confused as to what I'm actually saying.
>>827693You sound exactly like Ben Shapiro. Sex isn't just about chromosomes – chromosomes don't actually determine that much; HRT changes your gene expression, so the Y or second X chromosome no longer has any real effect. Besides, there are women who are intersex with an XY karyotype from birth. Would you call them males just because they have an XY karyotype?
>>827694Is trolling just speaking the truth?
>>827691Right, I'm not sure if there's a correct answer on this. For me I think keeping it simple enough so you don't have to approach this would be good enough.
>>827693There also people with XXY, XYY, XXX, X0, fragile X syndrome, etc. chromosomes and so on.. Can these people be regarded as "male" and "female"?
>>827698>You sound exactly like Ben Shapiro.ben shapiro doesn't agree with me at all actually. ben shapiro much like you refuses to acknowledge any difference between biological sex and gender. the trick of the reactionaries is to reduce the cultural phenomenon of gender to sex. but if sex and gender were identical than nonbinary wouldn't even be a category outside of intersex people. No gender is what people identify as. A woman is whoever identifies as one. But not all women are female. If what I were saying were untrue we wouldn't even distinguish between cis people and trans people in the first place. You are introducing confusion into this conversation.
>>827701No and I never said or implied they could. I was starting with the basics (sex vs. gender) not talking about very rare conditions which actually prove my point. A person with XXY, XYY, etc. would be whatever gender they identify as. But their sex is exactly what you listed. There are more than two sexes just like there are more than two genders, but that does not make sex and gender the same thing. Sex is the biological (XX, XY, and more rarely XXY, XYY, X0 etc.) while gender is whatever they want to be treated as in human society, which is subjective. Just like we divide value into use value (subjective) and exchange value (material) we divide sex-gender into gender (subjective) and sex (material).
>>827704> No gender is what people identify as. I forgot a comma after "No" here. I meant to say:
<No, gender is what people identify as. >>827706Whenever "trads" bring this up I just find it dishonest that they would call a trisomy X person, an actual female
Of course they look like it, that doesn't mean they are an XX
You're right, it is kind of subjective
But regularoids would never go this far in the conversation, just like they would never go far in much conversation that doesn't appeal to their Overton window
>>827709>But regularoids would never go this far in the conversationyou have to have these conversations 1 on 1 with people. it basically becomes impossible if you try having it in a group setting because everyone keeps resetting the conversation by getting hung up on 1 detail or changing the subject entirely.
Unique IPs: 19