Cancel culture

[pandarilla]

It is. The rate of intersex babies is around 1 in 1000.

So are you saying that the trans activists are using intersex to help work their argument, even though it has nothing to do with it?

 

Where are you getting 1 in 1000?

 

I thought it was 1 in 250 (and even more according to some sites in the usa)

 

(although i could be mixing up different things here)

 

[NotThePars]

If you actual read the article it makes a throwaway claim that there are homosexual brain characteristics. Looking into that it seems to come from a single experiment into the sexual preferences of sheep from the University of Oregon.
The article is nonsense. Gender is a social construct. Believing that observable biological difference within male and female populations proves that they don't exist is either bad faith or stupidity.

Was just making a joke not looking to contribute to debate sorry

[Detournement]

4 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

So are you saying that the trans activists are using intersex to help work their argument, even though it has nothing to do with it?

 

Where are you getting 1 in 1000?

 

I thought it was 1 in 250 (and even more according to some sites in the usa)

 

(although i could be mixing up different things here)

 

No I've never seen a trans activist do that before. I think it's someone trying to dazzle with science rather than make a compelling argument. 

1 in 1000 is the UK figure. It's higher in places where it's normal to impregnate your cousin. 

[Gordon EF]

Both the 'every human is biologically either 100% male or 100% female' and the 'biological sex isn't a real thing' groups are very much the idiot wings of their respective camps.

[Marshmallo]

1 hour ago, Detournement said:

It is. The rate of intersex babies is around 1 in 1000.

If there more than two options then it by definition non-binary.

[Marshmallo]

1 hour ago, Detournement said:

It's higher in places where it's normal to impregnate your cousin. 

The Fifes of this world.

[Detournement]

9 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

If there more than two options then it by definition non-binary.

If 99.9% of observations conclude binary then it's binary. The 0.1% is simply an outlier. 

Intersex isn't a sex. It's a very sad in utero abnormality along the lines of a cleft palate or Downs. 

[welshbairn]

I've been pumped full of drugs to stop my testosterone production for the last six months, I was just too manly for my own good. I'd be a bit wary of someone trying to chemically determine my gender or sex on a binary scale at the moment. Still getting rampantly heterosexualist dreams though, with full fulfilment without the collateral damage of sticky sheets as it happens.

Edited July 16, 2020 by welshbairn

[Miguel Sanchez]

1 minute ago, Detournement said:

If 99.9% of observations conclude binary then it's binary. The 0.1% is simply an outlier. 

Intersex isn't a sex. It's a very sad in utero abnormality along the lines of a cleft palate or Downs. 

This is not what the word binary means

[Marshmallo]

There are 10,000 people at a football game. 4,999 of them are Scottish. 4,999 of them are Spanish. 2 of them are Chilean.

There are not 2 nationalities of people at that game.

[Gordon EF]

8 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

There are 10,000 people at a football game. 4,999 of them are Scottish. 4,999 of them are Spanish. 2 of them are Chilean.

There are not 2 nationalities of people at that game.

Hate to play the 'centrist da devil's advocate' here. But 4,999 are Scottish, 4,999 are Spanish and 2 being dual Spanish/Scottish is the closer analogy. Arguably there are only 2 nationalities at the game but not every single person fits nicely into one nationality exclusively.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Gordon EF

[welshbairn]

Minorities only count if they're in sufficient quantities and are ideologically attuned to overthrowing the neoliberal centrist elites.

[pandarilla]

Minorities only count if they're in sufficient quantities and are ideologically attuned to overthrowing the neoliberal centrist elites.

I'd love it if we were actually talking about overthrowing neoliberalism but instead it's this shite that folk want to get all revolutionary over.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I'd love it if we were actually talking about overthrowing neoliberalism but instead it's this shite that folk want to get all revolutionary over.
 

I doubt there are two people in the world who agree on what neoliberalism means, so forming a cohort of the downtrodden to defeat it is going to be tricky.

[pandarilla]

I doubt there are two people in the world who agree on what neoliberalism means, so forming a cohort of the downtrodden to defeat it is going to be tricky.

I've only ever read it in relation to the economic system that's existed in the west since the late 70s.

Absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I've only ever read it in relation to the economic system that's existed in the west since the late 70s.

Absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

I was questioning @Detournement 's usual position on entering any debate, but neoliberalism is an unidentifiable theory that people use to say everything's shit without any effective strategy for making things better. The right mean people like Soros, billionaires who encourage liberal social values, the left mean people like Starmer whom I'm not quite sure what he wants or encourages. Filthy centrists anyway.

[NotThePars]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I was questioning @Detournement 's usual position on entering any debate, but neoliberalism is an unidentifiable theory that people use to say everything's shit without any effective strategy for making things better. The right mean people like Soros, billionaires who encourage liberal social values, the left mean people like Starmer whom I'm not quite sure what he wants or encourages. Filthy centrists anyway.

I mean just because a term is weakly applied, poorly understood, or deployed in bad faith doesn't mean it's an "unidentifiable theory" and it just makes you sound like the weird glut of journos who acted like they'd never heard the term before like Helen Lewis and Matthew D'Ancona. Here's a nice book review from forum favourite Adam Tooze on a new history of the theory. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/neoliberalism-world-order-review-quinn-slobodian-globalists

The most cursory of glances through my mound of stolen literature also shows the term being used by Perry Anderson, Mark Fisher, Frederic Jameson and Judith Butler who are all pretty good at writing on theory.

[pandarilla]

I mean just because a term is weakly applied, poorly understood, or deployed in bad faith doesn't mean it's an "unidentifiable theory" and it just makes you sound like the weird glut of journos who acted like they'd never heard the term before like Helen Lewis and Matthew D'Ancona. Here's a nice book review from forum favourite Adam Tooze on a new history of the theory. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/neoliberalism-world-order-review-quinn-slobodian-globalists
The most cursory of glances through my mound of stolen literature also shows the term being used by Perry Anderson, Mark Fisher, Frederic Jameson and Judith Butler who are all pretty good at writing on theory.

That's the way i see it.

And I'd love to see more focus given to replacing it by those who call themselves 'left' on the likes of twitter.

[welshbairn]

12 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

The most cursory of glances through my mound of stolen literature also shows the term being used by Perry Anderson, Mark Fisher, Frederic Jameson and Judith Butler who are all pretty good at writing on theory.

I'll read that link later, but do these people above agree on what it means? I've heard it used to describe anything from the basic mixed economy, through the Thatcherite let capitalism go mad, it has to be good, to social liberalism fought by the likes of Poland and Hungary, and basic minimum rules of human rights. It just seems to be used as a label for the same old, be it social democracy or one nation conservatism. Have the new variant of disaster fueling capitalists in the UK or USA been included in the label yet?

[NotThePars]

4 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

That's the way i see it.

And I'd love to see more focus given to replacing it by those who call themselves 'left' on the likes of twitter.

So do I but I don't really blame people for giving up after watching the rat fucking that went on against Corbyn and Sanders. Nobody's going to let anyone meaningfully change the economic system to be less punitive so might as well spend all day arguing for a more diverse Avengers movie and getting mad at whoever's writing for the New York Times op-ed page.

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

I'll read that link later, but do these people above agree on what it means? I've heard it used to describe anything from the basic mixed economy, through the Thatcherite let capitalism go mad, it has to be good, to social liberalism fought by the likes of Poland and Hungary, and basic minimum rules of human rights. It just seems to be used as a label for the same old, be it social democracy or one nation conservatism. Have the new variant of disaster fueling capitalists in the UK or USA been included in the label yet?

lol have you ever read theorists? 

Being serious, I think they do and I reckon Tooze in that article sets out a lot of shared agreements about what constitutes neoliberalism and the broad beats that form its origins. I can't remember who exactly said it but someone highlighted that contradiction you seem to be referring to and argued that the main conflict today is between woke and reactionary neoliberalism. Either do you want your billionaires to be diverse and the banks to sponsor Pride or do you want everyone earning under six figures banned from living in your country.