Of Course You Know What "Woke" Means

complex or not you still have to decide if you put people with dick in women prisons (and all the rest of previously actual women only spaces) or not.

you can decide you don't have an opinion on that which means you let others decide for you, or you can end up having an opinion, no matter the complexity, because the answer is binary. so even a 51% gut feeling toward one of the two options is more than enough to support that

Yet, you have a strong enough opinion to claim the gender binary is regressive?

How do you know what is regressive if you don’t know what progress looks like?

Not really. I don't have any experience running prisons nor am I tasked with deciding where people with dicks should be imprisoned. I am fairly confident that suggesting this is a total binary is reductive and asinine. Maybe some really gay men should be in women's prisons? IDK, kinda makes sense to me.

It is literally people's jobs to solve these kinds of wicked problems. Why would I assume I know more than them?

Surely one as astute to ethereal knowledge as yourself can grasp these things. Understandings of complex dynamics evolve over time. Returning to simplified, less developed understandings of those things is regressive.

Progress is allowing more nuanced understandings to develop.

these weren't problems till very recently in the totality of countries in human history though, do you realize that part?

maybe an automatic skepticism against people who completely invent a problem that never existed is more than enough for normal people to reject the idea anything should be different with regard to sex in prisons, sports and so on from how it was in 1988.

onus of proving change is necessary is entirely on the people asking for change, it's not a "new puzzle" we know nothing about.

it's some people come and ask for the unprecedented. well they need unprecedently good proof to even start proposing that.

/

as for the bold, which people Jon exactly is deciding where people with dicks should go? that isn't a scientifical field of inquiry. it's a political choice, there is no science or expertise that can claim superiority about that, even suggesting there is is abdicating political power to a self selected caste of fake "experts", which for me is deeply worrying and I would avoid doing that in all topics.

We need to understand and know gender at a deeper level. This will include nuance. Correct.

What does this have to do with the gender binary being regressive?

The question has been asked and answered. I'm afraid you will need to journey inwards to further understand.

You don’t see that you are starting with presuppositions about gender in your inquiry of it?

I’ve already done the introspection. You haven’t.

That’s the point.

Saying that the problem has never existed is untrue. All of these problems have existed in various forms throughout history.

And no, it's not a political choice. Choosing what ward a prisoner goes to is not a political choice, it's a management issue with legal constraints.

We understand that you cannot admit that there are people that know more about specific issues than you. Your constant lack of humility is an immense intellectual barrier that I hope you overcome someday.

Hilarious craig. I acknowledge my lack of understanding in this area and my presupposition is that it is complex and beyond my certain understanding. You appear to be projecting.

You acknowledge your lack of understanding but you still feel secure in questioning my understanding.

And not just questioning my understanding but indicating I’m wrong.

This summarizes what should be a clear conclusion for 99% of the people responding to many of the threads/topics in this sub forum. This isnt a novel or fresh approach either, go back to Plato and you'll see the same idea presented, albeit stated differently. (For those of you who possess an intellectual curiousity, pick up Plato's Meno and give it a go, its short and sweet)

At risk of doing the same thing I'm criticizing, tho at much lower stakes, my best guess is that the depth of expertise understanding on subjects was far more shallow. The difference between amateur and expert was many orders of magnitude smaller. But as the complexity of the topics themselves increases, as would our understanding of the known or knowable aspects of them, the ability of meaningful or practical participation from the armchair decreases; seemingly from insignificant to what I'd describe as entirely problematic.

Here's the best example I can offer to elucidate this point:

I am going to offer you a very exclusive and special opportunity:

If you or your loved ones need surgery, I am willing to offer the same surgery required at 1/100th or less of the cost you would incur at ANY hospital in America. I will beat every price by such a large margin you will fall to the floor having fainted from disbelief. (bonus: we dont need any further anesthesia for the subsequent job now either)

I've used a scalpel, I took shop classes in high school. I spent a weekend in an intensive arts and crafts Continuing education program. Ive worked extensively on miniatures and models. I have a steady hand. Ive played classical piano for years - you want individual digit dexterity? let me dazzzle you with my fingering. Additionally, I can cut a steak. I can a steak like we're in a ****ing commercial. To say I do it PERFECTLY is borderline insulting, its so much more beyond that mere description. You want thin slices against the grain? I got you. I know how to slice some **** up with MULTIPLE utensils.

So if you need that appendix DISAPPEARED because its causing you some serious complications and the hospital is trying to tell you its $80,000 - DM me. I got you. I'm not a surgeon, but as you can see above - my skills are highly applicable. In fact, in the 1980s there was a "surgery simulator" video game. I ****in RAN that ****. It doesnt get more "specific application" than that.

Trust me. I know what the **** i'm talkin about and not only might I save your life, I just might save you from financial destruction as well.

Bonus offer: I read a book that says Gorilla's dont get cancer at rates that humans do and the author concluded it has everything to do with their diet. I put together the gorilla cancer free dietary requirement handbook which i'll email as a PDF for FREE upon payment in full for ANY surgical procedure. And hey, supply me with the email of a next of kin too while we're at it (dont worry bout why, consider it generosity)

Craig, I think that you think that your posts are comprehensive and express meaning.

I feel extremely secure in questioning your understanding of gender. I think this might be the most secure position I've ever taken.

That’s funny coming from you ….

Each turn u are confronted with reality vs god , you always downgrade reality to be irrelevant lol .

Why do you feel so secure that I’m wrong? Why are you not skeptical at all in your assessment of me?

Cite

Nah .
It’s complex when you actually start changing what an actual men or woman is or agreeing that a human without a sex is normal .

Normalization of extremist , regardless being politics, sexual behaviour , warfare, food consumption , etc. Is not a sign of a healthy society sorry to say.
It’s just a way to put the problems under a carpet …

Now that doesn’t mean I agree we should not help them but I don’t want be obligated to call it normal either ..

Ps: I feel Chinese today so I want be identified as Chinese ?
Please …. Same stupidity .
It’s just a way to not accept reality …

Then entire religion god, theology threads that you flooded lol .

Try again.

nah, focus on policing behaviours that actually impact other people directly. There's nothing wrong with drag queens. There's nothing wrong with people who, when presented with 2 identity boxes, decide they better belong in the other one.

We have no business forcing judgement on people unless they are directly harming other people. Calling things we don't understand "abnormal" and "extremist" is truly that way of trying to sweep problems under the carpet.

I don’t need too .
Anyone that answer you there and try to discuss anything with you tangible knows what I’m talking about .

It’s like hitting our head on a wall .
If they want to know , they just need to read the first and second page on any thread you started on and they will see it for themselves shrug .
Desertcat and fellaga destroyed you many times on that .
You just discard reality for not copping with it….
Hence my surprise you are against that gender stuff from woke .

society never had a problem about where to put people with dicks in prison: with other people with dicks.

claiming otherwise is just bad faith.

it is a political choice and purely one. it's about caring about all the people without dicks, or the very few people with dicks that identify as of they hadn't a dick.

it's purely a tradeoff choice that cannot be informed by "expertise" in any way.

tradeoffs are always political. "experts" can maybe tell you how much they think women risk from having people sentenced for violent crimes who can rape and impregnate them jailed with them every day for x years.

but it's political where to put that threshold, and for me it's simply 0.

notice that I am talking people with dicks. an operated biological man without a dick that identifies as a woman, can be jailed with biological women for me (again, political).

see? very simple. and purely political. you can ofc politically disagree and claim that you care more about the mental and emotional wellbeing of violent biological men who identify as women than of the 100-1000x biological women who would risk raping with impregnation.

that's a tradeoff preference, and NO expertise matters at all.

and claiming it's about expertise is outrageous, vilifying of democratic values, an aborted attempt at removing power from elected bodies and give it to experts, and you support it only because your political tribe currently controls the experts.

if alt right intellectuals came to dominate fields like psychiatry and started making fully unprecedented claims about purely political issues under cover of science and the right attempted to legislate using that claiming you have no right to disagree because you aren't an expert, you would understand perhaps.

do you understand that tariffs would be bad even if 100, 1000, 10k alt right economists started popping up in the future and even if they dominated the editorial offices of the most important journals?

the left has fully controlled culture for so long in academia you don't realize even the possibility of wild radical right-wing ideas being formalized as "science" and being used as the justification for abhorrent legislation.

maybe you should go study what happened with eugenics in the USA, or with physiognomy, and how it was used to justify legal horrors.

and you start thinking about how it would feel to criticize anyone who disagrees because he wasn't specialized in eugenics, which is what you are doing here with me and "gender studies"