|
|
Post by alfromni on Jun 15, 2021 0:50:09 GMT
If, as promoted by wokists and their ilk, there are more than just two human genders, would that also apply to the broader animal kingdom? (Is "kingdom" a sexist word these days?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on Jun 15, 2021 1:19:47 GMT
Could you look it up on an engendered species list?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jun 15, 2021 8:13:16 GMT
Is there more than one type of wokist? Can people be woke fluid? Is woke fluid safe to drink?  |
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Jun 15, 2021 10:34:49 GMT
I can imagine an over fed Queen Woke sitting in her hive somewhere giving birth to millions of worker wokes? I shudder at the the thought of it.
Oh...apologies. Forgot that "her" is now considered a sexist word. However I'm not sure what word to replace it with, so I'll have to let it stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 15, 2021 12:46:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Jun 15, 2021 14:42:14 GMT
One dictionary defines "gender" as: "the male or female sex, or the state of being either male or female". That applies to most animals. The definition says nothing about having knowledge of which sex is which, but by instinct animals know what's what. What most can't do is change their sex. Either can't or too smart to even try. 
|
|
|
|
Post by uncreative on Jun 15, 2021 16:56:02 GMT
Yes. My cats identify as non-binary. One of them because their balls got cut off and the other one because they'll never be a mother.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jun 15, 2021 19:05:32 GMT
But animals show behavior which matches their biological sex in very fixed ways.
Watch a tomcat and a female cat in mating season and you'll see their behavior is very fixed according to their biological sex.
The same must apply to humans. Any other "gender" not tied to biological sex is a human social construct. And that's fine.
But there are only two real sexes or "genders" and that applies to all mammals.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Jun 17, 2021 10:16:10 GMT
I agree with gameboy I've been around dogs all my life, and what gameboy says about his cats tallies in their own way with canine biological behaviour between the sexes. For example, a male in the animal kingdom will fight other males for the "ladies' favours", or for control of a herd or pack, but very few males (with obvious exceptions of humans, the praying mantis, the black widow spider, and perhaps a few others I don't know about) will attack or harm their mates. It would seem that they know the genders equally as well as humans, and with better sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Jun 17, 2021 10:18:20 GMT
If, as promoted by wokists and their ilk, there are more than just two human genders, would that also apply to the broader animal kingdom? (Is "kingdom" a sexist word these days?) Apparently yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Jun 17, 2021 13:13:44 GMT
To Jonesy1 Is that a yes to applying to the broader animal kingdom, or that "kingdom" is a sexist word? |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jun 17, 2021 18:39:08 GMT
I agree with gameboy I've been around dogs all my life, and what gameboy says about his cats tallies in their own way with canine biological behaviour between the sexes. For example, a male in the animal kingdom will fight other males for the "ladies' favours", or for control of a herd or pack, but very few males (with obvious exceptions of humans, the praying mantis, the black widow spider, and perhaps a few others I don't know about) will attack or harm their mates. It would seem that they know the genders equally as well as humans, and with better sense. There is also another interesting element to this debate.
The same people who claim sexual orientation is hardwired and genetic, will also claim gender is fluid and we can decide whatever gender we want to be. And if you say someone can't choose one of a 100 genders, you're a horrible fascist.
All of this has a political agenda behind it, mainly the destruction of the male/female dichotomy. It's as if they want to create so much confusion about gender and sex that unisex becomes the only realistic option.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Jun 17, 2021 23:26:49 GMT
Mother Nature has been around since the planet was formed into a place which preserved life. On the same time scale humans are newcomers by a considerable margin. If old Mother says there are only two genders, I tend to believe her, but only humans think they know better than Mother Nature and try to prove her wrong. And yes gameboy is right when saying .., "All of this has a political agenda behind it, mainly the destruction of the male/female dichotomy. It's as if they want to create so much confusion about gender and sex that unisex becomes the only realistic option."...but the agenda goes deeper. It's to do with control and power over minds. But Mother Nature will be proved right. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Jun 18, 2021 7:07:11 GMT
To Jonesy1 Is that a yes to applying to the broader animal kingdom, or that "kingdom" is a sexist word? Both.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jun 18, 2021 8:38:43 GMT
To Jonesy1 Is that a yes to applying to the broader animal kingdom, or that "kingdom" is a sexist word? Both. When you look at the term “animal kingdom” dispassionately it does come across as strange but I have a feeling that it applies to option 2b. Which means that at one time it was a politically (or spiritually) correct term. 1 : a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen. 2 often capitalized. a : the eternal kingship of God. b : the realm in which God's will is fulfilled.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jun 19, 2021 8:09:47 GMT
When you look at the term “animal kingdom” dispassionately it does come across as strange but I have a feeling that it applies to option 2b. Which means that at one time it was a politically (or spiritually) correct term. 1 : a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen. 2 often capitalized. a : the eternal kingship of God. b : the realm in which God's will is fulfilled. I agree. When zoologists chose the term "kingdom" it was more in the sense of "realm" or "domain". I don't think they had patriarchy or a monarchy in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jun 19, 2021 8:21:38 GMT
Mother Nature has been around since the planet was formed into a place which preserved life. On the same time scale humans are newcomers by a considerable margin. If old Mother says there are only two genders, I tend to believe her, but only humans think they know better than Mother Nature and try to prove her wrong. And yes gameboy is right when saying .., "All of this has a political agenda behind it, mainly the destruction of the male/female dichotomy. It's as if they want to create so much confusion about gender and sex that unisex becomes the only realistic option."...but the agenda goes deeper. It's to do with control and power over minds. But Mother Nature will be proved right. It boggles the mind that something so apparent and basic as the fact there are two genders can be twisted so.
I googled to see if I could find stats on the percent of transgender people in the population and it's estimated to be like 0.3%.
And almost all of them can more or less be deemed as either biological male or biological female. Most transgender have healthy working genitals of the sex they don't wanna be. They are not "intersexed" i.e. having mixed or indeterminate genitalia. Even intersexed are more one than the either.
This is really the best example of 'tail wagging the dog' I think I've ever seen. The anomaly becomes the standard by which reality is judged.
You might know they have a term for us 99.7% - We're cissexuals. As if. 
|
|
|
|
Post by alfromni on Jun 19, 2021 8:47:15 GMT
And yet laws are being changed to accommodate just 3%...and to hell what the other 97% think. Modern woke democracy in action. |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Jun 19, 2021 15:05:14 GMT
And yet laws are being changed to accommodate just 3%...and to hell what the other 97% think. Modern woke democracy in action. Sorry, it's even worse, that was a typo. It's 99.7% cissexual. The confused ones are only 0.3%.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jun 19, 2021 22:14:44 GMT
When you look at the term “animal kingdom” dispassionately it does come across as strange but I have a feeling that it applies to option 2b. Which means that at one time it was a politically (or spiritually) correct term. 1 : a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen. 2 often capitalized. a : the eternal kingship of God. b : the realm in which God's will is fulfilled. I agree. When zoologists chose the term "kingdom" it was more in the sense of "realm" or "domain". I don't think they had patriarchy or a monarchy in mind. Mind you, the ants have their own agenda… 
|
|
