Lurker > Fam_Fam

cool more pandering to the minority to the detriment of the majority

Fam_Fam posted...

Women often do, and then they feel pressured/coerced into it. It's easier to just say yes instead of dealing with the potential danger of saying no.

Ah so even when they consent maybe they're really not consenting, at least in current year.

Kajagogo posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Do people wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to be offended today"?

"I don't know what's gonna happen, but something's going to offend me and it's gonna be that thing's fault."

Look, it is not fucking rape culture. It is a woman in the 1940s facetiously joking about her drink being too strong. Lots of people TO. THIS. DAY. will have a little bit to drink and jokingly blame the alcohol for something they do; whether intimate in nature or not. It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with rape. How long is it gonna be before people start saying that Rocky raped Adrian because she was nervous during their first kiss?

so you dont think giving someone too much alcohol in order to induce a sexual encounter after they are trying to leave is wrong? I agree it still happens to this day.

She's not trying to leave. She wants to stay.

She WANTS to stay.

This. In that time "what's in this drink" was apparently intended as a joke whether they're drinking alcohol or not. It's a song about a woman who wants to stay in a time when women who stay unchaperoned at a single man's house were considered to be one of THOSE women. She's decided she wants to stay at the beginning of the song but because of society at the time she has to put up a token resistance. By the end of the song they agree it's too cold outside so she's staying.

Fam_Fam posted...

Skye Reynolds posted...

Do people wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to be offended today"?

"I don't know what's gonna happen, but something's going to offend me and it's gonna be that thing's fault."

Look, it is not fucking rape culture. It is a woman in the 1940s facetiously joking about her drink being too strong. Lots of people TO. THIS. DAY. will have a little bit to drink and jokingly blame the alcohol for something they do; whether intimate in nature or not. It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with rape. How long is it gonna be before people start saying that Rocky raped Adrian because she was nervous during their first kiss?

so you dont think giving someone too much alcohol in order to induce a sexual encounter after they are trying to leave is wrong? I agree it still happens to this day.

She's not trying to leave. She wants to stay.

She WANTS to stay.

Do people wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to be offended today"?

"I don't know what's gonna happen, but something's going to offend me and it's gonna be that thing's fault."

Look, it is not fucking rape culture. It is a woman in the 1940s facetiously joking about her drink being too strong. Lots of people TO. THIS. DAY. will have a little bit to drink and jokingly blame the alcohol for something they do; whether intimate in nature or not. It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with rape. How long is it gonna be before people start saying that Rocky raped Adrian because she was nervous during their first kiss?

I want a girl with a vagina

You shouldve slept with his dad

Was grammy tight?

you wait until his dad hears about this

monkmith posted...

gmanthebest posted...

monkmith posted...

gmanthebest posted...

So stupid. Literally "I can't take 5 minutes to figure out the context of a song."

...drugging and raping?

gmanthebest posted...

Literally "I can't take 5 minutes to figure out the context of a song."

...



...drugging and raping?

You do realise that you are using a computer that has access to tons of information to tell you that the song is about 2 people who want to be together, but it's taboo by society (at the time) for 2 unmarried people to spend the night together, so they're making excuses for her to stay.

Fam_Fam posted...

I wasn't aware that the government was confiscating guns from black people.

that should be stopped.

this is really lazy

Why are there so many people itt mad that some women are able to use their sexuality to make a living?

You're again missing the point. That we would categorize people as one gender or another based on what their brain looks like would by its very definition be a social construct. This is especially problematic because you are giving two categories to a continuous variable. Brains vary such that you will have a number of people right on the border of wherever your arbitrary cutoff is. It is also extremely reductionist because you are ignoring all the different sources of variation and reducing it down to one overall variance ignoring the potential roles individual area differences may or may not play in gendered behavior.

Fam_Fam posted...

ssjevot posted...

And seriously, read TC's post again. Not his attempt to moderate his position later. He makes it clear he wants people to be diagnosed in the basis of a "brain scan" and if the data doesn't meet his criteria they can't be reassigned. He wants to ignore behavioral measures for fMRI or whatever else and you're over here talking about some complimentary medicine approach that is doing nothing but obsfucating the awful proposal TC has.

people can identify however they want. what i'm saying is that science CAN identify a real situation, and can make a note of this through gendering to point out a real discrepancy

Yeah, you're reading way too much into the realness of forcing someone into a socially defined binary category from what is a biological continuum. Brains vary massively in many ways and this leads to extremely complex and poorly understood behavioral processes. You want to do a scan and force people into two categories that are completely socially constructed. Think about how ridiculous that sounds.

And seriously, read TC's post again. Not his attempt to moderate his position later. He makes it clear he wants people to be diagnosed in the basis of a "brain scan" and if the data doesn't meet his criteria they can't be reassigned. He wants to ignore behavioral measures for fMRI or whatever else and you're over here talking about some complimentary medicine approach that is doing nothing but obsfucating the awful proposal TC has.

COVxy posted...

It's not like you engaged with my earlier post lol.

Because you can't be bothered to read my posts. Even if it could be used to daignose it's much to expensive to be used practically and offers no advantages over the current methods used. You really need to ask yourself why do you want to gatekeep who can be diagnosed with a behavioral illness by looking at a crude measure of brain activity instead of relying on the behavioral measures used by experts in the field? What does it do other than potentially allow you to be a bigot to people you think are "faking" it for attention or whatever it is that makes you want this so badly?

You almost had me until you mentioned MRIs. The human brain is constantly changing from what I
understand, from birth till death, constantly shaped by an insane number of variables encountered in
everyday life. From your diet, sleep habits, hobbies, sunlight, you friggin name it. So I don't follow that.

However, if you want to keep it as simple as two genders, I'm down. You want to be MF/FM, fine. You can be one
of the two biological genders, your choice. Declare it, it becomes legal when you're an adult, no taksies backsies.

I sincerely don't care, just fucking pick one or the other and stick with it.

Fam_Fam posted...

because scientists have been able to identify when brain activity looks more like the typical brain of someone of the other sex?

Yeah, I already said that. Then you posted excerpts repeating what I already said. And again it's a comparison of averages. Not everyone with GD has a BOLD signal that would match a typical male or female's and there is great variation among male's and female's to begin with. Your entire premise is to use fMRI to gatekeep who can and can't be trans for no reason other than to justify your bigotry. There is zero reason to do it. No one in the field wants to do or would do what you are saying so the whole thing is idiotic. It's as dumb as using hippocampus activity to determine if depression is "legitimate" or whatever. You can't use a crude measure of brain activity to determine the legitimacy of complex behavior.

adjl posted...

Nade Duck posted...

at this point i think it's just tradition.

That. Originally, it was because Melee was super rushed and they happened to have similar enough body types to make it work. Since then, it's just been a matter of avoiding change, because fighting game fans get uppity when established characters see major changes.

Well, if you spent hundreds and hundreds of hours mastering one character's moves how pissed would you be if they changed in the next game and you had to do it all over again? That is why people say that with fighting games, you can add new stuff but you should never change or remove existing stuff. It works for other genres, but not fighting games.

Anyways, I love Ganondorf, unlike a lot of characters you have to be really strategic with him because he is so slow compared to the rest of the roster. However, it only takes a few successful moves to KO a character because his moves are so devastating.

Fam_Fam posted...

And if it's not the body, and not the brain, what is the source of the gender dysmorphia that people are facing? Is there an alternative that you are suggesting?

Try reading my post where I describe how neither EEG or fMRI can possibly tell you enough to diagnose such a complex behavior. I literally study color processing in the brain and we can't even figure that out in detail. What makes you think we can look at some scans (nevermind the immense cost) and diagnose something as complex as GD?

Fam_Fam posted...

A reason why people have GD is because their brain does not match their body.

Seriously, stop inserting your political agenda into this. Some people with GD have brains that look more similar to a typical brain of a biological female than a biological male in some regions. This is not a diagnostic criteria nor should it ever be. Brains vary dramatically in many ways and fMRI and EEG do not capture much of that variation. It's obvious your entire goal is to justify bigotry against trans people, and attempting to pretend you know more about the science than the people who actually do it isn't helping.

How about we stop giving a fuck about race

Its so boring and 1968

Fam_Fam posted...

it's not to "validate feelings", its to diagnose a legitimate condition where one's brain does not match ones body, leading to body dysmorphia, which is a legitimate condition that ails people. this system would officially recognize where people actually ARE trans (i.e. having a body that doesn't match "who they are", i.e. their brain). It would recognize that this IS a legitimate issue that people have, and would allow people to be identified properly.

Please check the DSM entry for gender dysphoria. There is nothing about brain and body mismatch. Stop trying to redefine medical categories to suit your political agenda.

Fam_Fam posted...

CyricZ posted...

See this is a perfect example of the golden mean fallacy.

In your proposal, you've alienated both pro-trans and anti-trans people.

how come?

we recognize that some people have brains that don't match with their body (a legitimate issue), and place people in sports and such based on their body (which is legit also).

I think you're giving way too much credence to the sports issue, which I don't think is nearly as much of a problem as you want it to be.