[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4518

File: 1577051612698.png (393.73 KB, 639x711, 71:79, 1F847031-1795-4287-9846-12….png) ImgOps Google

>>>/pony/1011558
How far are we actually taking it? One of the first things I saw when I typed up Mogai was something called Stargender. Definition of Stargender.
Stargender is a gender with at least three different meanings:

Identifying one's gender as a star. Subgenders also exist.[1] For example, a person might identify emself as a blue star, therefore being an O-stargender or B-stargender. If ey identify as a star radiating longer wavelengths, A-stargender, F-stargender or G-stargender are more accurate terms. In addition, a starperson might self-identify as a binary or multiple star system. Fore example, a person self-identified as a binary yellow-orange system with a lonely red dwarf is a GKM-stargender, like the Alpha Centauri system. Under this definition this is a otherkin indenity not a gender one.
The second is “an other-worldly/non-human gender” which is likened to being beyond comprehension.
The third is “no matter how many genders are discovered/coined, none would match for the person.”
Do people expect me to this seriously? Do other people in this thread actually  think Stargenders are valid?

Personally I think the whole concept of Stargenders and other Mogai genders underminer the whole trans community. You’re taking a very serious condition and comparing it to utter nonsense. I refuse to acknowledge them as valid not only because I think they’re ridiculous, but because I think that I’d br insulting the actual trans people I know by doing it.

We have actual scientific studies showing that transwomen have very feminine brains and that they tend to be more androgynous, alongside a bunch of other verifiable physical traits, Mogai have nothing other than their own word, they have absolutely no form of external verification, unlike actual transwomen.

 No.4519

File: 1577051879778.jpg (46.89 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 8584c61d8551fb9bbe9af334a0….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Do people expect me to this seriously? Do other people in this thread actually  think Stargenders are valid?
Not the point of the lgbt thread.

>Personally I think the whole concept of Stargenders and other Mogai genders underminer the whole trans community.
Probably.

>I refuse to acknowledge them as valid
Ok.

>brains
In lieu of recent events it's probably unwise of you to bring up the subject of brains.

 No.4520

The point of the lgbt thread is to have a positive, non-judgmental space. It doesn't actually matter who you think are valid or not.  

 No.4521

File: 1577056382453.png (311.51 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, bt6d14e74q901.png) ImgOps Google

If someone presents a way you don't like, I'd say just don't comment on it. You can be as torn up as you want about it, but I wouldn't say anything.

As for the reasoning why, I can only guess at why felt initially that this rule should be in place. And I would guess it goes something along the lines of.

1) Transmedicalism isn't even conclusive either. There are plenty of poeple that are definitely trans, are definitely happy to transition, and would definitely not want to detransition, who would not clearly present trans on a brain scan, and plenty of people who are definitely cis, who would not want to transition and who would present trans on a brainscan.

If you're using brainscans as a marker for being valid enough, you're doing it wrong. And that's just from a purely pragmatic point of view. You have to rely on testimony. The best way to determine gender identity is to ask.

If people need brainscans to determine who's valid or not, then they're not really ready to accept transgender people in the first place.

2) If we disallow people that have nonstandard gender identities the right to feel valid and be accepted for who they are, all we're doing is forcing them into a strict binary. If we want to give people time to find themselves, experiment and figure out what works for them, the absolute worst thing we could do is present them with two options and say now pick one and only one. No one figured out that they were trans in a flash. It takes thinking and reflecting over who you are, and experimenting with different roles and modes of presentation. From this point of view stargender is fine and even has utility, EVEN IF WE ONLY CONSIDER TRANSGENDERISM AND NO OTHER NON-STANDARD GENDER IDENTITIES VALID IDENTITIES. Because we don't want people to be rushed into a strict binary, as it might risk them ending up in a category that they're not suited for, for longer or shorter periods of time.

And honestly, if someone literally does feel like they're a star, I'm 100% prepared to go along with that. I don't need to object to that, or demand a justification, unless I feel like it's hurting them in some way, which I think it probably shouldn't. It seems relatively safe to me.

3) 99% of the time that's not what you're going to get either. You're much more likely to encounter agender, nonbinary or genderqueer people. We don't really have anyone that's stargender on the website at the moment.

4) It doesn't make sense to have disputes about who's valid enough to join the outcast clubhouse. We're all marginalized by society to some degree if we're here. We don't need more of that within our own ranks. Both because it's not productive, but also because it's straight up destructive to ties and minds. We can do without.

 No.4522

>>4521
Also, I am tired of spending time disagreeing with you. I am giving you this perspective as a courtesy, because it might be useful to you, but if you do have objections to the ideas in this post that I think are unreasonable, I am going to take this as a sign that I am wasting more time so you can state them, but I won't necessearily be responding.

 No.4523

You'll see here some good examples of how the literature on neural anatomy and processing differences of transgender people tends to look
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29263327
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31368487

Note how these studies are good at finding associations and correlates but either fail to produce or explain why it's not reliable to attempt to produce clinically valid predictive models.

I used university logins to get these, but one is definitely free, the other you can maybe find on scihub.

 No.4524

Note also also, as one article indicates, that theories regarding the aetiology of transgenderism tend to lend support to ideas of nonbinary gender orientations, in the sense that the brain does not so much have one and off switches, as it has sliding scales of activation determined by endocrine environment.

Given that the brain is highly modular, and that many of these modules develop over longer periods of time and also in different stages of natal development, it does not make sense to expect people of nonstandard gender identities to fall within a limited number of categories of expression or identification. You would expect to see a lot of differentiation.

 No.4525

It doesn't matter really.

There's really no point trying to dictate whether or not something is "real" or not if it's a phenomenon that is fundamentally a completely subjective and internal experience that doesn't produce external empirical evidence.  

To do otherwise is to presume greater knowledge of a person's internal experiences than the person themselves, which is presumptuous and arrogant as hell.  

If you don't believe that their claimed experiences are what they interpret them to be, that's fine, but of course that doesn't mean that the person isn't experiencing something that they feel a MOGAI sort of identity best describes. Whether or not it's literal or figurative or not.

And well, while you accept it for trans people the same basically holds true. After all is said and done, the only person who has access to a person's internal experiences is that person, and it's up to that person to come to understand what they mean.

And well, as someone else said in this thread, the whole concept of a "male" or "female" brain is a bit of a shakey concept, and a gross oversimplification of human neurology, especially when it comes to this concept of a brain structured a certain way when neuroplasticity is a pretty fundamental part of neurology and brain function can be passed off from some neurons and neural networks to other neurons and neural networks.

I mean, we don't really know how to identify "gender identity" in the brain, if it's even a discrete trait. It may be a complex product of more elemental components that individually may not even be considered "gendered" in their own right.

 No.4526

>>4524
>Given that the brain is highly modulated, and that many of these modules develop over longer periods of time and also in different stages of natal development, it does not make sense to expect mogai people to fall within a limited number of categories of gender. You would expect to see much more differentiation.

As far as I understand discrete modularity of functions decreases with age and redundancy and parity of functions increases with brain development as an evolved trait to grant greater resiliency against things like brain damage.

 No.4527

File: 1577061534596.jpeg (150.74 KB, 859x900, 859:900, B4813337-5275-4156-BDDD-C….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4519
>In lieu of recent events it's probably unwise of you to bring up the subject of brains.
What recent events?

>>4521
>>4522
>>4523
>>4524
>Also, I am tired of spending time disagreeing with you.
Don’t worry, I won’t argue with you. If you are who I think you are I read that Holocaust book you suggested to me, and that radically change my perspective. So it’s possible that my mind could change on this issue, although I doubt it, but that’s keeping in mimd the fact that I highly doubted that your book would change my mind, and it did, so maybe this will change my mind in regards to non-binary genders.

I’ll read the studies you sent me when I have the time and anything else you want to send me on this issue. I’m trying really hard to be understanding and acknowledge other people’s perspectives, even if I strongly disagree.

>>4525
>It doesn't matter really.
I’m just wondering how far we take this. What you’ve said could be see as permission to take Otherkin people seriously because “you can’t judge someone’s internal experience in the same way that they can.” I feel like of these people are to be accepted they shouldn’t be seen as LGBT, they should split of and become their own thing, because in my mind all they do is perpetuate harmful stereotypes about LGBT, and more specifically trans people.

There are countless people who will unironically discount trans people by saying something like “do they identify as x ridiculous thing on Tuesdays?”. The best way to deal with those people is to explain that transgenderism is a serious condition with actual science behind it, not by saying “how can you judge their own internal subjective experience,” because most people will just laugh you off, for better or worse, for saying something like that.

Quite frankly most people aren’t smart enough to think on the kind of abstract level that you’re demanding. And that’s why these kinds of circles are always filled with extremely small groups of highly intelligent, but highly neurotic people shaming and screeching at all the anti-Mogai and Truscum for not accepting their convoluted worldview.

 No.4528

>>4527

Okay, so why should the fact that bigots grasp at straws to justify themselves imply that you should do the same on this site?

 No.4529

File: 1577062100382.gif (895.8 KB, 480x270, 16:9, FIBy4le.gif) ImgOps Google

Gender and sex are different. gender is social. That is all I have to say about this, since your entire argument its sex based not gender based.

 No.4530

File: 1577062677385.jpg (542.03 KB, 850x930, 85:93, __chaika_trabant_hitsugi_n….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Honestly try to think of my thread as practice for tolerance and kindness, and more importantly, keeping your mouth shut when you have nothing good to say.

Even if you don't agree, even if you straight up refuse to mentally accept someone for who they are, you are not allowed to be rude to them, you are not allowed to tell them they are wrong. They are not hurting anybody whereas your interference would be actively harmful.

You personally have had mild success in this area and every time you fail, you fail a little less badly, at least in my view. Keep it up and maybe you'll learn how to hold your tongue. I can only hope other people can do the same until then.

 No.4531

File: 1577066867882.jpg (46.89 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 8584c61d8551fb9bbe9af334a0….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4527
You using brain sizes as an example of superiority to something.

 No.4532

>>4518
>Do people expect me to this seriously?
I wouldn't.
> Do other people in this thread actually  think Stargenders are valid?
I don't.  It isn't really a *gender* at all.

 No.4534

the ultimate misconception is that gender "has" to be defined as something for reasons that vary from person to person. in all honesty, it really does not matter at all what a person identifies as, they deserve love and respect at every avenue

if you are worried about it undermining the trans community, most would probably agree that it is the TERFs, trans-medicalists (i.e. what you are proposing), and others that demand gender and sexuality be defined medicinally, which stifles personal exploration, and start creating exclusionary barriers in a community that already is heavily ostracized by a lot of people already.

and for the stargender stuff. our entire existence is because of stars exploding and reforming to kickstart our planet and our life on this planet. we are all stars, baby!

 No.4536

File: 1577071404967.png (185.04 KB, 640x359, 640:359, angryish.png) ImgOps Google

Yeah,
I think the whole concept of there being like 10+ types of sexuality is ridiculous.
You're either Gay, Straight, Bi or Trans.
I don't like it when people try and Identify as something in between.

It over complicates the issue with tolerance in the world for LGBT.
You don't need to be some special snowflake and perfectly sub group what you feel as.

I think its insulting to those struggling with trying to figure out what they identify as.

Those people need to stop trying to attention horses.

 No.4537

>>4521
>if someone literally does feel like they're a star
My objection to that is that it is literally unimagineable to me.  Stars are inanimate astronomical objects.  They are not conscious.  There is no such thing as 'what a star feels like'.

 No.4539

>>4536
>I think its insulting to those struggling with trying to figure out what they identify as.

I mean, part of the reason that there are any "in betweens" at all are because of people struggling with trying to figure out what they identity as ... when none of the options they are presented with are options they fit into well enough to not struggle against.

It's generally pretty insultingly entitled of people to continuously exclude all the exceptions that exist, not just in humanity, but just reality in general, and insist they shouldn't be acknowledged just because doing so would "make things more complicated".

 No.4542

File: 1577082953382.jpg (715.79 KB, 707x1000, 707:1000, __chaika_trabant_hitsugi_n….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4537
That's a pretty limited world view, honestly. Yeah, it's the scientific one, but that doesn't really mean anything. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different ways to think of stars, and not many of them are scientifically accurate.

It's kind of a derail, but pushing the whole "well science says this" is kind of inherently anti-cultural. I know it's sort of in the "cool" to be anti-religion and anti-spirituality/belief, but it's honestly kind of shitty to say "You have to look at the world purely from a scientific lens, you can't see things from a different perspective.", especially to people who ascribe to a different belief system based on cultural backgrounds.

Maybe scientifically there is no such thing as "what a star feels like", but culturally, methodologically, there are many, many things that say how a star might feel. Someone who is "stargender" might not be actually meaning an actual, physical ball of gas/plasma star.

Anyways, that was sort of a derail, but I feel like I brought it back around to the point.

 No.4543

>>4542
that should say "mythologically" not "methodologically"

 No.4545

>>4526
I believe that there's definitely evidence to suggest that this happens! I'm not sure if it's universally true as a principal. You've got some functions that can only be performed by specific parts of the brain, and I'm not sure the fact that modularity does tend to decrease with age, really changes the significance of the brain developing modules in stages, and how that might affect the development of gender identity.

One could maybe form a hypothesis that pains associated with gender identity might decrease with age if left untreated, but it would be for one quite unethical/unlikely we'd be able to explore this in longitudinal studies, since it requires leaving people suffering from dysphoria untreated.

Interesting note, though.

 No.4546

>>4527
I'm glad you enjoyed the book.

 No.4547

>>4542
I feel like this is not a derail at all. It's such a great point, and such a great way of phrasing it.

 No.4548

>>4527
>Quite frankly most people aren’t smart enough to think on the kind of abstract level that you’re demanding. And that’s why these kinds of circles are always filled with extremely small groups of highly intelligent, but highly neurotic people shaming and screeching at all the anti-Mogai and Truscum for not accepting their convoluted worldview.
As someone who is in a lot of trans spaces, I can say definitely that they are not filled with this. I don't encounter people that do that, except for I think once on a scandinavian server I was on.

The reason why is that these are spaces for trans people, so they already understand how an inner subjective experience is not something you can relate like this. There's no problem.

Regardless of how accepting we are in the thread also, we can still employ medical studies outside of them if we want. You'll notice that even though I am against discounting personal experiences in the thread, I have no problem also citing literature here. So it is possible to do both. There's no need to be anti-mogai, just to convince people that for one don't exist here and are not in the threads, and for another would probably not be convinced by a transmedicalist argument anyway.

It's quite incoherent to use this as an argument to reject mogai genders in the thread, and I think it's even incoherent to use it as an argument to reject mogai genders elsewhere as well. You don't argue with a transphobe. There's no convincing them anyway with facts and studies. What would change their mind is actually knowing someone personally that goes through this, and empathizing with that person.

 No.4549

File: 1577092992997.jpg (131.54 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, maxresdefault (5).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4547
Thanks

I like what you said here >>4548 too.

I would like to add that, based on my experiences and the experiences of many of the people I have known (a hearsay argument using personal experience), that it is MORE likely for a trans-medicalist or anti-mogai or really any sort of exclusionist to be convinced that THEY are wrong than it is for someone who is trans or falls under the MOGAI heading to be convinced that they are wrong.

It's because, when it all comes down to it, exclusionists don't really have any good reasons for why they act and believe the things they do. More often than not they are simply misguided people who think they are trying to do a service to the quote unquote "real" trans people out in the world by saying the people with the more out-there or "weird" things aren't ACTUALLY part of the experience. It's actually fairly easy to convince them that that sort of thinking is overall harmful to the entire experience.

Exclusion helps nobody but the intolerant and bigoted. All it does is create internal pressure and strife in a group that is ALREADY beset by so much EXTERNAL pressure and strife. People act like being accepting of "fringe" elements is somehow hurtful to the "core" elements of the movement, when in fact it is excluding them and saying that they aren't real that is harmful to the ENTIRETY of the movement. One of the biggest issues in both LGBT+ movements and Feminist movements is internal division. A divided house cannot stand, as the famous saying goes. Gatekeeping hurts everyone. It causes cracks in the movement that can and WILL be exploited by the people that want to hurt us.

 No.4550

File: 1577107312699.png (130.84 KB, 507x585, 13:15, A502A440-5ABD-48ED-9957-71….png) ImgOps Google

Sorry, I went to sleep.

>>4528
Because I agree with a lot of those bigots, at least in regards to Mgoai genders.

>>4529
>Gender and sex are different. gender is social.
I think the two are pretty intertwined. I don’t think most of the social mores we have for either gender/sex exist for no reason, I think they’re hard wired, which is why trans people suffer from dysphoria. They’re wiring (brain is telling them to be one thing, but society is telling them to be another.

>>4530
>They are not hurting anybody whereas your interference would be actively harmful.
I find it very hard to empathise with someone if I think their pain is petty or invalid. I can be over sympathetic to a ridiculous extent at times, but I struggle to feel any sympathy for someone like this.

>You personally have had mild success in this area and every time you fail, you fail a little less badly, at least in my view.
Thank you!

>Keep it up and maybe you'll learn how to hold your tongue.
Not exactly the award I’d be looking for, but I guess I’ll have to take it.

>>4542
This is where this whole ideology begins to become its own religion, which is one of the reasons that I have trouble following it.

No one’s saying that everything has to be scientific, but there’s a big difference between something not being 100% scientific, and just completely contradicting science as we know it. I can’t buy into something that I know to be false, and I think that deluding other people into borrowing themselves further into their backward beliefs is probably worse if anything. If you’re delusional enough to believe it that’s one thing, but to know that this has no basis is science and still push it is another. Again what’s stopping someone from identifying as a dog according to this worldview? Because in my eyes believing that your a doggender is less ridiculous than believing yourself to be an inanimate object.

>>4546
Cool!

>>4548
>As someone who is in a lot of trans spaces, I can say definitely that they are not filled with this.
Interesting. There’s a big meme going around far right circles that people on the far left (SJW, if you want to use that term) are too smart for their own good, because only extremely intelligent people could believe the kind of convoluted nonsense they believe, hold the amount of cognitive dissonance they do, and simultaneously create arguments for it all.

I was talking to a large group of people on Discord awhile ago and they all parroted the same view that the far left is extremely intelligent, and I’ve heard a lot of other people talk about the same thing. That’s personally been my experience and it seems to be shared by a decent amount of people.

>You don't argue with a transphobe.
That’s pretty close minded in my opinion. Even if you’re only arguing with them to try and convert them, at least there’s some communication there.

>What would change their mind is actually knowing someone personally that goes through this, and empathizing with that person.
I agree with this. I was never properly transphobic, knowing actual trans people really helped me.

 No.4551

>>4550
Well I mean if the far right says something about SJWs, you know it's true. I retract everything I said before.

 No.4553

>>4542
> Someone who is "stargender" might not be actually meaning an actual, physical ball of gas/plasma star.
What would they mean?  AFAIK, the whole "I sexually identify as a helicopter" thing was just trolling, and I wouldn't be surprised if this "stargender" thing is too.

I've heard of amputees having phantom sensations from their missing limb.  I guess someone can have similar experience for a tail, given that humans descended from tailed mammals.  But I wouldn't consider that a LGBT issue.  And neither would I consider 'believing that I am a star' to be an LGBT issue.

 No.4554

File: 1577116672085.png (522.78 KB, 814x1024, 407:512, sas.png) ImgOps Google

>>4518
>>4518
>external verification
Hmm...do the transgender humans typically present brain scans as evidence?  I have not see that, but I'm not an expert on gender for humans.

As far as Mogal, I don't see a reason to necessary make a judgement as I don't know any.  (Unless I'm that.)

>Do people expect me to this seriously?
Gender, I gather, is one of the most serious topics for the humans.  Although perhaps for other kinds, gender is less serious.

 No.4555

>>4554
I think you might be, actually.

 No.4557

File: 1577119102186.jpeg (17.47 KB, 600x600, 1:1, BDC60CE8-CE45-4E97-A7E2-1….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4551
I’m just saying that’s the perception we generally have, not necessarily that it’s right or wrong.

>>4554
>

 No.4558

>>4557
I did get a bit agressive there, didn't I?

Alright, fine, i'll play. There are some studies to indicate that leftism is associated with verbal intelligence.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616300757
I did look into this over a number of assignments in political psychology, but the research is still inconclusive, and there's concerns regarding a general lack of conservative researchers dealing with subjects like these.

If I was to guess, there is definitely an association between leftism and verbal ability, which often drives a less strong association between general intelligence and political ideology.

But I guess there's a lot of dispute about this research.

The general theory right now is that progressive political ideas require the ability to accomodate new concepts and process more complicated ideas, which is something that people with higher verbal ability have a much easier time doing, or even enjoy doing. So it's supposedly a natural gate that tends to sort people into categories of alignment. That's the idea. Other researchers argue that political ideology correlates with mental ability, but that this is not a causal mechanism but rather caused by third variables like wealth, schooling and so on and so forth.

We also know that neuroticism does indeed tend to be associated with progressivism.
https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/309

That could be because they have more convoluted ideas, but in all likelyhood that would only account for a fraction of trait neuroticism, given that personality traits are by definition traits that are stable over time, and are generally considered to not be caused by external factors or choices. If we try to explain neuroticism as a consequence of a factor, we've probably misunderstood the concept.

 No.4559

File: 1577136513730.jpg (4.1 MB, 4160x3120, 4:3, 20191223_130509.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4518
>really take stargender seriously
Well, you expect people to take one-type-of-human-is-better-than-another seriously, so frankly i think this is a pretty lame question.

If it metaphorically represents information that helps people understand themselves and/or each other then of course, why not.

Its not harming anyone, unlike some other peculiar beliefs.

 No.4561

File: 1577137403377.png (81.97 KB, 410x410, 1:1, 4E59EC97-9BF8-42D4-8B08-46….png) ImgOps Google

>>4558
>The general theory right now is that progressive political ideas require the ability to accomodate new concepts and process more complicated ideas,
I think the two main reasons that leftists on average tend to be smarter than right wingers is that left wing politics are generally a lot more abstract and less instinctual than right wing politics. Take immigration as a good example. The right will generally oppose immigration for reasons of simple tribalism or practical reasons, like a concern over jobs or the availability of certain services, wether as the left will come up with all kinds of convoluted arguments to deconstruct these right wing views, alongside their own supposed pros of immigration. Another thing worth noting is that you’ll rarely ever see deconstruction done from a right wing perspective. And or course left wing politics tend to be a lot more empathetic and altruistic, two traits that are highly correlated with intelligence.

I mean my core philosophy alongside that of most ethno-nationalists essentially boils down to “these are my people, you aren’t apart of ‘my people,’ so fuck off.” in comparison to your core philosophy which I imagine being far, far more complex. You could add a lot of explanation and adjuncts, but that’s essentially the base.

>We also know that neuroticism does indeed tend to be associated with progressivism.
I think neurotic people are just naturally drawn towards extremes, left or right, although I could easily believe that the left is full of more neurotic people.

>>4559
>Well, you expect people to take one-type-of-human-is-better-than-another seriously,
And you guys expect me to believe that despite the massive physiological differences (including skull, and brain differences) that we know were brought about by evolution, the races they are all 100% equal in mental capacity. Because evolution apparently stopped when it reached the brain, only in humans, despite the fact that we know the brain is most complex and sensitive organ in the human body, and thus you’d naturally assume that if physiological differences exist the brain must be different as well, so.........you’re the big gay.

 No.4562

File: 1577141184343.jpg (Spoiler Image, 31.21 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, bane.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4559
>you expect people to take one-type-of-human-is-better-than-another seriously,
Does Mint believe that some types of humans are better *simpliciter* than other types of humans?  That would indeed strain credibility.  OTOH, if he believes that some types are better than others in some specific aspects, that's more believable.  E.g., women are better than men at breastfeeding.

>>4561
>you’re the big gay
for you

 No.4564

File: 1577143593381.gif (430.82 KB, 795x831, 265:277, 50A43375-6622-4F76-BD18-2A….gif) ImgOps Google

>>4562
>for you

 No.4565

File: 1577151573337.jpeg (157 KB, 647x1024, 647:1024, qq.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4555
Carl Sagan said I was made out of star stuff.

 No.4566

>>4561
Your viewpoint is cold and antiquated but has a foundation of facts and science.

If you are looking at previous evolution of humans, insisting that different races all evolved separately, resulting in differences in intellegence/features,
Why are we all labeled as the same species then?
Its because we are all the same.

 No.4567

File: 1577188550497.png (74.09 KB, 625x910, 125:182, BE01C834-726A-4109-9E15-56….png) ImgOps Google

>>4566
>Why are we all labeled as the same species then?
Why are dogs all labelled as the same species? I think the category of species is actually quite broad, especially if it would consider a husky and a chihuahua to be the same species.

We know for a fact that the different human races have lived separately for tens of thousands years on radically different environments, and we also know that this amount of time and variety of ecosystem has produced massive physiological differences in each of the races, therefore why wouldn’t we assume that these environments also produced great mental differences. Does the idea that literally everything about each of the races would evolve along divergent lines expect for the brain really makes any sense to you?

We already know that the different races have differences in their brains, and that East Asians tend to have slightly bigger brains than Whites, which would explain their higher IQ.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29400417/

 No.4568

People don't owe you justification for their existence by handing in an essay explaining why they are valid. If you "refuse to accept it as valid" then do what most of us do with things we don't understand - keep it to yourself. I sure don't understand the concept of stargender, but if that's what they feel, why would it bother me?

Many people refuse to accept things you have said, but you have cried, kicked and screamed for several months now adamant of your right to say them, i.e the right for you and your views to exist here without being minimized or silenced. Yet you have the utter nerve to now still question people out of the blue for no reason expecting them to explain to you why and how they came to be who they feel they are. Genuinely, please get a life and stop this dumbness

 No.4569

File: 1577189304869.png (1.64 MB, 4000x4000, 1:1, 7C83062D-BD09-47A5-9317-66….png) ImgOps Google

>>4568
>if that's what they feel, why would it bother me?
For the same reason that someone who says they can speak to ghosts might annoy you, it’s utter nonsense. I’m willing to try and understand non-binary people, but as far as I’m concerned if you think your star you’re no less, if not more crazy than someone who’s obsessed with talking to ghosts.

>Yet you have the utter nerve to now still question people out of the blue for no reason expecting them to explain to you why and how they came to be who they feel they are.
I think there’s a big difference between my views and someone who identifies as a star. Would you take someone seriously if they identified as a dog?

 No.4570

>>4569

>Would you take someone seriously if they identified as a dog

so now you're doing the strawman "attack helicopter" kinda jokes. You see, this is exactly what I feared would happen if you were part of the lgbt thread.

you ignored everything people said to you here. If you don't understand or accept it, you have the right not to. But you don't need to be out here publicly questioning people over it. Nobody is going to have a satisfying, definitive answer for you to make you go "ok i accept this now" so all you're doing is further parroting

 No.4572

File: 1577192810963.jpeg (106.65 KB, 867x921, 289:307, 90C67C57-CFEE-4317-986D-5….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4570
>so now you're doing the strawman "attack helicopter" kinda jokes.
That’s not a joke, it’s a genuine question. There are actually people out there who identify as various animals, in fact their are whole communities of them, and as far as I’m concerned they’re less crazy than the people identifying with stars, because at least the things they identify as are actually sentient.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherkin

So would you accept them? Also I’m extremely offended by the idea that people would think I’d stoop as far as making unironic Boomer jokes.

 No.4573

>>4572

of course i know about them. I also know it's not your place to judge people as "crazy" and i don't understand why you're doing so with such impunity

 No.4574

>>4570
The amazing thing is that the whole basis for these kinds of objections to inclusive language is that it harms the image of trans people. But as far as I've seen, no trans people seem to have a problem with it.

And then the discussion is solely focused on stargender and otherkin, two groups that are exceedingly rare, and not present on the site, and it is presumed that we can safely say exactly what they are and that they are ridiculous, without even having spoken to any of them.

This whole thread is such a farce.

>>4567
And ffs, why are you not reading your studies still

For one the structural differences are posited to be primarily due to cultural influences, and for another, the samples are only matched for age and years of education, introducing significant confounds

Even if this wasn't the case, the sample sizes are too low to indicate anything conclusive. This is an AWFUL study for what you want to show.

 No.4575

File: 1577203945566.png (52.55 KB, 500x334, 250:167, D3F2D486-2574-4C95-8E18-F5….png) ImgOps Google

>>4574
>For one the structural differences are posited to be primarily due to cultural influences,
And that’s conclusive? No, that’s just a hypothesis, I doesn’t tell us anything. The study itself is what’s important, and the study points out major differences in the brains of East Asians and Whites.

There are a few other studies that I could link to, one regarding transracial adoption, that shows even when adopted into a White family and raised in a White cultural background both Blacks and East Asians still have IQ’s typical of their race, regardless of their adopted parents IQ’s. But I’m just about to get off a bus to do some last minute Christmas shopping, so I don’t have the time. I’ll send you them later if you’re really interested.

>the sample sizes are too low
As I’ve already said there are quite a few other studies that show the same thing, so there is an established pattern.

I am reading the studies, you’re just trying to find their weakest possible point. I’ve considered that.

 No.4576

>>4574
>>4575
> No, that’s just a hypothesis, I doesn’t tell us anything. The study itself is what’s important, and the study points out major differences in the brains of East Asians and Whites.
This is such an awful statement. It's a really fleshed out working theory, it actually tells us a lot. But you don't bother checking if it does, you just read until the part where it says there are differences and that's enough for you.

The authors point out that the idea of these structural differences being cultural is well researched and studied. There are very specific reasons why this is considered to be the working theory.

I want to say go read the section related to the fusiform face area and cingulate gyrus, because they explain why these neuroanatomical differences are very likely to be cultural, but I have absolutely zero confidence that you will come away from it with a better understanding and manage not to delude yourself more.

 No.4577

What you seriously need is a proper primer on epistemology.

And the patience to sit down and read.

 No.4578

>>4568
>People don't owe you justification for their existence by handing in an essay explaining why they are valid.
I don't think anyone is questioning anyone's justification for existing.  Mint seems to be questioning a *belief* that someone *is* in some sense an extraterrestrial object.  And that questioning seems quite valid to me.

>>4574
>This whole thread is such a farce.
I disagree.  I don't even see how 'identifying as a star' is even related at all to gender.

 No.4579

>>4574

It really is. I think the thing i find the most disgusting is that, since Mint has a trans gf, does that mean she had to send him 10 essays explaining why being trans was valid and logical before they could date? Somehow i doubt it. Pure bias 100%

 No.4580

File: 1577215678519.jpeg (124.83 KB, 1293x970, 1293:970, 25779C31-33CD-42CC-AE4A-2….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4576
Didn’t you read, “one regarding transracial adoption, that shows even when adopted into a White family and raised in a White cultural background both Blacks and East Asians still have IQ’s typical of their race, regardless of their adopted parents IQ’s.”? If it was cultural we wouldn’t still see these exact same differences.

The inequality of the races just makes sense. Again why would there be no mental differences when there are clearly massive physiological differences between the races? Wouldn’t it make evolutionary sense that we would see differences between the races, considering that they evolved along divergent paths in radically different environments? These are questions that people like you dodge, and then you scoff at me.

>read the section related to the fusiform face area and cingulate gyrus,
Ok, but I doubt that it’ll say anything conclusive, and even then it only accounts for those specific parts of the brain.

>>4577
>epistemology
<the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.
>implying that the divergent evolution isn’t a justified belief

 No.4581

>>4580
>Again why would there be no mental differences when there are clearly massive physiological differences between the races?

>massive

when 99.5% of each human's DNA is identical to everyone else's when other species have subspecies with up 5% genetic differences on average, characteristizing that different races have "massive" physiological differences between them is a massively hyperbolic assumption.

 No.4582

File: 1577219091720.jpg (46.89 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 8584c61d8551fb9bbe9af334a0….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4580
>The inequality of the races just makes sense

 No.4584

File: 1577219433770.jpg (42.64 KB, 459x500, 459:500, ugh.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4580
>The inequality of the races just makes sense.

 No.4585

File: 1577219924994.png (81.97 KB, 410x410, 1:1, 806B39F4-A726-488A-A11E-50….png) ImgOps Google

>>4581
96% of DNA is identical to chimpanzees.

>>4582
>>4584
If you take two groups and place them in radically different environments over tens of thousands of years you’re going to see some kind of divergent evolution. That’s just basic evolutionary theory, it’s not too fucking complicated.

I’d like to know why we’d assume that evolution doesn’t apply to humans, and why the races would be identical in mental capacity despite obvious being rather different physiologically.(USER WAS PERMA-BANNED FOR THIS POST [See, Mod Response Below])

 No.4586

File: 1577220145379.jpg (46.89 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 8584c61d8551fb9bbe9af334a0….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4585
For a start, the only "Massive" difference you can really offer is via skin color.

For a second, I'm greentexting the comment because it's on a subject you're not supposed to talk about. I'm not going to continue the conversation despite wanting you to dig your grave deeper.

 No.4587

File: 1577220257528.gif (6.13 MB, 983x1000, 983:1000, 76f.gif) ImgOps Google

>>4562
No, he believes that some are simply better than others entirely based on things like IQ and oversimplified extreme darwinism or whatever the fuck this shit can be called.

>>4561
I wonder if you listen to a word ive ever said because everytime you regirgitate what you think my position is, its always your supremacist strawman opponent narrative.

What ive told you is that a person's value cannot be evaluated by imaginary brain test scores or any other metric that YOU or anyone else can impose.

Granted, your existence does challenge my assertion because imo supremecists have absolutely no value at all.  So i am forced to squash my own feelings to stick with my own narrative.

What i find most puzzling about you is how you can assert imaginary mental betterness while spitting out verbatim a provably false white nationalist narrative.  Even YOU can see that you have not presented a single idea of your own from your own head, and this seems...smart to you.

To me, it hardly even qualifies as "thinking", let alone doing it "better".

 No.4588

>>4585
>>4585
>I’d like to know why we’d assume that evolution doesn’t apply to humans, and why the races would be identical in mental capacity despite obvious being rather different physiologically.

I'd like to know why you believe tens of thousands of years is enough time for divergent evolutionary paths to produce "massive" differences.

 No.4591

File: 1577222133304.jpg (128.72 KB, 1175x1200, 47:48, 1574649563158.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Mint you are a truly sad human and I hope you really stop and think about why you're immediately getting racist and off-topic immediately after someone questioned why you never demanded proof of why your gf being trans was valid the same way you have for this "stargender" thing. you are clearly quite troubled. please just do us all a favour and go far far away(Please don't insult other users. Violation of Rule 1.)

 No.4596

File: 1577224066727.png (89.82 KB, 500x396, 125:99, 872F2C0E-D960-4EBE-85F1-BE….png) ImgOps Google

>>4586
I thought it was okay because it’s on /townhall/ and no one has said anything, but I’ll stop now if you’re saying that I should.

>>4587
I know that you believe that, but I was only arguing that differences do exist, not wether or not you’d care about them.

>Even YOU can see that you have not presented a single idea of your own from your own head, and this seems...smart to you.
I never said I was smart, in fact the vast majority of people in this thread probably have a higher IQ than me, but that doesn’t mean that my ideas are as dumb as me.

I’m away for a shower, I’ll talk to you later on on Discord, not about this.

 No.4598

File: 1577231294253.png (89.37 KB, 324x277, 324:277, Moony sad.png) ImgOps Google

>>4585
>>4596
>>4580
Minty, i have always liked you. As a person, i like you. But as an Administrator of a website, i am no longer willing to defend you from the consequences of your beliefs and actions. This site was founded to be a shelter for all kinds of people. Your behavior makes it less so, for nearly everyone.

You've been asked to tone it down before. You know better, and if by now you don't know better, then that really isn't up to me to defend. It's up to you, to change.

Please consider this a permanent ban from all boards. You will be allowed to appeal in two months time.

Violation of Rules 1, 7, 8, after multiple previous warnings and bans.

Permabanning does not come easily to me. It is a weapon i despise wielding. But we've come to that point now, Minty.

 No.4611

>>4598
I feel like this was probably inevitable

Sorry for all the drama

 No.4612

>>4588
>I'd like to know why you believe tens of thousands of years is enough time for divergent evolutionary paths to produce "massive" differences.
I can't speak for Mint, but I'm pretty sure that domesticated animals provide evidence of this.  (Granted, natural selection is generally slower than artificial selection.)  The Russian fox experiments are an especially interesting example of this:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox

 No.4615

>>4612
I actually read a book about this once. There's a lot to consider with the foxes IIRC. They reach sexual maturity like 10 times faster than humans, are bred as soon as they do, also the selection pressure is not only heavily focused and 100% consistent, but is also extremely strong with only 20 percent being allowed to have offspring. In 50 years you can have about 50 generations of foxes. In the same amount of time, you usually only go through about 2-3 generations of humans. You can probably see how that's a relatively significant difference.

The belyaev foxes are still relatively wild, and cannot be kept as normal pets even 50 years into the experiment. They require far more care and attention than regular dogs, and are posited to be likely to revert to wild fox behavior quite fast once selection pressure was reverted to a natural state.

Many selective breeding endeavors also run into what is in the realm of evolutionary biology called the grandmother effect, named after the rat experiments conducted at stanford university, where endocrine environments in rats influence the offsprings phenotypical traits many generations down the line from the influenced mother, introducing significant non-mendelian inheritance. It can be really hard to seperate these grandmother artifacts from genetic changes.

All this taken into account I think it's hard to point to the fox experiments as proof that 10 thousand years or however long we might be talking, with no clear and highly signficant differences in selection pressure should offer significant differences in intelligence.

 No.4631

>>4612
>>4615

Domestic breeding certainly confirms the dilatory effects of breeding for "desireable" traits.  Every domesticated "species" is plagued by resultant concentrated traits that do the opposite of making anything actually "better".

Besides evolution doesn't have any "better", thats stupid misinterpretation.  In reality phenotypes are switched between as needed (like the moth that changed colors to match the color of industrial smoke) but "better" means retaining multiple options so that selection can fine tune which stored trait is better right now in just a few generations.

Even a flaw like sickle cell anemia is a cost of malaria immunity.  ANY reduction in genetic diversity especially to solve a short-term problem is bad.

"Smarter" is NOT "better".  There IS no "better" from that perspective.  

 No.4637

>>4631
also a very valid perspective


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]