Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
Ha. I've just gone back and read my first contribution to this thread. I stand by it, especially the last sentence.
 
Last edited:

qigong chimp

Settler of gobby hash.
Tell 'your friend ' they need to Man up a bit.

I'll tell her first chance I get.
 

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
TBF, most of the time when talking about stereoisomers, I would leave off the prefix since it's obvious from the context whether it's one, the other or both that's being referred to. I would only really use the prefix when I need to emphasise that I'm referring to a particular molecule and not all the molecules that I or others might include in using the less specific name. For clarity, you know?
 
D

Deleted member 28

Guest
TBF, most of the time when talking about stereoisomers, I would leave off the prefix since it's obvious from the context whether it's one, the other or both that's being referred to. I would only really use the prefix when I need to emphasise that I'm referring to a particular molecule and not all the molecules that I or others might include in using the less specific name. For clarity, you know?

Thank f**k I'm a rigger!
 
D

Deleted member 28

Guest
Cis trans isomerism

Cis and trans genetic variants

Riveting, I stand erected.
 
Bullshit. You started banging on at length without even reading the article the thread was about. I responded to your objections until I tired of your constant misrepresentation. Congratulations - you're doing it again. The report I linked to outlined a cogent definition of gender as a social phenomenon - you ignored that in favour of the limited understanding of gender you seem to be able to muster - some kind of individualist feeling in your head which can therefore be easily dismissed in favour of biological essence. I usually avoid arguments about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, especially ones as arse-about-face as the one you're trying on above, but I don't think a 'feminism' which doesn't have a serious theory of gender is worth the paper its printed on.

I read the whole report. I quoted the pages and paragraph numbers back to you. The trouble is you don't do detail, Claude. You don't do specifics. And, as you know because I pointed out the exact paragraph, the theory of gender the report espoused was one where you can 'opt in' to a different sex class at will - a theory which is detrimental to women.

You know what a gender critical feminist theory of gender is. It's that you can't expand gender, you can't 'queer' it, you can't improve it by adding more genders. Our sex is why we are oppressed, gender is how we are oppressed. Women can only be free by tearing down the boxes and getting rid of gender altogether.

You've told me at least twice that I have a gender identity, even when I tell you I don't. You can only conjure up a gender identity by defining yourself in relation to regressive stereotypes and I don't do that. You imagine you are liberating people but you just want to add more boxes.
 

Ian H

Legendary Member
No.. and this opinion means his reiteration of the standard scientific position on the binary nature of sex in mammals, shared by 99.9% of biologists on the planet, is wrong? Oh dear.

Not necessarily, but it does call his judgement into question.
My partner, E, worked with him many years ago, and remembers an arrogant, misogynistic person.
 
Top Bottom