Kyle Anthony "Kylie / Cassandra / Jesse / Alex" Brooks / queerdykekylie - [shareable] CHILDISH, TOTES A GUY

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
I never said it was related to gender. You're the one who thinks that biological sex is a social construct and keeps bringing up sex and gender as if they're the same thing. But hey, keep calling me "hon" and "sweetie." I love being talked down to by creepy guys on the Internet who think they can condescend to me.
Shit, maybe you should have said that the first time.

Biological sex is a social construct because various disparate things that are related, but not strictly tied together get lumped together. You could define the sexes in a binary fashion according to reproduction. But intersex people still fuck that up, and you give up karyotypes as a basis for sex beyond a neat correlation. You could use Karyotypes, but unless you test everyone, most people won't know theirs, and you again only have a neat correlation with reproduction and karyotype--although intersex aren't left in the cold. You could use secondary sex characteristics, like literally everyone already does, but you then have all the same difficulties we already have.

But it's worse than that. Even if we granted that *human* sex was ompletely binary and agreed that genitals, karyotype and secondary characteristics always and forever lined up and are the basis of sex, the social constructedness of this is revealed in our insistence that all other organisms operate on this same binary, even when this doesn't make sense (by any sensible system, ants and bees would have *three* sexes, and to say nothing of Symbion Pandora)

The problem with AW's posts isn't that he's wrong about the biology (for the most part)--it's that the social constructed-ness of sex isn't to be found in the biological pathways--it's in the integration of this information into our pre-existing system of gender (the binarity of which is itself largely constructed because we can't have nice things)

That's great, so you agree (as mushy as you tried to make it) that a social construct is created-- that the term attached to it has meaning. And that currently the term Woman has a meaning, which you're trying to change.

But by the very fact you're trying to change it you show through your actions that currently Woman does not mean what you want it to mean. Thus, this person is not a woman.
Haha, nope. That definition isn't even mushy--it describes social constructs exactly as they are. Gooooood try though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with AW's posts isn't that he's wrong about the biology (for the most part)--it's that the social constructed-ness of sex isn't to be found in the biological pathways--it's in the integration of this information into our pre-existing system of gender (the binarity of which is itself largely constructed because we can't have nice things)

What has AWB been wrong about from a biological aspect?
 
Elaborate how or leave, untermensch.
A post intovoid shared with you here once upon a time, was pieced together by zhane and her buddies that she is ttoria ann. Also ttoria ann did a shit job at hiding who she was on here. Isn't hiding your identity heavily suggested? How could she be so careless. Its so obvious it was her. She 'liked' the the thread of zhane's that she screen capped and shared here, then she shared a story here about zhane and her friends from a group they were both in. Zhane went nuts and exposed her all over her Facebook.
Does this help? Is there a messaging feature? Here I'm still figuring out how to navigate the site. I can provide screencaps
 
Shit, maybe you should have said that the first time.

Biological sex is a social construct because various disparate things that are related, but not strictly tied together get lumped together. You could define the sexes in a binary fashion according to reproduction. But intersex people still fuck that up, and you give up karyotypes as a basis for sex beyond a neat correlation. You could use Karyotypes, but unless you test everyone, most people won't know theirs, and you again only have a neat correlation with reproduction and karyotype--although intersex aren't left in the cold. You could use secondary sex characteristics, like literally everyone already does, but you then have all the same difficulties we already have.

But it's worse than that. Even if we granted that *human* sex was ompletely binary and agreed that genitals, karyotype and secondary characteristics always and forever lined up and are the basis of sex, the social constructedness of this is revealed in our insistence that all other organisms operate on this same binary, even when this doesn't make sense (by any sensible system, ants and bees would have *three* sexes, and to say nothing of Symbion Pandora)

The problem with AW's posts isn't that he's wrong about the biology (for the most part)--it's that the social constructed-ness of sex isn't to be found in the biological pathways--it's in the integration of this information into our pre-existing system of gender (the binarity of which is itself largely constructed because we can't have nice things)

I think you need to have a talk with Merriam Webster -
sex- noun
1: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
 
Shit, maybe you should have said that the first time.

Biological sex is a social construct because various disparate things that are related, but not strictly tied together get lumped together. You could define the sexes in a binary fashion according to reproduction. But intersex people still fuck that up, and you give up karyotypes as a basis for sex beyond a neat correlation. You could use Karyotypes, but unless you test everyone, most people won't know theirs, and you again only have a neat correlation with reproduction and karyotype--although intersex aren't left in the cold. You could use secondary sex characteristics, like literally everyone already does, but you then have all the same difficulties we already have.

But it's worse than that. Even if we granted that *human* sex was ompletely binary and agreed that genitals, karyotype and secondary characteristics always and forever lined up and are the basis of sex, the social constructedness of this is revealed in our insistence that all other organisms operate on this same binary, even when this doesn't make sense (by any sensible system, ants and bees would have *three* sexes, and to say nothing of Symbion Pandora)

The problem with AW's posts isn't that he's wrong about the biology (for the most part)--it's that the social constructed-ness of sex isn't to be found in the biological pathways--it's in the integration of this information into our pre-existing system of gender (the binarity of which is itself largely constructed because we can't have nice things)
Intersex people are rare genetic mutations. So, no, gender is still a binary thing.
 
Nice to see that you're targeting random disabled people now. Stay classy Kiwi Farms.

Sup woman beater, how's the invasion going?

Does this help? Is there a messaging feature? Here I'm still figuring out how to navigate the site. I can provide screencaps

Tell your friend Zhane that she also sent me misogynistic and racist messages. I didn't approve of that.
 
Smutley, that is a valid point. I think rather than use the word "support" though a better phrase would be - Why does @AllieCali enable Zhane, a woman so willfully obstinate and stubbornly ignorant she dropped out of high school and didn't get her GED?
Why do you support Ttoria Ann, a woman so ridiculous she could even hide her identity, which is simple as hell.
 
Intersex people are rare genetic mutations. So, no, gender is still a binary thing.

Intersex?! Um, I thought they were talking about some tumblr speak for undergoing transexual surgery. I had no idea they were talking about hermaphrodites.

Tumblr, a site that was a great idea started by a high school dropout that has flooded the world with so much confusion.
 
Haha, nope. That definition isn't even mushy--it describes social constructs exactly as they are. Gooooood try though.
So you clung to the word mushy and ignored the rest-- cool good for your for keeping from examining your dogma. By being unable to come up with a response you've really shown that you can't refute it.

Keep up the good work. And thank you for admitting that you're wrong about gender. It was a really tough thing for you to do, I know, but it's nice of to see the youths are really open to admitting their failings.
 
Isn't hiding your identity heavily suggested?
You're setting a real bad example then by shilling for Zhane and Kylie here, aren't you? After all, it's not like any of you two's "friends" could be bothered to get off their ass and be shills.

Does this help? Is there a messaging feature? Here I'm still figuring out how to navigate the site. I can provide screencaps

It's not that deep, man.
 
Why do you support Ttoria Ann, a woman so ridiculous she could even hide her identity, which is simple as hell.

Because Intothevoid, regardless if they are the person you say or not, has not been racist, sexist, enabling, abusive, or untruthful. Kylie Brooks, and Zhane, and Ahuviya, and Jordan have all been those things. Their friends Lance, and Charles, and Kinny, and Robin, and dozens of others all have been enabling this behavior.

These are all awful people and are lolcows. Intothevoid isn't one of them simply for calling a spade a spade.
 
Back