Intangible feefees are unscientific and should be dismissed.
So it's not science and not measurable.
Well, of course they would because it's based on biology. I can still tell a woman's a woman even if she's a totally masculine bull dyke type, same deal with a super-effeminate drag queen.
Absolutely, gender is just a cultural and social concept related to how sex is expressed in any particular culture and evolves and changes over time. There are some pretty weird ones when it comes to grammatical gender, for example in Latin "uterus" is actually a masculine noun. A lot of the time they do tend to line up with real-world sex though.
No it's not up to them.
No argument there. These intersex situations are so rare anyways I don't know how anyone could use them to argue in favor of transgenderism.
Often for intersex a surgical "correction" is similarly performed (sometimes after birth), usually after talking to the parents. Sadly medicine is imperfect and barely 200-ish yrs old in its more modern form so some of our interventions are rather barbaric, but we're improving steadily. The SRS and even HRT are not just often barbaric, but deeply misguided and heavily politicized, which cannot really be said about most other surgeries. The studies are few, the data is cherrypicked and melodrama surrounds the field.
Obviously not. That's how one eats her children because the science says she'll otherwise starve even when the inner feelings are love.
Even if the nomad came from a culture where the genders describe animate and inanimate (rather than masculine and feminine), even if the time-traveller came from a culture where "the Ship" and "the Maiden" are both neuter (rather than both feminine), here and now they would catch onto what we mean as they learn the language. Because gender is based on language. Even trannies understand what we mean and that's why they call themselves "trans"; in that context, "trans" is a euphemism for "fake".
So is faith, personal responsibility, work ethic, morality, and social standing, but I don't see anybody insisting that they don't exist just because they can't be measured. The problem isn't that you're an idiot, the problem is that you get so worked up at the idea of things that upset you (ie. men in dresses) that you start honking and hollering mindlessly and your ability to understand basic concepts like intangibility seems to shut right off.
Stop being a low IQ sperg.
No shit, retard. Gender is sociology, what the fuck does science have to do with any of this?
Then GTFO off MEDICAL SCIENCE you spergs lmao
I never once mentioned medical science or trannies, I said gender is real because 'real' and 'intangible' don't mean the same thing.
Morality actually isn't all that subjective. Most morals stem from cause and effect. If you gave someone poison to treat an illness and it healed them instead of hurt them, the moral thing to do is to give it to people who need it to cure an ailment. Epinephrine is just such a thing. You do it otherwise and you will likely kill someone. The morally wrong thing would be to hurt or kill them. We do this because genetically speaking, our fellow people are more valuable alive than dead, this is even why humans enslaved people instead of killed them. Morality is simply a nature of "If this causes greater harm than good" then it's bad to do it and we teach it socially because some humans are too retarded not to stick their dicks in light sockets, let alone kill people. Telling idiots in the past through religion that pork was the devil meat and evil was because they didn't understand that the parasites and shit in pork was more transmissible than most other ruminants at the times.
OK then I choose the highly unsubjective, deeply objective Wahhabi morality
It works for that society. Morals are all cause and effect, if it didn't work, people would abandon it and try something else. Many of our old morals have changed and people have argued morals don't exist because they change with location and the times. Morals are just the general rules we apply to ourselves in our culture that ensure we don't destroy it. Cause and Effect.
You have a point.
I think London's faggot mayor would love you.
This is unironically true, they describe what their personality is and what they like to fuck at the same time with it basically.
It absolutely is. What you've offered is your own interpretation of morality, and if you told it to a norse warchief or a 17th century slaveholder, or a Mennonite laypreacher, they would laugh in your face because of how wrong they think you are. Not all morals originated around "this is best for society", there were societies that saw personal glory-seeking at the expense of others to be the ultimate goal of life, there were societies that considered the proliferation of dynasty to be the most noble and moral pursuit of man, and there were societies that willingly sought out their own death and destruction for the glory of God. Morality is very subjective.
Three.
