Rebuttals for Gender Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe1 said:
When I get into an argument with someone regarding Gender Theory, they try to distinguish between sex and Gender. They also claim that there is more than two Genders. Any rebuttals for Gender theory as a whole?
Click to expand...
First, they have to prove their claim, which they can’t.
Don’t let them make YOU play defense. They make the claim that gender is a pure social construct, so make THEM play defense on the issue.

Second, we have strong evidence that gender is rooted in biology. In homosapiens, the male body is more suited for hunting and conflict, the female body less so. The more narrow hips of a male makes him more suitable for running. The lack of breasts make males more capable of throwing that rock or spear. The tendency for males to be larger and stronger than females solidifies their advantage over females in these activities.

On the flip side, the female body is uniquely adapted to caring for children and is dramatically more burdened by creating those children. In a time before both 1. baby formula and 2. medical science making pregnancies nearly 100% successful, this meant that having and caring for the next generation was a young female’s primary role.

Opened up across world culture throughout human history, we see roughly the same male dominance over virtually all activities outside the household. Exceptions where females were engaged in these sorts of activities are notable because they’re so rare relative to what is commonly seen across the species.

Gender is absolutely rooted in sex. But please be charitable to these confused folks. They do and should have the right to be weirdos if this is a genuinely free society. And you should have the right to freely and openly disagree with them.
 
Last edited:
AdamPeter said:
That will be the net effect. There are already people openly advocating to reduce ages of consent etc.
Click to expand...
Who are these “people”? Do you know of any legislators who plan who plan to introduce bills to change the age of consent?
AdamPeter said:
Labelling it a “sexual orientation” will make it seem normal in people’s minds. It’s a mental disorder. Unless you want to say that homosexuality is also a mental disorder, then I don’t see how that helps.
Click to expand...
The DSM V definition of a sexual orientation: it is not chosen, manifests during puberty and cannot be changed.
Symptoms of Pedophilic Disorder

According to the DSM-5, there are three criterion, with six specifiers:
  • An individual who has had arousing fantasies about, urges for, or behaviors with a prepubescent child or children.
  • The individual has acted out these sexual desires, or is experiencing significant distress or difficulty as a result of these desires.
  • The Individual is 16 years of age, and at least five years older than the child or children noted in Criterion A.
Click to expand...
The orientation alone is not a disorder, it becomes a disorder only when the above 3 symptoms are manifested.

You may not agree with the definition but the reasoning is sound. The APA implication is that a predatory pedophilic can not be cured and must be keep away from children through incarceration or intense supervision. Do you have a better way to protect children from predators?
 
Last edited:
That has nothing to do with your assertion, which is borderline slanderous, that Evangelicals like Roy Moore even more because he’s a child molester. No. They think Roy Moore is being ‘persecuted’ and are backing the ‘victim’ of the Left, establishment Republicans and media.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
That has nothing to do with your assertion, which is borderline slanderous, that Evangelicals like Roy Moore even more because he’s a child molester. No. They think Roy Moore is being ‘persecuted’ and are backing the ‘victim’ of the Left, establishment Republicans and media.
Click to expand...
I believe your argument is with those who wrote the articles. I made no assertions, I simply displayed two headlines one from Time and one from Newsweek. Based on their investigation Time wrote that Roy Moore’s behavior was common knowledge and Newsweek reported on a poll. I have no objection to you siding with Roy Moore.
 
Last edited:
You posted the Newsweek link in response to Ed.
It’s amazing you would accuse me of siding with the repulsive Roy Moore, based on what exactly?
If you want to start something, I will pull one of the moderators in. Final warning.
 
Last edited:
It’s impossible to hold a moderate position these days. If you say something critical of a Left Outfit, it is presumed that you are fully in support of the Right Outfit in the discussion. And vice versa.

Subtlety is dying, or dead. And when subtlety leaves, civilization is not far behind.
 
Not really. Pre-internet, real people talked to real people or got their news from long-running publications that had fine reputations with real names of the people involved, an address, a building, etc.

On the internet: no or few real names, God knows if they’re real or fake, lying or telling the truth and nobody actually knows anybody. Example: Young woman to dad.

Dad! I’ve got 300 friends on Facebook.

Dad responds: Have you called any of these people?

No.

Have you met any of these people?

No.

Then how are they your friends?

So imagine you are in a dark room and you hear voices and you have no idea about who these voices are or what their intentions are or if they’re being honest or not.

Note: I have real people with real names that I know. We develop relationships. We get to know each other. They have very little reason to be fake or I with them. Subtlety still exists in the real world. I’m careful with my words when I need to be. But the internet? It’s only a limited tool with an open line to total strangers.
 
No they are not. There is a shift in how pedophiles are looked at because how things have been handled in the past. In the US there have been several changes in the law to keep children safe, sex offender registry, Megan’s Law, among others. Patty Wetterling was one who initiated the registry after her son was abducted and has acknowledged that the registry has done little to keep children safe so she and others around the world (watch this BBC documentary The Paedophile Next Door) are looking at a different approach. Wetterling says:
Right now we’re stuck. It’s a trap, We want people to be angry about sexual assault, and then when they’re angry about it they want to toughen it up for these people, these “bad boys” who do this, and if we can set aside the emotions, what we really want is no more victims. So how can we get there? Labeling them and not allowing them community support doesn’t work. So I’ve turned 180 from where I was.
Click to expand...
Dr Sarah Goode says:
Somebody who realises that they are a paedophile has to make a choice about how they are going to live their lives. At the moment, the only message that they’re hearing from us in society is “you’re a paedophile, you’re an evil monster, we hate you”… that’s not a deterrent, that doesn’t keep children safe.
Click to expand...
They are in no way is trying to normalize it but avoiding demonizing persons with pedophilia and a part of that is the designations in the DSM: V.
 
ATraveller said:
You posted the Newsweek link in response to Ed.
It’s amazing you would accuse me of siding with the repulsive Roy Moore, based on what exactly?
If you want to start something, I will pull one of the moderators in. Final warning.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, I misread your response about Moore. My OP was in response to Ed who likes to post about gay creeps and I was reminding him that there are creeps who pretend to be Godly.
 
We, including me, are all sinners. I would never use the term ‘gay creeps.’ In an attempt to not demonize others, let us all stop demonizing others. Look at how heavily LGBT is being promoted to kids in school, and on TV. It is not an accident. It was not always like that. Various LGBT groups watch very carefully to make sure that, for example, LGBT representation is improving on TV. And if some media entity is not toeing the line, the anti-dialogue word “homophobia” is used.
 
Last edited:
The bullying that is taking place is homofascism. The children are being indoctrinated.

The future will be dark.
 
I think he was referring to the times when short hair on women (esp young women) was a societal sign of unchaste behavior. For example, when a woman was arrested for prostitution, her hair would be cut off so everyone would know.

Then, some women, esp lesbians starting cutting their hair like men… until today where women can cut their hair however they like, even a military cut like some men (even though that’s still not common), without it meaning anything specific. AKA - short hair on a young women doesn’t automatically mean she’s a lesbian, prostitute, etc. Heck, there are lots of nuns who have short hair today.

But in previous centuries, short hair had a very unchaste meaning in many societies.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top