She was clearly an alien. The real question, though, is was she some form of space reptile?
Printable View
Not to my knowledge, but she should have. I bet she could roll the fuck out of some joints.
She was Egyptian and could read heiroglyphics, which I thought was the coolest thing ever because I was all into Indiana Jones at the time, so it's probably safe to say she was an alien of some sort.
Double whammy. She was definitely an alien.
Also, on another note, I noticed Latrin didn't really weigh in on the men-who-think-they're-women that participate in sports against real women. Do you approve of guys like Fallon Fox beating the shit out of girls or smoking them in other sports? I kind of wish the LFL paid well. I might suddenly discover my identity as a woman so I can go play pro foosball.
From one of her opponents:
Here's the only woman to beat her:Quote:
During Fox's fight against Tamikka Brents, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head in the 1st round. After her loss, Brents took to social media to convey her thoughts on the experience of fighting Fox: “I've fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right,” she stated. “Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRBGnjoWdo8
No, we're not, because many humans don't. That's what the word "define" means. Either you encompass all instances or you don't.There are many empirical concepts: the concept of mass and the concept of electrical charge to name two.Quote:
Is a concept truly 'empirical science'? Aren't they, by definition, contradictory?
I can find a great many people who don't accept relativistic physics too. Doesn't make it any less empirical, or them any less wrong. What is it that you think empirical means, anyway?Quote:
This concept regarding gender is relatively new and certainly not wholly accepted even in the 'civilized world'. Outside of countries like ours, I believe you'll find a great many whose people do not accept this idea.
The very first sentence says "the concept of gender, a word primarily applied to human beings, has additional connotations". You found a source, it agreed with me, and you still think you're right. Ha! Ha! Good times, subzero.Quote:
The very first sentence contradicts your statement
Only if you think there were blue ninjas running around Arendelle.Quote:
So, we can agree then that gender and sex may be used interchangeably as has been done for, oh, I dunno... ever?
Most humans are born with ten fingers, in the same way that most cars have solid roofs.
It would be incorrect to say a car is defined as having a solid roof, because ragtop convertibles exist.
It would be incorrect to say a human is defined as having ten fingers, because humans with more or less exist.
And it would be incorrect to say a male is defined as capable of impregnating someone, because many males cannot.
You're nitpicking a relatively small number of males born sterile. The problem with your argument, is that their genes backfired. Genetically they are a male, an anomaly occurred. Genetically, a man that says, hey I think I should be a female will always be a man. Vice versa in a female. Now true, some species are able to swap genders NATURALLY to better propagate the species. There is 0% anything natural about taking hormones or having surgery to swap genders. You want to be gay, lesbian, whatever that's fine. Honestly, I think the problem is with people telling me how I should think. You are born with a dick? You're a guy sorry. Born with a pussy? You're a woman. No amount of hormones or surgery will change the DNA.
Let me stop you here. My argument has never been people who are born sterile. There are many other ways for a human to not be able to produce children.
A six year old boy physiologically cannot produce children, but is male. Women post-menopause cannot bear children, yet they remain female.Nobody's telling you how you should think. We're just telling you what is factually the case. If you want to be factually incorrect, have fun with that.Quote:
Honestly, I think the problem is with people telling me how I should think.
And you're picking out whatever you want to try to prove your case. Physiologically, no JUVENILE (6 year old person or like) of any species is able to produce children. Physiologically, female homo sapiens generally have a certain period where they are able to reproduce. This is not true in other species and true in others. You and everyone else trumpeting the transgender community is telling me I should refer to them as their gender of choice. Gender isn't a choice. Short of those fish or amphibians I mentioned, there is no other species that can at will change gender. I'm sorry but if you're your born with a dick and dick only, you're a male no matter what you want to say you are. Same goes for those born with a vagina and only a vagina.