How about that male weight lifter in Ukraine or some shit. He was total shit while competing as a man, ranked like 1236th in the entire world or some shit like that. One day he decides he's a chick, starts taking medication for like a year, they say "Okay, you can compete in women's division" and he broke like 10 records in one tournament and everyone was like "WHOA! A woman broke 10 records in a single day!"
No...a man broke 10 records previously set by women in WEIGHT LIFTING.
I just can't wait for the day when men are completely dominating every single woman sport in the Olympics, then suddenly we'll see Democrats become sexists demanding men only be allowed to compete in men sports.
this guy is one of those Zionists with blinders on. hope he sticks to domestic policy.
Guro Inosanto - Filipino Martial Arts Demo at the Smithsonian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKKZuS8c7rM
And yet, the quoted definition fails to account for them. That's why we know the quoted definition is no good.Again, this is empirical science. Whether it strikes you as ludicrous or not is wholly irrelevant. Data only, no reckons need apply. I honestly have no idea what you're even citing, and have no idea why you would cite a source and immediately criticize it, but here we are.The italicized (rather the non-bolded part since quotes...) portion is a ludicrous notion.A word having a similar meaning. Similar: having a likeness or resemblance. For example, the word "subzero" resembles "frozen", but we can very easily distinguish between a Mortal Kombatant and a Disney musical.I'm sure you're familiar with the term, 'synonym', right?In point of fact I used neither of those. You may as well stop trying to call me out as a hypocrite, your continual failure to do so only makes you look incompetent.Originally Posted by Methais
Hasta pronto, porque la vida no termina aqui...
America, stop pushing. I know what I'm doing.
When we define the characteristics of humans, are we not defined as having five digits on each hand or foot? Does this mean that a person born with more or less digits is not a human because we don't list every possible outlier to include that some, occasionally, may be born with more or less?
If I were to describe a being with two heads, two brains, two hearts, two sets of lungs, one liver, one GI tract, four arms, and four legs, does that fit the description of human?
Let's take a look at some key pieces here, shall we?Again, this is empirical science. Whether it strikes you as ludicrous or not is wholly irrelevant. Data only, no reckons need apply.
"Although it is possible to define gender as “sex,” indicating that the term can be used when differentiating male creatures from female ones biologically"
This is a definition.
"the concept of gender, a word primarily applied to human beings, has additional connotations—more rich and more amorphous—having to do with general behavior, social interactions, and most importantly, one's fundamental sense of self. "
The part I say is ludicrous is a concept. Not a definition. Is a concept truly 'empirical science'? Aren't they, by definition, contradictory?
Going further, it states that:
"Internal sense." That sounds mighty empirical.Until recently, most people assumed that acknowledging one's gender, or sex, was easy. You just checked the appropriate box on a standard form, choosing either “male” or “female,” according to the gender you had been assigned at birth based on visible anatomical evidence. But some people's internal sense of who they are does not correspond with their assigned gender.
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.
Some crazy place people might go to find definitions for words. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gender?s=tI honestly have no idea what you're even citing, and have no idea why you would cite a source and immediately criticize it, but here we are.
It was cited because you claim that sex is not gender. The very first sentence contradicts your statement. What I criticize there is what is mentioned as the 'new concept' of gender.
Excellent. So, we can agree then that gender and sex may be used interchangeably as has been done for, oh, I dunno... ever? It would seem dictionaries also agree. That's good. What seems to be confusing you is people trying to insert this new concept of gender into the definition.A word having a similar meaning. Similar: having a likeness or resemblance. For example, the word "subzero" resembles "frozen", but we can very easily distinguish between a Mortal Kombatant and a Disney musical.
My art teacher in elementary school had 11 fingers. Her right hand had a little toe looking mini thumb branching off from her normal thumb. It was functional and all that shit.
Due to this anomaly, I am declaring that anyone who says humans only have 10 fingers is a bigot.