Associate
Cool; I've always wanted to be super-something. Will this be an option on the Census?
Super Straight - a new sexuality???
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
I was going to make some dodgy comment about they would have a "put up a shelf" test but then realised that I would pick the person with the straightest, strongest shelf, regardless of gender.
As Frankie Boyle once said... he would *** ***** *** with another bloke if it meant he could split the bill at the end of dinner 
<disclaimer: these thoughts are not my own>
That's called intersex and is often used by woke types to try and make more general arguments about trans people, something intersex people get a bit annoyed by as their situation is a bit different from the vast majority of trans people who are female XXs or male XYs with no DSD issues but simply identify as a different gender identity. It would have been covered in Biology GCSE for anyone paying attention in class.
Sex, as defined by gametes, is binary.
Sex, as defined by some combination of primary and secondary characteristics, is bimodal but on a spectrum with some small number of cases falling in between.
The latter case is sometimes misrepresented and used by TRAs to try and negate sex being relevant at all here, in reality, the bimodal distribution would be discrete, not continuous and contain two large spikes where the vast majority of the population fall into and some very small ones. TRAs will try to distort this by showing something making to two bell curves or similar.
Man of Honour
Getting a bit ridiculous now.
Interesting thank you. The misrepresentation of the visualisation of the underlying data makes sense.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,451
It's flawed because being straight means you're attracted to the opposite sex, gender is irrelevant in sexual preference so you either buy in the whole fantasy and ignore the dongle or you don't, there's no super straight it's a retarded concept
Straight as an arrow
It doesn't here though that is the point - this sexuality is based on the premise that straight doesn't mean that and that sex is important to sexuality. You're welcome to accept a different definition or premise, that doesn't make this concept flawed - it is logically consistent - you haven't actually shown a flaw - you're just asserting that you prefer some different premise.
Not accepting a premise doesn't make the arguments derived from a premise flawed themselves.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,451
I think you mean I'm welcome to accept the definition that has been that definition since the first definition was made on what defines sexual preference
I think you mean I'm welcome to accept the definition that has been that definition since the first definition was made on what defines sexual preference
If you like, doesn't change the argument.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,108
Yep, it's getting out of control. The science is very clear. Sex is bimodal. It's the very basis of propagation of species. Yes, there are anomalies -- but they're just that: anomalies. Many are sterile. Evolutionary failure, incapable of the base act of any organism: reproduction.
That, of course, doesn't mean that as people those affected are somehow irrelevant or inhuman. Not at all. But that's the emotional card nutcases will attempt to play when it's brought up.
I actually read an article recently where a supposed scientist on the "woke" side, making the argument for biological sex being as much of a spectrum as gender (insofar as we now accept it), referred to penis and vagina as secondary sex characteristics.
This was a profoundly transparent attempt to once more start shifting linguistic boundaries -- thrown in there inside brackets in the utterly cynically belief that people don't read them. But any bloody fool of any intelligence can tell you that no, genitals are not secondary sex characteristics.
And you know what? Back when the whole gender nonsense started, those who said "they'll come for sex/biology next" were told to shut up, stop being paranoid weirdos -- this is just a recognition of identity as valid. Yet here we are. Where once gender was "assigned at birth", now too is sex. And those same people who told others to shut up are now saying that because genomic anomalies exist, biology is a lie. Our very understanding of reality is under ideological assault, and people are falling right into it en masse. It's cult like, and won't help anyone who falls in between the lines feel any more stable in their personhood -- because the very basis of this stuff makes drawing recognisable lines and understandings completely impossible. When you can't even know thyself within a contextual sphere, you can know precisely nothing.
Soldato
Q. What do you call a super straight with a 12" prong?
A. A ruler.
A. A ruler.
Pretty much this, there's nothing else to debate frankly. If you don't have a XX chromosome I'm not sticking my **** in you.
And how would I know if I ever did? A lot of the times I see a somewhat "attractive" trans I didn't know at the time and turned out they were trans I always had this gut feeling something's off that I couldn't put my finger on it and reject it and don't go "damn". Which is rare in itself because most trans make for very unconvincing women. When I later learn they're trans I realize I was right.
whats your religion ?
Soldato
I always thought pheromones were a thing or is that alt-history. I suppose if it is true and the right pheromone is detected an attraction forms. I think that your gut feeling is along these lines that it is not quite right for you.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
That was my point.
I think you might be onto something there. Certainly, there have been a rare occasion I meet a woman and something has been majority off and within seconds I wonder if they're trans or a crossdresser.