Could we relax the gender rules to mock blizzards laughable pandering?

[Video Games]

I have no idea what you are rambling about. This is like Twitter learned how to post and is arguing with me.

I know you don't know, which is fine, but then stop posting if you're just going to be ignorant of what's going on right now.

[BigToast]

I have no idea what you are rambling about. This is like Twitter learned how to post and is arguing with me.

Just tap out. You are obviously way out of your league. Also take a lap.

[Illusions]

True, an incoherent rambling is probably way below their league.

[Delekii]

It accounts for every single human being except for the vanishingly small percentage that are born physically intersex. I would suggest looking into the concept of "the exception proving the rule".

Exception disproves rule by definition. The saying "the exception that proves the rule" means that by virtue of its existence, the exception proves that a general rule exists. Thus, without said exception, a general rule does not exist. This is utterly irrelevant to the current discussion, since the general rule does not apply generally.

An artificial distinction that was created less than a hundred years ago. Gender is sex, gender roles are not.

That is literally the point of language. All languages, across all periods of time, shift to fit their contemporary usage. Right now, today, gender can be used both analogously with sex, and to distinguish it from the concept of gender as described by gender roles. To ignore one is to apply willful ignorance.

Language is definitionally artificial. It doesn't exist intrinsically or naturally, it evolves as a learned behavior, and is informed by social context.

I mean... yes? Isn't that how this works? In order for a group of people to be celebrated and accommodated, we have to approve of them. People who collect stamps? Sure! Murderers? No!

Yes. But you tried to imply that you are "ok" with social progression, when you clearly are not. Of course, the next step is to invoke the slippery slope fallacy, which is what you have just done by functionally equating increased social acceptance of transsexualities with murder.

Ancient people who didn't fit gender stereotypes rarely fit into our modern concept of "transgender", and even those who did represent a significantly smaller portion of the population than we see transitioning now. It's very clearly ramped up in recent years, and the only way I can describe that is as a fad.

You describe it as a fad as a means of argumentative description because it suits your purpose, nothing more. A great many things "ramp up" very quickly after reaching a given critical mass, which is likely what has happened with transsexualism. Pretending like the behavior is something other than what is described by the line of best fit requires a leap of willful ignorance in the absence of evidence, which I assume is the position you are in. Unless you have a reason to believe it is a passing fad other than "because its icky", I'm gonna go ahead and say "who gives a shit what you think"?

Social cohesion is important. Being able to use language to truthfully describe what your eyes can plainly see is important. We can't organize a country, let alone a global civilization, based on walking on eggshells to avoid a group of people so delicate that the wrong word will cause them to collapse.

Do you realise that you opened this paragraph with "social cohesion is important", and then went on to describe the fact that you can't survive in a world where you aren't allowed to act like an arsehole to other people for no apparent reason other than "its what I'm used to"? Why do you think that insulting other people is an important part of a socially cohesive society?

You don't have to "walk on eggshells" around trans people unless you find yourself having the specific need to act in a bigoted fashion.. is that a problem you have? You know what you can do? Just act like a person. Treat them like a person. Everything will be fine.

[Katchii]

I have no idea what you are rambling about. This is like Twitter learned how to post and is arguing with me.

It's about an ideology being forced on someone else, period. Being OK with an ideology is one thing, being OK with that ideology being forced on someone else is something else entirely.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the stance, just trying to help define what you essentially labeled as an incoherent Twitter rant.

[Kralljin]

That the conservatives are big hypocrites who get offended every time someone presents vaguely 'woke' things after recent years of relentlessly peddling leftist liberals as snowflakes? Say it ain't so!

Maybe you'll spot it! And if you think for a few seconds more, you can also see how the 'SJW snowflakes' differ from conservative snowflakes! I'll let you have a guess xoxo

No, the joke is the fact that your previous post contains language that the side you defend considers problematic.
The word hysteria is problematic to some people at Blizzard.

https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/...t_beta_update/

And before you blame it on anything else.
https://www.wowhead.com/wotlk/spell=...ancient-terror (Wotlk Beta)
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=19372/ancient-hysteria (Retail)

[NineSpine]

We do not "handle" them, as you put it, by completely scrubbing all distinction between the two sexes from our society. People not lining up with the gender roles society places on them do not somehow fall outside their biological category. There's nothing wrong with being a feminine man or a masculine woman.

I have no idea why you are talking about biology. Do you do genital inspections and hormone level tests and chromosome tests before you figure out what pronouns to use with someone or whether it is acceptable for them to wear a dress? This is about how we handle people socially, not about how we handle them biologically. The only time the latter matters is when they go to their doctor, which has absolutely nothing to do with me.

Definitions are artificial, distinctions are not. "Gender" is just another way of saying sex.

It's not. The dictionary recognizes the difference. Mainstream science recognizes the difference.

What words? I'm talking about concepts here. Obviously no words will destroy society, but completely de-sexing humanity very well could.

How? If 1% of society wants to move through society as a gender that differs from what they were assigned at birth, who cares? YOU are the one getting apoplectic about this, not everyone else. You accuse everyone else of being too sensitive while you predict that pronouns, which some languages don't even have, are going to COLLAPSE CIVILIZATION.

[Delekii]

What words? I'm talking about concepts here. Obviously no words will destroy society, but completely de-sexing humanity very well could.

So, is it a fad represented by a "vanishingly small" percent of people, or is it a world-ending destruction of human sexuality as we know it?

These two things not only cannot exist together, they are diametrically opposed to each other. One is the literal antithesis of the other.

Perhaps you should pick a single argument and stick with it.

[NineSpine]

It's about an ideology being forced on someone else, period. Being OK with an ideology is one thing, being OK with that ideology being forced on someone else is something else entirely.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the stance, just trying to help define what you essentially labeled as an incoherent Twitter rant.

I don't have nay idea what you are talking about. We force ideologies on people all the time. If you think women should be property, we forcefully oppose that. If you think interracial marriage should be illegal, we forcefully oppose that. If you think gays should be executed, we forcefully oppose that. If you support child brides, we forcefully oppose that. What's wrong with forcefully opposing destructive ideologies? Am I goin to hurt your feelings if I say that we should forcefully oppose the ideology of Al Qaeda? Do I have to allow them to crash planes into things or I'm being "too forceful"? Your argument is incoherent.

[KOUNTERPARTS]

4 pages of the exact “why” these threads get closed and the topic is against the rules.


@Celement All of this. Right here.

[Video Games]

What's wrong with forcefully opposing destructive ideologies?

Well see that's what I'm doing but I get called names and a bad person so you tell me :^)

[Hotmail]

No because those discussions turn into a nest of trolls who run around in circles for pages on end

[Illusions]

No, the joke is the fact that your previous post contains language that the side you defend considers problematic.
The word hysteria is problematic to some people at Blizzard.

Wait, why do you think the name change was because it's problematic? Your two links also show that...Ancient Terror was renamed to Ancient Hysteria?

[NineSpine]

Well see that's what I'm doing but I get called names and a bad person so you tell me :^)

Demonstrate the destructiveness.

[Delekii]

Wait, why do you think the name change was because it's problematic? Your two links also show that...Ancient Terror was renamed to Ancient Hysteria?

Oh good.. I thought it was just me that had literally no fucking idea what his point was.

[nvaelz]

I don't have nay idea what you are talking about. We force ideologies on people all the time. If you think women should be property, we forcefully oppose that. If you think interracial marriage should be illegal, we forcefully oppose that. If you think gays should be executed, we forcefully oppose that. If you support child brides, we forcefully oppose that. What's wrong with forcefully opposing destructive ideologies? Am I goin to hurt your feelings if I say that we should forcefully oppose the ideology of Al Qaeda? Do I have to allow them to crash planes into things or I'm being "too forceful"? Your argument is incoherent.

You know most people just want reality right? I'm forcefully on the side of your personal freedom of being whomever you wanna be, but I'm also a realist when it comes to biological functions, and what I'm truly most opposed to is the vast confusion that is imposed when one thing means another thing and it's confusing and people start fighting about something bcuz the one person is like

"Hey reality, man+woman=baby", and then the other is like "hey, freedom I can be who I wanna be and I don't wanna be mocked for it I want my value to be equal"

I'm sure most people U argue with is actually on ur side but the "CONFUSION" makes everything wierd cuz all the one sentiment means another thing in your ears, because the words have lost their function in this confusing topic

[Celement]

So you would like to have to rules relaxed in order to have the opportunity for what exactly? The ability to be a scumbag on a gaming message board? This thread is (not) going places.

Kinda?

Is that so wrong? Can I not have a laugh at a failed pr move?

[Katchii]

I don't have nay idea what you are talking about. We force ideologies on people all the time. If you think women should be property, we forcefully oppose that. If you think interracial marriage should be illegal, we forcefully oppose that. If you think gays should be executed, we forcefully oppose that. If you support child brides, we forcefully oppose that. What's wrong with forcefully opposing destructive ideologies? Am I goin to hurt your feelings if I say that we should forcefully oppose the ideology of Al Qaeda? Do I have to allow them to crash planes into things or I'm being "too forceful"? Your argument is incoherent.

Don't go after me dude, I'm not the one making the argument.

Also, you obviously DO know what I'm talking about...you made a whole post with examples and everything!

Read my post again, I never said forcing the ideology was good or bad just saying that being OK with one and forcing one on someone else were two different things.

[Kralljin]

Wait, why do you think the name change was because it's problematic? Your two links also show that...Ancient Terror was renamed to Ancient Hysteria?

Well, Blizzard has only changed another spell name in Wotlk Classic and that's the human Racial Every man for himself to Will to Survive.
And there they explicitly stated it's because of inclusivity.

Because it would be freaking odd to change spell names in the Classic version of the game for shits and giggles.

And the reason why i'm linking Retail and Wotlk Classic is because it was changed recently on the Wotlk Classic Beta, whereas on Retail it still has the same name it had 15 years ago.
Even Wowhead article which reported this (before they deleted the news) explained that the word Hysteria has mysogynistic roots.

So yeah, if you think Blizzard just decided to change the name of a debuff in Wotlk Classic that's only applied in content which isn't relevant to Wotlk Classic because they felt like it, i have a bridge to sell you.

[nvaelz]

No because those discussions turn into a nest of trolls who run around in circles for pages on end

Exactly, cuz of the confusion XD