this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
1180 points (96.1% liked)

Political Memes

5484 readers
2482 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (3 children)

If you're not running a positronic neural network then you're a biological woman

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Are you saying Data isn't a man? Because he's-

[–] JeanLucPicard8817@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Which just makes this whole thing even more nonsensical and confusing since androids don't have the need to expel waste the way humans do, and thus would not need to use a restroom.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Technically, that would depend on what would power the android. An android that gets energy from processing human food would work pretty well and there is sci-fi precedent for it- androids in the Aliens films eat food.

That said, I would hope they would have a more efficient way to get rid of that food waste than humans, so maybe they wouldn't need bathrooms.

Maybe they can recycle the raw material like a replicator can recycle raw material.

[–] Ioughttamow@fedia.io 13 points 2 days ago

I mean if she wants us to break her legs, who are we really to deny her?

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

yknow its funny, because if you really wanted to, you could argue that the very pretense of being trans is a biological factor, since there must be something beyond what is just "social norms and rules" determing gender. Such that trans people are technically, biological women.

Just not physically. So the correct way to write this would actually be "women determined to be such as by the definition of the classical physical definition, plus the correspondingly accurate neurotypical construction that tends to align with the concept of a woman more broadly"

just rolls right off of the tongue.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just not physically.

If we are gonna insist people have to be categorized into either biological male or female, a lot of trans women would most reasonably be placed into the female category and a lot of trans men into the male category.

Trans people change frequently are changing their biology to match their gender.

[–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't think so. Seems like KTI was talking specifically about trans women being neurologically female (and neurology is part of biology). I'm talking about the rest of the body also being female.

[–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My interpretation is that they were saying that the argument of trying to force people into the gender roles assigned to them based on some sort of physical attribute is dumb. And that the argument could easily be used against itself because trans people being the gender they feel is correct simply because their need to be such is a part of their physiology.

I think the example of trans women was not an attempt to limit this logic simply to them, but was just a method of communicating the idea.

I could be wrong, though. I may have just been reading it optimistically in how I'd want it to be.

I wasn't disagreeing with that part of the argument or suggesting that were limiting the discussion to trans women for nefarious reasons. I was only disagreeing with the quoted part. Biological sex is also a social construct, so the whole topic of physically being a man or woman biologically is still in the same realm of thought as race science, so I think the topic is sort of questionable to bring up at all. But even if we want to follow that logical, some trans women have far more in common with their body with a cis women who have had a hysterectomy that they do with cis men.

I'm also not suggesting that trans women need medical interventions to be women. Just that if you tried to assume some logic to actions of transphobes (your biggest mistake), then even if you excluded neurological biological reasons, then biological sex should still allow those that meet the transmeds/truscums BS ideas at least, yet transphobes still take issue. Biological here is just a dog whistle.

Also not suggesting that said person would necessary disagree - my goal was just to add to the topic.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Oh irrational fear and tribalistic othering, is there no asinine bullshit you won't stoop to, repeatedly?

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Biological cripples?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›