x
Click to expand

shamallamalandon

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:1/10/2010
Last Login:5/24/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 113 total,  173 ,  60
Comment Thumbs: 1738 total,  2442 ,  704
Content Level Progress: 30% (3/10)
Level 11 Content: New Here → Level 12 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 17% (17/100)
Level 217 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 218 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:10834
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:880
FJ Points:1890

Funny Pictures

  • Views: 4192
    Thumbs Up 84 Thumbs Down 23 Total: +61
    Comments: 6
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 09/05/12
    bad time bad time
  • Views: 3668
    Thumbs Up 60 Thumbs Down 18 Total: +42
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 09/05/12
    don't like incomplete don't like incomplete
  • Views: 869
    Thumbs Up 15 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +13
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/06/12
    yo, wassup G?! yo, wassup G?!
  • Views: 1688
    Thumbs Up 5 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +1
    Comments: 31
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 06/30/10
    cat saw your penis cat saw your penis
  • Views: 578
    Thumbs Up 3 Thumbs Down 3 Total: 0
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 06/30/10
    silly coat silly coat
  • Views: 948
    Thumbs Up 6 Thumbs Down 10 Total: -4
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 01/19/12
    My face if SOPA passes. My face if SOPA passes.

latest user's comments

#437 - alright, I see what you're saying. What I fail to understand i…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/02/2015 on But my triggers 0
User avatar #438 - blacklite (04/03/2015) [-]
To be honest, if you don't personally know someone or their gender identity, nobody in their right mind would fault you for referring to their assumed gender PRIOR to being told if they should be called otherwise. But still, if someone has preferred pronouns that you know of, it's simply POLITE to use them.

Unless, of course, you mean in a scenario in which you're SPECIFICALLY referring to the sexes of individuals, such as in, Iunno, some sort of scientific essay on the sexes, where you're referring to an individual.

In that case, I'd say (often) the same rule applies. Use the preferred pronouns, and if that becomes confusing (say, distinguishing a trans "she" from a cis "she"), then it would probably enact the same rules you would use when distinguishing ANY two girls. Such as, Iunno, referring to them by something OTHER than gendered pronouns.

Pronouns are inherently confusing, because they generalize people based on specific qualities. If the pronouns don't work, don't use them.

It works the same way when transgenderedness isn't even RELATED, after all.
#432 - so what you're saying is that it was wrong of them to see ever…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/01/2015 on But my triggers 0
User avatar #436 - blacklite (04/01/2015) [-]
I haven't changed my view since this started, and I don't know what you're talking about now.

I never said anything about how people, as a whole, should be viewed, whether as the same or different, but to generalize it to that level is insulting to the subject.

Their argument was that, no matter what gender you identify as, you are a male, because you have a penis, or a woman, because you have a vagina, and things were that way until 1955.

I am saying that, while "male" and "female" are distinguished by genitalia, that is SEX, and GENDER is a matter to be identified by the individual, and only to themselves, no matter their genitals.

If you believe that a person's gender, and how you refer to them, were based on their genitals, then how would you distinguish a person's gender without SEEING their genitals?

Whether you refer to someone as "he" or "she" has nothing to do with their genitals, so gender is only a social construct, a human invention. And if that's so, why does it have to conform to the binary, for any reason other than that being what we're used to?
User avatar #437 - shamallamalandon (04/02/2015) [-]
alright, I see what you're saying. What I fail to understand is why the same words should be used, such as a "he" that feels like a "she". don't you feel as though that is unnecessarily confusing? an Individual, that is by anatomical standards male, is standing in a group of females. how would you point out that person?
User avatar #438 - blacklite (04/03/2015) [-]
To be honest, if you don't personally know someone or their gender identity, nobody in their right mind would fault you for referring to their assumed gender PRIOR to being told if they should be called otherwise. But still, if someone has preferred pronouns that you know of, it's simply POLITE to use them.

Unless, of course, you mean in a scenario in which you're SPECIFICALLY referring to the sexes of individuals, such as in, Iunno, some sort of scientific essay on the sexes, where you're referring to an individual.

In that case, I'd say (often) the same rule applies. Use the preferred pronouns, and if that becomes confusing (say, distinguishing a trans "she" from a cis "she"), then it would probably enact the same rules you would use when distinguishing ANY two girls. Such as, Iunno, referring to them by something OTHER than gendered pronouns.

Pronouns are inherently confusing, because they generalize people based on specific qualities. If the pronouns don't work, don't use them.

It works the same way when transgenderedness isn't even RELATED, after all.
#280 - OR, is to distinguish whether you have a penis or a vagina. I'…  [+] (8 new replies) 03/31/2015 on But my triggers 0
User avatar #427 - blacklite (03/31/2015) [-]
I'm not disputing that. Male and Female are sexes, and sexes are determined by genitalia.

Gender is not sex, though. They're different things, but people just assume them to be the same, because the roles that the typical "male" and "female" genders define tend to synchronize with sex, outside of the transgender population.

As I said, "sex" is a scientific distinction, and "gender" is a definition of societal roles and social qualities, so to speak.
#347 - steamboy (03/31/2015) [-]
Here's the thing, you're wrong. Gender is in fact separate from sex if someone honestly feels that they are the opposite gender then in a social construct they would fit in with women (or men). Its literally as simple as that.
#352 - xxitzchubbsxx (03/31/2015) [-]
just did a quick google search. This gender and sex thing only appeared since like 1955 and then feminists ran with it and shit. So 1954 and before your sex is male and even if you were feminine your gender was male. It's pretty much just a modern thing.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender wikipedia knows all.
User avatar #426 - blacklite (03/31/2015) [-]
Yes, and prior to THAT, there was also research to suggest that black people were of inherently inferior intelligence, because of the thickness of their skulls, but that turned out to be wrong.

Saying that something is right because it was a certain way before the definitions were changed is absurd. Understandings of things, and what is considered correct, change as people discover new things. That's the basic nature of science.

People considered it differently before 1955, but now, academia no longer considers it so, so it's no longer valid.

And if you want a source that's more valid than Wikipedia

www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php
User avatar #432 - shamallamalandon (04/01/2015) [-]
so what you're saying is that it was wrong of them to see everyone as the same, but with differences. even thought that's what you want now. Am I understanding that right?
User avatar #436 - blacklite (04/01/2015) [-]
I haven't changed my view since this started, and I don't know what you're talking about now.

I never said anything about how people, as a whole, should be viewed, whether as the same or different, but to generalize it to that level is insulting to the subject.

Their argument was that, no matter what gender you identify as, you are a male, because you have a penis, or a woman, because you have a vagina, and things were that way until 1955.

I am saying that, while "male" and "female" are distinguished by genitalia, that is SEX, and GENDER is a matter to be identified by the individual, and only to themselves, no matter their genitals.

If you believe that a person's gender, and how you refer to them, were based on their genitals, then how would you distinguish a person's gender without SEEING their genitals?

Whether you refer to someone as "he" or "she" has nothing to do with their genitals, so gender is only a social construct, a human invention. And if that's so, why does it have to conform to the binary, for any reason other than that being what we're used to?
User avatar #437 - shamallamalandon (04/02/2015) [-]
alright, I see what you're saying. What I fail to understand is why the same words should be used, such as a "he" that feels like a "she". don't you feel as though that is unnecessarily confusing? an Individual, that is by anatomical standards male, is standing in a group of females. how would you point out that person?
User avatar #438 - blacklite (04/03/2015) [-]
To be honest, if you don't personally know someone or their gender identity, nobody in their right mind would fault you for referring to their assumed gender PRIOR to being told if they should be called otherwise. But still, if someone has preferred pronouns that you know of, it's simply POLITE to use them.

Unless, of course, you mean in a scenario in which you're SPECIFICALLY referring to the sexes of individuals, such as in, Iunno, some sort of scientific essay on the sexes, where you're referring to an individual.

In that case, I'd say (often) the same rule applies. Use the preferred pronouns, and if that becomes confusing (say, distinguishing a trans "she" from a cis "she"), then it would probably enact the same rules you would use when distinguishing ANY two girls. Such as, Iunno, referring to them by something OTHER than gendered pronouns.

Pronouns are inherently confusing, because they generalize people based on specific qualities. If the pronouns don't work, don't use them.

It works the same way when transgenderedness isn't even RELATED, after all.
#99 - seconded. 02/15/2015 on Sauce? +1
#493 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 02/06/2015 on More attractive FJers +3
User avatar #860 - tapeworms (02/06/2015) [-]
Them eyes.
#77 - Picture 09/02/2014 on Jerking off +2
#32 - omg exactly that feel 08/17/2014 on First time playing Dark Souls 0
#36 - Picture 08/17/2014 on (untitled) +4
#255 - **shamallamalandon rolls 352,981,778** 08/17/2014 on Such Is Life 0
#3762 - **shamallamalandon rolls 324,297,586** 07/10/2014 on Free Steam Card 0

user's friends

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 600
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - solarhaze (08/18/2012) [-]
Hi.
User avatar #2 to #1 - shamallamalandon (08/23/2012) [-]
how are ya?
 Friends (0)