Why didnt the lefties just say "a woman is a human female and everyone who feels like they should've been born as one"...

Gender is made up nonsense. It’s not real. It’s not empirical. It’s fantasy. It’s a bullshit concept invented in the 50s by a literal child abuser. You people deserve to be set on fire.

Attached: 329FA8F0-D97A-4654-9D2C-900DE49F520A.jpg (225x225, 17.72K)

enlighten me then

I am not your fucking school teacher. FUCKING GOOGLE IT YOU MORON. MAYBE IF YOU SPENT MORE TIME LEARNING AND LESS TIME PREACHING YOU'D HAVE A FINER UNDERSTANDING OF B A S I C LOGIC.

Money is made up nonsense... It’s not real. It’s not empirical. It’s fantasy. It’s a bullshit concept invented in the 50s by a literal child abuser. You people deserve to be set on fire.

They can't say that because then every theological concept of feminism crumbles.

they are not logical, hans

i dont see how the hypothetical statement i quoted is a circular definition. But saying "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" definitely is one

ur right... thats so fucking stupid. Seems like it really is just a form of identity make up for a lot of them

You're wrong and OP is right.

If you're talking about fiat currency then yes, you are correct. Faggot.

fmovies.to/movie/what-is-a-woman-zk2w3/1-full

Yeah, well, I feel like I should've been born as Brad Pitt before he met Angelina Jolie. Where's my haram of women willing and eager to get fucked by me?? Fucking bigotry of society telling people I'm not Brad Pitt.

What is a dog?
Dog: "a creature that is quadrupedal who feels like they should have been born as a dog".
See how that circular logic works, ya bitch?

Attached: qL6W01a.jpg (640x589, 61.49K)

There's no secondary independent proof that justifies this. It's all internal. So the 'flaw' in the logic is that it's being said, not WHAT is being said. It's a dispute of the user, not the quality of what is being said.

Every other women is justified by saying their female, and that is just as 'circular'.

Thanks for taking the time out to tell us all of this, but not providing anything to the conversation. So glad you took time out of your bustling schedule to address this issue for us lower mortals. You have acceded so quickly you forgot to say why, but I'll just assume that the explanation was so vast and detailed that you ran out of room.

Money is universally fungible contract that can be exchanged for resources. It's also empirical, it can be quantified, it has neurological effects in the brain, and effects human and animal behavior, the field of economics directly studies observations of money's impact and can make predicts of what happens to economies when money is manipulated.

Today's money is fiat, but in the past we used gold, silver, electrum, shells, etc. and even further than that money was a contract to wheat (small stone tables could be exchange for certain bushels of wheat, etc.). It's all essentially the same, fiat is just more useful.

The idea of "social constructs" exists to simply justify things that social "scientists" don't have the ideological will to apply empiricism to.

Because crypto is based on math.

So, what you're saying is, you have no idea what a social construct is?

What is a woman?

So? As a leftist, fuck social norms.
I genuinely hate the whole trans and non binary movement for that reason, they are reinforcing gender stereotypes instead of destroying them. Their ideology is sexist and divisive.

>Why didnt the lefties just say "a woman is a human female and everyone who feels like they should've been born as one"? That's still questionable, but at least it wouldn't have been a circular definition and it would have lead nicely into the actually important question, which is how we should treat gender dysphoria

Because it's an occult thing. They are attempting to bring up fiends from hell, and the only way they can do that is corrupting humans. Getting you to admit a man is a woman, is getting you to lie.

it's paradoxical to say "and everyone who feels like they should have been born as one". Because that implies they currently aren't one, yet you still include them in the definition of what a woman is.

A woman is literally an individual who identifies as a woman. Its not a circular statement. Walsh was just a fucking idiot.

The term gender is a made up construct.

That's completely tautological. You come back to the same question that hasn't been answered: "Well, then: What is a woman?"

Social constructs do not exist, every social construct ever proposed fundamentally violates the basic tenets of scientific inquiry. They are unfalsifiable, untestable, and unrepeatable. The scientific method can not be used with a social construct and thus social constructs are false.

If all you have is "It's an idea that some people hold and that's a social construct" then what you have is infinite absurdities that will never provide factual knowledge. Practically all social constructs are designed specifically to ignore the influence of biology on behavior and culture because social "scientists" are retarded, "social construct" exists only to promote marxism.

A person that was born with XX chromosomes, have female reproductive organs, and sexual characteristics that allow them the ability to bear children.
How hard was that?

Attached: 1354771265033.jpg (960x720, 49.92K)

Sorry but somebody that can’t define basic concepts like male, female, money etc… is not someone who should be taken seriously.