'Celebrating Maleness' at Dunkirk

Unless you've been in hiding throughout the whole summer you would know the latest blockbusters have been dominated by Christopher Nolan's depiction of the Dunkirk evacuations. The vast majority of people I've heard from described it as essential viewing, and were moved by its graphic and honest depiction of war. This wasn't the attitude of some, with one reviewer proclaiming 'Dunkirk' was a film to celebrate maleness. Before we jump to conclusions let's give this woman a chance to explain her thoughts:
________________________________________________________________
http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/news/a28515/dunkirk-movie-review/
________________________________________________________________

Imagine the horror when you discover that people have different opinions to yours. You may call me a hypocrite for criticising this woman's different opinions to mine, but I would like to clarify I have no problem with this woman having this opinion, but rather I have an issue with how fucking stupid her arguments are. In any case I would never partake in such a horrific generalisation by claiming that all women don't get this film because of one moron, as that's essentially this woman's central logic in this 'review'.

The key argument in this review is criticising war films for wanting to portray actual warfare. You can convince yourself you're not naive all you want, but it's dumb arguments like this that make me think otherwise. If you have to convince others you're not naive before even making a single argument then it probably indicates you actually are. This whole segment reeks of a reviewer who didn't even bother trying to relate to the film. All this reviewer wanted was to be catered for, and when that didn't happen started criticising the creators when fantasy romances and coming of age comedy elements weren't mindlessly shoehorned into a film where they don't belong. I just can't imagine why a serious war film would be full of serious war elements. And anyway, in what universe is one of the most risky military maneuvers in world history not a sufficient plot. Maybe this reviewer would have opted for a far more significant storyline, like a fictional New York businesswoman farcically trying to find her ideal man, but that's not her business to suggest, and should absolutely not cloud her judgement on this separate film. All this by the way comes from a person who's written articles falling over backwards for the not at all bland new Taylor Swift song, but I guess that's none of my business.

I get what you're saying, but I don't understand your point that just because a recognisable figure has a feature role it takes away any form of realism. When watching in amazement at the first scene of 'Saving Private Ryan' I never once got the overpowering thought that it was all complete fantasy thanks to the instantly recognisable Tom Hanks. Instead I just witnessed one of the most powerful scenes in cinema history. Turns out nearly ever single fucking actor is a household name, so what's the big deal with Harry Styles being cast?

There seems to be this huge shock when the reviewer finds out the film isn't real. I'm not sure why this is a shock, as unless you're under five years of age I thought understanding that films aren't real was just called common sense. You clearly have none of this sense as you then go on to criticise war for being catered to the male psyche. Obviously those fucking selfish soldiers only sacrificed their lives to fuel their male ego. Certainly when I was walking through the rows upon rows of graves I was struck not with a sense of remorse or gratitude, but that mutual male respect we get from doing things catered for our collective male ego. But then of course I would feel that because I'm just a 'pretentious man'. Say what you want, but I'd rather be a pretentious man than a stuck up, ignorant bigot who thinks the world should revolve around them.

Fucking hell. You literally have no sense of perspective. I can't begin to imagine being as arrogant and obnoxious as you're being right now. Dunkirk, a film about the heroic sacrifice of countless soldiers, is just so men can make films over it to celebrate their maleness. Fuck you. Just because your pathetic life means you've been left writing shit reviews in some Z list magazine doesn't mean you can start shitting all over those who sacrificed their own lives so you can have the freedom to try and tamper with their legacy. You ungrateful whore. This is one of the worst examples in recent memory where social justice issues are just mindlessly shoehorned into places they don't belong.

I just can't imagine why anyone would think this film is a celebration. Do you just assume all men are psychopathic, and therefore have to revel in the depiction of suffering? What will it take to finally get the fact that the events in this film really happened into your thick skull? This isn't a film that's manly for the sake of being manly, and merely suggesting that proves how painfully little knowledge of history you have. If you want to change this testosterone fest then I suggest you go back in time and convince the allied powers to sit down with the axis and decide the Normandy Invasion with a game of beach volleyball instead of a full blown invasion. Again, this all boils down to whining that Nolan didn't just cater for the reviewer. This is an attitude that I would be shocked if a spoiled child had, yet alone an adult writing a formal review. The thing about art is that if you have an idea you can express it instead of just whinging that the world doesn't revolve around your shit movie ideas. I know this might be a tough pill to swallow but lots of people have subjective opinions that aren't identical to yours. For example I personally feel the film 'Sex and the City' was a crime against humanity, but I would never claim that film was women celebrating themselves for the same brain dead reasons your mind decided to excrete.

If you were actually a half decent reviewer you would review the film for what it is rather than what you want it to be. It's perfectly fine not liking a film, but criticising people for not having the same opinion as you whilst simultaneously producing idiotic arguments certainly isn't fine. I do however agree with your opening statement; you're not some naive woman, but you're a complete fucking moron. I never thought the day would come when historically accurate films were criticised for being based on historical events, but it now turns out that feminists now don't like depictions of people winning wars and instigating social change. Maybe they just wanted the Nazis to win so they could cry over their supposedly oppressed livelihoods some more. In the fucked up world of social justice I guess we'll never know.

Rhetoric and the Meat Industry

The meat industry is a term that instantly sparks fierce debate in any corner of the internet. Normally I would be thrilled that such an important issue is being debated, but I do have an issue with how vegans and vegetarians try and impose their views on meat eaters with little justification. You may think this is an extremist view that doesn't reflect veganism as a whole, and to a large degree you would be correct. However this isn't the whole story, and there is a vocal minority seeping into popular culture that has the despicable attitude of dictating diets out of moral authority. Take a recent Independent article, where sophisticated debate is replaced with logical fallacies and flat out fearmongering. This article is a perfect summation of the sort of rhetoric many meat eaters are forced to take in, and so now we'll analyse these viewpoints from a rational perspective.
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/meat-dairy-vegan-slaughterhouses-vegetarian-a7891046.html?amp
_______________________________________________________________________

The first point is a typical argument from the vegan community that has the added bonus of putting those disgusting meat eaters in a moral predicament. This argument on animal welfare is an argument purely based on personal feelings that I can't hope to counter aside from brushing aside the importance of personal feelings in this debate. What I can do is address the quality of argument, and if we actually analyse the sources and evidence provided we soon discover what a piss poor generalisation this is on the meat industry. The first source is a Guardian article on merely the poultry industry that doesn't provide any evidence that your claim is a trend. The second is a mirror article on a single poultry farm, and the last is that same Guardian article. Since when did the whole meat industry become represented by a minuscule minority of poultry farms? The evidence you provide that this is a trend is also dependent on not primary evidence, but notoriously biased newspaper articles. I suppose the Independent would have no concept of what bias is, but that still doesn't excuse this flimsy and questionable evidence.

From poor evidence we then try and mislead the reader. Funnily enough there aren't laws to protect animals from very specific incidences, as these would come under broader animal welfare laws of mistreatment. The section you would be breaching from mistreating animals is titled 'unnecessary suffering'. This whole argument follows the logic that cruel activities should be stopped, which is yet another method for you to gain the moral high ground. However this logic is flawed. Call this a matter of perspective but isn't habitat loss from urbanisation a cruel activity towards the local wildlife. And also, isn't the excessive polluting qualities of plastic cruel towards the world's ecosystems. Somehow I can't imagine Mr. Vegan calling for the eradication of shelter and plastics. At some point you will have to suck it up and admit that slaughterhouses really aren't that horrific on the grand scale of shit in the natural world, and that this argument based around cruelty is a cheap ploy to guilt trip meat eaters out of their lifestyle choices. Surely there must be some awareness that not all establishments in the meat industry routinely mistreat animals. This really begs the question of why minority cases constitute the haphazard approach of ending the whole industry.

The final part of this welfare argument relies on the anthropomorphism of pigs. It really makes no difference if pigs can solve puzzles as they're not sentient beings, so equating their slaughter with human suffering is a purely false equivalence. You have no evidence to suggest that any of these features of the meat industry adversely affects pigs, and your just making an assumption based on human behavioral patterns. The once again flimsy evidence you provide hinges on an interview by the Nonhuman Rights Project, so it's obviously not going to be biased in any way. You can tell how naive you are on the subject of comparative intelligence because you decide to apply a human based model to objectively determine how intelligent each species is, as well as how they socially interact. Just bear in mind that pigs and humans have been separated by evolutionary processes for tens of millions of years, so to say this point is fallacious would be a huge understatement. This pathetic appeal to emotion is certainly not a valid argument in the slightest, and no excuse for discontinuing the meat trade.

It may well be a new point, but this argument is still filled with misleading evidence; in particular we're now misrepresenting statistics. The statistic on greenhouse gases is commonly used by the vegan community due to how it appears that transportation actually contributes less than farming does to worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. In actual fact the figures vary depending on which estimate you use, and even then these figures aren't factoring into account that raw emissions don't provide an accurate footprint estimate for petroleum based transport due to the various greenhouse gas producing methods of extracting the petroleum in the first place. Similarly the NASA source only said that farming was the leading cause of deforestation in tropical countries, which the last time I checked Britain wasn't. It's the same with the water scarcity statistic, which just isn't an issue in Britain. More evidence of your poor generalisations can be found by looking at the increase in meat consumption worldwide. The developing world has seen a huge spike in the meat industry in recent years, whereas the figures remain relatively stable for the developed world. An overview of the meat trade also shows that Britain imports a small percentage of meat from outside the EU, so why should Britain turn away from a meat based diet because of the faults in other agricultural policies?

Just about every single statistic is successfully misleading the reader in this piece of slander. The statistic on water needs is yet another example. If you actually bothered to research where this water came from instead of being indoctrinated by biased articles you would discover that roughly 97% of water used to make a hamburger comes from ordinary precipitation. Again, this begs the question of why we should universally shut down an issue globally, even in nations where these issues don't arise. I'm all for encouraging an increased efficiency and sustainability of the meat trade in developing countries using appropriate technology, but banning an industry that many people rely on for a living because of your uppity sense of morality is fucking idiotic. The only reasoning for this radical shift is some cherrypicked statistics and weak generalisations that only fuel your own inflated ego. There's no attempt at a compromise, and I just can't believe you're not aware that this type of argument is nothing but counterproductive. You sum up your attitudes perfectly by asking the ignorant question 'why don't we just eat crops?' Maybe you should be asking why you wastefully have running water when that could be given to those affected by water scarcity, or why you decide to ruin ecosystems by living in a house. Are you starting to see how stupid these reductionist arguments are? The meat industry is a lot more complex than what your shitstain of a brain can understand.

This brutal critique of the meat industry continues with shocking tales of disastrous epidemics, backed up with evidence that thoroughly details this incredibly accurate generalisation. Sorry my mistake, there's no evidence here that describes any sort of common trend, and we've now gone onto fearmongering. Truly pathetic. That's not nearly the only issue with this point either. For starters E. coli isn't a fucking disease, it's a species of bacteria of which a certain minority can cause disease. Again, this is basic research that you clearly haven't bothered to do, which displays itself in your quality of argument. Antibiotic resistance and the spread of disease associated with pastoral farming is a reasonable and important argument, although to give a full context it's one that's also applicable in arable farming as well. This point is not exclusive to the meat industry, and not a valid reason to do away with the industry altogether. Again, there's no compromise, because apparently banning things always has to be the best solution.

According to this writer closing down the livelihoods for millions of people worldwide is fine, yet the real issue is the air quality for people who live near these farms. Yeah, that's a reasonable line of argument. This is like wanting to ban cars because people live near busy roads. Having said that the environmental issues surrounding agriculture, especially intensive farming, must not be overlooked. There's currently multiple approaches to reducing the environmental impacts of farming, such as the debate between land saving and land sharing management. All of these issues would still present if the meat industry were to suddenly implode, but just on a reduced scale, so really the whole premise of this argument would dictate that humans shouldn't be eating any food that damages the environment; which is all of it.

The logical fallacies also decide to make an unwelcome return for this point. The vast majority of statistics used in this article have been completely misrepresented, and the bottom paragraph in this segment is no exception. Apparently twelve cases of mistreatment over a four year period constitutes a significant amount. I will admit that's twelve cases too many, especially when you consider there were only thirteen samples, but you have to take into account how many slaughterhouses are operating in the country. In reality this figure is an extreme minority that cannot hope to represent a trend with such a small sample size. The fact that this study was funded by the obviously biased Animal Aid charity also raises questions about the validity, especially considering how sensationalist this statistic appears.

Jesus-fucking-Christ, you're now literally implying that slaughterhouses lead to localised rape and violence. That's how badly we're clutching at straws now. This is a clear case of correlation and not causation, and in fact the study itself provides no solid evidence that there is any causative link between the two variables. Even if there are psychological problems associated with the profession this does not excuse shutting down these abattoirs. The reality is that many jobs, such as vets, have a whole host of psychological problems that can be traced back to the workplace. I don't see you using this line of argument to disband the majority of professions.

The article closes with this false notion that veganism will solve both social and environmental issues. This is nonsense, and you have provided no evidence that any of the problems you have cited would be eradicated. In the modern age it would be impossible to live a sedentary lifestyle without harming any animals, which is contrary to your implications. My biggest issue is how any of this weak evidence supports the closure of an entire industry. You love to take the moral high ground, but that's pretty fucking rich if you can't honestly present information, and instead just flat out bend the reality of the situation. To say this piece is clearly biased would be the understatement of the century. It's a woeful generalisation that provides a piss poor reductionist argument from a feelings based perspective. Just fallacy after fallacy in order to dictate the diets of a whole planet. Fuck off with your overindulged false sense of importance.

Morons of the Internet: Medusa Magazine (Part 6)

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we're dissecting yet another Medusa Magazine article full of shit. I hear you asking what more this magazine could have possibly done. Well, they've now decided that the Holy Bible supports their campaign against Donald Trump. Surely they wouldn't drop to the level of shoehorning ancient texts into irrelevant issues would they? Ha, remember who we're talking about here.
______________________________________________________________________________
https://medusamagazine.com/a-message-to-christians-the-gospel-calls-us-to-resist-donald-trump
______________________________________________________________________________

Okay, what fucking Bible have you been reading? The term 'white supremacy' is used a total number of zero times in the Bible, yet alone becoming the fucking cornerstone in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Maybe I would be more inclined to believe you if there was at least some evidence from the source material, because I don't recall any stories from the Bible where Jesus comes into conflict with the Roman regime. I also get the impression that you want to lump all European colonisation into one unitary category of evil. This is plainly a reductive argument, as there's a stark difference between the Roman Empire and the later imperial powers of Europe that surprisingly the Bible doesn't explore in great depth. Still, apparently according to this totally reliable source Jesus calls for a resistance against Donald Trump, a democratically elected leader, and we're about to discover why. Oh boy am I excited for this one.

First of all I should point out that Palestine isn't a country, it's a historical region of Israel. It would also be incorrect to state that this area has ever experienced white 'pollution'. Not only is that statement racist, but it's also incredibly antisemitic and completely in denial of why there are so many white people residing in today's Israel. Turns out that denying historical evidence is your go to move. You see Judea has been invaded by many different races, including the Assyrians, who butchered the rebelling kingdom. There's also been colonisation by various Islamic Caliphates that conquered the region, and probably most famously the Mongols who virtually destroyed those Islamic caliphates by butchering them. But yeah, it's definitely just white pollution that's ravaged the area. At some point you're going to have to admit that your argument is based on your racial prejudices rather than being a serious historical discussion, because there is no way that solely blaming white colonisation is reflective of the truth.

I'm really not too sure what all this has to do with resisting Donald Trump. It may well be a quaint, if reductionist view of the period when Jesus was alive, but absolutely none of it is in any way relevant. Oh no my mistake, this isn't a quaint history lesson and actually some Afrocentric bullshit that follows the zany logic that all black people are descended from Kings. In my funny little world I always imagined Jesus was the son of God, not some descendant of African royalty, which by that logic means I must be black considering I'm a descendant of the first homo sapiens from Southern Africa. I'm not quite sure you're aware of what being a royal descendant involves, but assuming Jesus was black requires evidence that the two individuals are actually related. Even then, that still doesn't necessarily mean Jesus was black, and you have no evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm also not quite sure how being the son of God means you're actively being oppressed. You know this sort of identity politics is fucking stupid when the son of God is apparently under systems of oppression from people such as the white beggars of Judea.

Then we move on to the issue of colonisation in the Bible, which has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump. Apparently the Roman Empire was evil because of illegitimate and unnatural methods of colonisation. Firstly, as I've already explained, colonisation is not something exclusive to the white race, and secondly what fucking difference does it make if colonisation isn't natural or legitimate? I wasn't aware the Roman Empire was a feudal monarchy or a wild population of animals, so why is this even relevant to the discussion? More importantly what has this got to do with Donald Trump; a democratically elected leader, who the last time I checked was actively trying to stop this process of colonisation by building walls.

Also, to fact check you once again, I don't believe Jesus ever referred to himself as the 'King of the Jews', and this spitting in the face of white occupiers is pure fantasy. Unless you have evidence to counter my argument, I'm fairly confident in saying that Jesus never actively opposed the Romans, and even in the face of death accepted their rule and sovereignty. It's certainly true that the Romans did love to kill Christians, but just a few hundred years later the Romans wold also convert to Christianity, which is strangely forgotten in this lopsided historiography. Simply stating the Bible is anti imperialist without any evidence is just a meaningless statement.

Again, what a lovely yet completely inaccurate anecdote that's also not relevant. You have a whole fucking book to source from and yet you can't even give me one quotation to support your argument. Turns out the Gospel also thinks you're a fucking liar. I'm struggling to recall this biblical tale where Christ destroyed capitalist structures, so would greatly appreciate a reminder of what fucking universe this bullshit occurred in. I would say this is becoming a literal translation of the Bible, but it would be more accurate to say this is an inaccurate and fantastical translation. I should remind you that the Bible is a holy book, and not a fictional novel.

Whilst I would certainly agree that America views itself as the pinnacle of Western civilisation in the modern world, I believe it to be completely nonsensical to compare the vastly different Roman and American methods of government. The age of empires is long gone, yet you want to hold the America of today to those same values. I guess this is what happens when you start shoehorning religious texts into your political beliefs. I still have no idea how any of this relates to Donald Trump, a democratically elected leader. The Bible never claims Donald Trump is an illegitimate leader, and to simply state that any white invaders are illegitimate is just naive considering invading other countries has been the cornerstone of human civilisation since the dawn of time. In your warped logic no human has a right to any land. Even the Bible has stories of invasions, so what the fuck are you going on about? There's just no point to be made here, and you don't help yourself with just how poorly your whole argument is structured. If Donald Trump has no right to be in power over America then what right do your African kings and queens? Oh wait, it's purely skin colour isn't it? The last time I checked Africa wasn't in America, so surely by declaring yourself monarchs you would be illegitimately colonising America yourself. May I also add that this all comes from the same author who wanted to forcefully abort all white children, so she has no fucking right to start lecturing me about Christian values and standing against oppression.

Honestly this is like the rhetoric of a fanatical religious cult. It's honestly quite frightening that some people actually think like this. It's certainly not an argument based on religion, but rather political ideologies. It's a blatant misrepresentation into the meanings of a holy book written thousands of years ago to loosely tie these thoughts into the current events of today. I leave you with a quote from Matthew chapter 5:

 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

Morons of the Internet: Medusa Magazine (Part 5)

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we're once again back with Medusa Magazine, who are now taking on science. Oh yes, we're finally going to see the most anticipated bout of the century between some nutty feminist magazine with a history of publishing pure shit, and the scientific community. This definitely won't be a one sided battle at all.
_____________________________________________________________________________
https://medusamagazine.com/reclaiming-facts-and-logic-from-the-male-domination-of-the-past-centuries
_____________________________________________________________________________

So just because a select few men made great discoveries the idea of discovering anything, and also the concept of rational thought, is an inherently negative thing. It's irrelevant what their political stance or sense of logic is because the great thing about their scientific findings is that they're objective facts backed up with a wealth of evidence, unlike your meandering nonsense. The subject of science and the search for the truth doesn't care if you're a man, or have a dominant perspective, because these traits are irrelevant to the advancement of the scientific community. You know that phrase 'facts don't care about your feelings'? Yeah, that applies here.

I just love how you can brush off any other reasons why women tend not to take STEM courses, because of course sexism just has to be the answer. You don't explain why sexism is the cause, yet alone provide a shred of evidence, but as long as you're convinced then I'm sure this is a done deal. I can instantly see the many downfalls of science when faced with this impeccable reasoning. However, please tell me, if this enlightenment favors a male perspective then why are the vast majority of biology students female? If you're suggesting the reason women tend not to study certain sciences is because of male defined reasoning then why should anyone give a fuck if women aren't being accepted onto STEM courses? If you don't understand basic reasoning then how could you ever possibly understand or appreciate scientific disciplines. In any case, what does it matter who pioneered what area? I'm pretty sure Marie Curie was a pioneer for both chemistry and physics, which are two subjects you claim women don't participate in. Tell me, why is her feminine bias any more valid than the masculine bias of Newton?

So now the argument is that this male superiority was a positive thing. Nice reasoning skills on display here. The good news is we get some evidence for once. The bad news is that these philosophers and psychologists have no relevance to this argument over scientific methods, because as far as I'm concerned they're just spurting their unfounded opinions that are HEAVILY influenced by their personal biases, with some of them being that dreaded male bias. Tell me, if all perspectives are used to maintain power then what fucking use is it reclaiming facts from men when women would obviously have an equally biased perspective?

I still have absolutely no idea how this is supposed to be a serious revision of the Enlightenment Era, as the core of the argument is just vague waffle that either contradicts itself or isn't remotely related to science. For example it turns out that expressions are used to maintain power in society. Expressions that aren't related to science. Presumably this heinous trend can be solved if a woman says 'breadwinner' enough times, and she becomes the man of the house, therefore gaining societal power. I still have no idea what this has to do with science, and I'm not even going to address a point as stupid as that one about first names and last names. You can't seriously believe that's suitable and valid evidence for a generalisation of this scale do you? I would however agree that many female scientists have been purposefully obscured by their male counterparts over time, but that doesn't mean their discoveries are any more valid than those of their male counterparts. If you have this attitude then you clearly have little respect for the subject of science, and actually just want to use it as a feeble excuse to push your own narrative.

Why do you assume women can't get their head around logic? This is one fucked up argument based on biological determinism straight out of the eighteenth century. This is like claiming that years of cookery knowledge should be thrown out the window because traditionally women have been chained to the kitchen stove, and therefore have instigated this biased narrative on the world of cookery that men can't possibly decipher. Calling cookery sexist is actually far more rational than this writer, who believes that logic and facts are sexist. Even the principles of science are oppressive to this moron. Can someone please just shoot me in the brain and put me out of my misery. Why do I put myself through this idiotic shit?

To be honest I'm fucking glad that individuals like this writer who can't understand basic logic and reasoning are hounded out of advanced scientific degrees. That's not sexism, you just haven't met the entry standards of your courses. It's then even worse to claim that anything men say or formulate is sexist, no matter how truthful that particular piece of information may be. Honestly, this is one of the most fucked up and idiotic conspiracy theories I've ever had the misfortune of reading.

Well thank God we finally got to the central, and only relevant point made in this argument. It's only taken us two paragraphs of pointless drivel to get too. I'm still not sure what difference I would rather have in the world: The pursuit of knowledge driven by rational thought and factual information that leads to such benefits as the eradication of certain diseases and a greater understanding of the world around us, or women's studies that revolves around nothing but the feelings of a selected few subjective opinions spreading nothing but misinformation and moronic blog posts. Oh wait, you need to engineer the internet in order to make moronic blog posts. Good job gender studies has that covered then. You said it yourself, the male dominated Age of Enlightenment led to unparalleled intellectual dominance in the Western World.

Remember guys, factual information is far more valid if you're oppressed. Darwin for example came from a wealthy background, and so therefore we can easily deduce that the theory of evolution is a lie. However L. Ron Hubbard, who was associated with the oppressed Native Americans during his early years, must therefore hold the objective truths of the world in his religious cult of Scientology. Yes, I can instantly see why this is a more rational way of thinking.

How in any way is science being a centuries old method of thought a bad thing? The wonder of science is that the area is constantly developing with every major breakthrough, yet you want to overturn this process because apparently you think it hasn't aged well. Ironically the idea of rational thought is ageing much better than the cult of radical feminism, thanks in no small part to morons like yourself that just love to impose your sociological shite into areas they don't belong.

Somehow I highly doubt this idiot could ever reclaim logic, as claiming something means you have to actually have a concept of the thing you're claiming in the first place. And in any case, how the fuck do you reclaim objective reasoning? The subject of science is built upon objective facts, so fuck off with your view that somehow a subjective narrative is superior to hundreds of years of scientific research. The pursuit of knowledge doesn't give a single fuck about your ideas of inclusivity, or who discovered what particular area, unlike the laughable degree that is women's studies, so take that shit and shove it up your ass. Leave academic work to academics and go back to whinging about how oppressed you think you are.

The Social Construction of Sex

For some reason there seems to be an increasing trend where gender studies and sociology take precedence over actual sciences. I have nothing against these joke subjects spewing their ideas of gender in every which way possible, but I do have an issue when they start falsely dictating objective biological principles by saying that sex is socially constructed. This isn't the view of some radicals either. Just a quick google search will see your screen flooded with various articles on how biological sex is apparently a social construct. So now I'm going to analyse this perspective with idiotic articles from your typical feminist blogger, and then look at an exert from a serious website on sociology. Let's see the reasoning behind this blatant science denial starting with the views of a self professed 'queer leftie'.

And you thought this was going to be an argument based on science. Ha. Can't imagine what made you think a scientific argument would be backed up with scientific evidence. Here it turns out that ancient civilizations have a better understanding of sex than modern scientists. Funnily enough these ancient civilizations did not post their findings in scientific journals, but rather holy books, that aren't exactly known for testing scientific theory. To further argue that sex cannot be biological because it comes from a Eurocentric model is equally moronic. The concept of sex you're trying to refute is not a sociological idea, but a biological principle based on the idea that all humans are of the same species. In other words sex expression is universal in humans, and culture has nothing to do with your sex chromosomes.

Again, we believe in this so called 'Eurocentric' model because it's far more valid than those described throughout cultural history. This Eurocentric model can be objectively proved with falsifiable evidence rather than subjective opinion. That's more than just a claim, it's an objective fact. I know you don't have an understanding of biology because of the clear scientific illiteracy in this article, but you should at least be able to make a coherent argument. Turns out I'm the one who's going to have to fill in the blanks. Karyotyping for example is literally sampling chromosomes, and would therefore not be a separate method to measuring chromosomes.

It's certainly true that babies can be born intersex, however these intersex babies are a minuscule minority, and are therefore described as a genetic condition that shows a departure from a typical human body. The presence of these intersex babies at no stage disproves a sexual dichotomy, and in actual fact provides evidence that there is a clear binary considering these exceptions to the norm do not describe a trend. The reality is that sex is about as clearer binary as you can possibly get in nature. The actual statistics are widely debated, but even the source you provide claims that just less than 2% of babies have even the most subtle of intersex traits. The frequency of those born without conventional sex chromosomes, which is the condition this point is based around, are estimated to be one in every 1,666 births. Saying that this minute percentage disproves a biological model is like making the argument that humans cannot be naturally bipedal because of the frequency of wheelchair dependent users. It gets worse when you claim that genitals not assigning to chromosomal configuration are normal. In what fucking universe is less than 2% considered normal? This isn't a standard that's used to oppress transgender individuals, but rather a factual statement born from empirical data that has nothing to do with social constructs. Later comparing this to the rate of bisexuals is not evidence that sex is not biology based. This is just a terrible use of statistics, and even poorer reasoning.

Funnily enough you still haven't even attempted to explain how this clear dichotomy arises. Has it still not occurred to you that there's an alarming correlation that arises between chromosomes and the traits expressed within an individual? I just don't understand this argument that because chromosomes aren't explicitly sampled they cannot have an effect on the sex of an individual. However you then go one further and just assume that the chromosomal explanation is wrong without actually sampling the chromosomes yourself. Even by your own logic this doesn't provide evidence for your point. You could take an accurate guess of an individual's genetic structure by looking at their phenotype, but that would mean looking at their genitals. It's almost like doctors know what they're doing. This is like making the argument that even though you've been medically diagnosed with cancer, it can't possibly be true because you didn't do the diagnosing.

The reason a person can change their genitals is because of human engineering. Therefore this procedure is not proof that sex isn't inherently biological since you're manually manipulating a body to resemble the other sex. You can't pick and mix over what sexual characteristics you want when having this sex change, because biological sex is not a spectrum. For this surgery to even happen there would have to be a biological dichotomy to begin with. It doesn't matter if some random man claims a transgender individual is a certain sex, because his opinion is irrelevant to the objective truths of biology. This is a key point I wish you could get your thick skull around. I'm also not quite sure why this point is explicitly aimed at men. Maybe it turns out you do think there's a gender binary when it suits your argument. 

Another huge point that funnily enough never makes it's way into this argument is the idea that we also find this strict dichotomy of sexes occurring practically unanimously in the natural world. Surely you're not suggesting that the diversity of life on the planet has the notion of what gender is. Possibly an even bigger rebuttal to this whole argument would be the presence of sexual selection; or more plainly interspecific conflict between sexes. You ever wondered why men are taller and heavier on average than women? No, it certainly isn't by social construction, but an evolutionary process instead. Evolution, like life itself, requires two biological sexes to copulate and transfer genes onto the next generation. Again this is a process universal in nature, and critical to the natural world. It would be absolutely moronic to state that it was humans who socially engineered this process. Tell me this: If sex isn't a biological term then show me a man with XY chromosomes that can give birth.

I honestly don't know what the fuck you're going on about in the next few paragraphs, but absolutely none of it is relevant. It essentially follows the pattern of 'misgendering is discrimination', which is a subject completely unrelated to biology. Speaking of things unrelated to biology, here's a serious sociology based website, and their take on biological sex.

As shit as the previous article was, at least that had the knowledge to provide some evidence. Sure, the evidence was irrelevant, but at least that leftie queer understood that you do need evidence to back up a huge point. In fact for the huge point made in this article you don't just need some evidence, you need a fuck ton of evidence, and enough evidence to essentially rewrite hundreds of years of scientific research. Just because a fact may oppress people does not invalidate it. This sex dichotomy cannot be held to blame for the oppression of groups of people, as that blame should be targeted towards the bigots that use this information to harass certain individuals. This would be like denying the holocaust because that way of thinking would mean admitting the suffering of millions at some point in history. In short this is just plain denial. You can't just edit out the bits of biology you don't like whilst simultaneously preaching about the value of scientific truth.

This particular article was written in response to sex testing in the Olympics, which is a subject I've touched on before. If biological sex really is a social construct then please tell me why in the Olympics is it men that hold all athletic world records. This is due to the fact that many human traits are quantitative, meaning the environment as well as genetics is causing this variation. What your suggesting is that there is no genetic basis behind this variation, in which case all humans would be genetic clones, and we would not see this level of variation both in and between the sexes. There is a very noticeable rift between average traits in each sex, which simply wouldn't occur if what you're saying is true. Your claim would see human traits expressed like a bell shaped with quantitative variables such as height and muscle mass. This clearly isn't the truth, and you would be hard pushed to find a seven foot tall woman, whereas there are numerous men that fit this category. This disparity cannot possibly be attributed to the random variation you describe.

All in all I'm shocked by this level of flat out misinformation towards biological sex across the internet, and to me it's disgusting that this is now becoming an accepted way of thinking. It serves as yet another reminder that your personal thoughts have no bearing on objective truths. To reject the idea of biological sex is to reject the fundamental ideas of biology, simple as that. If this causes issues in the world of social justice then so fucking what. In a perfect world maybe reality would be just how you desire it to be, but this is the real fucking world, where objective facts take precedence over personal narratives. In my little bubble I had always falsely assumed this plain science denial was a radical argument that was widely rejected, so imagine my shock when I was given a firm wake up call to just how stupid so called academics can be. Instead of attempting to fine tune ideologies with objective facts we are now letting these ideologies manipulate science, which is a trend that cannot be allowed to continue.