/lit/ - Literature

>>17769628
How can a person NOT be biologically separated from themselves?

>>17769628
Go to /pol/.

>>17769631
How can a person be biologically separated from the self???

>>17769628
You are probably as retarded as your friend, anon. There is a reason you consider a 'friend' a person memey enough to be an intersectional feminist theorycel.

>>17769628
You can't. It's a cult. They can't so philosophy if they tried.

Does anybody recommend some gender theory and intersectionalist feminist works?

>>17769628
You are not your body though, they are two separate things in symbiosis with one another

>>17769628
How can I explain to someone that the clothing someone wears or who they have sex with is not determined by their sex?

>>17769653
No one would recommend it. I have one on the top of my tongue but I will not tell you because I respect you enough

>>17769661
Are you saying souls exist????

>>17769675
>Are you saying souls exist????
I think they do

>>17769688
Am I going to hell when I die?

>>17769698
I don't believe in heaven or hell
When you die, the ride begins again

>>17769701
Can I leave early without consequence?

>>17769704
....That is something I don't know about anon
Are you doing ok?

>>17769710
I... I’m just so sad.

>>17769722
Oh :(
Why? What is wrong?

>>17769628
>Reads Gender theory and intersectional feminist books
You’re friend’s already retarded, anon. It might prolly be too late.

>>17769727
I live in a forgotten world

>>17769642
but it is philosophy

>>17769752
What do you mean

>>17769631
Everything that you are, your brain, your thoughts, your hormones, your being, from the way you walk to the way you talk, your entire personality, is your body. There is no higher outside being with ontological meaning. All human thought is human. There is no transcendentalism or floating separate idea of gender somewhere out in the realm of forms. The Idea is real and it is you. You do not become "a woman" because you believe that you fit the idea of "woman" if you are a man. You cannot become a "man" because you believe you fit the idea of "man" if you are a woman. You are not separate from you. You are all genes and cells and DNA and nothing else. This obviously deranged gnostic idea of transcending the physical is also a part of you. It's called "insanity." It's what we call people who believe that they are separate from the original Idea. People who believe they can fly, or that they're the chosen ones, or that they're actually a dead corpse walking around and rotting. Or people who want to arbitrarily call themselves non-existent sex categories. There is no observable or testable "Xer."

>>17769661
Prove it

>>17769772
It’s a world full of hostiles pretending to be friendly all the while acclaiming to have overcome the friend-enemy dichotomy.

>>17769785
The friend enemy dichotomy is real and eternal

>>17769796
I agree

>>17769785
>acclaiming
use a dictionary next time

unironically picrel.

>>17769782
Gender and sex are too different things entirely. The concept of “gender” really shouldn’t be used in the way the social Justice crowd uses it.

>soul is not attached to body
Is gender theory the new metaphysics?

>>17769628
>microtubules
>consciousness is distributed through the body, in addition to being non-local
Weak bait. Move along to /sci/ or something

>>17769628
https://arktos.com/2019/01/18/sex-gender-and-nature/

If all genders are arbitrary social constructs, it would appear, from the point of view of logic, every bit as arbitrary to affirm the ‘liberal’s’ chaotic mishmash of essentially undefinable ‘identities’, as to affirm as the male/female binary. Since there is no natural grounding for the one or for the other, _why not_ insist on the traditional view? The ‘liberal’, to answer this challenge, must defend the justice of his notions on the basis of the truth of his premises. Because there is demonstrably, as he claims, no such thing as sex or gender, sex or gender should be the choice of every individual human being; each human being, finding within himself, rather than a single nature he holds in common with other human beings like himself, discovers instead a wholly singular individual, perfectly idiosyncratic, and containing within himself an amorphic confusion or void, which he should have the right to name or fill as he sees fit.

All well and good; but of course, the liberal cannot stop up here. For it is clear that in a society conditioned by the millennial delusion of the male/female binary, most human beings will see fit to call themselves ‘men’ or ‘women’. This will lead in turn to the continuation of the grand illusion of the ‘normalcy’ of these genders, and will thus encourage the entire complex of social, political and legal standards constructed around that idea of normalcy; and this in turn will lead to any number of inequalities between these ‘normal’ individuals and the ‘abnormal’ individuals who refuse to be defined by this binary. Our ‘liberal’ is thus compelled to become a revolutionary – as is after all not uncommon to his ilk – and to do all in his power to uproot and eradicate the ‘norm’ by persuading, first the academic and political and media elites, and then later the common run of men, of its deficiency.

He therefore goes on the offensive, decking himself out, perchance, in the most flamboyant female dress he can get his hands on (for thus he makes a more obvious stand upon his rights), parading with other and equally revolutionary ‘non-gendered persons’, and writing furious screeds for any of the myriad of magazines and journals and blogs available to such left-thinking folk in defence of his ‘lifestyle choices’ – or, if he be so inclined, in intellectual support of the ideas that underpin his new existence. One way or another, he makes it his goal, not merely to live as he sees fit (which mere living is compromised in a thousand ways by the stodgy old traditional prejudices about sex and gender), but rather to transform society itself to accommodate and to encourage such choices as he has made.