Oh, now I get it, you are religious; sadly for you, whatever creator you believe in didn't put any moral in our hearts, hence why those rules of behavior we accept as shared as they're beneficial for a specific society to work tend to evolve beyond the old-fashioned teachings of the sacred text establishing those morals.
And of course you have to be accurate and ignore the genitals as they not only may not fit the standard but also aren't the only thing determining this; but doesn't surprise me that you'd speak in general since this kind of simplification of the world is exactly what conservative reactionaries tend to cling to.
you are claiming that you don't have morals, some people gets corrupted until they become heartless, anyway so if someone kills a child, what will feel? will you feel that killing innocent people is an evil act or good act?
accuracy is not needed when we speak about anime characters, it may be needed when there's something suspicious, in anime everything works fine.
only garbage schools based on Kinsey's crimes & Darwin's bullshit ignore genitals when deciding sex.
Not saying about HER race. Oda said that there are humans that born with horns. That is just Kaido and Yamato case.
But WTF is her? Man? Woman? Crazy?
To me she is a woman that is inspired by Oden and have this allucinating desire to be him.
I've heard people from trans community that said pretty much the same using other words of course.
But I see people outside from trans community that thinks calling Yamato a man is representative for them and anyone who thinks otherwise is transphobic.
You don't have to be a biologist to know a Homo sapiens is a Homo sapiens either, but we aren't talking about species but something way more nuanced and out of sight. "Biologicla markers" certainly encompass way beyond what is visible and any method that won't take into account genetics, hormones, brain structures..., among others, will be inherently flawed. Which makes sense since the average Joe isn't a scientist, whether an endicronologist, a neurobiologist, etc.; but then you have the same average Joe comparing the distinction of gender and sex within the same species to distinguishing a dog from a horse because so far it has worked for him, in spite of the obvious petitio principii lying behind this reasoning.
Those groups of people don't wish to be identified differently from the norm, by the way; I can guarantee you this isn't some kind of a whim as they wish for a significantly harder life in pretty much every aspect possible.
Not saying about HER race. Oda said that there are humans that born with horns. That is just Kaido and Yamato case.
But WTF is her? Man? Woman? Crazy?
To me she is a woman that is inspired by Oden and have this allucinating desire to be him.
I've heard people from trans community that said pretty much the same using other words of course.
But I see people outside from trans community that thinks calling Yamato a man is representative for them and anyone who thinks otherwise is transphobic.
Even within LGBT yamato is pretty controversial character. If oda continues with ambiguity about her gender its possible yamato is a transgender who identifies more on masculism of oden's trait.
Yamato treats himself as Kaidou's son, not daughter; everybody in-verse treats him as a man; and chooses to bath with the men. All of this while perfectly knowing that he's still Yamato, not Oden as in a psychotic disorder. All of you who get so salty over Yamato calling himself a he have serious issues. Can't believe people can't stand the idea that a person doesn't identify their gender as their sex to the point of treating Yamato as a her in spite of every other character in the verse using the him.
It's obvious that many people who behave so aggressively against Yamato's issue are transphobic. Nobody acts so defensive towards something that doesn't affect them deeply.
It actually does. Since you mentioned dogs and horses, zoology and taxonomy is full of examples on how digging deeper pretty much erases the validity of many basic and most obvious markers the average Joe uses. Commonly, the deeper you dig the most flawed the basic and obvious markers happen to be.
You can take a good look for meta-analysis, reviews and single papers through ScienceDirect, if you want. I addressed in my post some interesting points of research.
you are claiming that you don't have morals, some people gets corrupted until they become heartless, anyway so if someone kills a child, what will feel? will you feel that killing innocent people is an evil act or good act?
accuracy is not needed when we speak about anime characters, it may be needed when there's something suspicious, in anime everything works fine.
only garbage schools based on Kinsey's crimes & Darwin's bullshit ignore genitals when deciding sex.
I'm not claiming I don't have morals. I'm going against your assumption on what the morals of a society are and where they come from because I'm 100% sure what kind of individual you are and I find your moral philosophy to be fallacious since I'd state it comes from a made-up god telling you what's right or wrong instead of building a secular system open to review and improvement.
The reaction to someone killing a child would actually depend on your culture and your place within that culture. I would condemn it as an act of violence and crime, but an Incan performer of Capacocha would probably feel different towards it. But we don't need to go that far: sacrificing a cow would go against Hindu's morals yet a performer of ḏabiḥa would have no trouble with it. Which is why it's important for a secular system to undeify morals and build them on actually helpful standards.
And careful, buddy, Darwin is coming for you this night! Devolution turned Kiku into a trans character even though "in anime everything works fine"...!
I'm not really arguing about Yamato per se, as I think I explained in older posts of mine. Personally I don't see him as trans in the way Kiku is because Oda hasn't been clear on the subject, but when it comes to this issue my main problem is with the users spreading clearly transphobic messages and your usual "muh biology" simplicity they learned at school.
Yamato was raised as a woman before he decided to become Oden, by the way; before that he was addressed as the "oni princess".
It actually does. Since you mentioned dogs and horses, zoology and taxonomy is full of examples on how digging deeper pretty much erases the validity of many basic and most obvious markers the average Joe uses. Commonly, the deeper you dig the most flawed the basic and obvious markers happen to be.
Not necessarily, your biological markers, for instance, don't stop being relevant no matter how deep you dig in, so unless they do become irrelevant it won't be a flawed method although it won't always be the most accurate method. There is a difference b/w being flawed and not being the most accurate.
Not necessarily, your biological markers for instance don't stop becoming relevant no matter how deep you dig in, so unless they do become irrelevant it won't be a flawed method although it won't always be the most accurate method. There is a difference b/w being flawed and not being the most accurate.
They don't become irrelevant but they do become nuanced (and sometimes they do become irrelevant, in fact); what is flawed is the use you may give them for a greater purpose, in this case understanding sex and gender and establishing what makes a "male" and a "female", if this is a valid dichotomy to begin with, and what distinguishes it from "man" and "woman". So yes, the method is flawed as long as you don't take into account the full picture, and most of this picture isn't accessible for the average person.
Also, in my opinion, the moment a method of approach is less accurate than other it becomes more flawed since a better alternative exists. Which, again, zoology is a prime example of.
They don't become irrelevant but they do become nuanced (and sometimes they do become irrelevant, in fact); what is flawed is the use you may give them for a greater purpose, in this case understanding sex and gender and establishing what makes a "male" and a "female", if this is a valid dichotomy to begin with, and what distinguishes it from "man" and "woman". So yes, the method is flawed as long as you don't take into account the full picture, and most of this picture isn't accessible for the average person.
Also, in my opinion, the moment a method of approach is less accurate than other it becomes more flawed since a better alternative exists. Which, again, zoology is a prime example of.
Well, even if they do become nuanced, the results almost always go in line with what the most basic markers suggest. That's why most of the world's population is either male or female. Digging deeper to help the people who find it hard to fit into these two categories to identify themselves is certainly a good thing, but it's crossing the line when you expect the rest of the world to use the same approach when it can be done way quickly and easily—that is complicating things for the sake of it. Also, if the most obvious markers become irrelevant for any given reason, then whatever digging we're doing is also flawed because we're obviously not factoring in the most fundamental markers.
Well, even if they do become nuanced, the results almost always go in line with what the most basic markers suggest. That's why most of the world's population is either male or female. Digging deeper to help the people who find it hard to fit into these two categories to identify themselves is certainly a good thing, but it's crossing the line when you expect the rest of the world to use the same approach when it can be done way quickly and easily—that is complicating things for the sake of it. Also, if the most obvious markers become irrelevant for any given reason, then whatever digging we're doing is also flawed because we're obviously not factoring in the most fundamental markers.
This isn't complicating things for the sake of it but being honest towards the most accurate method of approach to an issue and, if not available, understanding the complexity of the world and not assuming the biology you were taught at school encompasses all the actual, technical scientific knowledge on pretty much every issue; the problem here is that the rest of the world will follow the quick and easy yet insufficient approach, and unlike other areas where they have next to zero impact (such as physics, for example), this simplistic approach of theirs will influence their political activity and, by extension, the rights of those affected by it —such as trans people.
When the obvious markers become irrelevant it's because they were wrongly thought to be markers and therefore they turned out to be fundamental to nothing; hence why nobody with a bit knowledge will say mammals are viviparous animals in spite of the majority of them indeed are, yet it's flawed to use it as a fundamental marker —even though many people still use it because of their ignorance on zoology. In this issue we're discussing, a comparison would be treating genitalia as basic markers for predicting gender: the moment this isn't the case (as we've observed other factors affecting the match between gender and sex and variations within sex itself affecting the standard development of genitalia), then they become a flawed marker.
Again, it's not about complicating things for the sake of it. It's about things being that complicated and even more, yet the majority of people preferring the simple, albeit easier and confortable way, and not only that but acting accordingly to detriment of the minority that doesn't fit in the common rule.
This isn't complicating things for the sake of it but being honest towards the most accurate method of approach to an issue and, if not available, understanding the complexity of the world and not assuming the biology you were taught at school encompasses all the actual, technical scientific knowledge on pretty much every issue; the problem here is that the rest of the world will follow the quick and easy yet insufficient approach, and unlike other areas where they have next to zero impact (such as physics, for example), this simplistic approach of theirs will influence their political activity and, by extension, the rights of those affected by it —such as trans people.
When the obvious markers become irrelevant it's because they were wrongly thought to be markers and therefore they turned out to be fundamental to nothing; hence why nobody with a bit knowledge will say mammals are viviparous animals in spite of the majority of them indeed are, yet it's flawed to use it as a fundamental marker —even though many people still use it because of their ignorance on zoology. In this issue we're discussing, a comparison would be treating genitalia as basic markers for predicting gender: the moment this isn't the case (as we've observed other factors affecting the match between gender and sex and variations within sex itself affecting the standard development of genitalia), then they become a flawed marker.
Again, it's not about complicating things for the sake of it. It's about things being that complicated and even more, yet the majority of people preferring the simple, albeit easier and confortable way, and not only that but acting accordingly to detriment of the minority that doesn't fit in the common rule.
People don't prefer a simpler approach just because it's simple; they prefer it only if the approach is right more times than not. I agree we should respect the more accurate methods but we can't force people into always using them when a much simpler approach that almost always works is available. That is definitely complicating things for the sake of it.
Wrong markers become wrong markers when they're proven to be wrong. We have more people to prove the markers are not wrong than the otherway around, so we obviously can't make them irrelevant. Using the common rule to define people who find it hard to fit into it is wrong, but it is also wrong to try and change the common rule for the sake of exceptions.
I'm not claiming I don't have morals. I'm going against your assumption on what the morals of a society are and where they come from because I'm 100% sure what kind of individual you are and I find your moral philosophy to be fallacious since I'd state it comes from a made-up god telling you what's right or wrong instead of building a secular system open to review and improvement.
The reaction to someone killing a child would actually depend on your culture and your place within that culture. I would condemn it as an act of violence and crime, but an Incan performer of Capacocha would probably feel different towards it. But we don't need to go that far: sacrificing a cow would go against Hindu's morals yet a performer of ḏabiḥa would have no trouble with it. Which is why it's important for a secular system to undeify morals and build them on actually helpful standards.
And careful, buddy, Darwin is coming for you this night! Devolution turned Kiku into a trans character even though "in anime everything works fine"...!
so you mean if less than 0.001% of the world population probably accept killing children, means that going against killing children is not a society moral, & means that people don't share the same idea about this crime !!!!!!!.
why did you go for cow as an example? even though most of the world eats cow meat, & they don't consider it as a crime, but I asked about killing children because there's no way a human in his right mind would feel that killing children is not an evil act. stealing, killing, torturing, domestic violence, & many others are all considered evil acts in more than 99% of people, while justice, charity, helping people, honesty, & many others are all considered good acts in more than 99% of the world. (which mean they are society morals)
as for Kiku, it's been clarified that he is a male, we needed this clarification because it wasn't clear, we couldn't see his body features to decide, unlike Yamato which doesn't need clarification because her body features are clear.
Even within LGBT yamato is pretty controversial character. If oda continues with ambiguity about her gender its possible yamato is a transgender who identifies more on masculism of oden's trait.
I am in middle here.
Post automatically merged:
I would say yamato never really explored on her sexuality unlike kiku who identifies herself as woman.
About bathing its possible yamato never bathed with woman considering kaido never raised her as daughter.
Yamato is definitely inspired from old japanese figure named Yamato Takeru who was famous for crossdressing as woman .
Just got say that you are being headcannon saying that Kaido never raised her as a daughter. We don't know how was their relationship before Oden died.
Whatever you call as such are just the statu quo enjoyed by majoritarian groups traditionally subjugating and silencing anything that would discomfort their lives; like saying there's more to it than just "male and female". You're just a conservative reactionary.
The people WANTING Yamato to be what they enjoy her to be while subjugating and silencing diferent opinions because makes their lives unconfortable. This hits you back. Congratulations.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
