June 14, 2023
Women are Real!
Timothy Birdnow
Johns Hopkins has found a novel new way to define what is a woman. It's a "non-man".
That's right; this wildly sexist phrase is being used by one of America's pre-eminent universities.
So there are no such things as women. Just non-men.
Which shows that this whole tranny thing is an attack on maleness and masculinity, as well as an assault on traditional female rolls.
The handbook given to students says:
Non-Man (formerly known as woman):
What research or science is employed to come to this rather shocking conclusion? Women are nothing but a vacuum where there is no maleness?
Cannot the opposite be as easily argued? Or more logically cannot it be argued that a woman is a very definite thing, as is a male?
And if that is so how can anyone be called a non-male? There is no definition provided for what constitutes maleness.
We all know full well what it entails and these insane idjuts know it.
A man has a y chromosome, a penis, testicles. He may be missing one or two of the body parts due to trauma, perhaps, but the rest of him is clear. Men have more muscle mass, by and large. They do not have breasts (well, not big ones anyway). They have less of a pear shape. They do not menstruate, nor do they ovulate or produce milk.
Women do all that, plus they have less body hair, and generally higher voices. A man may look like a woman, especially if he's taken hormones, but his voice generally is a give-away.
To quote Ray Davies of The Kinks:
"she said in a low, low voice her name was Lola".
These are the sexes. Anything else is a social construct and a load of b.s.
By defining a woman as "non-male" they belittle her, belittle her unique identity and characteristics.
This is basically the old eugenics view of race. If you had one drop of non-white blood you were not white. This does the same basic thing to women as it did to people with any non-caucasian DNA. It's a way to marginalize them.
According to Brittanica:
REALITY meaning: 1 : the true situation that exists the real situation; 2 : something that actually exists or happens a real event, occurrence, situation
Non-men is not a real occurence or situation. It is a social construct designed to make the reality challenged feel good about their delusions.
Women are real. Get over it Liberals!
Johns Hopkins has found a novel new way to define what is a woman. It's a "non-man".
That's right; this wildly sexist phrase is being used by one of America's pre-eminent universities.
So there are no such things as women. Just non-men.
Which shows that this whole tranny thing is an attack on maleness and masculinity, as well as an assault on traditional female rolls.
The handbook given to students says:
Non-Man (formerly known as woman):
A being definable only by reference to male.An absence, a vacuum where there is no man-ness.
THIS is what passes for education?What research or science is employed to come to this rather shocking conclusion? Women are nothing but a vacuum where there is no maleness?
Cannot the opposite be as easily argued? Or more logically cannot it be argued that a woman is a very definite thing, as is a male?
And if that is so how can anyone be called a non-male? There is no definition provided for what constitutes maleness.
We all know full well what it entails and these insane idjuts know it.
A man has a y chromosome, a penis, testicles. He may be missing one or two of the body parts due to trauma, perhaps, but the rest of him is clear. Men have more muscle mass, by and large. They do not have breasts (well, not big ones anyway). They have less of a pear shape. They do not menstruate, nor do they ovulate or produce milk.
Women do all that, plus they have less body hair, and generally higher voices. A man may look like a woman, especially if he's taken hormones, but his voice generally is a give-away.
To quote Ray Davies of The Kinks:
"she said in a low, low voice her name was Lola".
These are the sexes. Anything else is a social construct and a load of b.s.
By defining a woman as "non-male" they belittle her, belittle her unique identity and characteristics.
This is basically the old eugenics view of race. If you had one drop of non-white blood you were not white. This does the same basic thing to women as it did to people with any non-caucasian DNA. It's a way to marginalize them.
According to Brittanica:
REALITY meaning: 1 : the true situation that exists the real situation; 2 : something that actually exists or happens a real event, occurrence, situation
Non-men is not a real occurence or situation. It is a social construct designed to make the reality challenged feel good about their delusions.
Women are real. Get over it Liberals!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:55 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.
1
In case you are unaware, Johns Hopkins has withdrawn that glossary due to complaints about the wording, and says the wording is "under review."
Posted by: Bill H at June 15, 2023 08:27 AM (Q7br2)
2
I should friggin' hope so! Every conservative in the U.S. knows that a woman is real (I say in the U.S. because the term conservative means somewhat different things in different countries.) And conservative men are, for the most part, married to them -- as I am.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at June 15, 2023 11:18 PM (25F6q)
3
I saw that yesterday Bill. They went too far too fast. I guarantee you though that they will bring this back when the public is "properly prepared".
Yeah Dana; any married man knows full well a woman is not a man - and is different in far more ways than just having a vagina.
Yeah Dana; any married man knows full well a woman is not a man - and is different in far more ways than just having a vagina.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 16, 2023 08:05 AM (+OJrv)
4
That is a mouthful, Timothy. Women are different in so many ways I sometimes wonder is we are the same species. Every time I understand what my wife is saying (yes it happens, but only rarely) it scares me. You could put eight vaginas on a man and he still wouldn't be a woman.
Posted by: Bill H at June 16, 2023 09:12 AM (Q7br2)
5
So very true Bill!
In fact, there was a theory that cross-species marriage - between Denisovan, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon, led to a hybridization and that women ARE a different species than men. I suppose we carry more Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA. At any rate women are radically different than are we and any fool knows it.
If a friend told me I looked fat I'd retort "and you look like a bucket of shit too". If a friend tells my wife she looks fat I have a week at least of horrible depression and she probably would never speak to her friend again.
You can't change that by cutting off a guys' schnickle, or putting boobs on him. Nor by removing breasts and inflating a clitoris.
In fact, there was a theory that cross-species marriage - between Denisovan, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon, led to a hybridization and that women ARE a different species than men. I suppose we carry more Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA. At any rate women are radically different than are we and any fool knows it.
If a friend told me I looked fat I'd retort "and you look like a bucket of shit too". If a friend tells my wife she looks fat I have a week at least of horrible depression and she probably would never speak to her friend again.
You can't change that by cutting off a guys' schnickle, or putting boobs on him. Nor by removing breasts and inflating a clitoris.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 17, 2023 08:02 AM (aW14n)
26kb generated in CPU 0.014, elapsed 0.1855 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1751 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.1751 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
