Reincarnation Coliseum - Vol. 3 Ch. 13 - In The State of a Woman
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
i could be like flare from redo of a healer where she secretly likes the protagonist but doesn't know how to expressWhat exactly is Zayd's problem with MC. Is it just that he keeps showing her up?
Also:
how is that contradictory lol, you realize almost every slaving country has been a democracy? the irony is that autocracies has less need for slavery since the entire country acts as a serf to the emperor regardless, its one of the reasons there was no slavery in ancient japan or china.
also democracies are the more warmongering societies by statistics, just like how female rulers actually are more likely to start wars than male rules by stats, stereotypes are just that
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2023
- Messages
- 20
Alice went from misandrist to D lover in one session. all hale to the MC that gets shit done instead of passing out at the mere site of an undressed woman. it's actually refreshing to see a MC like this that's a badass and not some beta bitch that cucks himself like in most Mangas
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2023
- Messages
- 32
GAAAAAAAAYYYYYY
Yeah there practically wasn't Slavery in Ancient Japan or China or any other Asian nation, but people were still exploited in some way similar to a Slave.
It's just that they were more Free Slaves, aka., they lived their lives freely but had to work harshly (not that different from current eras Corporate Slave).
Most of the time, Slave were something like parents selling their kids or relatives for money, and the person sold worked for their owner until they paid back the money (the person sold would also earn some small amount of income in the mean time), similar to what we see in the Apothecary Diaries series.
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 22
Please actually listen to what modern scientists and intellectuals are saying, rather than sticking to outdated and simplistic beliefs. Both biologists and philosophers as well as academics of various other fields have changed the way they view sex and gender, not because of some political agenda, but simply because that's how the facts align. Rather, have you considered that the political agenda may be happening because science has evolved in that way? There is simply no reasonable definition of woman that excludes trans women. Any that is named will be either completely arbitrary and/or exclude women we would not define as trans. There is a good video by Forrest Valkai on youtube on the subject, and you will find lots of good information even on the net if you just care to look.
And regarding gender bender, as @altmaria has mentioned, any difference between magical gender bending and transitioning is merely a limitation of what the latter can currently do, and will diminish as it evolves, something you have not responded to so far, presumably because it puts a wrench in your argument.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,232
Modern scientists and intellectuals are not above saying whatever gets them funding.
"There is simply no reasonable definition of woman that excludes trans women."
Adult human female. No amount of delusion on the part of you or anybody else magically makes "trans women" (aka men) into an adult human female.
"any difference between magical gender bending and transitioning is merely a limitation of what the latter can currently do"
Transitioning doesn't make you a woman. The amount of technology it would take to actually make a man into a woman compared to today's level of technology is like comparing sticks & rocks to nuclear reactors. It is not happening in our lifetime, it is not happening in our great grandchildren's lifetime.
"something you have not responded to so far, presumably because it puts a wrench in your argument."
Why do I need to respond to ridiculous delusion?
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 22
So you don't realize how convenient it is to be dismissing academics because you believe they're politically motivated? You don't think it is concerning how you made up an easy reason to reject anything anyone says that disagrees with your view, no matter how reasonable? Really? Even though science has a system of peer review to weed out most bad science? Even though in doing so you essentially reject the opinions of the people most qualified to comment on this issue?
What does adult female human mean, specifically? Again, please give me a suitable definition that notably excludes trans women while including all cis women, rather than this non-answer.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,232
It has long been known and understood that scientists rarely if ever any more get to research the things they want to and give the results they want to any more, they are beholden to the people giving them funding and those who present results that fly against the current narrative get discredited, smeared and shut down. This is before you consider the fact that every time people say an arbitrary statement like "300 doctors all agree on X topic", if you dig into it you find that the "doctors" in question are barely if at all related to the field in question, e.g veterinarians when the topic is about human biology.
Here's an example of a doctor on the subject who's too honest to forge their data but not honest enough to publish it:
Human being born with XX chromosomes. Grew up over time with XX chromosomes and the body developed over the years without being severely compromised in some way. Became an adult. I can't dumb this down much further for you.
edit
It's been two days with no response from you so I assume you've dipped with your tail between your legs. I'll say two things for future prosperity:
1: The appeal to authority fallacy does not work on me or anybody else with a brain, I'm immune to such propaganda.
2: You're so deep in your cult that you've even lost sight of what a woman is, something so base and simple that even literal cavemen solved the problem. I really wasn't expecting any sort of logic out of you and I was right on that.
Last edited:
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 22
I didn't answer precisely because YOU are the one displaying cultlike behavior. You have convinced yourself that academics that say things you don't like are actually compromised because of one reason or another (no matter that this topic isn't even a debate among biologists, but just basic fucking modern science), so no matter what anyone says to you, you can just handwave it away. There's no point reasoning with someone like that, so I'm not even gonna try. I'd tell you to look up what appeal to authority actually means and when it actually applies, but I'm sure you won't and will continue using it to ward off self-reflection.
I'll note that you did exactly what I said you would, describe 'female' in a way that excludes even some cis women. Of course, you don't actually care about that, you're just looking for any reason to reject trans people.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,232
I provided a concrete example of why adacemics can't be blindly trusted, there are many such cases. The point is you cannot make a vague statement like "doctors and scientists say X, therefore X is irrefutably true" or whatever bullshit. Make an argument of your own, don't defer to others to make it for you.
Explain how I excluded some "cis women", you're just making vague claims with zero explanation which is the hallmark of an incredibly shitty debater. It's a good enough explanation for your needs though, If you want another refer to the picture you quoted originally; that explains the difference for you without words. Want a third? "Be physically born that way", I literally cannot make it simpler than that.
edit
Well, again it's been days and no reply from you. I've met commenters like you before who demand answers from me but can't come up with a single answer themselves, it's tiresome and pathetic.
Last edited:
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 22
You seem to be rather obsessed with my replying to you. Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in this conversation, so this will likely be my last reply unless you actually respond with something significant.
So, you didn't provide a thing. You accuse me of making vague statements, yet you baselessly make claims about the state of academia and how often it fails that are informed by right wing conspiracy theories more than anything else.
You did eventually give me a video made by some random dude likely informed by an article that bends over backwards to vilify Olson. Olson and her coworkers have already published 28 studies as part of this project, and Olson has stated the she plans on publishing this one eventually, delaying it because she was afraid it would be weaponized by the right and because she hasn't finished pouring over the data. She notably states that it has to be "exactly on point, clear and precise. And that takes time". It seems her study indicates that puberty blockers didn't notably increase well-being of the subjects taking them. It didn't show that their mental health worsened, or that it wouldn't worsen without them (on which there IS data, showing that trans youths who don't receive puberty blockers become much unhappier on average). That's hardly a revolutionary conclusion, especially considering most were doing well even before the medication, nor is it a result that would particularly undermine Olson's beliefs. She's simply being cautious and meticulous. None of this particularly helps prove your point.
Next, the issue with people citing false experts is notable, though mostly done by right wingers, and generally used to propagate statements counter to scientific consensus in order to promote some fringe view. Scientists faking or producing bad data happens, in part because of lack of funding, but in most cases this bad data is weeded out by the peer review process or countered by more accurate studies. In general, academia is still the most reliable (and in many cases only) source of knowledge we have, even with its flaws.
You excluded cis women by excluding women born with xy chromosomes (or other karyotypes) and some syndrome that prevented their body from developing like a typical man's. Some notable examples are the Swyer syndrome and the Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. These women were considered as such from birth, will be considered as such after death, and in many cases it will never be known that they didn't have xx chromosomes. They are usually not fertile, though there are exceptions, and some may conceive with some aid. Amusingly, "literal cavemen", who you stated were capable of telling who is a woman and who isn't, would have considered these people women, yet you seemingly don't. So which is it, then?
As for that picture, I think it is both a gross oversimplification and to some extent simply not true. Not only does bone structure in transgender people lean closer to that of their cis counterpart if they undergo hormone therapy before puberty sets in, using bones for identification of gender/sex is somewhat unreliable to begin with. Beyond that, I think it's absurd to use what people hundreds of years in the future might think as basis for how we should consider people now. I do find two things about the picture very funny though:
1. The fact that in the case of the transgender woman, the graph implies she'll die soon after the surgery, while the genderbent woman will get to live a long life. Really lovely how people will just make a complete mockery of trans lives.
2. The fact that you stated that women have to just be "born that way" even though you also said you consider genderbent women as women. Considering those weren't born that way, it sure seems like you made that up on the spot, huh?
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2020
- Messages
- 31
Did my man really said: "If there is a hole. there is way" ?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,232
Opened the reply in a new tab, then forgot about it until I caught up on my backlog. Whoops.
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/09...study-that-author-calls-wildly-nonsystematic/
https://www.theguardian.com/science...ers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point
"Only right wingers (most, but let's face it that's what you wanted to say) cite false claims!", why is it then that conspiracy theories nowadays get confirmed a few months later with alarming regularity in recent years with alarming regularity if that were the case? The right will point something out, the left calls it a conspiracy theory or misinformation, few months later it's proven and immediately memory holed.
In regards to the "male or female?" debate, if you dig hard enough for basically any topic or you water down the definitions enough you'll always find some extremely fringe exception, but your demand was complete BS to begin with. You don't need quite literally every single part of a group to conform to a single specification, we're talking about basic pattern recognition here, this isn't complicated.
1: It's the simple truth, getting large amounts of invasive surgery does drastically shorten your lifespan, before even considering anything else. You don't have to like it, you can consider it mockery if you like, but it's the simple truth.
2: The point of the picture I posted explains this, but you still don't seem to have picked up on it. Being genderbent into a girl effectively magics the transformed person in such a way to be that they've ALWAYS been a girl physically, so it's 1:1 as if they grew up as a girl from birth. I illustrated that as cleanly and simply as humanly possible so anybody could understand that, anybody but you apparently unless you're just pretending to be stupid. The only thing remaining for a man who gets hit with genderbending magic to show they're not a woman is the memory, that's it. In some cases even the memories of most people are overwritten. You are trying to compare men getting their penis chopped off (or not even that!) as being the same thing as a body that has been transformed on the genetic + cellular + historic level to become 1:1 as if it was born and grew up completely and utterly female from the womb.
Last edited:
Similar threads
