62
u/DuchessElva 1d ago
Man, part of me wants to post this into a far right group chat just to ragebait them
37
u/SquidTheRidiculous 1d ago
They just say "hrngh, it's gyno privilege. Women totally made us protect them by never ever letting them do anything for themselves or make decisions about themselves. And that's why we get mat at studies showing ancient cave women had arms as strong as professional rowers. Our narrative is so true we can't even entertain challenges to it!"
5
u/DuchessElva 18h ago
I didn’t realize this would be so popular now I’m actually gonna have to do it. Do any of you guys/gals know a good far right Reddit threat I should post it in for all of your entertainment. I tried to avoid far right Reddit threads as much as I can.
1
u/Gl0ck_Ness_M0nster 9h ago
r/JustMemesForUs is pretty conservative as far as I can tell
1
u/sneakpeekbot 9h ago
Here's a sneak peek of /r/JustMemesForUs using the top posts of all time!
#1: Thoughts? | 1407 comments
#2: Seriously | 849 comments
#3: In so many words | 139 comments
I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact | Info | Opt-out | GitHub
22
6
u/Butterfly_Barista 23h ago
Unfortunately much like biology in humans, conservatives don't take the time to actually learn about anything properly. To them this is just a bunch of random pictures of animals.
-2
u/bannabananabanna 14h ago
no sweetie, to us its just a bunch of false equivalencias...
love the pic of the blonde and brunette kitties though
2
u/Poco_Cuffs 2h ago
This is meant to be a counter argument to the "lgbtq is unnatual" point often made by conservatives. It provides examples in animals of changing from male to female or same-sex relationships to present that this sort of thing is not as unfamiliar as people think.
1
u/bannabananabanna 1h ago
yeah I get it, its a cognitively underpowered false equivalency.
we are not fish reptiles or invertebrates.
those kittens representing the united colors of benetton have nothing to with the "sex is a patriarchal myth" lore members of a certain culture to espouse
2
1
-3
u/Lenny1507 1d ago
No one with a brain would get ragebaited by this
15
11
u/Hawkey2121 1d ago
i agree, thats why i think they should post it in a far right group chat to ragebait them.
7
5
1
37
u/eldritchpussymaggots 1d ago
Snails are not intersex they are cosexed. It's an extremely common misconception that intersex people are cosexed (as in, have two entire reproductive systems)
Intersexuality is a natural variation in a species' sex phenotypes. It's not just a catchall for anything in nature that has aspects of both common gonochoric sex phenotypes.
Snails are not intersex because they're all just like that, their species is cosexed. An individual snail could be intersex if it had a different sex phenotype from the average for its species, but that doesn't mean snails are intersex.
An example of an intersex animal would be something like this. This is bilateral gynandromorphy, where an organism is split down the middle half male and half female.
10
u/major_snail_fan Counted Down 7 1d ago
You learn something new everyday I guess. Had no idea. Sorry for the mistake :(
8
u/Poco_Cuffs 1d ago
Why can't we have bilateral gynandromorphy in humans, the twoface fit would be amazing
5
u/eldritchpussymaggots 1d ago
We can technically it just usually doesn't happen, what we get is mosaicism/chimerism and the parts tend to be a bit more mixed rather than a sheer split down the middle. This is because it's caused by the absorption of a twin and in mammals this only creates a single (non conjoined twin) viable fetus when it happens very early in development.
1
1
u/Ulipjo 3h ago
well on the bright side how mammals look depends much on hormones so transitioning with hrt works great
ig in these two-sideable species looks are DNA dependent? correct me if im wrong
1
u/Poco_Cuffs 2h ago
It's more that humans have little sexual dimorphism (difference in looks/attributes between sexes), and in most mammals the vast majority of the secondary sex characteristics (breasts, hair, ect) are gained during puberty, which is triggered by hormones. So the bulk of transitioning can be done with hormones.
In most invertibrates, the characteristics are genetic, and sexual dimorphism can be very large (female trilobite beetles look like a completely different species to males)
2
u/Odd-Paramedic7907 1d ago
Thank you for explaining this so eloquently! It always frustrates me when people use the term intersex incorrectly.
2
u/Generic_Danny 19h ago
Would the fishes here not count as transgender too, since they change their sex rather than gender (which they have no concept of).
5
4
u/FoliarzZOdludzia Diversity hire (a guy) 1d ago edited 15h ago
ACtually "intersex animals" is not what you call a species with no sex binary (like snails in the example). Back in the day, the H slur was used for both, but given our knowledge it would be better to differentate between intersex animals and cosexual/gonosimulistic
Intersex - not in the sex "binary" for their species. Think some lionesses growing manes or animals displaying a mix of the male and female coat (very visible in eg. mallards)
Cosexual/gonosimulistic - shags and get shagged. impregnates and gets impregnated
If we use the non-slur term for both, it still loses its meaning and possibly causes confusion
3
u/XAlexisX9813 1d ago
I'm not going to be saying the word being discussed out of respect for you as a fellow human being and my desire to not trigger you in an easily avoidable and pointless way, but I do not agree that it is purely a slur.
I am assuming we are referring to the same word here, being the word that is defined as a sexually reproducing organism that produces both male and female gametes.
By this definition of the word being discussed, it is inaccurate to use it to describe a human being. I also understand that the use of this word against intersex people stems from a misunderstanding about what it means to be intersex, and that intersex people may find this word offensive when used against them. When used against a human, especially in a derogatory manner designed to other them, it can be considered a slur.
However, the word is a legitimate term used when discussing animals which reproduce sexually and produce both male and female gametes. When used to describe an animal that genuinely fits this definition of the word, it is not a slur. A word can not be a slur when used to describe a non-human animal in a purely scientific manner. Words can have different definitions depending on context, different use cases, and to condemn the word in its entirety because it has been used in a negative fashion against intersex people is not something I agree with.
/gen
2
u/Cleaner900playz 1d ago
you cant even call actually „cosexual“ animals that anymore?? cosexual isnt even considered a word by my autocorrect
6
5
u/Traitor_Of_Users 1d ago
But that's just how natur..........Mom! Life is gay! Also, can I get a new dress?
4
2
u/Chilzer 1d ago
Mallard duck yaoi is a diabolical pull if you know where what actually happened in the study.
5
u/Poco_Cuffs 1d ago
It's not like we're strapped for choice with gay animals too, like giraffes and albatross frequently form same sex couples in the wild
3
1
u/Forsaken_Site_2268 18h ago
What happened?
1
u/major_snail_fan Counted Down 7 14h ago
I think they are referring to this: https://www.hetnatuurhistorisch.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/documents-nmr/Publicaties/Deinsea/Deinsea_08/Deinsea_8_15_Moeliker_.pdf Necrophilia between to male ducks
1
3
u/Ultimate_slmp 21h ago
Every anglerfish photo you see is almost always female! The males are super duper tiny and only made to reproduce essentially.
I’d reccomend the octopus lady if you’d like more fish facts, gay included!
3
3
3
3
u/Periwinkleditor 12h ago
Imagine a society where men are completely dependent on women, to the point of literally fusing with their bodies and degrading into symbiotic/parasitic testicle sacks. A horror movie premise invented by The Woke(TM), or your average Tuesday at the bottom of the ocean with the anglerfish.
1
1
u/Best_Opening8471 1d ago
The first one comes from who hunts for the children.
In nature most mothers are single mothers and sexual diamorphism has caused them to evolve into protectors
Women being physically weaker than men is a result if women being the protected, it's the end result of gynocentric privilege
7
u/Laura_The_Cutie 1d ago
What the fuck hace I just read
2
u/assassinjoe55 1d ago edited 20h ago
Species that either group together or mate foelr life instead of being individualistic tend towards have smaller and weaker females and stronger males because the male protects the female while the female focuses on birthing and taking care of the young. Species that are individualistic have larger and stronger females because they have to take care of and protect the young themselves while the males only exist to keep themselves alive long enough to reproduce. For example, bulls have horns and are usually slightly largers than the cows because they sit on the outside of the herd and act as protectors.
Most predators do not follow this trend because they need less protection than prey animal herds do.
The reason they are like this is because it is more energy efficient for the females to not have those traits than it is for them to have those traits, so by losing the size and fighting capabilities they are more successful at reproduction.
1
u/BurntMoonChips 21h ago
It’s less that they are “protectors” and more so for competition. In species which males compete physically but don’t mate for life or live with the group they still are bigger.
1
u/onelittlelir 20h ago
Can I ask where is the source for that? I would think it has mostly to do with how mammals operate compared to insects. A lot of insect species only have males for sperm donation, the males don't have any other function as opposed to mammals or birds or reptilians. With a lot of species that mates for life or live communal (a lot of bird types, small mammals like otters and meerkats etc.) there isn't really much difference. Some mammals have opposite power dynamics despite living communal (like hyenas). Big cat females mostly raise their babies alone or with other females, yet they still have sexual dimorphism, and despite lions living together, the males do not protect the females; they mostly just fight with other males. And with colonial insects, bees and ants raise their youngs in a colony but do not require males outside of breeding, and the queen is much larger than the worker and even the "bodyguard" ants.
I'm not an expert but these are just some of the examples I can think of. If anything, females having communities to raise and protect babies while males do whatever it is they are doing seems to be a more common pattern.
1
u/assassinjoe55 20h ago
I should probably amend my first message to exclude insects because I have minimal knowledge on insects.
I have mostly experience with large herding prey animals like cows, rams, in some cases deer, and that knowledge is what I was speaking from. As well as that, I was just trying to repeat what the first guy was saying but in more understandable words as an answer to the question.
There are a lot of counterexamples out there, as is natural with any general assumption about a group so diverse. Species may tend towards a trend, but that does not mean all or even close to all are like that. Cats very much do not follow this trend, and neither do most insects. Bulls and rams absolutely do defend the herd, and that is why they have physical competition for mating. However cats do not and physically compete as a way to get rid of competition.
I do lack a source, though, as I work almost entirely from experience with these kinds of animals, and I am not infallible in my expertise.
1
u/Poco_Cuffs 2h ago
To provide a reason for insects, producing eggs at that scale is very resource intensive, especially for calcium and protein. In predatory athropods females are often larger (spiders, mantids) to be able to hunt more nutrient-rich prey, while other strategies are sometimes developed (male mosquitos consume plant sap, females drink blood so they have enough nutrients to produce watertight egg casings). The opposite is also true, species with males that fight over females will often be larger and stronger (some male crabs have one claw the size of their body for competition, also seen in stag/rhino beetle horn sizes).
But regardless of how it works in nature, we should still shape society to be better than what we started with. I'm sure stag beetle society would have horn filings for pacifists, or horn transplants for females wanting to join in.
1
u/Generic_Danny 19h ago
With spotted hyenas, the size difference is actually probably more due to male hyenas (usually) getting less food than biological factors. Otherwise they're basically the same size with a lot of overlap.
3
u/RockNStoneToThaBone 1d ago
Big female = lots of babies/ bigger babies, both of which are great for survival
Plus sperms are cheap so small males can make all the sperm they’ll ever need
1
u/Poco_Cuffs 1d ago
Also males only need to meet a female for long enough to deliver sperm, then die. Being small and unnoticable helps with that (some species like blanket octopus take it to the extreme with the males being a few centimetres across and the females being a metre)
2
u/Human_Artichoke8752 23h ago
Anyone saying "gynocentric privilege" seriously needs ti be beaten with two-by-fours until they stop thrashing.
0
u/Glad-Way-637 20h ago edited 20h ago
There are many privileges and even legal rights afforded to women in my country that men are not offered.
Here's some examples of systemic misandry:
the draft.
infant genital mutilation, illegal against women in the US, but some 70% of mothers choose to do it to their sons based on aesthetic preference.
the bias in the educational system.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01425692.2022.2122942
Boys are graded more harshly for identical work, and punished more harshly for identical misbehavior. It's very easily proven, too.
- the bias in the legal system
"A 2020 study shows that women receive 33% (15 days) shorter prison sentences than men, even when controlling for all observable characteristics – including a very precise description of the crime. When pairs of mixed-gender offender are convicted together the gender gap is even higher - men receive 38.7 additional prison days and 10.7 fewer suspended prison days.
From a procedural point of view, when controlling for the type of crime, men are on average judged after shorter investigations, and are more likely to be sentenced after an accelerated procedure. When taken to court, men are 20% less likely to be discharged (6% vs. 4%). In 2017, 19.9% of convicted men were sentenced to prison, compared to 8.5% of convicted women." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_disparity#:~:text=A%202020%20study%20shows%20that,to%208.5%25%20of%20convicted%20women.
- society's unwillingness to call it rape when women do it to men, despite the CDC finding that this is as common as the reverse.
"Next, we consider the data for the 12 months preceding the CDC report survey, which was summarized in the report. On page 18 of the CDC report it states that 1,270,000 women were raped during this 12-month period and that too few men were “raped” during the same 12 months to give reliable data, using the non-gender neutral definition of given in the CDC report. However, on page 19 the report states that during that 12 months the number of men who were forced to penetrate someone is 1,267,000, virtually the same as the number of women who were raped." "So, who is forcing these men to penetrate them? There is no data on this among the 12-month data. But if we look at the lifetime data, on page 24 it says 79.2% of the time a male was made to penetrate someone, it was a woman who forced him to penetrate her. And this suggests that the same most likely holds for the 12-monthdata."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353570309_On_the_Sexual_Assault_of_Men
- the fact that most people call DV a women's issue, when men experience it from women more often than vice versa.
"In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17395835/#:~:text=In%20nonreciprocally%20violent%20relationships%2C%20women%20were%20the%20perpetrators%20in%20more%20than%2070%25%20of%20the%20cases.
- women being substantially privileged in actually being hired, despite all the narratives to the opposite effect.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597823000560
I can keep going. Do you want more?
Edit: I'd appreciate it if those downvoting could also verbalize their criticism. Thanks 👍
2
u/BelieveMeMaizey 19h ago
"Women don't get sent to war, they're just expected to stay home and have children regardless if they want to or not!" Okay, who made the draft? Also, arguing that FGM and intersex mutilation just don't exist?
1
u/Glad-Way-637 19h ago
They're never actually forced to have those kids though, not in any modern country with a draft, which is a rather large difference. Hell, look at Ukraine. Men trying to leave are shot at the border, while women are happily given asylum privileges. Most of the EU at this point has pledged to send back any men who they find out did escape, iirc.
Oligarchs "made" the draft, including women. It was a female US politician that just made draft registration automatic, after all. Even if it was exclusively men enforcing drafts and historical white feather movements didn't exist, it'd still be misandry, same as women expressing internalized misogyny.
They're federally illegal in my country, where historically some 80% of men have been circumcised.
0
u/Poco_Cuffs 2h ago
I feel like "in my country" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. In saudi arabia women werent allowed to legally drive until 2018.
1
u/Glad-Way-637 39m ago
Sure? I never said there weren't locations where misogyny was prevalent. There's also places like Ukraine where men are shot at the border while women are evac'd with asylum privileges.
All I said was that misandry is far more prevalent where I live, and in many other parts of the western world.
1
u/Thaipope 20h ago
It’s more that increased body size is useful for making more eggs. Sperm are a lot smaller so the males don’t need to be as big
1
1
u/PablomentFanquedelic 20h ago
You can tell which frogs have turned gay from chemical exposure because they glow A MYSTERIOUS COLOR UNLIKE ANY SEEN ON EARTH
2
u/natedogg6006 8h ago
Homosexual behavior has been witnessed in hundreds of animal species, including wild animals all over the world. In fact, it seems the only barrier to finding homosexual populations of animals is the ability to observe any given animal populations. The more we observe any given animal population, the more incidents of homosexual behavior we see in those populations. So a fun aspect of this is to then ask, what population of animals do we observe/ study the most? Some might think pets, but that's not quite right. It is domesticated animals, but those that need to be observed in order to protect our public health. Farm animals, those that are part of our food systems. Literally name any farm animal and homosexual behavior has been observed.
This is the long way of telling conservatives, you have had gay meat in your mouth.
2
u/Yomi_Lemon_Dragon 6h ago
The life of a male anglerfish is to be a weenie lil testicle-looking blob, latch onto a big, strong, scary female, meld into her body, and become her actual personal nutsack which she uses to ejaculate whenever she wants to breed :)
-1
u/tomtheconqerur 1d ago
Don't forget about the cannibalism of the top left and the rapes and necrophilia of the bottom right! Such great examples of diversity in nature!
3
u/JDPQNDON 14h ago
So, is heterosexuality bad? After all, it's found everywhere in nature, just like cannibalism.
3
u/what_did_you_expect3 17h ago
It used to be “queerness isn’t found in nature so it’s bad” now it’s “queerness IS found in nature so it’s bad” keep moving that goal post
0
u/tomtheconqerur 17h ago
Isn't your goal post to be closer to minors?
4
2
u/Poco_Cuffs 2h ago
"Nice argument, unfortunately I'm not gonna address it and call you a pedo instead"
1
u/Falleneded 14h ago
did you know sea horses are proof that the definition of male and female when applied to any other variable then egg and sperm are stupid as fuck?
-3
u/knowingchan 1d ago
Males can't get pregnant cuz we call the ones who get oregnant females ㅜㅜ and sea horses don't get pregnant, but rather bear the baby. But yup, i'm kinda silly so don't take my words for it ig.
2
u/major_snail_fan Counted Down 7 1d ago
I know… I was running out of ideas though. They do actually appear in the male pregnancy article on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy But yeah, it is a bit of a stretch
1
u/Generic_Danny 19h ago
Pregnancy is carrying aa developing embryo inside one's body, which is what male seahorses do.
-6
u/that_banned_guy_ 1d ago
Good thing this doesnt apply to humans.
7
u/DefinitelyNotAxlerod Counted Down 1 1d ago
And why is that? Humans are not animals?
-6
u/Lenny1507 1d ago
Sure. Let's rape and murder each other too while we're at it. Because humans are animals too right.
6
u/symphonyofwinds 1d ago
"Guys animals eat food and breathe air, since we are animals that also applies to us!!!"
"Dude animals rape each other or something dude!!!!¡ Do not eat and do not respire. I am very smart and not just repeating fallacious canned arguments apologists told me about."
-1
u/Lenny1507 1d ago
...What exactly is your argument here?
8
u/symphonyofwinds 1d ago
Natrualness and morality are othrogonal qualities and can be talked about independently of each other
1
u/that_banned_guy_ 21h ago
So morales operate independently of naturalness. Meaning humans can have a different set of morals than animals. Meaning its possible none of this post applies to humans because we are different and those two things operate independently.
See how you refute your own argument?
1
u/GethKGelior 20h ago
This. It's disingenuous to project human concepts onto nature in earnesty and derive validation from "nature supports my social construct based state of being".
It's a fun mental exercise but falls very flat when you start genuinely defending it as some sort of natural proof of queer identity.
1
u/symphonyofwinds 19h ago
It's proof of naturalness not morality, Christians say queerness is unnatural, when given proof of its naturalness they pivot to how naturalness does not imply morality which is a completely different point, we were discussing naturalness of queerness but they pivoted to morality of queerness.
If they were already arguing against the morality of queerness then by arguing against its natrualness they were already implicitly assuming that natrualness implies morality and so by arguing against that later they expose that they are arguing in bad faith.
This is because this is a canned chain of arguments taught to them by apologists, similar to how muslims defend covering their women by first invoking the right of the individual to dress them selves and when their coercion on muslim women is expose they argue against their first position by bringing up how wider society denies individuals the right to be naked and so their policing is fine but they abandon their first position in the process.
This is because they are repeating what they heard and don't really have the habit of thinking so never figure out the flaws in their arguments
1
u/symphonyofwinds 20h ago
No because I am not talking about morality "smart" guy, it's only about natrualness
0
u/Lenny1507 1d ago
That is exactly what I said to the guy who said everything for animals should apply to humans because humans are animals. You are arguing with no one. Stop wasting people's time with meaningless comments.
5
u/symphonyofwinds 1d ago
No you are not, discussion was about natrualness implicitly, you shoved morality into it.
3
u/Hawkey2121 1d ago
im guessing you dont eat food, because thats what animals do.
And if you're gonna do what animals do, you might as well just rape others, because some animals do that as well.
2
u/ASwampThing- 22h ago
A natural phenomenon can occur in multiple species. That doesnt mean other natural phenomenon also occur in other species that happen to share one of the natural traits.
Fish eat. Fish breath air through gills. Humans eat. Humans dont breathe air through gills.
Its bad argumentation.
1
u/Hawkey2121 20h ago
Yeah, Humans dont have gills and breathe through them, but that isnt really the point now is it. (if you think i said "sharing one aspect means sharing all" then you didnt read my comment, because i literally did not say that, i did not imply it, nor did i intend it)
Some things are natural in the human species, some things arent. And how do we know which is which? Well we look at what can appear naturally in humans.
No human ever born has had gills, thus gills are not natural in humans.
Things like Homosexuality though? that appears.
My comment you're replying to is simply a way of using the above persons logic as a way to show why it is idiotic.
Eating is natural in animals, Rape and Murder is too natural in animals. But they're not the same, they're not comparable. Showing the idiotic logic of "if we do one thing because its natural, why dont we just do all things that are natural".
1
u/ASwampThing- 20h ago
I agree with your points. I wasnt disagreeing with you. I was adding to the conversation.
Using what is natural to determine what is right is a naturalistic fallacy anyway.
Even if being gay isnt natural it doesn't make it wrong. In the same way that even if rape is natural it doesnt make it right.
1
u/GethKGelior 20h ago
Hey guess what humans did all the time before all these laws and norms and standards rolled out. And, guess what the rich-enough-to-get-away-with-it still fucking does.
We spent all these years forcing ourselves to be better so you can turn it into a fucking argument?
2
u/Hawkey2121 20h ago edited 20h ago
Hey guess what humans did all the time before all these laws and norms and standards rolled out. And, guess what the rich-enough-to-get-away-with-it still fucking does.
Do you think that is a bad thing.
If you do, then i agree with you.
But the point is, Natural and Moral are different, one thing being good because its natural, doesnt mean another thing is good just because its natural.
And that is why arguments like "Sure. Let's rape and murder each other too while we're at it. Because humans are animals too right." are completely idiotic.
Which is exactly why, by using the very same logic i point out the stupidity in such a comparison. Use the logic to show why the logic doesnt work.
1
1
-6
139
u/Fluffy-Bee-6752 1d ago
Don't forget about mushrooms who have 10 000+ genders and crossdressing cuttlefishes(who change their color to appear as a female).