Bureaucracy-Em-Up

[Keltzar]

On a note wholly unrelated to transsexuality I wonder if Yahtzee has ever heard of the game Cart Life. I watched a couple videos of a guy playing it and it sounds similar to Papers, Please. Anyone else think that?

 

[Abomination]

Any action can be offensive in any scenario? Offensive things are contextual/subjective by their nature. There is probably some black people who dont mind white people calling them ******, but we dont call them that either way in general, a kin to homosexuals and the word fag or queer even. It kind of has to be taken on a case to case basis, no action is inherently offensive, for it depends on the party involved, and how they interpret it.

Cursing is offensive if someone takes offensive, sadly thats all that needs to take place for it to be offensive. By their very definition they are profane words, profane being something unpleasent, offensive? I know that it opens a large realm of things that can be offensive, but thats cause almost anything can be, it just depends on context. Id give an example, but i dont think you like mines.

No, there are offensive scenarios that are considered universally offensive that involve direct insults.

You?re right about black & ****** or homosexual & fag. The word ****** and fag isn?t inherently offensive ? but it CAN be and it requires someone choosing to be offended. A direct insult, however, is always offensive as that?s the intent ? unless the recipient chooses to NOT be offended. Both scenarios require the ?listening? party to decide to change to default scenario. Calling someone gay is not offensive unless they choose to be offended by it. Calling someone a stupid arsehole is offensive unless they choose to NOT be offended by it.

What other cosmetic treatments? Lets assume we are talking about a MtF transition, to limit the scope of the discussion. They can get , hair removal, tracheal surgery, vaginoplasty, breast implants or HRT. Those are all of the treatments i am aware of that helps them pass, and most of then are pretty permanent, once off HRT, your breasts dont go away, they sag, for you loose your female form ala menopause, the only thing that isnt permanent is hair removal, but by lacking testosterone in general, they shouldnt get alot. I mean women get beards too when on menopause for the same reason, so its comparable.

There you go, sagging breasts, hair growth returning. Failing that? It's seldom there's a MtF that doesn't involve makeup to keep the illusion going.

As for your anomaly comment. Just because something doesnt occur alot doesnt mean it doesnt count, transgender people whether naturally occurring or not still fit the same circumstances that intersexed do physically, so comparing them in that venue is ok.And not all intersex women produce eggs, it was just one example of a type of condition where the intersexed women would have a deformed set of overaies, id have to look it up specifically, but it be kind of hard. There are multiple cases of intersexness, where women have testicles and no overaries, or men with really small penises and internal overaries that are underdeveloped.

But they are not trans. They are intersex. They have organs that are quite literally different and distinguish them from trans people. They aren't moving from Male to Female or the opposite, they are moving from Male&Female to one or the other (should they choose). They are also mutations, it's the same as just not being born with a penis - something has gone wrong and an anomaly has occurred. Using anomalies in an argument for distinguishing the sex of non-anomalous individuals is not comparable.

Never said it wasn't a pencil, it's just a pencil without lead. So its a pencil that can do everything a pencil usually does apart from the primary function of its design.

I dont disagree, they are a pencil without lead, a women without eggs, but still a pencil and still a women. Just one that cant fulfill the reproductive process, which i dare say isnt primary in humans, since we dont need to consider reproductive capabilities for every single one of us, just the majority, and since transwomen/intersexed women only cover around 1% or less of the worlds population, whether they can reproduce or not is kind of negligible.

The whole point of having different sexes is to fulfill reproductive processes. Everything else that has sprung up around them is gender roles and societal pressures. The reason we have males and females is for reproduction.

It's not my analogy, it's yours. Either you have to admit it was a false analogy and doesn't accurately depict how supposedly "simple" the transition between sexes is or I continue to dispute it should you continue to insist it is a reflection of such.

You havent disproven my analogy at all. So stop saying you did, unless you can show exactly where i made a misstep?. You just thought it was silly. Doesnt mean its wrong. My analogy still stuck, and i never said the transition was simple either? Unless you got a quote saying i did. All i said it was comparable to trees, ie similar, not exactly the same. That is how analogies work? They arent suppose to be 100% equal, or else they would be a equivalence. I dont even think transitoning is simple in general, its a very complicated process, which can result in loss of friends, family, loved ones. Not to mention your job, or god forbid your life if you die in surgery. There is also the public perception of trans people being "fake" and "mutulated people" that they are somehow suppose to take on the chin i guess, cause they choose to be women, rather than living miserably as man. It isn't simple at all.

The misstep is simple. A tree is not already a pencil that changes into a chair. It's a blank canvas when it comes to being a pencil or a chair. There is no transiton between pencils and chairs. It's possible to turn a single chair into a single or multiple pencils but there is no way to turn a single pencil into a functional chair.

For the anlogy to work you need to introduce something that can transition between two forms, not from one form into two different forms.

 

[Abomination]

I didn't accuse you of anything and you completely missed my point, which was nobody is persecuting straight, white men.

If people have "disdain" for you, it's not because of who you are, but what you're saying or doing. I specifically stated that. I've never had anyone hate me just for being a straight, white man. If someone hates you for that then they're stupid and wrong.

No, you said

The reason equal rights people, like myself, "disdain" straight, white men, is because straight white men were the reason non-whites had separate drinking fountains and had to sit in the back of the bus. They're the reason women couldn't vote until 1920. They're the reason gay people still can't get married in most states today. And just recently it's straight white men who passed a law to force doctors into lying to women and giving them vaginal ultrasounds(a medically unnecessary procedure)before they can get a legal abortion. Those actions and many others are what piss people off, not just because you were born a straight, white male.

You said right there that you distain straight white men because other straight white men have done something. That's pretty much prejudice in a nutshell, or tarring everyone with the same brush.

Just because some straight white men did something does not mean that every straight white man approved of it or contributed to it. There are a LOT of straight white men in the world and they do not operate as a single unit.

I don't know what's worse, the fact that you possibly think it's true or I have to explain how your stance is persecution.

Do you know who else suffers when straight white men make decisions that benefit only them or their views? Other straight white men.

 

[Rosiv]

Any action can be offensive in any scenario? Offensive things are contextual/subjective by their nature. There is probably some black people who dont mind white people calling them ******, but we dont call them that either way in general, a kin to homosexuals and the word fag or queer even. It kind of has to be taken on a case to case basis, no action is inherently offensive, for it depends on the party involved, and how they interpret it.

Cursing is offensive if someone takes offensive, sadly thats all that needs to take place for it to be offensive. By their very definition they are profane words, profane being something unpleasent, offensive? I know that it opens a large realm of things that can be offensive, but thats cause almost anything can be, it just depends on context. Id give an example, but i dont think you like mines.

No, there are offensive scenarios that are considered universally offensive that involve direct insults.

You?re right about black & ****** or homosexual & fag. The word ****** and fag isn?t inherently offensive ? but it CAN be and it requires someone choosing to be offended. A direct insult, however, is always offensive as that?s the intent ? unless the recipient chooses to NOT be offended. Both scenarios require the ?listening? party to decide to change to default scenario. Calling someone gay is not offensive unless they choose to be offended by it. Calling someone a stupid arsehole is offensive unless they choose to NOT be offended by it.

What other cosmetic treatments? Lets assume we are talking about a MtF transition, to limit the scope of the discussion. They can get , hair removal, tracheal surgery, vaginoplasty, breast implants or HRT. Those are all of the treatments i am aware of that helps them pass, and most of then are pretty permanent, once off HRT, your breasts dont go away, they sag, for you loose your female form ala menopause, the only thing that isnt permanent is hair removal, but by lacking testosterone in general, they shouldnt get alot. I mean women get beards too when on menopause for the same reason, so its comparable.

There you go, sagging breasts, hair growth returning. Failing that? It's seldom there's a MtF that doesn't involve makeup to keep the illusion going.

As for your anomaly comment. Just because something doesnt occur alot doesnt mean it doesnt count, transgender people whether naturally occurring or not still fit the same circumstances that intersexed do physically, so comparing them in that venue is ok.And not all intersex women produce eggs, it was just one example of a type of condition where the intersexed women would have a deformed set of overaies, id have to look it up specifically, but it be kind of hard. There are multiple cases of intersexness, where women have testicles and no overaries, or men with really small penises and internal overaries that are underdeveloped.

But they are not trans. They are intersex. They have organs that are quite literally different and distinguish them from trans people. They aren't moving from Male to Female or the opposite, they are moving from Male&Female to one or the other (should they choose). They are also mutations, it's the same as just not being born with a penis - something has gone wrong and an anomaly has occurred. Using anomalies in an argument for distinguishing the sex of non-anomalous individuals is not comparable.

Never said it wasn't a pencil, it's just a pencil without lead. So its a pencil that can do everything a pencil usually does apart from the primary function of its design.

I dont disagree, they are a pencil without lead, a women without eggs, but still a pencil and still a women. Just one that cant fulfill the reproductive process, which i dare say isnt primary in humans, since we dont need to consider reproductive capabilities for every single one of us, just the majority, and since transwomen/intersexed women only cover around 1% or less of the worlds population, whether they can reproduce or not is kind of negligible.

The whole point of having different sexes is to fulfill reproductive processes. Everything else that has sprung up around them is gender roles and societal pressures. The reason we have males and females is for reproduction.

It's not my analogy, it's yours. Either you have to admit it was a false analogy and doesn't accurately depict how supposedly "simple" the transition between sexes is or I continue to dispute it should you continue to insist it is a reflection of such.

You havent disproven my analogy at all. So stop saying you did, unless you can show exactly where i made a misstep?. You just thought it was silly. Doesnt mean its wrong. My analogy still stuck, and i never said the transition was simple either? Unless you got a quote saying i did. All i said it was comparable to trees, ie similar, not exactly the same. That is how analogies work? They arent suppose to be 100% equal, or else they would be a equivalence. I dont even think transitoning is simple in general, its a very complicated process, which can result in loss of friends, family, loved ones. Not to mention your job, or god forbid your life if you die in surgery. There is also the public perception of trans people being "fake" and "mutulated people" that they are somehow suppose to take on the chin i guess, cause they choose to be women, rather than living miserably as man. It isn't simple at all.

The misstep is simple. A tree is not already a pencil that changes into a chair. It's a blank canvas when it comes to being a pencil or a chair. There is no transiton between pencils and chairs. It's possible to turn a single chair into a single or multiple pencils but there is no way to turn a single pencil into a functional chair.

For the anlogy to work you need to introduce something that can transition between two forms, not from one form into two different forms.

No one chooses to be offended, its a emotional response, they just take offensive. And their are no direct insults, anything can be made into a term of endearment if people use it like it, or offensive, if people take offense, thats all it takes, for someone to perceive a sense of danger. Even in the legal sense, if you feel someone is being offensive towards you , like invading your personal space, or assaulting you, you can legally reprimand them on that offense, even thought it might not stick in court, all that matters is the perception of being offended.

There you go, sagging breasts, hair growth returning. Failing that? It's seldom there's a MtF that doesn't involve makeup to keep the illusion going.

Regular women go through that as well, so its not keeping up a illusion, its making the body go through menopause, the pause denoting a halt in hormones, doesnt mean they arent real women, so calling it a illusion is a bit wrong.

But they are not trans. They are intersex. They have organs that are quite literally different and distinguish them from trans people. They aren't moving from Male to Female or the opposite, they are moving from Male&Female to one or the other (should they choose). They are also mutations, it's the same as just not being born with a penis - something has gone wrong and an anomaly has occurred. Using anomalies in an argument for distinguishing the sex of non-anomalous individuals is not comparable.

The differnce between trans and intersex is negligible, so it doesnt really mater, they are both people who at some point have both primary / 2ndary sexual characteristics of both sexes, which pretty much fits the bill of intersexed. The way they start and end transition doesnt really mater, since they both transition in the first place, and end up in a state where they are infertile women / men. Being a mutation doesnt matter either, since thats just another way of saying natural = geniune. What matters is the end result, we define things by what they are at the moment, not what they were born as. And transgenders would bit the anomalies, since the word can only be used in a statistic sense anyways, both trans and intersexed people list as a low number of the population, making them BOTH anomalies. They ARE comparable, people dont compare them because for some reason, being seen as intersexed is ok because, "they were born that way" , when in reality, a intersexed women can have the same physique as a trans women, which is all that is really seen.

The whole point of having different sexes is to fulfill reproductive processes. Everything else that has sprung up around them is gender roles and societal pressures. The reason we have males and females is for reproduction.

Yes the point of sex is to fulfill reproductive processes, and when a person can not reproduce, it does not make them anyless of a man or women. They would lack sexual capablities and shouldnt be called either technically, but for some reason people seem dead set on sticking them with eiher man/women just cause.

The misstep is simple. A tree is not already a pencil that changes into a chair. It's a blank canvas when it comes to being a pencil or a chair. There is no transiton between pencils and chairs. It's possible to turn a single chair into a single or multiple pencils but there is no way to turn a single pencil into a functional chair.

For the anlogy to work you need to introduce something that can transition between two forms, not from one form into two different forms.

A person is a blank canvas when they are in the womb, or well, they start off more along the lines of a female, so i guess you could assume the analogy to start of with a tree being planned to be crafted to a chair. We all start out as XX, female configuration, thats why so many intersex cases have XX chromosomes. And then there is a type of "switch" that makes it into XY. There are other switches too, and if they dont get triggered, we get some type of intersexed child. You can think of the switches as the person carving the wood i guess, although in the wombs case, they dont have a choice, so we would have to assume a random selection of either a chair / pencil / chair+pencil combination(to sub into for intersexed)

And the analogy still works? For you could have a pencil, and change it into a chair, and you could have a chair and change it into a pencil? The change would be the transition. The wood would be the flesh. And the pencil/ chair would be the sex. And in both cases you would have a new pencil / chair. Maybe the quality might not be as good as one built from scratch, but they would still be a chair/pencil, just not ones to your standard.

If the analogy doesn't work, you don't have to focus on it, just respond to the other points, like why a women cant transition to a man or vice versa. I think it does work, but its starting to distract from the actual conversation.

 

[Abomination]

No one chooses to be offended, its a emotional response, they just take offensive.

Speak for yourself? For something to be offensive one needs to distinguish it as offensive. You have to process it and consider it offensive before you can have an emotional response to it. First you decide if something is offensive THEN you have the emotional resposne. You don't have an emotional response THEN decide it's offensive because of the emotional response.

And their are no direct insults, anything can be made into a term of endearment if people use it like it

And that's why I said a direct insult is offensive unless the individual CHOOSES to not take offense to it... but the default stance is to take offence.

Even in the legal sense, if you feel someone is being offensive towards you , like invading your personal space, or assaulting you, you can legally reprimand them on that offense, even thought it might not stick in court, all that matters is the perception of being offended.

You're confusing different forms of offense. There's verbal emotional offense, verbal physical offense, and physical offense. We are discussing the verbal emotional offense. A better term for the other two is being "threatening" and "aggressive".

Regular women go through that as well, so its not keeping up a illusion, its making the body go through menopause, the pause denoting a halt in hormones, doesnt mean they arent real women, so calling it a illusion is a bit wrong.

If a woman doesn't apply makeup it's not likely she will be mistaken for a man because of it. Trans, however, are far far more likely to be mistaken for a man.

The differnce between trans and intersex is negligible, so it doesnt really mater, they are both people who at some point have both primary / 2ndary sexual characteristics of both sexes, which pretty much fits the bill of intersexed.

Not true. The difference between a trans and an intersex is an intersex has a combination or mismatched sexual organs. Intersex is a physical scenario. Trans is a mental scenario.

The way they start and end transition doesnt really mater, since they both transition in the first place, and end up in a state where they are infertile women / men.

Not true in all intersex transitions.

Being a mutation doesnt matter either, since thats just another way of saying natural = geniune.

No, it's just another way of identifying an anomaly.

What matters is the end result, we define things by what they are at the moment, not what they were born as.

A person who was born a man then undergoes procedures to make themselves appear as a woman is now a person who was born a man but has undergone procedures to make themselves appear as woman. They will never change the part that they were born a man and there are parts of them that will always betray that.

And transgenders would bit the anomalies, since the word can only be used in a statistic sense anyways, both trans and intersexed people list as a low number of the population, making them BOTH anomalies.

Yes, they are both anomalies. But as I mentioned earlier that trans are a mental/emotional anomaly whereas intersex are a physical anomaly.

They ARE comparable, people dont compare them because for some reason, being seen as intersexed is ok because, "they were born that way"

The situation isn't comparable because the "ailment" originates in a different way. The only thing they have in common is they were (supposedly) born with sex/gender anomaly.

when in reality, a intersexed women can have the same physique as a trans women, which is all that is really seen.

Well, a woman can have the same physique as a man too, doesn't mean she can produce sperm.

Yes the point of sex is to fulfill reproductive processes, and when a person can not reproduce, it does not make them anyless of a man or women. They would lack sexual capablities and shouldnt be called either technically, but for some reason people seem dead set on sticking them with eiher man/women just cause.

Well no, because they're essentially disabled. Should they not be disabled they wouldn't be able to produce eggs OR sperm they would only be able to produce eggs if they were born with ovaries or sperm if they were born with testes.

A person is a blank canvas when they are in the womb, or well, they start off more along the lines of a female, so i guess you could assume the analogy to start of with a tree being planned to be crafted to a chair. We all start out as XX, female configuration, thats why so many intersex cases have XX chromosomes. And then there is a type of "switch" that makes it into XY. There are other switches too, and if they dont get triggered, we get some type of intersexed child. You can think of the switches as the person carving the wood i guess, although in the wombs case, they dont have a choice, so we would have to assume a random selection of either a chair / pencil / chair+pencil combination(to sub into for intersexed)

Right but the trans process occurs AFTER the womb. The womb spits out an XX or an XY and later in life they might decide they believe they should have been born the opposite... then they go about trying to change their physical form to that of the opposite (or they don't, whatever).

And the analogy still works? For you could have a pencil, and change it into a chair, and you could have a chair and change it into a pencil? The change would be the transition. The wood would be the flesh. And the pencil/ chair would be the sex. And in both cases you would have a new pencil / chair. Maybe the quality might not be as good as one built from scratch, but they would still be a chair/pencil, just not ones to your standard.

I don't know how big your pencils are or how small your chairs are but no, the analogy doesn't work. The other problem is that chairs and pencils can not combine to create another chair and/or pencil. Inanimate objects and sex is just a comparison that's doomed to fail.

If the analogy doesn't work, you don't have to focus on it, just respond to the other points, like why a women cant transition to a man or vice versa. I think it does work, but its starting to distract from the actual conversation.

A woman or a man can transition into a woman or a man... gender wise. Their sex will always remain the same though. A pre-op MtF will simply be a woman with the penis she was born with and a post-op would be a woman who was born a man. To claim a MtF is 100% a woman when there are aspects they can not meet that are common in most non-abnormal women is incorrect. A MtF is never going to be 100% female, no matter how much we might wish or declare it so.

I mean, the skeletal structure of men and women are also different... I'd shudder to think what would happen to the individual who tried to remedy that about themselves.

 

[AkaDad]

I didn't accuse you of anything and you completely missed my point, which was nobody is persecuting straight, white men.

If people have "disdain" for you, it's not because of who you are, but what you're saying or doing. I specifically stated that. I've never had anyone hate me just for being a straight, white man. If someone hates you for that then they're stupid and wrong.

No, you said

The reason equal rights people, like myself, "disdain" straight, white men, is because straight white men were the reason non-whites had separate drinking fountains and had to sit in the back of the bus. They're the reason women couldn't vote until 1920. They're the reason gay people still can't get married in most states today. And just recently it's straight white men who passed a law to force doctors into lying to women and giving them vaginal ultrasounds(a medically unnecessary procedure)before they can get a legal abortion. Those actions and many others are what piss people off, not just because you were born a straight, white male.

You said right there that you distain straight white men because other straight white men have done something. That's pretty much prejudice in a nutshell, or tarring everyone with the same brush.

Just because some straight white men did something does not mean that every straight white man approved of it or contributed to it. There are a LOT of straight white men in the world and they do not operate as a single unit.

I don't know what's worse, the fact that you possibly think it's true or I have to explain how your stance is persecution.

Do you know who else suffers when straight white men make decisions that benefit only them or their views? Other straight white men.

Ickorus said he was apprehensive about commenting because he was born a straight, white man. He believes he's basically being persecuted for who he is, which is bullshit. If people are giving him a hard time, it's not because he's a straight, white man, It's for what he believes or is saying in public.

I said multiple times that it's a disdain for their specific past and present actions, not all straight, white men and not just because they're straight, white men. If black, gay women were writing laws to treat white, straight men unequally, I'd have disdain for those specific people as well. I was quite clear that I wasn't making a blanket statement about all straight, white men.

That last sentence makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could elaborate.

 

[Abomination]

Ickorus said he was apprehensive about commenting because he was born a straight, white man. He believes he's basically being persecuted for who he is, which is bullshit. If people are giving him a hard time, it's not because he's a straight, white man, It's for what he believes or is saying in public.

Unfortunately this is not accurate. Frequently when a member of the "privileged majority" makes social commentary that doesn't mesh well with the established PC opinion their position is considered dismissed because of their membership in the privileged majority.

Perhaps you?re lucky but I have experienced racism because I am white. I have been mocked, ridiculed and bullied because of it? what recourse did I have? Well, none, I was told to deal with it.

Because I?m white? and between the lines is the message ?you should be thankful?.

I said multiple times that it's a disdain for their specific past and present actions, not all straight, white men and not just because they're straight, white men.

But you didn't quantify it as "some", you didn't put any quantifier at all. In the English language when you are discussing a group and don't quantify one assumes you are speaking about every single member of that group.

I'll change what you said and change the group that's being talked about.

" blacks were the reason whites had separate drinking fountains "

Surely you can see how it implies that ALL blacks would be the reason for something happening, right? Not some. Not "those in power". But blacks in general. Not quantifying does allow room for exceptions but it assumes the default stance is that a member of that group will behave in a certain manner.

If black, gay women were writing laws to treat white, straight men unequally, I'd have disdain for those specific people as well. I was quite clear that I wasn't making a blanket statement about all straight, white men.

Unfortunately you were not clear in the slightest.

That last sentence makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could elaborate.

When those in power make decisions that only benefit them those who belong to the same demographic as those in power will also suffer because of the greed of the powerful. Today this is more prevalent than ever. Poverty doesn't care if you're black or white.

 

[AkaDad]

Ickorus said he was apprehensive about commenting because he was born a straight, white man. He believes he's basically being persecuted for who he is, which is bullshit. If people are giving him a hard time, it's not because he's a straight, white man, It's for what he believes or is saying in public.

Unfortunately this is not accurate. Frequently when a member of the "privileged majority" makes social commentary that doesn't mesh well with the established PC opinion their position is considered dismissed because of their membership in the privileged majority.

Perhaps you?re lucky but I have experienced racism because I am white. I have been mocked, ridiculed and bullied because of it? what recourse did I have? Well, none, I was told to deal with it.

Because I?m white? and between the lines is the message ?you should be thankful?.

I said multiple times that it's a disdain for their specific past and present actions, not all straight, white men and not just because they're straight, white men.

But you didn't quantify it as "some", you didn't put any quantifier at all. In the English language when you are discussing a group and don't quantify one assumes you are speaking about every single member of that group.

I'll change what you said and change the group that's being talked about.

" blacks were the reason whites had separate drinking fountains "

Surely you can see how it implies that ALL blacks would be the reason for something happening, right? Not some. Not "those in power". But blacks in general. Not quantifying does allow room for exceptions but it assumes the default stance is that a member of that group will behave in a certain manner.

If black, gay women were writing laws to treat white, straight men unequally, I'd have disdain for those specific people as well. I was quite clear that I wasn't making a blanket statement about all straight, white men.

Unfortunately you were not clear in the slightest.

That last sentence makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could elaborate.

When those in power make decisions that only benefit them those who belong to the same demographic as those in power will also suffer because of the greed of the powerful. Today this is more prevalent than ever. Poverty doesn't care if you're black or white.

I said, "Those actions and many others are what piss people off, not just because you were born a straight, white male."

If I hadn't said that, then you would have a point. I also clarified that I wasn't saying all straight, white men, because that would include myself, which would be silly.

You said, "Frequently when a member of the "privileged majority" makes social commentary that doesn't mesh well with the established PC opinion their position is considered dismissed because of their membership in the privileged majority."

This is the same type of persecution complex that Ickarus was exhibiting. If your social commentary is that certain people don't deserve equal protection under the law, of course it's going to be dismissed. Equal protection isn't a PC opinion, it's constitutional law. You being in the "privileged majority" has nothing to do with it.

 

[Abomination]

I said, "Those actions and many others are what piss people off, not just because you were born a straight, white male."

If I hadn't said that, then you would have a point. I also clarified that I wasn't saying all straight, white men, because that would include myself, which would be silly.

Er, so? HE didn't perform those actions. You're still attributing the actions of people who share his skin colour, gender and sexual preference as something he would condone. If he isn?t condoning those actions why even bring it up?

The fact you even think about this when discussing how a white person could potentially be discriminated against before even considering to think that maybe, just maybe, he COULD be receiving discrimination is another example of the very discrimination he?s saying he receives.

Why even mention the actions of some white men in the past? I might as well mention what Ghengis Khan did whenever a person of central Asia mentioned they?re suffering discrimination.

You said, "Frequently when a member of the "privileged majority" makes social commentary that doesn't mesh well with the established PC opinion their position is considered dismissed because of their membership in the privileged majority."

This is the same type of persecution complex that Ickarus was exhibiting. If your social commentary is that people don't deserve equal protection under the law, of course it's going to be dismissed. Equal protection isn't a PC opinion, it's constitutional law. You being in the "privileged majority" has nothing to do with it.

Who said anything about arguing against constitutional law? I'm talking about examples such as opposing the idea of affirmative action or increased special treatment for minorities. Equality yes, special treatment no. Not everything that is touted as the liberal solution to a problem is egalitarian.

 

[Turbo_ski]

Yahtzee should not have apologized for this. This only devalues every other race, group, sexuality, religion, person that Yahtzee has previously insulted. It says that none of those people are worthy of an apology, but transexuals are so bloody special that to even have something that can be in any way construed as an insult must be accompanied by a full retraction.

The joke wasn't even *about* the transexual, as evidenced by the fact that it was easily replaced by the much weaker pantomime dame joke (because how many people have even heard of a pantomime gal), the joke was about the cognitive dissonance of the homophobic man. It says nothing about the transexual apart from the fact that she has a penis, which is objectively true. It would also be very hard to make the argument that, if you are male, giving a blowjob to a pre-op transexual would *not* push you higher up on the Kinsley scale than not sucking dicks of any kind.

When you make a living insulting everything under the sun you can't afford to be exclusive in who your targets are. All this says is that transexuals can not even be *present* in any sort of joke without causing offense, this implies that transexuals by their very nature are offensive. Therefore, the apology was less appropriate than the original joke was and I for one demand an apology for this apology.

I don't recall anytime where Yahtzee used a racial slur like ****** or ***** to get his point across. Tranny is the sexist slur equivalent and has been used only used by transphobic haters and the porn industry who only see us as sex object anyway.

Also the first joke about a man sucking off a transwoman being gay was incredibly naive and offensive. It shows complete lack of understanding of what gay men like and what transsexual women are. Gay men like men, not women who happen to have a penis. Also the joke implies that transwomen aren't women, which is incredibly offensive and dehumanizing.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Freedom of speech is irrelevant, I'm not suggesting government action and that's the only thing it applies to. I don't fucking get why people think freedom of speech is "NO CONSEQUENCES NO MATTER WHAT I SAY" , all it means is you won't face legal action. It doesn't mean I can run into a black owned restaurant yell "LOOK AT ALL THE NIGGERS, I WONDER HOW MUCH FRIED CHICKEN AND CORN BREAD I CAN GET HERE" at the top of my lungs and not get kicked out. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about not being a massive dick who makes people think you have something against transexuals when you don't, and since it's more LIKELY that any person is transphobic and doesn't give a fuck than say, a hardcore racist and doesn't give a rnfuck you need to be more careful about it.

Also: You're a very bad comedian. Messaging is a very important part of being an intelligent comedian. That's why there's a media outrage when Daniel Tosh jokingly says it'd be funny if a heckler got gang raped and not at everyone who has ever told a rape joke. Because his joke was stupid enough and worded in such a way that it made it seem like he just doesn't care about rape. Right before that he told a rape joke and only that one heckler gave a fuck because it didn't make anyone feel like he seriously didn't give a fuck about rape.

"lol look at that freak with a dick" doesn't have a message besides "haha, transexuals". Yahtzee's old one just took "transexual women who still have penises aren't women" as the premise and ran with that. Which, you know, he probably wouldn't change if he actually believed it, but he obviously doesn't.

Yeah, you won't face legal action, I know and I've said that freedom of speech just protects your right to say that but someone can still get pissed off and knock your teeth out for it.
And I wasn't trying to be a comedian I was just saying that putting one group on a pedestal over the other regardless is stupid and hypocritical and that thing about that comedian? That **** deserved it, she heckled, fuck her, she came there to see a comedian and you heckle a show you should be sued for interrupting someone and actively making it worse for the people who came there to see him, it's fucking retarded. My main point was that if we start giving credence and making exceptions for people who can and can't be joked about then anyone can get a fucking foothold and say 'I'm special I should be protected', no, just no. That's bullshit. And that's the thing about GOOD OL' FREE ENGLAND! You get your ass thrown in jail for saying sick shit on the internet, fuck, that happened in murrica', what the fuck is that shit? How collectively fucked as a culture have we become if someone says a bad word then we all turn into blubbering pussies? What the fuck?

And while I'm on it, people have been sued as comedians, why? 'B-b-but it was implied they didn't give a fuck about rape to a heckler o-o-or they h-h-hurt someone's feelings'. They're comedians, fuck, some of the best comedians are like this to hecklers, it's great. I mean I'm not trying to be a tough guy or some belligerent prick (god knows I'm far from a badass) but when did everyone lose their spine and become offended at everything? It's cliche to rally against the PC but fuck it is poisoning and weakening the western world, people need thicker skin, all I'm saying.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Yahtzee should not have apologized for this. This only devalues every other race, group, sexuality, religion, person that Yahtzee has previously insulted. It says that none of those people are worthy of an apology, but transexuals are so bloody special that to even have something that can be in any way construed as an insult must be accompanied by a full retraction.

The joke wasn't even *about* the transexual, as evidenced by the fact that it was easily replaced by the much weaker pantomime dame joke (because how many people have even heard of a pantomime gal), the joke was about the cognitive dissonance of the homophobic man. It says nothing about the transexual apart from the fact that she has a penis, which is objectively true. It would also be very hard to make the argument that, if you are male, giving a blowjob to a pre-op transexual would *not* push you higher up on the Kinsley scale than not sucking dicks of any kind.

When you make a living insulting everything under the sun you can't afford to be exclusive in who your targets are. All this says is that transexuals can not even be *present* in any sort of joke without causing offense, this implies that transexuals by their very nature are offensive. Therefore, the apology was less appropriate than the original joke was and I for one demand an apology for this apology.

I don't recall anytime where Yahtzee used a racial slur like ****** or ***** to get his point across. Tranny is the sexist slur equivalent and has been used only used by transphobic haters and the porn industry who only see us as sex object anyway.

Also the first joke about a man sucking off a transwoman being gay was incredibly naive and offensive. It shows complete lack of understanding of what gay men like and what transsexual women are. Gay men like men, not women who happen to have a penis. Also the joke implies that transwomen aren't women, which is incredibly offensive and dehumanizing.

He ended his 50 Cent: Blood Money review with "not that they'd know anything about work, the lazy nig-"

A homosexual is a person that is sexually attracted to members of their own sex, the sex of a person is determined by their genitalia not by their gender which may or may not be different from their gender. Therefore, a gay man is a person that is attracted to something that is attached to a penis whether that person is dressed as what society would deem a man or a woman. Sexuality is complex, however, and isn't limited to the sex of the individual, but it certainly is part of the definition. And this actually has nothing to do with the transsexual, only the homophobic man in denial about his sexuality; the implications are the same in the revised joke because the man is still sucking off a person with a penis dressed like a woman.

The joke didn't in any way imply that trans women aren't women, only that pre-op ones have a penis and that a man who was attracted to the penis would be gay. This would be entirely different if the trans person was a post-op transsexual, if that was the case you might have a point but Yahtzee specifically states that it is a pre-op transsexual. The joke was fine, it is the people who were offended who lacked understanding.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Meh, people getting upset over jokes again, a bit dissapointed to see Yahtzee stepping down to apoligigise though. really, it just seems weird for asking forgiveness for cracking a joke, btu whatever, everything you're going to say is going to upset someone, so whatever.

The current social and political landscape in America is very hostile against transgenders because of the California "bathroom" bill and Chelsea (Bradley) Manning seeking hormone therapy in prison. There have been 3 murders of transwomen in just this last week, and obscene amount murder this past summer. Keep in mine we have a very very small population, so this many killings is proportionally as troubling the genocide of Jews in WWII. In the same fashion, it would have been seen as very poor taste to make Jew jokes during WWII, just as it is now in poor taste to make transgender jokes. The main difference is that because we're so small of a population we lack positive visibility in media and every bad stereotype leads to more very real discrimination.

I'm really glad Yahtzee apologized and explained his fault in the matter with integrity. Very few people in this world do that anymore.

Ok, now THAT'S clearly meant to offend, right?
I mean you can't be serious here, can you?

Are you forced to wear special markings on your clothes identifying you as transsexuals?
Are business owners prohibited from serving you?
Are transsexual-owned business prohibited from serving anyone but other transsexuals?
Are doctors not allowed to treat you?
Are there giant camps built for you to work in until you die of exhaustion?
Are there camps built where you are carried off to and systematically exterminated?
Are you being systematically, and with the approval of a large chunk of the population being persecuted and killed, stripped of your basic human rights and treated as parasites?

No?
Then you better not make that comparison.

Spoiler: someone did the math for me

If those 2010 murder numbers are correct, here's what we have:

Spoiler

13,000 / 311,600,000 * 100 = 0.00417%
14 / 934,800 * 100 = 0.0015%

0.00417% of US citizens were murdered that year;
0.0015% of transgender US citizens were murdered that year.

Now, as a reference point: In the holocaust, app. 33% of all german jews were murdered. Even more in some other countries, such as the netherlands, greece and jugoslavia (http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/182345/umfrage/anteil-der-im-holocaust-ermordeten-juedischen-bevoelkerung/)

Personally, I think that THIS right here is making light of the holocaust. More so than yathzee's jokes, because yathzee usually makes jokes that emphasized how cruel the holocaust was, demonizing the perpetrators instead of making light of the vicims and pointing out how crass everything back then really was, all the while making it very clear that everything he says is only for comedic effect.
You on the other hand are absolutely serious and that's what troubles me, seeing as you honestly believe that your situation is in any way similar to what happened back then, which I personally find much more offensive than any joke about the subject matter.

We all start out as XX, female configuration, thats why so many intersex cases have XX chromosomes. And then there is a type of "switch" that makes it into XY. There are other switches too, and if they dont get triggered, we get some type of intersexed child. You can think of the switches as the person carving the wood i guess, although in the wombs case, they dont have a choice, so we would have to assume a random selection of either a chair / pencil / chair+pencil combination(to sub into for intersexed)

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. From conception onwards, we are either XX or XY(not counting numerical aberrations). We do not "start out" as XX, there are no switches that turn an X into a Y chromosome.
That's just not how it works.

Any action can be offensive in any scenario? Offensive things are contextual/subjective by their nature. There is probably some black people who dont mind white people calling them ******, but we dont call them that either way in general, a kin to homosexuals and the word fag or queer even. It kind of has to be taken on a case to case basis, no action is inherently offensive, for it depends on the party involved, and how they interpret it.

Cursing is offensive if someone takes offensive, sadly thats all that needs to take place for it to be offensive. By their very definition they are profane words, profane being something unpleasent, offensive? I know that it opens a large realm of things that can be offensive, but thats cause almost anything can be, it just depends on context. Id give an example, but i dont think you like mines.

No, there are offensive scenarios that are considered universally offensive that involve direct insults.

You?re right about black & ****** or homosexual & fag. The word ****** and fag isn?t inherently offensive ? but it CAN be and it requires someone choosing to be offended. A direct insult, however, is always offensive as that?s the intent ? unless the recipient chooses to NOT be offended. Both scenarios require the ?listening? party to decide to change to default scenario. Calling someone gay is not offensive unless they choose to be offended by it. Calling someone a stupid arsehole is offensive unless they choose to NOT be offended by it.

Yeah, that's not how this works either.
****** and fag and tranny and ***** and **** are all slurs MEANT to offend. If you use them on anyone, you really can't argue that you didn't mean to offend them, because if you use a slur to label someone, you damn well KNOW that you are being offensive and that their feelings might damn well get hurt.
Of course, not every use of the word is immediately offensive, e.g. if you are with good friends of yours and you call each other every bad name in the book, you usually know that you aren't trying to offend each other in any meaningful way so throwing these slurs around in private directed at people that know you and that you know might workout without offending anyone, but if you use these slurs on literally anyone who is not a close friend of yours, you can almost be certain that you will offend them.
Your "intention" has nothing to do with this. If you call a black person a ******, you are being offensive and insulting.
If you are calling a homosexual a fag, you are being offensive. It does not require someone "choosing to be offended".
You don't "choose" to be offended by stuff like this, seeing as these words are inherently meant to offend.

Where this gets "interesting" is when it comes to humour, seeing as many comedians like to use crass words for the shock value and derive humour from describing very inappropriate interactions between human beings and having situations escalate even further. IN this case, I personally believe that their usage of the word is probably justified, seeing as usually there is no malice in what they are saying, but at the same time I also understand why some people might get upset over it, though I don't think that getting upset at a joke justifies censoring the comedian and demanding an apology.
Yes you were the butt of a joke this time, so just laugh at the next joke that targets another group and get over yourself.

 

[WhitbyDragon]

So many Warnings issued on this thread. All the angry makes me sad. Being offended or not by a joke is based on your own principles, as is the desire to apologise if you think you've caused offense. No one owns Yahtzee, no one owns those that were offended. Why rage about it?

Can I formally derail this thread into a happy images one?! Sadly I haven't learnt how to do this yet, is it easy?

 

[DerangedHobo]

So many Warnings issued on this thread. All the angry makes me sad. Being offended or not by a joke is based on your own principles, as is the desire to apologise if you think you've caused offense. No one owns Yahtzee, no one owns those that were offended. Why rage about it?

Can I formally derail this thread into a happy images one?! Sadly I haven't learnt how to do this yet, is it easy?

Mods give out warnings like candy, I got 3, one for insulting someone else, one for lack of content and one for making a racist joke (I was trying to make a point mods, you dense motherfu- lol jk don't ban me bro) but I digress, I think the main point of contention was that Yahtzee apologized and it kinda divulged into a pissing fest. Personally I think Yahtzee was not obligated to, I mean the other 1000 offensive things he's said and a few people get their panties in a bunch over this? Although I did sort of divulge into name calling and wishing people got eviscerated so I guess I'm one of them.

To post images if you don't know all you do is have 2

 

[Rosiv]

Speak for yourself? For something to be offensive one needs to distinguish it as offensive. You have to process it and consider it offensive before you can have an emotional response to it. First you decide if something is offensive THEN you have the emotional resposne. You don't have an emotional response THEN decide it's offensive because of the emotional response.

And that's why I said a direct insult is offensive unless the individual CHOOSES to not take offense to it... but the default stance is to take offence.

You're confusing different forms of offense. There's verbal emotional offense, verbal physical offense, and physical offense. We are discussing the verbal emotional offense. A better term for the other two is being "threatening" and "aggressive".

You cant control what you think of, so no. If i call a gay guy a ******, he doesnt choose to think about it, he hears the word, and then his brain processes it without his consent, and then he takes it however he takes it. He doesnt choose to process, it isnt a computer.

And im not confusing the terms. Offensive is a vague term that can and is used for many scenarios, like when someone is threating you, or being aggressive, they still apply. A verbal emotional offense can still be considered a legal assult anyways, so im not sure of your point.

If a woman doesn't apply makeup it's not likely she will be mistaken for a man because of it. Trans, however, are far far more likely to be mistaken for a man.

The likelihood is irrelevant, because ugly women or homely women in general are still to be mistaking for a man, so trans women would fall under those terms then, still a women none the less. Fat people in general are androgynous too, so you can throw them into that mix as well.

Not true. The difference between a trans and an intersex is an intersex has a combination or mismatched sexual organs. Intersex is a physical scenario. Trans is a mental scenario.

No, trans and intersex share the same scenario more than you think. When a trans person transitions they will have primary/2ndary sexual traits from whatever orgin sex. Then when they take HRT, that will cause them to get 2ndary sexual traits from the oppiste sex, making a intersexed person with mixed sexes. The origin doesnt matter, its the end result, a mixed sex person, in which both cases are comparable.

Not true in all intersex transitions.

Whats your point? I know its not true, i even said so. The fact remains that its comparable, since there are intersexed women who exist and trasition from a state similar to that of transwomen, and still be considered women. Thats my point.

No, it's just another way of identifying an anomaly.

What exactly do you mean by identifying an anomaly? Intersexed/trans people are both anomalies by virtue of being a low % of the population.

A person who was born a man then undergoes procedures to make themselves appear as a woman is now a person who was born a man but has undergone procedures to make themselves appear as woman. They will never change the part that they were born a man and there are parts of them that will always betray that.

They do change the parts that make them a man, since the parts that make them a man are their sexual characteristics. Their manhood in a general sense. Being a man isnt about chromosomes, thats a misnomer really, since chromosomes just configure the body, when the acutal result is the cause of the hormones, which is what we make the judgement on. We dont make the judgement on
chromosomes, for they can at times not reflect the body that is shown. And if that were the case, then intersexed women with MALE parts would never be considered women by the medical profession, which they ARE. So your point is a bit moot.

Yes, they are both anomalies. But as I mentioned earlier that trans are a mental/emotional anomaly whereas intersex are a physical anomaly.

Trans people become a physical anomaly once they undergo HRT or SRS, so the point is again moot, once they take the steps of HRT/SRS you can really consider them intersexed if you wanted to be strict about the logic.

The situation isn't comparable because the "ailment" originates in a different way. The only thing they have in common is they were (supposedly) born with sex/gender anomaly.

Its COMPARABLE, just not EQUIVALENT, i think this is the third time ive gone over this. Things can be similar, but not the same, and still share enough commonalities to make a conclusion that both result in the same thing. So they dont have to share the same orgin, since at the end result, they will still be at a intersexed state. And since intersexed people are given social approval to transition, so should trans people, for at the time of HRT/SRS, they are comparable in circumstance.

Well, a woman can have the same physique as a man too, doesn't mean she can produce sperm.

Whats your point? Some men cant produce sperm, yet we still call them men. We base sex on physical characteristics, not sexual capabilities. It SHOULD be based on sexual capabilities, but if you were to do that, then calling it a MALE sex or FEMALE sex wouldnt really be relevant. The only thing that would be would be the reproductive capabilities, ie fertile XX , fertile XY. Since male or female cant describe as accurately inter sexed scenarios that can also reproduce, where as the XX/XY nomenclature can.

Well no, because they're essentially disabled. Should they not be disabled they wouldn't be able to produce eggs OR sperm they would only be able to produce eggs if they were born with ovaries or sperm if they were born with testes.

Being disabled means literally you are not able. So if a man loses his ability to produce sperm, he isnt able to produce sperm, he is disabled, and if intersexed people cant produce either, they are also disabled. They both cant produce any sperm /overaries, so the scenario is the same. Being born disabled doesnt stop people from becoming disabled later on in life, even if its to their choosing.

Right but the trans process occurs AFTER the womb. The womb spits out an XX or an XY and later in life they might decide they believe they should have been born the opposite... then they go about trying to change their physical form to that of the opposite (or they don't, whatever).

Whether it happens after the womb or not doesnt matter. For with the analogy i posted. We could assume that from a tree(flesh), a chair or pencil(sex) was chosen to be made. And later on in life, we changed the chair or pencil(sex) into either a pencil or chair(different sex). Since sex is really dictated by physical form, it is comparable.

I don't know how big your pencils are or how small your chairs are but no, the analogy doesn't work. The other problem is that chairs and pencils can not combine to create another chair and/or pencil. Inanimate objects and sex is just a comparison that's doomed to fail.

The size of the structure doesnt matter. Its the fact that it fits the form, means we call it what it is. And yea since wood is mutable by tools such as saws and glue we could change a pencil into a chair or a chair into a pencil. I mean if size is such a issue, i could just replace pencil with table or something bigger, it doesnt really matter. All i need is to assume a binary, like how humans have sex. And show that the transition between two things in general is marked by what they resemble at the end, regardless if they function well. I mean a shitty table/chair is still a table/chair none the less, just one that you dont personally approve of.

A woman or a man can transition into a woman or a man... gender wise. Their sex will always remain the same though. A pre-op MtF will simply be a woman with the penis she was born with and a post-op would be a woman who was born a man. To claim a MtF is 100% a woman when there are aspects they can not meet that are common in most non-abnormal women is incorrect. A MtF is never going to be 100% female, no matter how much we might wish or declare it so.

I mean, the skeletal structure of men and women are also different... I'd shudder to think what would happen to the individual who tried to remedy that about themselves.

No, since sex is defined by physical characteristics, even in intersexed cases, the sex is changable. Being 100% women is a bit irrelvent too, since intersexed women are considered women even though they have literal male parts. To achive a 100% just isnt needed to be called a man or a women. That plays into the no true Scotsman fallacy.

The skeletal structure of men and women are different, but not so different that it results in something impossible to transition. At their extremes maybe, but there are other cases besides extremes where trans women transitions and are successfully passing. I mean if you took Sylvester stalone, and transitioned him into a women, he might not pass well. But a fatter, or much skinner person, then ya. And of course vice versa. But i mean there ARE women in existence who have stalones build, they are just very rare, so being masculine /feminine in skeleton doesnt matter much.

 

[Rosiv]

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. From conception onwards, we are either XX or XY(not counting numerical aberrations). We do not "start out" as XX, there are no switches that turn an X into a Y chromosome.
That's just not how it works and you suggestion that this stuff happens is just laughable.

I mean, the womens egg determines the persons X chromosome, whether it is X or Y, is determined by the sperm, no? During fertilization? I did make a mistaking in saying it was after fertilization, so thats my fault, but it still operates on some type of switch, for what decides whether the X or Y is chosen from the male sperm? I honestly dont know.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. From conception onwards, we are either XX or XY(not counting numerical aberrations). We do not "start out" as XX, there are no switches that turn an X into a Y chromosome.
That's just not how it works and you suggestion that this stuff happens is just laughable.

I mean, the womens egg determines the persons X chromosome, whether it is X or Y, is determined by the sperm, no? During fertilization? I did make a mistaking in saying it was after fertilization, so thats my fault, but it still operates on some type of switch, for what decides whether the X or Y is chosen from the male sperm? I honestly dont know.

Actually, the sex is determined not by the egg but by the sperm. The father can provide either an X or a Y chromosome, thus determining the sex of the lil bugger-to-be.
Allegedly there are some mechanisms in place that influence whether an X or a Y-chromosome-laden sperm is "allowed" to fertilize the egg, but these aren't really all that well researched and they aren't being taught in med-school yet, but saying that there is some type of switch isn't quite accurate, simply because we know to little about this and currently we mostly go with "more or less random chance".

 

[Rosiv]

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. From conception onwards, we are either XX or XY(not counting numerical aberrations). We do not "start out" as XX, there are no switches that turn an X into a Y chromosome.
That's just not how it works and you suggestion that this stuff happens is just laughable.

I mean, the womens egg determines the persons X chromosome, whether it is X or Y, is determined by the sperm, no? During fertilization? I did make a mistaking in saying it was after fertilization, so thats my fault, but it still operates on some type of switch, for what decides whether the X or Y is chosen from the male sperm? I honestly dont know.

Actually, the sex is determined not by the egg but by the sperm. The father can provide either an X or a Y chromosome, thus determining the sex of the lil bugger-to-be.
Allegedly there are some mechanisms in place that influence whether an X or a Y-chromosome-laden sperm is "allowed" to fertilize the egg, but these aren't really all that well researched and they aren't being taught in med-school yet, but saying that there is some type of switch isn't quite accurate, simply because we know to little about this and currently we mostly go with "more or less random chance".

I said it was determined by the sperm in my post, but i mean it has to be undeteriminstic behavior, like a random chance, it is kind of like a switch. I mean when i use the word switch, i mean a option of either male or female, it was intentionally vague because i dont know the way its done. I mean, if we assume the sperm is bad/doesnt work for some reason, doesnt the case become intersexed? And arent most intersexed conditions revolving around female-bodied people? Not that i disagree, just trying to explain myself, i feel it helps as a layman to pick others brains who arent laymen in the field.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. From conception onwards, we are either XX or XY(not counting numerical aberrations). We do not "start out" as XX, there are no switches that turn an X into a Y chromosome.
That's just not how it works and you suggestion that this stuff happens is just laughable.

I mean, the womens egg determines the persons X chromosome, whether it is X or Y, is determined by the sperm, no? During fertilization? I did make a mistaking in saying it was after fertilization, so thats my fault, but it still operates on some type of switch, for what decides whether the X or Y is chosen from the male sperm? I honestly dont know.

Actually, the sex is determined not by the egg but by the sperm. The father can provide either an X or a Y chromosome, thus determining the sex of the lil bugger-to-be.
Allegedly there are some mechanisms in place that influence whether an X or a Y-chromosome-laden sperm is "allowed" to fertilize the egg, but these aren't really all that well researched and they aren't being taught in med-school yet, but saying that there is some type of switch isn't quite accurate, simply because we know to little about this and currently we mostly go with "more or less random chance".

I said it was determined by the sperm in my post, but i mean it has to be undeteriminstic behavior, like a random chance, it is kind of like a switch. I mean when i use the word switch, i mean a option of either male or female, it was intentionally vague because i dont know the way its done. I mean, if we assume the sperm is bad/doesnt work for some reason, doesnt the case become intersexed? And arent most intersexed conditions revolving around female-bodied people? Not that i disagree, just trying to explain myself, i feel it helps as a layman to pick others brains who arent laymen in the field.

Well my bad then, I thought your use of the word "switch" was meant to imply that you thought that there was a definite mechanism present that chose between X and Y chromosomes / turned an X into a Y chromosome, which doesn't really happen.
Intersex conditions usually occur when either an egg has two X chromosomes and fuses with a Y-laden sperm, or when a sperm has an XY-set, leading to an XXY-set of chromosomes which can lead to the development of both male and female sexual organs.