Fired - for stating that women don't have penises

[jimnyc]

Yup, wouldn't want people to ever think that the ladies can't get one for themselves! That would be racist! Or sexist? Or maybe homophobic? Who knows, but it's something wrong if you don't accept it! Yeah, right, and Bruce is actually "Caitlyn" and he's not a "man".

I don't know what's worse, the thought of the future of some countries, and America, as islam is growing and making things worse wherever the disease spreads too. Or that someday we will be a very weak country and a 3rd world shithole full of all kinds of hippie, gay loving, white man hating society of sorts. I am truly worried for the future of our great country.

---

Editor of Philosophy Journal Fired for Saying Women Don't Have Penises

Not even atheist humanists are safe from the long, punishing arms of the transgender mafia. Recently, Angelos Sofocleous was fired from his job at Durham University's philosophy journal Critique for retweeting a tweet that fellow students called "transphobic." The tweet in question included a link to an article from the Spectator called "Is it a crime to say 'women don't have penises'?" The article is about women's activists who had police called on them for placing stickers saying as much around their city in protest of men usurping women's rights.

In a typical 2018 overreaction, Sofocleous's retweet of that article caused great gnashing of teeth and loud weeping in the outrage corners of the internet. As a result, Sofocleous was dismissed from his position at the Durham publication and forced to resign as president-elect of the Humanist Students group. "Humanists," Sofocleous told PJM, "strive to have a rational and logical approach in life, and face issues with evidence and claims, not with belief and faith. As such, humanists have trust in the scientific method, which they believe to be the only source of truth in the world."

Strangely, the extremely scientific fact that women do not have — and have never had — penises didn't seem to sway the humanist students toward rational thought. They kicked Sofocleous right out of their sphere. Criticisms of Sofocleous were swift and mostly unintelligible. Responding to Sofocleous's true statement that engaging in debate does not mean your opponent has equal moral status, a writer at the ironically named "Freethoughtblogs" wrote:

This is where the fetishizing of free speech and debate goes bad. I get to deny your basic humanity and your right to exist, and you now need to convince me otherwise. I get to freely make assertions that don’t challenge my privileged status but do potentially do great harm to you, and I have no responsibility or obligation to others — others who may even consider those statements “wrong beyond doubt” — to make defensible statements, and the onus is entirely on you to address them, and if you don’t, you are an intolerant tribalist. Why do you get so angry when I merely want to deny your civil rights, or enslave you, or kill you? That’s not very logical.

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/editor-...-have-penises/

[Abbey Marie]

I just peeked- still no penis!

[FakeNewsSux]

I just peeked- still no penis!

Not so fast Abbey. I identify as a black lesbian a work and last time I looked, I don't need an addadicktome.

[Abbey Marie]

Not so fast Abbey. I identify as a black lesbian a work and last time I looked, I don't need an addadicktome.

I’m sorry, FNS! I had no idea!

[FakeNewsSux]

I’m sorry, FNS! I had no idea!

Next time you might want to check your white privilege!

[Abbey Marie]

Next time you might want to check your white privilege!

Yes, lots of privilege in the Bronx housing projects where I grew up!

[SassyLady]

I just peeked- still no penis!

Me either! And, I'm perfectly happy with that fact!

[Noir]

My understanding of the position presented by Angelos Sofocleous was that ‘women don’t have penises’ is incoherent because it makes base assumptions about sex and gender, that are in and of themselves unhelpful and illiberal.

I do not think that would be the consensus of the majority of posters here, but that’s kinda lost in the whirl of the story.

[jimnyc]

My understanding of the position presented by Angelos Sofocleous was that ‘women don’t have penises’ is incoherent because it makes base assumptions about sex and gender, that are in and of themselves unhelpful and illiberal.

I do not think that would be the consensus of the majority of posters here, but that’s kinda lost in the whirl of the story.

Women by nature are born without penises. A woman CANNOT have a penis without altering ones self for whatever confusing reason. There's certainly not assumption when it comes to stating that women don't have penises, as that's no assumption, that's a fact. Now, I'm more than certain that the LBGT group or similar, will see it as unhelpful, as it doesn't agree with them. But it hardly changes the fact. Whatever floats their boat if they want one, and even get one. I think it's nutso, but if that's their cup of tea, go for it and don't look back!

[High_Plains_Drifter]

My understanding of the position presented by Angelos Sofocleous was that ‘women don’t have penises’ is incoherent because it makes base assumptions about sex and gender, that are in and of themselves unhelpful and illiberal.

I do not think that would be the consensus of the majority of posters here, but that’s kinda lost in the whirl of the story.

Are you a male or female?

I tell ya what... if you're confused, look between your legs.

[Noir]

A woman CANNOT have a penis without altering ones self for whatever confusing reason.

So if a woman without a penis has surgery to get a penis, is she then a woman with a penis or not?

[jimnyc]

So if a woman without a penis has surgery to get a penis, is she then a woman with a penis or not?

A woman that has a penis attached via surgery, is now a woman that has altered herself to be just like a man. She can continue with all the male drugs and what not to make further changes, including to the voice and what not. But she is still a woman, that has had surgery to be like a man.

I see your point now, that it would then therefore be a woman, with a penis. Just not as one would think at first glance. I'm confident that folks are more so thinking that a woman can have a sex change, get a penis, and perhaps then be a "man"? I wouldn't understand the point of getting a penis to still stay the same sex, but nothing would surprise me anymore these days!

Unnecessary confusing, but IMO not because of anyone writing, but rather because of the folks themselves, how people want to be seen/known/called... it gets a little tricky and confusing. Bad enough with the pronouns and addressing someone who has had a sex change, differently. But a woman, with a penis. Dunno, I guess you still address her as a woman? A penis without the desire to change sex, even more so then would sound like some sort of perversion if you ask me.

Anyway, all sounds like a play on words as opposed to reality.

[Abbey Marie]

So if a woman without a penis has surgery to get a penis, is she then a woman with a penis or not?

Depends on your definition of penis, I suppose.

Real, double X chromosome women, don’t have penises.
Surgically altered/mutilated women might have what looks like a penis attached to their (female) bodies.

Faux appendages, like Snap- On Tools, are kind of like a permanent Halloween costume.

If I put on “black face”, am I a black woman, or just a woman wearing black makeup?

[jimnyc]

Depends on your definition of penis, I suppose.

Real, double X chromosome women, don’t have penises.
Surgicallyaltered/mutilatedwomen might have what looks like a penis attached to their (female) bodies.

Faux appendages, like Snap- On Tools, are kind of like a permanent Halloween costume.

If I put on “black face”, am I a black woman, or just a woman wearing black makeup?

Yup, there are a few out there that SWEAR that they are black - and they talk and act black and all that - but are as white as the background on this editor page! So since they "identify" as black, are they in fact now black? Also had similar with that Dolezal woman or whatever her name was, doing her hair up, and getting darker and darker tans, and swore she identified as black. Is she truly black, just because she says she is?

And then I saw someone who identifies as a child, and then dresses and acts like a baby, and gets help and treatment as if a baby. Is this really a baby?

The point is, a ton of folks out there identify as "other" than they are. And many make dramatic changes of sort to be other than they are. But HAVE they changed or are they different than what their DNA states?

No. The only common denominator is that there are some seriously confused and weird people on this earth. Women are women, men are men, black people are born black and ARE black, and white folks are born with all they have. These things are all identifiable and all easily checked via dna markers and such.

And whatever, whatever floats their boats, I suppose. Ain't harming me, I hope, other than my eyeballs and a small corner of my brain. But I do think that things need to be looked at realistically, and society shouldn't go down a hole where 50+ genders appear out of nowhere and society is "forced" to acknowledge and do crap to "accommodate" their disability or whatever you want to call it.

[Noir]

Anyway, all sounds like a play on words as opposed to reality.

It’s really not though - do you personally know anyone who is transsexual?