Suppose that you do the DNA test, and the results indicate that you do not have the gene(s) for CP. Now what?

Then it is time to check for brain damage or spine damage. Unlike your baseless gender theory, hard science, in particular medical science always tries to find an answer in stead of conforminw with a lie.

I apologize for answering in stead of Rusty, but I could not help it because the question was too absurd.

Actually, my "gender theory" is not baseless. Transgender people exist (can be easily verified), and cisgender people who are socialized in the wrong gender (unusual, but see David Reimer) have been known to develop gender dysphoria.

So yes, it is a real thing.

New ‘Trust and Safety Council’ Is Twitter Version of 1984’s Ministry of Truth
"Twitter says it wants to strike a balance between free speech and harassment. It didn't."

Did Twitter's Orwellian 'Trust and Safety' Council Get Robert Stacy McCain Banned?
"Prominent GamerGate figure clashed with council member Anita Sarkeesian. Now he's gone."

LOL hey! gender "theories" and expensive DNA checkings to everyone to discern who is a woman or a man, not for the shake of truth, but for the shake of language PC wonderland... because nobody knows what is a woman or a man... hahahaha not even science, yeah SURE - I want to believe - Gender Files...

And all because dellusions of IMPOSED EQUALITY, exactly as Creationism, when they even said that is not the Earth whic orbite around the sun... http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html because gravity doesnt matter, the same that genitalia (BECAUSE YOU HIDE IT OFTEN MEGALOL) what it matters is to TWIST THE FACTS to approve my LIES, because some bigotted twisted puritans playing to be open minded believe that differences are a bad thing, so the whole language and their definitions should represent wonderland, not facts...

Ridiculous enough? nah... as Enstein said there is two infinite things, Universe and Stupidity, and he wasnt sure about the first one...

I'd laugh in their face if they were able to find find my CP gene. My CP was caused by a car accident my mother was in when she was pregnant with me.
Totally not an issue for me if someone adds to the discussion.

It's a credit to Western Civilisation that it is able to carry these wastrels.

Testing

Can't seem to post my reply.

To me, this highlights some of the issues with the current "Social justice" movements & that is the altering of the language to seemingly suit them exclusively. IMHO it makes it less relatable to others outside of the movements.

Safety: To me, it looks like it is because of too much "safety" that is causing a lot of the unrest we are seeing in the protests lately.

Reimer developed dysphoria through un-needed SRAS, not socialization. Just mixed it up again. Gender can't be changed through social conditioning.

.......................REPLY TO VANIA'S POST BECAUSE QUOTES WEREN'T WORKING AND I COULDN'T POST OR EDIT THIS IN ANYWHERE ELSE.................................

1.So you don't understand the concept of professional ethics? Every person who is a professional in a field is held to a higher standard because he is a professional. His / her being professional will be perceived as a symbol of legitimacy and the work he / she does will have more credibility. In that sense, there is a greater duty of care than on them than on amateurs of that field to be correct.
A doctor is held to a higher standard than a shady guy selling pills in a dark alley. Similarly a professional journalist is held to a higher standard because the stuff he /she writes is more likely to be believed, as being a professional journalist, the person is expected to be more well researched. Understand? Hence there is a stricter duty on the part of the journalist to be correct.

Eg; you know the power of a journalist to blow a whistle? Once information is out there, it cannot be taken back. An ethics code is there to prevent journalists doing unresearched work work and putting the wrong people under the bus.

Ie; journos have power to expose; and that power to expose must only be used sparingly after good research. Understand? And the FTC includes reviewers and LPers and critics and all that under journalist, in the disclosure policies.

2.A science is objective. Look up the definition. All you're doing is bending the definitions of everything to bring it closer to your twisted little version of the world. ''Theory is something that describes the observed phenomena in the best way'' lollolololololol You start with a theory and look for proof that it is correct. Not the opposite XD. You need reading up on the scientific method. Its like, school level shit.

And when was the last time something unproven was used to make decisions relating the general public or public policy and not experiments conducted on that theory alone? In theoretical physics, no one is using the theory to say this and that is objectively wrong. In your ''feminist theory'', you are. In the words of the fabulous Christopher Hitchens; '' If something can be brought up without proof, it can be dismissed without it''.

3.OK thanks for explaining it. But IMO its full of the reverse-science I mentioned earlier.
You have this theory that says exposure to media for a long time can only increase the belief that it is true. And that when a behavior happens, it is because of the media. Basically, this and this and this happens, and this theory explains it, so its true. Again, this is divergent thinking. And where does it say the more you think you are unlikely to be affected, the more you are likely to be. The definition you explained said nothing of it but you claimed it in your example.

Also, as a passing curiosity, you do know that the Roosh guy himself said what he does is ''smooth moves'' right? You're blowing up some cheesy online dating advice guy to a rapist. And what when exactly has he ''raped'' in the legal sense? Or are you one of those who define terms yourself and use words that have precise legal definitions to implicate people in things they didn't do?

4.You really like labeling stuff don't you? Then if you're not saying poor representation reinforces stereotypes, what the hell are you saying? And read up on what? You mention reading up, but on what?

5.I'm referring to Fire Emblem Fates. It is not considered the epitome, its considered an example. Of outrage driven censorship. Fire Emblem also had dialogue censored. No problem there too right? May I remind you that Japanese games coming to non Japanese audiences is LOCALIZATION. And localization doesn't mean removal of stuff.

6.Holy shit. Do you pick up potato chips in the supermarket and see the picture of the little green dot inside a box near the calories and ingredients info? That what this is. To signify something that is in the product that you may want to know before buying.

If you need a whole review to tell you that a game has boring characters, then you are not looking for a review m8.

I get nothing of what you're referring to with gg amnesia or whatever. There is always a choice. If you don't agree with something, don't buy it. Base your buying it on how much you disagree wit the content in question. Its not two absolutes you know. And please be less vague about what you're talking about.

7.Says the guy who just said there is diversity in fantasy and realistic stuff. You do know that creativity isn't limited like grain on a balance right? You're using analogies for tangible goods for intangible stuff.

8.Then you can confirm what you witnessed was done by GG? Or is me saying ''I witnessed Anita Sarkeesian being wrong'' enough to prove her wrong?

9.Don't worry, I didn't. Attacks? lol what are you? Some sheltered little girl brought up to think everything she does is right? The FTC changed the disclosure policies and advertisers withdrew ads because of the emails. Are they wrong as well? And just the fact that you attribute sending emails showing many ethical slip ups is ''attacking''? You're believing your opinion to be fact. Its not.

''Cultural suicide was obvious, the opinions of journos are objective''
Yah. As to journos revenge, please look at the block list and what how many journos write biased articles about GG while excluding many many important facts. Like you have many times as well.

10.So those people shouldn't be allowed to talk? 10 /10 logic here. And I suppose you are the arbiter of who is and isn't educated enough. That way it'll always be fine. This is petty ingroup member defense.

11.XDYour ideas of absurd don't concern me from now on. I want proof that a stereotype exists. So according to you, if I don't recognize it, it is not prevalent. Again, reverse thinking here. If you're using fanbase reaction as proof of stereotype, what guarantee do you have that those fans played all the games in question?

''A stereotype is prevalent as long as you recognize it'' Yeah the only problem being ''you'' is saying that his / her recognition alone is enough for it to be considered universal stereotype. You little definition eats itself.

12.I don't think anyone is ''on my side''. Because what this thread is is many people expressing their opinions that may or may not align with mine. And please define stuff less vaguely. ''Trademark bigotry''? Even then, I don't know what duty you think I have to go police what other people post.

1.Don't shift the topic now. I said that it was a POS review to me. My opinion on that is separate from what I say about ethics. The principle still stands that a professional must be held to a higher standard and you said the opposite. My justifications for not liking that review may be subjective or something that is objective, but I didn't say.
That still doesn't change the fact that you more or less suggested the free market decide who is and is not a professional at something.

2.''Scientific'' based on what definition of science? Coming up with theory, conducting research or investigation and coming to a conclusion as to whether the theory is correct or not is science. Observing a phenomenon and assigning a theory as to why that happens will never help the theorist arrive at the correct answer. One is deductive reasoning and the other is inductive. Your ''science'' is the latter.

3.And there is also a small thing that no social science is considered objective and all findings are never taken as objective. You don't see one school of psychology or sociology any social science, but practitioners of various schools. What you do is consider the theories of people whose opinions you agree with as objective and people who agree as ''educated'' and still use the ''nothing is objective'' defense.

And if it isn't, then you have no right to quote it as fact because as you said, its not. Its the most probable case, and not the truth. And if you want to bully other people's freedom of expression by invoking the harm principle and citing this shit ''science'' , you can't. The harm principle operates on the basis of proven potential harm, not ''may''s.

Roosh guy; ''People'' may call them raping techniques? Which ''people''? Do you even know what rape is? Please define where he said he follows techniques that are similar to / same as rape.

4.Says who? Boring isn't objective. Incomplex isn't objective. Just because its boring or has incomplex stereotypes in your opinion doesn't mean it is like that for everyone. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Define ''diversity''. You mean in skin color of characters? Languages? Place of growing up? Gender? And you automatically assume these stuff will change their opinions? It can be a warning signal that you are not colorblind.

5.That is a personal example I like to quote. There was a waifu / husbando petting minigame in the game and was completely removed; and I and many GGers attribute that to fear of SJWs lynching them and hence it was removed. But before you climb higher up on your horse, its not officially endorsed by GG as an SJW induced act, as can be seen in the methodology for the op designed to counter it.

6.Do you realize you abandon arguments that you can't defend? If a game contains those stuff, its labelled so people can avoid buying it. There is no need for censoring it for fear of ''the children'' seeing it.

7.So a game has a limited number of body character points and creating ''unrealistic'' ones consume more points so ''realistic'' ones don't get made? Sounds reasonable.

8.The mod says she had to close Anita threads. She says someone said the closing was censorship. How exactly is that harassment of Anita by GG? Wait you say that was harassment of the developer?? HOLY HELL ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Clean that brain-mess up by yourself.

So in theory, if Anita sues a harasser, the harasser is from a group without proof of them being in it? So logically speaking with an eg, if someone does a racially motivated attack on someone, he / she is ideologically identical to any and all right wing political parties?

Basically you equate discussion with harassment, and will claim as fact that the harassment was from a group you personally subjectively and based on your own hunch are harassers. So you will lie by exemption.

9.I didn't say anything about Anita. I didn't say anything about your fear disagreement that will come out of discussing her crystal ball gazing either. All I asked is that IS IT HARASSMENT TO INFORM ADVERTISERS THAT THE SITES THEY'RE PAYING ARE OBJECTIVELY NOT FOLLOWING ETHICS AND DISCLOSURE PLOICIES? I've types like you contact employers of people who were ''racist'' or ''sexist'' or ''homophobic'' to get them fired. But when its done with facts, its harassment?

10. Good thing public discourse isn't evolution congress then.

11.So what was that you correctly said about burden of proof earlier? And who is the one accusing that stereotypes DO exist? I don't care if they exist. You're the one saying they do. Prove it. Don't think you're somehow logical in this. You just laughed when someone asked for proof.

How many out of total number of games purchasable games today have the Ms. Male stereotype? Keep in mind the answer is a number.

12.I don't care what other people post really. Their choice. You speak about enemy fantasies in the same post you say ''four extremely similar looking straight white bro dude protagonists'' so keep that in mind.

Vainamoinen's last post is probably one of the longest, most wordy examples of the term 'condescension' I've ever read in my life. The level of tone deaf is astonishing. There's a difference between talking TO someone and talking AT someone.

Try and turn down the ego volume down a bit. I literally can't hear my loud rock music due to the overwhelming power of your long list of accomplishments and near God-hood knowledge of all things in the universe.

Or perhaps, just maybe... it's all a smoke screen and in reality you're being a pompous ass.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me in a few points. First: of course it's not true that one person can only relate to a character of one's gender. I wasn't trying to say that. I just meant that for many people, not all, a character that resembles himself/herself is easier to empathise with. Easier does not mean that they are incapable of doing it with the different ones, but just that they usually like to use those kind of characters. It's also true that usually personal traits are more important than gender but, nonetheless, it is a very important characteristic for many people to feel more connected to that character.

Second: Of course playing games don't make you sexist or misoginistic. I played Postal 2 and I didn't become a mass murderer :). I don't think anybody with more than two brain cells can really affirm that just by playing a game you become something different (be violent, misogynistic or whatever). It's the industry who is being sexist (not misogynistic, because that means hatred for women) by using all the time their sexual appeal to sell more games. What feminist criticise is that instead of creating most female characters thinking primarily on them as normal characters with just one different trait, they usually desing them for two different reasons: 1. to be a token character just to look politically correct, and 2. to make them sexy and use that to sell more games to male gamers. What everyone is complaining is that most times it seems the human fit white male characters are the "default" and female, colored, fat, other fantasy races, etc. are "the others". Diversity would mean in this context to make any kind of character traits without thinking people would want to avoid certain kind of traits, without resorting to stereotypes, without forcing them just to look pollitically correct and, in summary, to use all the variety the world and the imagination brings to make unique and memorable characters without thinking some characteristics are better than others. This is not just for games, but for culture in general.

Third: When I am talking of the effects these type of representations have on people I am not talking about it like it was some kind of subliminal advertising. We are cultural beings, so we adapt to it like other animals do in nature, learning what society tells us. It's not like you see some movies or games and suddenly think: "Oh, this is how things should be". It is a process that takes time, and affects everyone during their whole lifes, but specially during their younger years. Kids and teens are still constructing their own vision of the world, so that is why they are specially susceptible to what culture tells them. We usually think everything in life is objective, but that is not true. Most things are subjective, so it depends on the interpretation any person gives them. But that interpretation is influenced a lot by one's culture, and is usually done in a way over time that makes unable to acknowledge that interference. That is why it is so important to change the general representations of different people in today's media: to stop maintaining social roles and prejudices that cuts everyone's freedom to be whatever they want to be.

Also, about the transgender issue everyone is discussing. I really don't understand why so many people close their mind to whatever categories they already know whithout contemplating the possibility that those kind of clasifications could be insufficient to take care of all possibilities there are. Also, I think it is important that many of you understand the diffeence between sex and genter. One is biological and the other is a social construction. I repeat: most things in life are subjective and influenced by our culture. And culture is just a intersubjective creation from the union of the most prevalent thoughts, roles, prejudices and structures that a group of humans have. The subjective nature of our life is the reason why ultimately all knowledge has its roots in philosophy, a discipline that tries to elaborate hypothesis and theories about the most fundamental and complex question of our existence. Gender and sex difference is just another subjective matter that depents entirely on how you understand that relationship. Look at this article in the wikipedia for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction

Transgender people suffer A LOT (many end up killing themselves) because society doesn't want to understand or accept them. My question is: even if you do not understand what they are going through, why do you insist on classify them as something they don't feel they are when that is hurting them and you are not gaining anything? Do you like to cause unnecesary pain? Do you think what you know is necessarily the truth? Don't you think maybe you are just unaware of some information? How would you feel if society treats you badly because your idea of yourself, your own identity, does not correspond to what is expected from you? Just think about these issues. We can't know everything. Sometimes ignorance or lack of empathy is what makes this world so unnecesarily cruel and stupid. Why do we always have the need to be right? What if there are some things we don't and can't know? Why make the world more shitty for others just for the sake of it?