What's the deal with Super-straight? Warning: Controversial

I wouldn't say it's very controversial. The majority of the population is superstraight, even if not everyone would call it that.

 

In a sense it is to mock SJWs even though that term is soooooo 2016

But in all seriousness, I see it as a way to critique the founder of modern sexuality. Alfred Kinsey, I'm not going to go into detail on this guy because he's a twisted, sick, degenerate. Google him for more.

But he placed sexuality on a spectrum, I.E you can be 80% straight and 20% gay, which is completely false and has been proven wrong by his successors. Yet we are still taught these ideas in our Health and Science class, at least in America.

From what I've researched I wouldn't let this guy around my kids, yet he was allowed to write biology books for school children.

I'm superstraight btw.

 

Anything that makes libtards angry gets my unconditional support.

 

At the end of the day I have no political stance. Just dont like libs

 

My political stance is whatever will annoy the most people in the moment.

 

Be careful not to relapse.

 

based

 

The term came around because if trans women are women in verbiage, being straight has almost no value as a term to describe sexual identity.

There's a problem in philosophy called the Ship of Theseus that relates to identity; this isn't a problem in science, because the issue is in categorization and not in a confusion of biology. So the idea that "trans" has been proven is really that the person believes the proper category for trans women is women. The argument is taking place in a war of words, not science, because science does not support the idea of a gendered body, but instead a sexual one.

I recently read an article that "brains are not sexed, just like there is no female or male heart." Scientifically speaking, you can hold things like DNA ceterus parabis and indeed the heart and brain are quite "sexed"-- that is, to say, there is a male and female heart. A male counterpart with nearly identical DNA to a female counterpart will have variations to his organ; moreso than to a male counterpart with near identical DNA. The body conforms quite closely to our words of male and female, and just because something doesn't fit the mold doesn't mean the category doesn't exist. On a sub-atomic level, no two stalks of wheat are identical (or even in form, usually). But ancient farmers didn't say "I don't know how to grow wheat, because what you call wheat actually has 10,000,000,000 variations per stalk and therefore I don't know what wheat is, and therefore I don't know how to grow it!"

To bring this back to earth, if straight means to also include dating "women" who have penises and a prostate, being straight means a lot less than it meant even 8 years ago. Neither does any other word that conforms to XY/ XX chromosomes. And then you get statements that don't even compute anymore, like a bad line of code, like if a grown man were to ask what sexual orientation he should pursue to produce a family (it wouldn't be "straight," because trans women can't reproduce with biological males).

Down to its core, it's just playing with languages in a nihilistic sense predicated on the false notion that if words can't perfectly describe the thing they are an analogue for, they can be bent to mean the opposite. But this is a worldview that is almost completely unsustainable.

Edit: the Ship of Theseus is an ancient ship where each part is replaced on the ship as it travels, and eventually it comes to a port having 100% of its parts replaced. Is it still the same ship, or at what point did it acquire enough parts to become a different ship?

 

I'm really starting to think you're Barclay from that one episode where he becomes a super genius.