AFSWATTF- Report by The Scarecrow; Femmekin
Posted by Dragonslorefury on Monday, February 16, 2009
AFSWATTF Report Number: My first.
Author: The Scarecrow.
Target: The Femmekin.
Fluff Level: I'm all for Feminists; they've done a wonderful job so far. These are just feminists with a fascist fetish elavating themselves beyond the realms of dream and miracle. For which I have a negative level of respect far beyond the realms of sanity.
Additional fact: When I started posting there, the topics died a cruel death. Treatment marginally succesful.
My reply:
No responses to my reply. After this, there was only one more reply, from a person calling themselves Divani, who simply asked if these people were serious.
And here my reply to http://otherkin.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/a-femmekin-glossary/#comment-154
Also, they claim that 'Princess' was a very common term in their previous life societies, and thus obtainable by most individuals.
Actually, they claim that the Otherkin Community's dislike towards the 'Elven Princess Syndrome' is unnecessary, and that they are, themselves, all 'Elven Princesses.' Well; most of them are, and this would be, according to them, a normal thing, as 'princess' of course means something different in their native language.
My reply:
After a few of these posts, and I've done some more, their site quickly bled to death, as far as I know. There's little to no activity, in any case.
Something I kind of regret, because there was no reply, or reasoning, as an effect to my slight, but well mannered, trolling.
Please note that I let a lot of it slip. For instance, they pertain the idea that they are of semi-divine or celestial birth. That they are a partly divine race. Means half-gods.
They also claim men are redundant.
They also claim that any woman who doesn't agree with the above statement is... Redundant and unnatural.
They claim that a science that actually admits there is no room for flawed dreams in theory is barbaric and underdeveloped.
With that, they claim that objective calculation and reasoning, and forgoing own judgment in a pursuit of knowledge is barbaric and underdeveloped.
Now; as I am a nice scarecrow, and I do not intend to insult people too much, I just let those things slip, as there is no way to make anyone see reason while believing something so unreasonable. Because if there was, these people would be a tad léss unreasonable to begin with.
My methods would be: Kill with logic. Whenever I can prove something as flawed, I will. Not by asking where their evidence went, because none of their claims have any, but by countering their statements with evidence that proves things to work differently.
I'm sorry I cannot bring the total humiliation to those who deserve it, in the same manner the higher ranked officers do, but my job is a different one.
AFSWATTF Scarecrow signing out.
Author: The Scarecrow.
Target: The Femmekin.
Fluff Level: I'm all for Feminists; they've done a wonderful job so far. These are just feminists with a fascist fetish elavating themselves beyond the realms of dream and miracle. For which I have a negative level of respect far beyond the realms of sanity.
Additional fact: When I started posting there, the topics died a cruel death. Treatment marginally succesful.
Quote:
Why do we call ourselves feminine? Well, when we are humanoid we look like human females (though biologically we are different) . We are not actually female, but we are feminine. We know that biologically the female sex is the original sex. Even among humans all children are conceived feminine - only exposure to male hormones creates a male creature. In humans it happens in two stages - first in the womb and then at puberty, when secondary sexual characteristics such as deep voice and beard are acquired. Before this second stage, boys retain the normative feminine characteristics in these respects.
Femininity is not simply the converse of masculinity. It is the normative, original state of life. Many peoples throughout the universe are purely feminine. Indeed, schizomorphic (male/female) peoples are an exception and some think a late development that took place only in a few worlds.
Femininity is not simply the converse of masculinity. It is the normative, original state of life. Many peoples throughout the universe are purely feminine. Indeed, schizomorphic (male/female) peoples are an exception and some think a late development that took place only in a few worlds.
My reply:
Quote:
Ehm.. No. Gender, or sex, is a result of chromosomes. Possible pares are: XY, YY, XX. Male, female and.. Something theat could be both, or either.
The development of the sex, in the womb, has, indeed, got something to do with hormones. Whoohoo. That isn’t to say that ‘female’ is thé natural state.
It does happen that XY children are born ‘female,’ in which case they are, in nearly every respect, indead normally female. It does happen that YY children are born ‘male,’ in which case, they are, in nearly every respect, male. In both cases, the individuals are sterile, and there is a good chance of malformation of sexual organs.
If the natural state of being is ‘female,’ then why does every body on this planet have some version of both testosteron and androgen? These are male hormones, and cause the physical changes of male teens. But also some of female teens. Voice drops, facial hair, muscle density, shoulder with, muscle size, all that sort of thing. Female teens also experience this, only to a far lower extent, depending on the person. The testicals produce extra testosteron and androgen, to increase these changes in male children.
Both genders are also influenced by oestrogens and progestoron. Both sexes change, in puberty, because of these hormones, be it females to a greater extent than males.
So since the pairing of chromosomes is the initial cause for birth gender, and development in the womb the secondary, ‘female’ is merely á natural state of being, and male another. Hermafrodite is another natural state of being, and so is genderless, and bi-gendered. Even transgendered is a natural state, as the initial chromosomes do not match with later development, and somehow went astray.
If only such a small thing as gender wasn’t this complicated for social standards…
The development of the sex, in the womb, has, indeed, got something to do with hormones. Whoohoo. That isn’t to say that ‘female’ is thé natural state.
It does happen that XY children are born ‘female,’ in which case they are, in nearly every respect, indead normally female. It does happen that YY children are born ‘male,’ in which case, they are, in nearly every respect, male. In both cases, the individuals are sterile, and there is a good chance of malformation of sexual organs.
If the natural state of being is ‘female,’ then why does every body on this planet have some version of both testosteron and androgen? These are male hormones, and cause the physical changes of male teens. But also some of female teens. Voice drops, facial hair, muscle density, shoulder with, muscle size, all that sort of thing. Female teens also experience this, only to a far lower extent, depending on the person. The testicals produce extra testosteron and androgen, to increase these changes in male children.
Both genders are also influenced by oestrogens and progestoron. Both sexes change, in puberty, because of these hormones, be it females to a greater extent than males.
So since the pairing of chromosomes is the initial cause for birth gender, and development in the womb the secondary, ‘female’ is merely á natural state of being, and male another. Hermafrodite is another natural state of being, and so is genderless, and bi-gendered. Even transgendered is a natural state, as the initial chromosomes do not match with later development, and somehow went astray.
If only such a small thing as gender wasn’t this complicated for social standards…
No responses to my reply. After this, there was only one more reply, from a person calling themselves Divani, who simply asked if these people were serious.
And here my reply to http://otherkin.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/a-femmekin-glossary/#comment-154
Quote:
Actually: How does this species procreate?
Because if both sexes can effectively fertilize ánd carry the child, they are considered both male and female, or, in some scenarios, where the act of mating would be unnescessary, neither male nor female.
If only one sex can carry child, and only one sex can fertilize, then you’re already dividing female and male genders. These are the laws of biology.
If you state that having breasts makes you female: Ehm.. No. Additional fat tissue on the chest muscles do not make you female. If you state that the ability to suckle makes you female: Again; tricky one. Male humans, for example, are physically able to breastfeed children. Since they have a shortage of certain female hormones, they will not produce a lot of milk, and will only do so after lengthy stimulation of the nipples, and thus milk glands.
Now; for a penis: Birds of all genders have a cloaca. Same goes for various species of reptiles. Animals who have a cloaca do not have a penis, yet this does not refrain a male member of said species to fertilize a female member of same species.
What makes a female a female, on biological standards, is only one thing, really: The inborn carrying capacity of egg-cells. Various groups of species have various ways of fertilization; in the womb, or outside the body. Most groups spawn eggs, which are sometimes fertilized after spawning, and sometimes fertilized before, and mammals spawn their non-coated eggs in their womb, where it is fertilized, and the child will not emerge from it until it would normally hatch. (Platypus excepted.)
Because of these biological laws of fertilization, there can be no procreation of a multi-cellular life-form without fertilization, unless, of course, you count cloning as a valid natural process. It does happen, in only a very small amount of species on this earth, but weakens the species’ DNA structure to such an amount as that it will still only happen when there is no other option.
It is, however, possible for a species to have two different genders, who are so much alike that there are no other real differences, except for breeding roles. Female hyenas, for example, sport a penis, while male hyenas suckle pups. While female hyenas can penetrate, they cannot fertilize, however.
Because if both sexes can effectively fertilize ánd carry the child, they are considered both male and female, or, in some scenarios, where the act of mating would be unnescessary, neither male nor female.
If only one sex can carry child, and only one sex can fertilize, then you’re already dividing female and male genders. These are the laws of biology.
If you state that having breasts makes you female: Ehm.. No. Additional fat tissue on the chest muscles do not make you female. If you state that the ability to suckle makes you female: Again; tricky one. Male humans, for example, are physically able to breastfeed children. Since they have a shortage of certain female hormones, they will not produce a lot of milk, and will only do so after lengthy stimulation of the nipples, and thus milk glands.
Now; for a penis: Birds of all genders have a cloaca. Same goes for various species of reptiles. Animals who have a cloaca do not have a penis, yet this does not refrain a male member of said species to fertilize a female member of same species.
What makes a female a female, on biological standards, is only one thing, really: The inborn carrying capacity of egg-cells. Various groups of species have various ways of fertilization; in the womb, or outside the body. Most groups spawn eggs, which are sometimes fertilized after spawning, and sometimes fertilized before, and mammals spawn their non-coated eggs in their womb, where it is fertilized, and the child will not emerge from it until it would normally hatch. (Platypus excepted.)
Because of these biological laws of fertilization, there can be no procreation of a multi-cellular life-form without fertilization, unless, of course, you count cloning as a valid natural process. It does happen, in only a very small amount of species on this earth, but weakens the species’ DNA structure to such an amount as that it will still only happen when there is no other option.
It is, however, possible for a species to have two different genders, who are so much alike that there are no other real differences, except for breeding roles. Female hyenas, for example, sport a penis, while male hyenas suckle pups. While female hyenas can penetrate, they cannot fertilize, however.
Also, they claim that 'Princess' was a very common term in their previous life societies, and thus obtainable by most individuals.
Actually, they claim that the Otherkin Community's dislike towards the 'Elven Princess Syndrome' is unnecessary, and that they are, themselves, all 'Elven Princesses.' Well; most of them are, and this would be, according to them, a normal thing, as 'princess' of course means something different in their native language.
My reply:
Quote:
‘Princess’ in the english language always means a female member of a royal family who does not reign. Queens reign, kings reign, but princes and princesses do not.
As such, the meaning of the word ‘princess’ in other cultures is not debatable. The word itself remains the same, as does the meaning.
If you mean something else, then don’t use the word. It’s as simple as that.
As such, the meaning of the word ‘princess’ in other cultures is not debatable. The word itself remains the same, as does the meaning.
If you mean something else, then don’t use the word. It’s as simple as that.
After a few of these posts, and I've done some more, their site quickly bled to death, as far as I know. There's little to no activity, in any case.
Something I kind of regret, because there was no reply, or reasoning, as an effect to my slight, but well mannered, trolling.
Please note that I let a lot of it slip. For instance, they pertain the idea that they are of semi-divine or celestial birth. That they are a partly divine race. Means half-gods.
They also claim men are redundant.
They also claim that any woman who doesn't agree with the above statement is... Redundant and unnatural.
They claim that a science that actually admits there is no room for flawed dreams in theory is barbaric and underdeveloped.
With that, they claim that objective calculation and reasoning, and forgoing own judgment in a pursuit of knowledge is barbaric and underdeveloped.
Now; as I am a nice scarecrow, and I do not intend to insult people too much, I just let those things slip, as there is no way to make anyone see reason while believing something so unreasonable. Because if there was, these people would be a tad léss unreasonable to begin with.
My methods would be: Kill with logic. Whenever I can prove something as flawed, I will. Not by asking where their evidence went, because none of their claims have any, but by countering their statements with evidence that proves things to work differently.
I'm sorry I cannot bring the total humiliation to those who deserve it, in the same manner the higher ranked officers do, but my job is a different one.
AFSWATTF Scarecrow signing out.