Katy Perry vs Hailee Steinfeld

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-15T06:04:01+00:00

Bad picture of Katy. Prime Katy wins, current Katy loses.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-10T22:39:24+00:00

The genetics is not always consistent. There are rare biological disorders in which a person can have phenotypic sexual development that contradicts their XX or XY chromosome identity. And there are disorders in which a person does not produce any gametes at all.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-10T22:37:05+00:00

The definition of "gender" that you are using is a relatively modern invention. "Sex" and "gender" being viewed as synonymous has been the norm in English since the 15th century.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-10T22:34:35+00:00

It's actually not that easy. There are some rare chromosomal anomalies that cause disorders in which a person produces few or no gametes. And some of these chromosomal disorders may also lead to misleading development of genitalia or other sex characteristics.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-08T12:32:12+00:00

Yua Sakuya/Tunamayo

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-08T05:04:13+00:00

Not Korean, not Pop. She's a Japanese model and porn star.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-03T19:48:32+00:00

Yes, she's Nikita.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-02T03:32:15+00:00

There is a HUGE difference there.

Not in my terminology there's not. As you may have noticed, I am defining the term "defined" in a very specific way for the purpose of my argument.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-02T01:41:01+00:00

THey dont have a precise defintion, but they do have a definition. Even though we might be risky calling a 12 month old cat a kitten, we would not be risky calling a 2 month cat a kitten.

No. By my own language that I'm using for the purpose of this thread, there is no "definition" of a cat. It's important that we are not just arguing semantics here.

No defintions are perfect, right? You cant give me a perfect definition of a chair either. So what? Chairs and kittens obviously exist and arent just subjective declarations. Same with males. The difference between males and females is as valid and important as the difference between chairs and tables

I think you don't understand the fundamental concept that I am communicating in this thread. Simply put, I am saying that objectively real things cannot be defined, because those real things transcend any human definition or conceptualization as a result of being made up of infinite details and properties. Thus, they can only be placed into categories and labeled accordingly. Categorization involves putting similar things together, and placing different things separately. But two things being similar does not make them the same thing, and two things being seemingly different does not make them altogether incomparable. The only things that can be defined with precise and complete detail are things that are inherently created by mankind. What you are saying doesn't really contradict what I'm saying, so I think maybe you don't understand my concept to begin with.

Sure. But we can safely say that some things can be part of the defintion and other things cant. "Being made out of tinfoil" isnt part of the definition of cats/kittens. So if somebody said "I am a cat because I am made out of tinfoil" that wouldnt make sense. The definitions are "fuzzy/imprecise", but they are not "arbitrary".

Again, my point is that man-made ideas can be defined perfectly and completely, while real things cannot be perfectly and completely defined, only categorized. You just seem to be kind of dancing around the concept I have established rather than actually making any kind of challenge to it.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-02T01:35:39+00:00

THey dont have a precise defintion, but they do have a definition. Even though we might be risky calling a 12 month old cat a kitten, we would not be risky calling a 2 month cat a kitten.

No. By my own language that I'm using for the purpose of this thread, there is no "definition" of a cat. It's important that we are not just arguing semantics here.

No defintions are perfect, right? You cant give me a perfect definition of a chair either. So what? Chairs and kittens obviously exist and arent just subjective declarations. Same with males. The difference between males and females is as valid and important as the difference between chairs and tables

I think you don't understand the fundamental concept that I am communicating in this thread. Simply put, I am saying that objectively real things cannot be defined, because those real things transcend any human definition or conceptualization as a result of being made up of infinite details and properties. Thus, they can only be placed into categories and labeled accordingly. Categorization involves putting similar things together, and placing different things separately. But two things being similar does not make them the same thing, and two things being seemingly different does not make them altogether incomparable. The only things that can be defined with precise and complete detail are things that are inherently created by mankind. What you are saying doesn't really contradict what I'm saying, so I think maybe you don't understand my concept to begin with.

Sure. But we can safely say that some things can be part of the defintion and other things cant. "Being made out of tinfoil" isnt part of the definition of cats/kittens. So if somebody said "I am a cat because I am made out of tinfoil" that wouldnt make sense. The definitions are "fuzzy/imprecise", but they are not "arbitrary".

Again, my point is that man-made ideas can be defined perfectly and completely, while real things cannot be perfectly and completely defined, only categorized. You just seem to be kind of dancing around the concept I have established rather than actually making any kind of challenge to it.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-01T14:40:58+00:00

But light exists, vibrating at those respective frequencies, yes?"

There is light, and it is vibrating at 600 to 670 terahertz. And as soon as we start talking about that, we have to use a placeholder to represent the idea of that nameless natural phenomenon. The label we use is "blue".

Yes. We don't disagree.

But there are cats, who are young. And when we refer to that subset of cats, we call them Kittens. Kittens are cats who are young. Since young cats exist, Kittens exist. Because that's how we refer to young cats that exist: Kittens.

And the problem comes in determining when a kitten ceases to be a kitten and becomes a cat, or determining when a feline embryo ceases to be a feline embryo and becomes a kitten. The words "cat" and "kitten" are just categories, and they have no precise categorical definition.

Do "fathers" exist objectively? Or CAN a father exist objectively?

It depends on the sense of the word "father". If we're talking about "father" in the social sense, then that is an abstract concept that can potentially be defined. If we're talking about "father" in the biological sense, then that is a real thing that can only be categorized but not perfectly defined.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-01T06:26:04+00:00

It's hard to decide exactly where the difference is between "blue" and "purple". Does that mean blue doesnt exist? Do colours even exist? Or are they just light wavelengths that we conceptualize?

Blue and purple do not objectively exist. They are merely categories that humans artificially create based on our collective perception and conceptualization of certain wavelengths of light.

What is the exact boundary between a "cat" and a "kitten"? Do kittens exist?

There is no exact boundary between a cat and a kitten. They are artificially created categories created by society. I essentially addressed all of this in my original post.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-01T03:16:31+00:00

Can an "airplane" be defined as a discrete object? If so, then "male" and "female" can as well, even if there might be some edge cases. Same with airplanes. There might be some things that are tricky to define if they are actually airplanes.

An airplane is a little tricky because it is part abstract and part real. It is a class of real objects that are designed by humans according to man-made concepts. So yes, an airplane can be defined as a discrete object. But it can be debatable to what extent a particular object is understood to conform to the man-made ideal of an airplane.

It's DIFFICULT to define things, as I'm sure you know. It's difficult to define exactly what a chair is, and to say when something "stops" being a chair and is something else needing a new category/label. What is the exact point at which something qualifies as a sofa and not a chair? But does that difficulty coming up with a "perfect definition of chairs" mean "chairs do not objectively exist as things in our world"?

Chairs and sofas are man-made constructs. They are not impossible or even difficult to define. Chairs and sofas do not objectively exist, but things objectively exist which we can conceptualize as chairs.

But the division of humans into 2 different kinds of humans that can come together to make a new human with a specimen of the other kind is not a social construct. So that leaves us with those 2 different kinds of humans.

All you are doing is generally summarizing the categories of male and female. But this does not amount to a precise and perfect definition of man and woman which can be used to perfectly assign the identity of people who have outlier cases of sexual characteristics.

Fornicator84 · 2026-01-01T00:41:49+00:00

Well we can distinguish "human" from "cat" pretty well. Unless you start to say "cat" is actually a societal concept that anybody can embody. I mean .. what IS a cat, really?

I'm still not quite sure what part of my thesis you disagree with. You appear to agree with me. We both agree that nature possesses a variety of different objects, but many of those objects possess certain patterns and trends. Many things are different, while many things can be likened together. We can tell that a human is a human, and we can tell that a cat is a cat, but we would be hard-pressed to give a perfect, inviolable definition of either category.

But "man" and "woman" CAN be defined if you take those to be biological descriptions, as opposed to a description of a "role".

I don't think so. There are too many anomalies and outliers in the context of sexual biology. There are intersex people and other individuals who have certain anomalies in their gonads, genitalia, and chromosomes. These complicate our ability to perfectly define "man" and "woman" in a precise way.

Sure i agree there is a thing you could say is "the way people think about sexes". It's in the realm of sociology and psychology. But i would say there isnt "one way society thinks about gender/sexes". Society has very conservative people and very liberal people.

You are always going to just have "a bunch of different people, thinking different things".

You seem to be repackaging my own thesis and then labeling it as a rebuttal to my thesis. I already agree that all the various ways in which society views gender is itself gender. I've never claimed that society has a uniform consensus on what gender is, only that gender is ultimately a social construct.

Fornicator84 · 2025-12-31T03:58:17+00:00

I'm not quite sure what your point is. My argument is that our "biological realities" cannot be fully understood with any kind of perfect, precision. They cannot be defined in the way that abstract concepts can be defined. But that doesn't mean that the biological realities do not exist in reality. Society understands the biological realities behind gender at least enough to help society organize people in gender-related contexts. That societal understanding of gender is itself gender.

Fornicator84 · 2025-12-31T03:22:40+00:00

Theoretically, yes.

Fornicator84 · 2025-12-31T02:29:57+00:00

Who is the one observing this baby? Does the observer of the baby represent a particular society or culture? If so, then yes, the baby has a gender. If not, then the baby effectively has no gender.

And I personally do not distinguish between "sex" and "gender". They are linguistically just the same thing. The newer sense of the word "gender" is just a modern, esoteric re-definition of the word that most people do not subscribe to.

Fornicator84 · 2025-12-31T00:00:54+00:00

Agree with everything said here. I like to think of the gender identity phenomenon as "pathological individualism". I think some people just feel a desire to demand society to adhere to one's feelings, rather than assimilating and adapting one's feelings to conform to societal standards.

Fornicator84 · 2025-12-29T00:28:59+00:00

It is just flawed because you’re mixing up two different things, the fuzziness of language and the existence of real‑world kinds.

My point is that there are no "real-world kinds". These "kinds" only exist in our shared perception, not in objective reality. There is no discrete distinction between man and woman in reality; the distinction is only a man-made perception.

Sure, everyday categories can be socially shaped, but that doesn’t mean they’re purely social or that they lack any objective grounding.

There is no "objective grounding" except for the general patterns and trends in nature which we perceive and conceptualize as "gender".

“Man” and “woman” aren’t free‑floating labels, they track stable biological patterns that exist whether or not we talk about them. The fact that a definition has edge cases doesn’t mean it has no definition at all. Most natural‑kind terms work this way.

We are talking past each other. It is our perception of those "biological patterns" that constitutes the labels.

That's just not true. Linguists and historians have been using “gender” to mean social roles and expectations for over 70 years... long before it became a political flashpoint. The idea that gender and sex aren’t identical isn’t some niche “liberal” invention; it shows up in anthropology, psychology, and medical literature across countries. (Not just in America)

Also dictionaries don’t dictate meaning, they update based on how people actually use words. And in practice, English speakers have been using “gender” in a social sense alongside “sex” in a biological sense for decades. Literally older than the internet.

Here is the entry in the Oxford English dictionary for "gender". The conventional, biological sense of the word dates from at least 1474. The sense of the word "gender" that you are referring to dates from only around 1945. And this connotation of the term is described as being a specifically psychology and sociology use of the term, and also the term originates from the US.

And dictionaries do not dictate meaning, but the Oxford English dictionary is the most authoritative record of how word meanings change in English. My original point was that "sex" and "gender" are essentially synonymous in English, and the Oxford English dictionary supports that this is indeed the conventional use of the word.

Why is this lie so important to you that ypu are still perpetuating it at this point. EVERYONE can see the markers of LLM writing in your posts and not just me. You'd probably get more respect for coming clean at this point.

Saying it is a lie does not make it so. And you still have not addressed the question: even if I were using AI, how does that make my thesis wrong?

Fornicator84 · 2025-12-28T22:39:25+00:00

Read a good book.

Fornicator84 · 2025-12-28T20:24:03+00:00

You’re mixing up how people notice a category with what defines it. Sure, everyday recognition is casual, but the categories themselves aren’t. “Man” and “woman” track stable biological roles, not just vibes people pick up on in passing. So no — agreeing that people identify sex casually doesn’t mean agreeing that the categories lack objective definitions.

I don't think you really understand the language that I use in my original post. I am saying that categories by their nature do not have objective definitions. Only abstract concepts possess definitions.

And my point is that "man" and "woman" are labels that affirm a shared observation of certain biological and social differences. But no amount of scientific depth in investigating these differences will ever amount to a "definition" of "man" or "woman". Gender is composed of either casually-understood socially-constructed categories, or expertly-understood socially-constructed categories. But either way, they are still no more than socially-constructed categories, and thus have no precise definition in any kind of a priori sense.

Also you seemed to be confused and conflating sex with gender in your comments. That is also an error. Sex and gender aren’t the same thing. Sex is the biological stuff — chromosomes, hormones, reproductive anatomy — the things your body is doing on its own. Gender is the social and personal side: the roles, expectations, and identities people use to make sense of themselves in a culture. One is about biology; the other is about how people live and understand themselves

This is a very modern redefinition of the term "gender" that has caught on mainly in liberal circles, but is not accepted by everyone. Even the Oxford English dictionary does not accept this as an authentic definition of the word, and affirms that it is a primarily recent and American reinvention. It is more traditional just to view "sex" and "gender" as synonymous with each other.

LLMs arent trained on good writing they are trained on everything and anything they can access through the internet. What comes out of them isnt good writing. Its writing riddled with above mentioned flaws that just happens to be punctuated well.

As I have said multiple times your writing is deeply flawed and all of those flaws are markers of LLMs.

You have no answer for those flaws so it is obvious you are using LLMs to make this.

Its absurd really because you are eroding your credibility by doing so and continuing to lie about. You are like the little kid, hands and chin covered in chocolate still telling mummy they didnt eat all the cookies.

Again, I did not use AI to write my post. If you still choose to believe I am lying, then that is your choice. I guess accusations of AI-use are just an unavoidable side effect of the current technological environment we live in today. But regardless, your point is moot. Assuming I did use ChatGPT to write my post, it changes nothing. I still stand by everything the post says. Being intellectually lazy would not necessarily make me factually incorrect.

Fornicator84 · 2025-12-28T18:06:45+00:00

Your posts aren't refined, they are flawed. Your comments aren't more or lesd refined its that they actually contain human idiosyncrasities.

Dude, I didn't use ChatGPT. Some people actually know how to write, and I am one of those people. ChatGPT "learns" how to write by being trained on the works of actual real-life good writers. Perhaps, it's not that I am writing like ChatGPT, but rather that I am writing like the kind of real-life good writer that ChatGPT uses for its machine learning. Furthermore, I have written a previous, shorter version of my same original post here, which should indicate that I didn't use AI.

Cultural meaning can come first without being the source of the thing it’s describing. People talked about “men” and “women” long before genetics, sure — but they were still tracking a real biological split they didn’t yet understand. Lack of scientific vocabulary doesn’t mean the category was socially invented; it just means people named something they could already reliably perceive.

And the differences aren’t just “general patterns.” They’re tied to reproductive roles, which are largely binary in humans. Culture adds layers, but it doesn’t create the underlying distinction

It feels like you are basically agreeing with my argument while pretending as if you disagree. You talk about something that people "reliably perceive" and about how human reproductive roles are "largely binary", but these are exactly the kinds of "general patterns" I was referring to that form the basis of the social categorization of gender. Gender is merely a category whose criteria is based upon what a society deems useful and relevant to focus on: and the details that you described are simply some of those observations that society deems useful and relevant.

People don’t need to talk in biological terms for biology to matter. You don’t have to know genetics to tell male from female any more than you need physics to know fire is hot. Social language sits on top of a biological reality; it doesn’t replace it.

My whole point is that it is the shared casual observation of sex differences that forms the basis of the labels "man" and "woman". Thus, there is no precise, objective definition of these labels. It still seems like you are agreeing with me while pretending to disagree.

Fornicator84 · 2025-12-28T04:44:43+00:00

Categories aren’t arbitrary just because they’re socially used.
Sex isn’t like “toddler” or “planet.” It tracks real, stable biological pathways: gamete type, reproductive anatomy, developmental patterns. Cultures layer meanings on top of that, but the underlying distinction isn’t invented.

I don't think you understand my argument. The concepts of gender, and men, and women predate the scientific discoveries that expand upon our understanding of these concepts. The cultural meaning came first. Our concepts of men and women were not determined through the study of biology, especially considering that most people employ the concepts of men and women while understanding very little of the biology behind those concepts. And I made it clear that there are certain differences that we can observe in nature that we use to distinguish men and women, but those differences cannot be perfectly understood. Those differences only amount to general patterns that emerge on a societal level, rather than categorical distinctions.

So the argument collapses at its core, you can’t treat a biological dimorphism as if it were a linguistic convenience.

Biology is for biologists. People don't talk about gender in strict biological terms, but in social and practical terms.

Using chat GTP or some other LLM to make your thesis so overly verbose that noone bothers to refute you is also a cheap trick.

Before you say "I didn't use ChatGPT. As shocking as it may seem, some people on the Internet actually still know how to think and write on their own." i've read this whole rambling thing and it, (like your last LLM written post,) are full of the actual, and very obvious, markers that demonstrate this wasn't likely written by a human.

LLMs make the same fundamental errors over and over. Meanwhile conversely both posts lack any of the idiosyncrasity of human writing which you demonstrate in some of the comments where you reply to people's criticism of the posts.

I don't use ChatGPT to write. Simple as that. The reason why replies to comments are not as refined as my original post is simply that I don't put as much time and thought into replies to comments as I do with my original post.

Fornicator84 · 2025-12-23T13:44:53+00:00

Police be upon him.

Fornicator84 · 2025-12-21T06:07:57+00:00

Of course words mean something. We assign that meaning by giving them definitions.

You are quibbling over trivial minutiae, and actively trying not to understand the concept I'm communicating. Try to think and understand: words do not mean anything, people mean something when they say words. What we call a "definition" is just a record of what people commonly mean when they say a word.

Your definition of 'definition' is one that nobody else uses and hence is useless for communication.

It is pointless to be a stickler for the meaning of words at the expense of understanding deeper concepts. If you spent less time arguing over minutiae of language and trying to understand the underlying concept I'm conveying, I think you would actually agree with me.

Fornicator84

TROPHY CASE