@sisisioge and @Sapiosexuality,

I usually do not concern myself with nuances on how minorities view each other, because in the end we are trying to fight unfair discrimination of all sorts.

But I'd leave my take on this matter.

Does Chimamanda have a point. Yes. Did she articulate it well. No.

And that is the reason for all the brouhaha. For every transgender female who was better at masking her feminity as a male, there is a transgender female who didn't have that ability (aka the guys we like to call sissies). It's not like an option, gender identity is fluid.

And I can understand that someone like Caitlyn Jenner definitely did not have the same experiences as Sahhara (in the article). Caitly won an Olympic gold medal as a male and became the top dog of the Kardashian clan and even had daughters before succumbing to her trans nature. She was able to keep the facade for that long.

But why should Caitlyn Jenner be the ideal transgender and not someone like Sahhara?

Because feminists can be disingenuous.

There is a tribe in Cambodia, the Kreung, where girls who cross puberty are given huts called love huts where they are free to have sex with whomever they choose (Google Cambodia love huts). Unintended pregnancies are taken care of by the girl, her family, and whoever marries her eventually. There is no such thing as "slut," "olosho," or "LovePeddler." Divorce is non-existent. Girls have the right to choose whoever they want without discrimination.

There is a tribe in China, the Mosuo, that is often dubbed "China's last matrilineal society." Women are taught to be independent of men from day 1. They can function without men. Women lead their respective families, and women marry men not vice versa. Men leave their families to live with the women who marry them. Both genders have their roles in the society and there is virtually no discrimination.

Amongst the Sahrawi people in North Africa, divorced women who remarry have more grandiose parties than newly wed virgins. In fact, divorces are celebrated. Zero divorce stigma.

Now ask yourself, why should the oppressed women in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East be used to signify the ideal woman and not the Mosuo women? I'm pretty sure if Adichie was asked, she'll say the Mosuo and Kreung women are not women because they didn't have the experiences of women (aka herself).

What nonsense? From a supposed scholar?

The Mosuo women are women. The Trans women are women. This division is not helping anyone. It's just favoring elitism, that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. That goes against everything that fundamental human rights stands for.

Gender discrimination affects more women in sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East, it doesn't mean women in other parts of the world shouldn't be accorded same rights or have less of a story to tell. Does Adichie even have a strong discriminatory experience when compared to women in some sub-Saharan African communities who genital mutilated at birth and forced to scavenge for food and water for miles while their men lazy about? Who and what gives her the right to say her story or experience is of more value than that of another person who identifies as a female?

It's like saying Caucasian racism against Asians is not racism because it isn't as bad as Caucasian racism against Africans. All is racism. Some more severe than others. But why make a racist-o-meter? What purpose does that achieve rather than make some people feel like elitists. More important than others.

Maybe one day, someone would say I should shut-up, that my opinion doesn't matter about sexuality, because I'm heterosexual and would never know what it means to be a homosexual.

It's shameful, when people fighting bigotry exhibit bigotry.

Trans women are women. Butch trans women may have it bad, while effeminate trans women may have it much worse, most times worse than even cisgendered women. It doesn't make one sub-category of women more deserving of rights or the female gender identity than another sub-category. Or that the experiences of one sub-category is more important than the experiences of another sub-category.

If cisgendered women want to feel great about themselves, they shouldn't use transgendered women as their footstool.

You guys however logical your argument are only opening Pandora's box. Very soon, blacks and jews will be claiming exclusive rights to being tagged as the victims of racism. That other groups don't have enough experience to call discrimination against them racism.

Then you guys would open a can of worm in the LGBTQ+ community, and that lesbians and gays would say they are more deserving of pity and rights than bisexuals and asexuals.

Feminists can take their high-handed exclusivist pompous selves to the stratosphere that their over-inflated egos is taking them. Don't dare step on transgendered women. The LGBTQ+ community is too busy to pander to the egos of ANYONE, no matter how learned. We really can't have a face-off between the feminist and LGBTQ+ communities. It'd be messy and take valuable time away from the core of what our movements are all about: eliminating unfair discrimination.

-Lord

IamaNigerianGuy:
Chimamanda Adichie is grossly overrated.

All her statements and controversies are centered around 'first world problems'

She's a house nigger who addresses her message to the white people she so dearly wants to please and is irrelevant to contemporary Nigerians in Nigeria

You're Damn right. She is also an Hypocrite. I like her works but not her.

Evaberry:
.
honestly speaking chiamanda can do no wrong in my eyes

it's not easy being her and saying the things she does say.
how many Nigerian women can choose not to answer their husbands name after marriage

how many Nigeria women can profess support and love on live TV for LGBT

How many Nigerian women can excel in literature both home and abroad

I mean Gosh god damn it

this woman. has brains... She is a literature god
.

When will you grow up and start having a little sense? At your age you still have not started thinking of carving out an identity for yourself and you are looking at a fellow human being like a god? Does this chimamanda have two heads? Why can't you believe in yourself and the potentials that God created in you for you to also become great with your own identity? So if chimamanda asks you to pull a gun and shoot yourself you will do it like a zombie? Young lady, the earlier you start understanding that chimamanda is not better than you and that she is a mere human being prone to mistakes and errors, the better for you. Go and develop your potentials and stop making a god out of a fellow human being like you!

IamaNigerianGuy:
Chimamanda Adichie is grossly overrated.

All her statements and controversies are centered around 'first world problems'

She's a house nigger who addresses her message to the white people she so dearly wants to please and is irrelevant to contemporary Nigerians in Nigeria

i totally agree with you sir!
let her use her literary theories to address the "Nigerian problems"

I can't help noticing all males defending what's been in debate for years. The truth is what it is...making your various backyards an example will still butteress my points here. Its a man's world. A transwoman who has enjoyed the world from the angle of manhood can't completely appreciate the world from the angle of womanhood. It is what it is. EOD.

sisisioge:
I can't help noticing all males defending what's been in debate for years. The truth is what it is...making your various backyards an example will still butteress my points here. Its a man's world. A transwoman who has enjoyed the world from the angle of manhood can't completely appreciate the world from the angle of womanhood. It is what it is. EOD.

Read and inform yourself.

I didn't quote your moniker correctly the first time. I've since edited it though.

@sisisioge and @Sapiosexuality,

I usually do not concern myself with nuances on how minorities view each other, because in the end we are trying to fight unfair discrimination of all sorts.

But I'd leave my take on this matter.

Does Chimamanda have a point. Yes. Did she articulate it well. No.

And that is the reason for all the brouhaha. For every transgender female who was better at masking her feminity as a male, there is a transgender female who didn't have that ability (aka the guys we like to call sissies). It's not like an option, gender identity is fluid.

And I can understand that someone like Caitlyn Jenner definitely did not have the same experiences as Sahhara (in the article). Caitly won an Olympic gold medal as a male and became the top dog of the Kardashian clan and even had daughters before succumbing to her trans nature. She was able to keep the facade for that long.

But why should Caitlyn Jenner be the ideal transgender and not someone like Sahhara?

Because feminists can be disingenuous.

There is a tribe in Cambodia, the Kreung, where girls who cross puberty are given huts called love huts where they are free to have sex with whomever they choose (Google Cambodia love huts). Unintended pregnancies are taken care of by the girl, her family, and whoever marries her eventually. There is no such thing as "slut," "olosho," or "LovePeddler." Divorce is non-existent. Girls have the right to choose whoever they want without discrimination.

There is a tribe in China, the Mosuo, that is often dubbed "China's last matrilineal society." Women are taught to be independent of men from day 1. They can function without men. Women lead their respective families, and women marry men not vice versa. Men leave their families to live with the women who marry them. Both genders have their roles in the society and there is virtually no discrimination.

Amongst the Sahrawi people in North Africa, divorced women who remarry have more grandiose parties than newly wed virgins. In fact, divorces are celebrated. Zero divorce stigma.

Now ask yourself, why should the oppressed women in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East be used to signify the ideal woman and not the Mosuo women? I'm pretty sure if Adichie was asked, she'll say the Mosuo and Kreung women are not women because they didn't have the experiences of women (aka herself).

What nonsense? From a supposed scholar?

The Mosuo women are women. The Trans women are women. This division is not helping anyone. It's just favoring elitism, that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. That goes against everything that fundamental human rights stands for.

Gender discrimination affects more women in sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East, it doesn't mean women in other parts of the world shouldn't be accorded same rights or have less of a story to tell. Does Adichie even have a strong discriminatory experience when compared to women in some sub-Saharan African communities who genital mutilated at birth and forced to scavenge for food and water for miles while their men lazy about? Who and what gives her the right to say her story or experience is of more value than that of another person who identifies as a female?

It's like saying Caucasian racism against Asians is not racism because it isn't as bad as Caucasian racism against Africans. All is racism. Some more severe than others. But why make a racist-o-meter? What purpose does that achieve rather than make some people feel like elitists. More important than others.

Maybe one day, someone would say I should shut-up, that my opinion doesn't matter about sexuality, because I'm heterosexual and would never know what it means to be a homosexual.

It's shameful, when people fighting bigotry exhibit bigotry.

Trans women are women. Butch trans women may have it bad, while effeminate trans women may have it much worse, most times worse than even cisgendered women. It doesn't make one sub-category of women more deserving of rights or the female gender identity than another sub-category. Or that the experiences of one sub-category is more important than the experiences of another sub-category.

If cisgendered women want to feel great about themselves, they shouldn't use transgendered women as their footstool.

You guys however logical your argument are only opening Pandora's box. Very soon, blacks and jews will be claiming exclusive rights to being tagged as the victims of racism. That other groups don't have enough experience to call discrimination against them racism.

Then you guys would open a can of worm in the LGBTQ+ community, and that lesbians and gays would say they are more deserving of pity and rights than bisexuals and asexuals.

Feminists can take their high-handed exclusivist pompous selves to the stratosphere that their over-inflated egos is taking them. Don't dare step on transgendered women. The LGBTQ+ community is too busy to pander to the egos of ANYONE, no matter how learned. We really can't have a face-off between the feminist and LGBTQ+ communities. It'd be messy and take valuable time away from the core of what our movements are all about: eliminating unfair discrimination.

-Lord

SweetBoyFriend:

They're senseless and possessed by the evil spirit

Tell me why someone who was born a man would wanna become a woman and still have a dick ??

These people disgust me

Let everyone in this world turn gay, humanity​ will go into extinction

Put a very strict rules and 50 years imprisonment for gays and transgenders in Africa

If you want to play that shiit, you move to the USA

In the USA, you can enjoy sex, get pregnant and legally kill your baby (abortion) but you can't smoke a grass (weed).. bunch of idiots

Keep that gay shiit in the USA

You're Simply ignorant of the meaning of TRANSGENDER.

TRANSGENDER people are those born having both male and female reproductive organ (Vagina|penis).

They didn't create themselves that way. Even among animals, there are transgender.

LordAdam16:
@sisisioge and @Sapiosexuality,

I usually do not concern myself with nuances on how minorities view each other, because in the end we are trying to fight unfair discrimination of all sorts.

But I'd leave my take on this matter.

Does Chimamanda have a point. Yes. Did she articulate it well. No.

And that is the reason for all the brouhaha. For every transgender female who was better at masking her feminity as a male, there is a transgender female who didn't have that ability (aka the guys we like to call sissies). It's not like an option, gender identity is fluid.

And I can understand that someone like Caitlyn Jenner definitely did not have the same experiences as Sahhara (in the article). Caitly won an Olympic gold medal as a male and became the top dog of the Kardashian clan and even had daughters before succumbing to her trans nature. She was able to keep the facade for that long.

But why should Caitlyn Jenner be the ideal transgender and not someone like Sahhara?

Because feminists can be disingenuous.

There is a tribe in Cambodia, the Kreung, where girls who cross puberty are given huts called love huts where they are free to have sex with whomever they choose (Google Cambodia love huts). Unintended pregnancies are taken care of by the girl, her family, and whoever marries her eventually. There is no such thing as "slut," "olosho," or "LovePeddler." Divorce is non-existent. Girls have the right to choose whoever they want without discrimination.

There is a tribe in China, the Mosuo, that is often dubbed "China's last matrilineal society." Women are taught to be independent of men from day 1. They can function without men. Women lead their respective families, and women marry men not vice versa. Men leave their families to live with the women who marry them. Both genders have their roles in the society and there is virtually no discrimination.

Amongst the Sahrawi people in North Africa, divorced women who remarry have more grandiose parties than newly wed virgins. In fact, divorces are celebrated. Zero divorce stigma.

Now ask yourself, why should the oppressed women in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East be used to signify the ideal woman and not the Mosuo women? I'm pretty sure if Adichie was asked, she'll say the Mosuo and Kreung women are not women because they didn't have the experiences of women (aka herself).

What nonsense? From a supposed scholar?

The Mosuo women are women. The Trans women are women. This division is not helping anyone. It's just favoring elitism, that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. That goes against everything that fundamental human rights stands for.

Gender discrimination affects more women in sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East, it doesn't mean women in other parts of the world shouldn't be accorded same rights or have less of a story to tell. Does Adichie even have a strong discriminatory experience when compared to women in some sub-Saharan African communities who genital mutilated at birth and forced to scavenge for food and water for miles while their men lazy about? Who and what gives her the right to say her story or experience is of more value than that of another person who identifies as a female?

It's like saying Caucasian racism against Asians is not racism because it isn't as bad as Caucasian racism against Africans. All is racism. Some more severe than others. But why make a racist-o-meter? What purpose does that achieve rather than make some people feel like elitists. More important than others.

Maybe one day, someone would say I should shut-up, that my opinion doesn't matter about sexuality, because I'm heterosexual and would never know what it means to be a homosexual.

It's shameful, when people fighting bigotry exhibit bigotry.

Trans women are women. Butch trans women may have it bad, while effeminate trans women may have it much worse, most times worse than even cisgendered women. It doesn't make one sub-category of women more deserving of rights or the female gender identity than another sub-category. Or that the experiences of one sub-category is more important than the experiences of another sub-category.

If cisgendered women want to feel great about themselves, they shouldn't use transgendered women as their footstool.

You guys however logical your argument are only opening Pandora's box. Very soon, blacks and jews will be claiming exclusive rights to being tagged as the victims of racism. That other groups don't have enough experience to call discrimination against them racism.

Then you guys would open a can of worm in the LGBTQ+ community, and that lesbians and gays would say they are more deserving of pity and rights than bisexuals and asexuals.

Feminists can take their high-handed exclusivist pompous selves to the stratosphere that their over-inflated egos is taking them. Don't dare step on transgendered women. The LGBTQ+ community is too busy to pander to the egos of ANYONE, no matter how learned. We really can't have a face-off between the feminist and LGBTQ+ communities. It'd be messy and take valuable time away from the core of what our movements are all about: eliminating unfair discrimination.

-Lord

Alright babes, spoken well from the vantage point of a transwoman. I'm just gonna go silent on this issue now...no need to open Pandora box, no need to start a war of words, no need to question people's gender preference. I still agree with Adiche...she made a valid point as far as I'm concerned. By the way, my opinion shouldn't bother the community as I have absolute no knowledge of them before today.

Just so we are very clear, I am not a feminist, I am not homoophobic, I don't mind having a transgender as a friend and I live and let others live. Only thing is, you won't catch me dead trying to be any of those. Enjoy.

sisisioge:


See question! Dude, its everywhere! From the family units to the society at large. A boy child privilege...he's the heir, the future leader, no domestic chores for the dear boy, his education is considered very importance , etc. A woman who dares not bore a son in an Igbo land is looking for troube. Oh, the Hausa believe the girl child is a second class citizen, the boy is the voice. The Yorubas don't even bother to teach their sons basic things, he would marry a woman who would do those things for him. Look at monarch system in Nigeria or even the world at large, how many female kings(abi na queens) you know ? How many female presidents? Can you do the ratio of woman to man CEOs? Even in religion circles where it is preached that we are all equal before God, can you do the radio of woman to man GOs? It is well bro...it is well.

kudos to you, I love this writeup.

sisisioge:


Alright babes, spoken well from the vantage point of a transwoman. I'm just gonna go silent on this issue now...no need to open Pandora box, no need to start a war of words, no need to question people's gender preference. I still agree with Adiche...she made a valid point as far as I'm concerned. By the way, my opinion shouldn't bother the community as I have absolute no knowledge of them before today.

Just so we are very clear, I am not a feminist, I am not homoophobic, I don't mind having a transgender as a friend and I live and let others live. Only thing is, you won't catch me dead trying to be any of those. Enjoy.

No need to act defensive.

It's all a matter of semantics. Red ball is a ball. Blue ball is a ball. Red ball is not a blue ball. Saying red ball is not a ball, is just going to raise hell.

That's what Adichie did. Transgender women are women. Cisgender women are women. Transgender women are not cisgender women. Implying that transgender women are not women is wrong.

You cannot make a category (women) exclusive for one sub-category (cisgender women). That is the origin of bigotry.

So as I said, she has a point that transgender women have different experiences from cis women, but she articulated it wrongly that for this reason trans women are not women and that only cis women are women. Everyone makes silly mistakes once in a while.

She could have said. Trans women are women. But trans women have unique experiences from cis women.

Now you can understand why everyone is making a big deal out of this because she is in America, the hotbed of diversity. She is an ally to the LGBTQ+ community. She is a literary icon (that is she understands the impact of words and the need to select words carefully). Yet she made such an obvious, unnecessary error. Anyone but Adichie should have made that error. Anyone but her.

I'm a full-on heterosexual, yet I have seething rage that she couldn't even apologize and she's still bandying about her heavily flawed argument days and weeks after first citing it. It is very arrogant. And I'll understand why trans women may want to boycott the Feminism movement because she's a part of it.

Yea, and as I said, the nuances really do not bother me. But sometimes it pays to set the record straight.

-Lord

Trans gender women are not women biko. He created them male and female Gen 1:27. A man now what to be call a woman

sisisioge:


See question! Dude, its everywhere! From the family units to the society at large. A boy child privilege...he's the heir, the future leader, no domestic chores for the dear boy, his education is considered very importance , etc. A woman who dares not bore a son in an Igbo land is looking for troube. Oh, the Hausa believe the girl child is a second class citizen, the boy is the voice. The Yorubas don't even bother to teach their sons basic things, he would marry a woman who would do those things for him. Look at monarch system in Nigeria or even the world at large, how many female kings(abi na queens) you know ? How many female presidents? Can you do the ratio of woman to man CEOs? Even in religion circles where it is preached that we are all equal before God, can you do the radio of woman to man GOs? It is well bro...it is well.

My guy. Do not generalise! Most of the things you said have been changing, especially in the generation of millennials. I agree, some places you can see that boys do certain things and girls do others. The next generation of people getting married have more open minded people than people who are sticking to the old ways.

Now I get your point but the examples you gave do not tackle the issue.

Domestic chores, what if you look at it from the point of view that I'll rather send my son to wash my car or clear grass than my dear girl, who I want to do less stressful things like cook some food for her sibling, or stick the laundry in the washing machine. Now what do you think?

Also, I have female family and friends currently undergoing their Masters degrees while their brothers are hustling business after their bachelors.

I am Igbo and my family is very open minded, if I have no son. I don't think that's a problem or their problem even. If it's about the family name, my brother can take that forward. We even have cousins that can take that forward. And with the trend of women answering both names, why not. I guess when they are ready to marry, they can take that forward.

I do not know about the other tribes, so I cannot say. Still, I get your point, but times are changing and it isn't really positive to generalise!

SweetBoyFriend:


Your brain is dead

So, i should go adopt a someone's culture so i would be loved by the white man ??

Fucck you and fucck your white man

You were born a man but decides to change to a woman

You enjoy taking a man's dick up your ass ??

Take your gay ass shiit to the USA, we don't get down like that

gay

You need help dude.

raayah:


You need help dude.

I need help because i don't want to have a dude ram his dick up my ass ??

I will turn gay on one condition, you let me fucck your dad

Eddygourdo:
will the LGBT community segregate a heterosexual who realized he is gay this morning because he doesn't have the same life experiences from a gay of 20years? Are they not both gays currently subjected to the same percieved injustice she is trying to fight ? Why should it be consdered by how long one has been queer being a measure of his understanding of challenges. So my answer to you is "yes". Current circumstances should match their current definitions as women even though previously male. Because the challenges being faced are not past or weighted issues , but current and existing issues and biases.

How can people with different sexes for more than 20 years have the same experience? I don't just understand this. This is what I'm interested in and not the psychology of homosexuals.

I see nothing wrong in what she said...free her joor

SweetBoyFriend:


I need help because i don't want to have a dude ram his dick up my ass ??

I will turn gay on one condition, you let me fucck your dad

Shioooor! I'm not surprised at all we all know you have no pedigree here. A brainless pig you are!

Sapiosexuality:
How can people with different sexes for more than 20 years have the same experience? I don't just understand this. This is what I'm interested in and not the psychology of homosexuals.

Read the statement you quoted, and no where did the person you quoted say that two people with different sexes for more than 20 years have the same experience. That is impossible.

In fact, this is what the poster said, "will the LGBT community segregate a heterosexual who realize he is gay this morning because he doesn't have the same life experiences from a gay of 20 years?" Which invariably posits that the poster understands and accepts that two people with different sexes for more than 20 years have the same experience.

Even a kid knows this.

What the person you quoted, myself, and the rest of us are saying is that your bad experience don't make you more deserving of gender rights than someone with a marginally better experience. Saying otherwise flips fundamental human rights on its end. And it invariably means that heavily discriminated cis and trans gender women in Africa and the Middle East should have a different identity (maybe call them super women) than cis and trans gender women who had far less discrimination in North America and Europe (maybe call them supra women). Since we want to make it all about experiences.

What is so difficult to understand here? Really, sometimes education doesn't equal intelligence.

Trans women are not cis women. They don't have the same experiences. But Trans women are women, and they should be accorded the same women rights as cis women.

If that is too hard to understand maybe we need to evaluate your linguistic intelligence. This is becoming annoying.

If TERFs want to stick to their erroneous, stubborn definition; then they should make it clear that they are ONLY fighting for the rights of cis women around the world. Let everyone be sure of what they're doing. And let trans women know only the LGBTQ+ community and non-TER feminists (which make the majority of feminists by the way) stand for them.

-Lord

HumanistMike:


Okay I'll take your points one at a time but firstly, both genders have equally significant challenges that are unique. Feminism only triages the challenges of the female and ignores that of the male.

So...
1. Heir.
Your dad/mum can make you the heir. It's their choice. Also, do not take your husband's last name when you marry. Nobody forces women to take his last name. They choose to. In some cases, they look forward to. When you take a man's surname, the properties you have could be taken by him. COULD! That's why parents prefer to make their sons the custodians of their estates. So, tell your future hubby you won't take his name for that reason. Don't be shy.

2. Future leader.
Does any law stop you from being a future leader? You can be one if YOU CHOOSE to be one!

3. Domestic chores.
How do you define domestic chores?
They way I see it, moving furnitures around, doing the heavy lifting at home, doing the minor repairs at home, buying fuel for th Gen, refilling the gen with fuel, starting the gen, washing the cars, opening/closing the gate, sorting out electrical issues, bringing in the bag of rice etc are all chores done domestically. So are they domestic chores? You lost me.

4. Male son.
See no 1.

5. Muslims and women being 2nd class citizens.
In America, Scandinavia, UK etc, they believe men are second class citizens. Men have no rights. In fact, the "rights" scale is;
Women
Children
Pets
Men.

6. Yorubas and what they teach their sons.
They teach their sons things they feels he will need to function as a man in society. If you feel that's wrong, then don't worry, your husband will be cooking and cleaning while you'll be the breadwinner. You will take care of his needs because his is special. You will give him pocket money always and will never put your eyes in his earnings. His money is his money but your money is the house money.

7. Monarchy and gender.
This is based on religion. Men fight for the land so they began ruling it. Nothing stops women from going to war to conquer their land. When they get maimed at war and lose lots of their friends, they will choose to rule the land they have conquered too. The subsequent choice of male heir is due to surname issue. See no 1.

8. Genders of CEO.
People tend to be CEOs of companies they float. Nothing stops women from floating their on companies. Even this website you use was floated by a man. The internet was invented by a man. Your religion was invented by a man etc. Go and start you own company and be the CEO.

9. Religion.
All the religions in the world were invented by men. Even the language we both communicate with was invented by men. Nothing stops women from inventing theirs.

And please don't say men invented these things because men were educated. Guess what, education was invented by men too. Do you know what else was invented by men? Menstrual pads and tampons!

HumanistMike, the complexion of your posts gives us hints that you're a reasonable chap, but to claim men invented education? That's just one hell of a giant anti-climax of intellectualism.

DarkRebel101:


HumanistMike, the complexion of your posts gives us hints that you're a reasonable chap, but to claim men invented education? That's just one hell of a giant anti-climax of intellectualism.

School as you know it was invented by men.

Ask yourself why it is called Bachelor's degree, Master's degree. Why not Bachelorette's degree?

The structure of education as you know it was put in place by men. Very bright men. It was a cult in those days. The proceeds of their studies and experiments were kept secret by the men involved. It was like a group of magicians keeping their tricks to themselves.

As time went on, they began to let other men join. By Other Men, I men mean not in their group (cult). Later, the doors were open to all men but only men. Then some women were allowed. Then all women. Then some blacks. Then all backs. Then everyone! In fact, even till date, there are some scientific/psychological knowledges that are still kept secret by those in the know.

Open your mind.

Who do u think invented physics?
Chemistry?
Geometry?
Astrology?
Medicine?
Engineering?
Law?
Government?
Gynaecology?
Christianity?
Islam?
Budism?
Rocket science?
Etc.


Name it.

To sum it up, education and religion started as a cult. The initiation requirement especially for education just got watered down to oblivion over time. The requirements for religion is still tight. For example, there will not be a Female or Black Pope, even in a 100years, just as they can't be a white Ooni or Oba or Igwe or a Male Minister of Women Affairs! Open your mind!

To put it in another way, your village ruler has a core tradition that is open to only male members of his inner ultra-secret council. No one else is allowed to understand the proceedings and membership is by blood/parentage. That's how education started my friend.

Do some research and enlighten yourself.

LordAdam16:


No need to act defensive.

It's all a matter of semantics. Red ball is a ball. Blue ball is a ball. Red ball is not a blue ball. Saying red ball is not a ball, is just going to raise hell.

That's what Adichie did. Transgender women are women. Cisgender women are women. Transgender women are not cisgender women. Implying that transgender women are not women is wrong.

You cannot make a category (women) exclusive for one sub-category (cisgender women). That is the origin of bigotry.

So as I said, she has a point that transgender women have different experiences from cis women, but she articulated it wrongly that for this reason trans women are not women and that only cis women are women. Everyone makes silly mistakes once in a while.

She could have said. Trans women are women. But trans women have unique experiences from cis women.

Now you can understand why everyone is making a big deal out of this because she is in America, the hotbed of diversity. She is an ally to the LGBTQ+ community. She is a literary icon (that is she understands the impact of words and the need to select words carefully). Yet she made such an obvious, unnecessary error. Anyone but Adichie should have made that error. Anyone but her.

I'm a full-on heterosexual, yet I have seething rage that she couldn't even apologize and she's still bandying about her heavily flawed argument days and weeks after first citing it. It is very arrogant. And I'll understand why trans women may want to boycott the Feminism movement because she's a part of it.

Yea, and as I said, the nuances really do not bother me. But sometimes it pays to set the record straight.

-Lord

One could argue from the position of biology that Transgender people are simply transgender people. You can't have the anatomy of a transgender and be rightly referred to as a woman. You can't have such anatomy and still be referred to as a man either. That could be seen as extreme positions. Let me come down.

In her words:

"It’s about the way the world treats us, and I think if you’ve lived in the world as a man with the privileges that the world accords to men and then sort of change gender, it’s difficult for me to accept that then we can equate your experience with the experience of a woman who has lived from the beginning as a woman and who has not been accorded those privileges that men are…I don’t think it’s a good thing to talk about women’s issues being exactly the same as the issues of trans women because I don’t think that’s true"

I agree with this to am extent. Maybe we'd had seen nothing wrong if she had said: "Transgender women are transgender women and cis women are cis women".

To me, she, and the majority of persons who've said something on the matter so far, are been economical with the truth. I am a man of science. Transgender people, born transgender before transition to women, still have features of the male and female. We can't in all honesty call them either of the sexes. Even after transition, we can still see evidence of masculinity. What makes us males and females are our sexes. Transgender people to me are transgender people. Correct me on this.

Sapiosexuality:
One could argue from the position of biology that Transgender people are simply transgender people. You can't have the anatomy of a transgender and be rightly referred to as a woman. You can't have such anatomy and still be referred to as a man either. That could be seen as extreme positions. Let me come down.

In her words:

"It’s about the way the world treats us, and I think if you’ve lived in the world as a man with the privileges that the world accords to men and then sort of change gender, it’s difficult for me to accept that then we can equate your experience with the experience of a woman who has lived from the beginning as a woman and who has not been accorded those privileges that men are…I don’t think it’s a good thing to talk about women’s issues being exactly the same as the issues of trans women because I don’t think that’s true"

I agree with this to am extent. Maybe we'd had seen nothing wrong if she had said: "Transgender women are transgender women and cis women are cis women".

To me, she, and the majority of persons who've said something on the matter so far, are been economical with the truth. I am a man of science. Transgender people, born transgender before transition to women, still have features of the male and female. We can't in all honesty call them either of the sexes. Even after transition, we can still see evidence of masculinity. What makes us males and females are our sexes. Transgender people to me are transgender people. Correct me on this.

You are a man of HALF-BAKED science. I mean no disrespect.

This is the definition of transgender

denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.

Transgenders are who they say they are, not what we call them. We've already called them transgenders (that's our label on them), they get the right to call themselves trans men or trans women. We don't get to tell them our label is the only label they should live by. If the sense of personal identity and gender is female, then the person calls herself a transgender girl/woman. If the sense of personal identity and gender is male, then the person calls himself a transgender boy/man.

The biology is not the issue here, it is the sense of personal identity and gender. What you're saying doesn't make sense because it'd mean perfectly okay men who have the sense of personal identity and gender of male but have very scarce bodily hair typical of males (for example no or scant beards) shouldn't be call males, because very scarce bodily hair is a female biological feature.

It's like when you go to your doctor and tell him your stomach is aching you. But he says no, that it's your brain paining you because MRI scan showed increased activity in the brain area responsible for pain. People would tell you what their personal and gender identity is when they are sure of it.

Transgender people are transgender people as a group. But this group is split into trans men, trans women, or people with gender identity disorder (aren't sure of their personal identity and gender, it can be scary). Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Trans people without a gender identity yet, well, we don't a label for them yet.

It's like this heterosexuals are heterosexuals as a group. But this group is split into bigot heterosexuals (who think they're elitist people with the only normal sexulaity), tolerant heterosexuals (who do not subscribe to the school of thought of bigot heterosexuals), or skeptic heterosexuals (those sitting on the fence or really do not mind). Bigot heterosexuals are bigots (like racial bigots, gender bigots and what have you), tolerant heterosexuals are tolerant humans, skeptic heterosexuals are skeptics (like agnostics...).

This is why I said I don't bother about the nuances. Because gender identity and sexual orientation is a very wide spectrum. And it's far easier to say all humans should be accorded X rights than, men should be accorded XY rights while women should be accorded XX rights. When you start doing that, then brute men would start asking for XYY rights while calm men should receive XXY rights. You see where this is going?

Current science is still playing catch-up. And the boundaries we set today could evaporate in 5 years time.

Like every movement, feminism has its stratas. Adichie just showed where her loyalties lie, and she's not the first person.

I'll encourage you to read this Vox article. I should warn you that it is lengthy. But considering that you have an open mind to learn more, it makes points that'd pique your attention.

PS: Male and female is not the only gender out there. Learn about the Third Gender officially recognized by the governments in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, called the Hijras. For starters, check the beautiful photos by Jan in the Daily Mail--http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4286052/The-gender-Hijras-forced-work-sex-trade.html.

PPS: Apologies if any part of my reply reads like an insult. That's certainly not my intention.

-Lord

LordAdam16:


You are a man of HALF-BAKED science. I mean no disrespect.

This is the definition of transgender



Transgenders are who they say they are, not what we call them. We've already called them transgenders (that's our label on them), they get the right to call themselves trans men or trans women. We don't get to tell them our label is the only label they should live by. If the sense of personal identity and gender is female, then the person calls herself a transgender girl/woman. If the sense of personal identity and gender is male, then the person calls himself a transgender boy/man.

The biology is not the issue here, it is the sense of personal identity and gender. What you're saying doesn't make sense because it'd mean perfectly okay men who have the sense of personal identity and gender of male but have very scarce bodily hair typical of males (for example no or scant beards) shouldn't be call males, because very scarce bodily hair is a female biological feature.

It's like when you go to your doctor and tell him your stomach is aching you. But he says no, that it's your brain paining you because MRI scan showed increased activity in the brain area responsible for pain. People would tell you what their personal and gender identity is when they are sure of it.

Transgender people are transgender people as a group. But this group is split into trans men, trans women, or people with gender identity disorder (aren't sure of their personal identity and gender, it can be scary). Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Trans people without a gender identity yet, well, we don't a label for them yet.

It's like this heterosexuals are heterosexuals as a group. But this group is split into bigot heterosexuals (who think they're elitist people with the only normal sexulaity), tolerant heterosexuals (who do not subscribe to the school of thought of bigot heterosexuals), or skeptic heterosexuals (those sitting on the fence or really do not mind). Bigot heterosexuals are bigots (like racial bigots, gender bigots and what have you), tolerant heterosexuals are tolerant humans, skeptic heterosexuals are skeptics (like agnostics...).

This is why I said I don't bother about the nuances. Because gender identity and sexual orientation is a very wide spectrum. And it's far easier to say all humans should be accorded X rights than, men should be accorded XY rights while women should be accorded XX rights. When you start doing that, then brute men would start asking for XYY rights while calm men should receive XXY rights. You see where this is going?

Current science is still playing catch-up. And the boundaries we set today could evaporate in 5 years time.

Like every movement, feminism has its stratas. Adichie just showed where her loyalties lie, and she's not the first person.

I'll encourage you to read this Vox article. I should warn you that it is lengthy. But considering that you have an open mind to learn more, it makes points that'd pique your attention.

PS: Male and female is not the only gender out there. Learn about the Third Gender officially recognized by the governments in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, called the Hijras. For starters, check the beautiful photos by Jan in the Daily Mail--http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4286052/The-gender-Hijras-forced-work-sex-trade.html.

PPS: Apologies if any part of my reply reads like an insult. That's certainly not my intention.

-Lord

When you say I am a HALF BAKED science person I was really expecting a real scientific rebuttal and not some discussion on culture. Let's even assume my understanding of identity and culture are erroneous does that in any way make my science half baked? Or is it that you couldn't hold back your disappointment and had to throw an irrational rebuttal with mixed colours?

My point is solely on transgender people that transitioned–better still, transsexual people. They can never be of that sense they transitioned to. Your doctor analogy misses the point because gender is biology and not psychology. A boy who thinks he's a woman even though he has every attribute of a boy is only deceiving himself. The half beard man too is an insufficient analogy because that's not the forte of masculinity.

Though some men and women often display some level of resemblance and characters opposite to both, the tostesterone and oestrogen and the organs are still strong determinant factors. For these transitioned people, a simple psychological reevaluation of self doesn't change the biological evidences. Kaitlyn Jenner is not a woman. He is simply a transexual. That's what matters to me. The nature of being is not a psychological thing.

Please, whatever submission you make back them up with their corresponding rebuttals. If you say a man is poorly baked in a field, explain it using his errors in that field. I cannot be said to be half baked in Maths but corrected using social science. You can also keep the extra details and I apologize too if this appears rude.

LordAdam16:
@sisisioge and @Sapiosexuality,
I usually do not concern myself with nuances on how minorities view each other, because in the end we are trying to fight unfair discrimination of all sorts.ka

Does Chimamanda have a point. Yes. Did she articulate it well. No.

I demur to that last sentence. Adichie's submissions were in fact communicated in the most acutely straightforward manner. That it was non-politically correct and void of the euphemistic and beguiling interlardings that are a commonplace in speeches/statements made by public figures doesn't qualify to adjudge her sentiments as "poorly articulated".

It's hardly any surprising, seeing as we live in a world wherein painfully bitter but unvarnished truths constitute a rare commodity, or as Oscar Wilde had deftly put it, "... the truth is rarely pure and never simple".

The only reason why Adichie seemed to have whipped up some dusts of controversy in the coliseum is because she voiced the stark truth to a crop of people long used to honey-coated truths and half-truths.

And that is the reason for all the brouhaha. For every transgender female who was better at masking her feminity as a male, there is a transgender female who didn't have that ability (aka the guys we like to call sissies). It's not like an option, gender identity is fluid.

And I can understand that someone like Caitlyn Jenner definitely did not have the same experiences as Sahhara (in the article). Caitly won an Olympic gold medal as a male and became the top dog of the Kardashian clan and even had daughters before succumbing to her trans nature. She was able to keep the facade for that long.

But why should Caitlyn Jenner be the ideal transgender and not someone like Sahhara?

Because feminists can be disingenuous.

There is a tribe in Cambodia, the Kreung, where girls who cross puberty are given huts called love huts where they are free to have sex with whomever they choose (Google Cambodia love huts). Unintended pregnancies are taken care of by the girl, her family, and whoever marries her eventually. There is no such thing as "slut," "olosho," or "LovePeddler." Divorce is non-existent. Girls have the right to choose whoever they want without discrimination.

There is a tribe in China, the Mosuo, that is often dubbed "China's last matrilineal society." Women are taught to be independent of men from day 1. They can function without men. Women lead their respective families, and women marry men not vice versa. Men leave their families to live with the women who marry them. Both genders have their roles in the society and there is virtually no discrimination.

Amongst the Sahrawi people in North Africa, divorced women who remarry have more grandiose parties than newly wed virgins. In fact, divorces are celebrated. Zero divorce stigma.

Now ask yourself, why should the oppressed women in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East be used to signify the ideal woman and not the Mosuo women? I'm pretty sure if Adichie was asked, she'll say the Mosuo and Kreung women are not women because they didn't have the experiences of women (aka herself).

What nonsense? From a supposed scholar?

The Mosuo women are women. The Trans women are women.

Gender discrimination affects more women in sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East, it doesn't mean women in other parts of the world shouldn't be accorded same rights or have less of a story to tell. Does Adichie even have a strong discriminatory experience when compared to women in some sub-Saharan African communities who genital mutilated at birth and forced to scavenge for food and water for miles while their men lazy about? Who and what gives her the right to say her story or experience is of more value than that of another person who identifies as a female?

It's like saying Caucasian racism against Asians is not racism because it isn't as bad as Caucasian racism against Africans. All is racism. Some more severe than others. But why make a racist-o-meter? What purpose does that achieve rather than make some people feel like elitists. More important than others.

Maybe one day, someone would say I should shut-up, that my opinion doesn't matter about sexuality, because I'm heterosexual and would never know what it means to be a homosexual.

It's shameful, when people fighting bigotry exhibit bigotry.

Trans women are women. Butch trans women may have it bad, while effeminate trans women may have it much worse, most times worse than even cisgendered women. It doesn't make one sub-category of women more deserving of rights or the female gender identity than another sub-category. Or that the experiences of one sub-category is more important than the experiences of another sub-category.

If cisgendered women want to feel great about themselves, they shouldn't use transgendered women as their footstool.

You guys however logical your argument are only opening Pandora's box. Very soon, blacks and jews will be claiming exclusive rights to being tagged as the victims of racism. That other groups don't have enough experience to call discrimination against them racism.

Then you guys would open a can of worm in the LGBTQ+ community, and that lesbians and gays would say they are more deserving of pity and rights than bisexuals and asexuals.

Feminists can take their high-handed exclusivist pompous selves to the stratosphere that their over-inflated egos is taking them. Don't dare step on transgendered women. The LGBTQ+ community is too busy to pander to the egos of ANYONE, no matter how learned. We really can't have a face-off between the feminist and LGBTQ+ communities. It'd be messy and take valuable time away from the core of what our movements are all about: eliminating unfair discrimination.

-Lord

The women of Musuo, Sahrawi, and Cambodia represent isolated cases, not the general norm. While it would be foolish to claim they are not women simply because they do not experience the indignities of unequality that are peculiar to the vast majority of the female demographic, it would also be a great disservice to common sense to conclude that the experience of such a teeny-weeny minority correctly denotes the universal status quo of women.

But then again, how is that or any of your other absurd and incongruous analogies cognate with the issue up for debate?
Precise case of reductio ad absurdum!
...

This division is not helping anyone. It's just favoring elitism, that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. That goes against everything that fundamental human rights stands for.

Adichie did not seek to foster division with her statement, she merely expounded on the living, breathing nuances existing betwixt the cis women comity and the trans women community.

Experience maketh a man. How then can we all in good conscience overtly acclaim that despite the disparity of life experiences of a cis woman and trans woman, that they are entirely one and the same?

Even the experiences of trans women who before their transition were heavily discriminated against for being androgynous cannot be compared to those faced by cis women - not because the experiences of trans women pale in comparison to those of cis women, but because they are independent of them and essentially unique. The uniquity of both trans and cis women is what Adichie is stressing about.

If trans women were entirely the same as cis women then don't you think they would just be called women rather than TRANS women?

P.S.: That you do not believe some men are more equal than others only further proves how much of a wool-gatherer you are. That would explain why you would resort to coating the face of reality with idealistic layers, like in your deliberate failure to agree trans women and cis women are in fact different in some minor ways.

By the way, a man called Jeremy Bentham once described such life-sized logical misfiring to be an ''anarchic fallacy".

masonkz:


While you may be right, most of these trans women were already seeing themselves as wholly women prior to them transiting, hence their anger at Adichie. We all know what ascribes to men that act like women in our society and the persecution they go through. So no, it's not entirely same privilege that they enjoyed prior to transiting.

I think CNA cleared the air already.

And to a large extent I'm very much with her on that one. Though trams women might have had challenges prior to becoming women, it's still not the same as what cis women face - in terms of rights and other thing.

Femme guys yeah! - To a large extent I can relate to this first hand - even if not in the total sense of effeminacy. But it still doesn't mirror the injustice women face in a lot of climes.

DarkRebel101:


I demur to that last sentence. Adichie's submissions were in fact communicated in the most acutely straightforward manner. That it was non-politically correct and void of the euphemistic and beguiling interlardings that are a commonplace in speeches/statements made by public figures doesn't qualify to adjudge her sentiments as "poorly articulated".

It's hardly any surprising, seeing as we live in a world wherein painfully bitter but unvarnished truths constitute a rare commodity, or as Oscar Wilde had deftly put it, "... the truth is rarely pure and never simple".

The only reason why Adichie seemed to have whipped up some dusts of controversy in the coliseum is because she voiced the stark truth to a crop of people long used to honey-coated truths and half-truths.



The women of Musuo, Sahrawi, and Cambodia represent isolated cases, not the general norm. While it would be foolish to claim they are not women simply because they do not experience the indignities of unequality that are peculiar to the vast majority of the female demographic, it would also be a great disservice to common sense to conclude that the experience of such a teeny-weeny minority correctly denotes the universal status quo of women.

But then again, how is that or any of your other absurd and incongruous analogies cognate with the issue up for debate?
Precise case of reductio ad absurdum!
...


Adichie did not seek to foster division with her statement, she merely expounded on the living, breathing nuances existing betwixt the cis women comity and the trans women community.

Experience maketh a man. How then can we all in good conscience overtly acclaim that despite the disparity of life experiences of a cis woman and trans woman, that they are entirely one and the same?

Even the experiences of trans women who before their transition were heavily discriminated against for being androgynous cannot be compared to those faced by cis women - not because the experiences of trans women pale in comparison to those of cis women, but because they are independently of them and essentially unique. The uniquity of both trans and cis women is what Adichie is stressing about.

If trans women were entirely the same as cis women then don't you think they would just be called women rather than TRANS women?

P.S.: That you do not believe some men are more equal than others only further proves how much of a wool-gatherer you are. That would explain why you would resort to coating the face of reality with idealistic layers, like in your deliberate failure to agree trans women and cis women are in fact different in some minor ways.

By the way, a man called Jeremy Bentham once described such life-sized logical misfiring to be an ''anarchic fallacy".

This was my position before I derailed. I agree with this. We cannot honestly say they are the same. Their experiences are different. But this doesn't mean their difference, as transgender women, is not marked by struggles and unfair treatment. Adichie's fault was ditching Political Correctness.

HumanistMike:


School as you know it was invented by men.

Ask yourself why it is called Bachelor's degree, Master's degree. Why not Bachelorette's degree?

The structure of education as you know it was put in place by men. Very bright men. It was a cult in those days. The proceeds of their studies and experiments were kept secret by the men involved. It was like a group of magicians keeping their tricks to themselves.

As time went on, they began to let other men join. By Other Men, I men mean not in their group (cult). Later, the doors were open to all men but only men. Then some women were allowed. Then all women. Then some blacks. Then all backs. Then everyone! In fact, even till date, there are some scientific/psychological knowledges that are still kept secret by those in the know.

Open your mind.

Who do u think invented physics?
Chemistry?
Geometry?
Astrology?
Medicine?
Engineering?
Law?
Government?
Gynaecology?
Christianity?
Islam?
Budism?
Rocket science?
Etc.


Name it.

To sum it up, education and religion started as a cult. The initiation requirement especially for education just got watered down to oblivion over time. The requirements for religion is still tight. For example, there will not be a Female or Black Pope, even in a 100years, just as they can't be a white Ooni or Oba or Igwe or a Male Minister of Women Affairs! Open your mind!

To put it in another way, your village ruler has a core tradition that is open to only male members of his inner ultra-secret council. No one else is allowed to understand the proceedings and membership is by blood/parentage. That's how education started my friend.

Do some research and enlighten yourself.

Keep quiet, boy. The heft of your ignorance boggles the mind.

School is not the same thing as education. Education is as informal as it is formal. Typical Nigerian syndrome.

If you had said that men built the first institutions of learning, you would have been correct. But to claim that men invented education? That is just outrightly moronic.

LOL. You even claimed men invented physics and chemistry! What a befuddled ignoramus!

Sapiosexuality:
This was my position before I derailed. I agree with this. We cannot honestly say they are the same. Their experiences are different. But this doesn't mean their difference, as transgender women, is not marked by struggles and unfair treatment. Adichie's fault was ditching Political Correctness.

And where has all these political correctness gotten us?

Sapiosexuality:
When you say I am a HALF BAKED science person I was really expecting a real scientific rebuttal and not some discussion on culture. Let's even assume my understanding of identity and culture are erroneous does that in any way make my science half baked? Or is it that you couldn't hold back your disappointment and had to throw an irrational rebuttal with mixed colours?

My point is solely on transgender people that transitioned–better still, transsexual people. They can never be of that sense they transitioned to. Your doctor analogy misses the point because gender is biology and not psychology. A boy who thinks he's a woman even though he has every attribute of a boy is only deceiving himself. The half beard man too is an insufficient analogy because that's not the forte of masculinity.

Though some men and women often display some level of resemblance and characters opposite to both, the tostesterone and oestrogen and the organs are still strong determinant factors. For these transitioned people, a simple psychological reevaluation of self doesn't change the biological evidences. Kaitlyn Jenner is not a woman. He is simply a transexual. That's what matters to me. The nature of being is not a psychological thing.

Please, whatever submission you make back them up with their corresponding rebuttals. If you say a man is poorly baked in a field, explain it using his errors in that field. I cannot be said to be half baked in Maths but corrected using social science. You can also keep the extra details and I apologize too if this appears rude.

Dude the difference between transgender and transsexual is that a transsexual feels so strongly about their gender identity that they decide to match their sexual organs with their sense of personal and gender identity. So your point on biology cannot be exclusive to transsexuals. It concerns both transgenders and transsexuals. Which is why the next sentences you make are embarrassing fallacies and completely anti-science.

So, I'm not even going to waste time debating with you.

I'm just going to leave this study about transsexuality in identical twins as a way to prove that there is a genetic influence for this identity.

That's to explicitly show the fallacy in this statement of yours:

A boy who thinks he's a woman even though he has every attribute of a boy is only deceiving himself.

The genetic influences for gender identity and presence of reproductive organs are not the same. And every major scientific committee agrees on this. Use a simple Google search to search for proof. I will no longer spoon feed you, since you've shown yourself to be a complete waste of time.

I'm sorry I even called your science half-baked. It's not even science. It's fallacious conjectures of your heavily uninformed mind.

Read and understand--https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-willpower/201208/is-your-mind-separate-your-body. I'm not even sure you can read and understand, because I shared a Vox article on the subject and it you learned nothing from it.

And so I refuse to discuss further when you don't even understand the rudiments of gender identity and sexual orientation.

-Lord

DarkRebel101:


Keep quiet, boy. The heft of your ignorance boggles the mind.

School is not the same thing as education. Education is as informal as it is formal. Typical Nigerian syndrome.

If you had said that men built the first places of learning, you would have been correct. But to claim that men invented education? That is just plain moronic.

LOL. You even said men invented physics and chemistry! What a befuddled ignoramus!

You never came across as bright but I still gave you a chance. You disappoint me and it's pleasing.

My 2nd paragraph in the post in question was to alert you to the link with the gender connotations of the certificates titles. You were supposed to know that was the backdrop of the post but, you are you.

People that jump to insults to prove a point have lost the point. They insult and throw tantrums as a last ditch effort to save some pride points they lost in the argument. I won't indulge you because I learn nothing from you. You are wash-rinse-repeat.

Here is my rendering of you;
A 5ft2in under 23 kid with a face displeasing to the eyes so much so that you have to bend over backwards and spread cheeks for female approval reasons.

In any case, nature has dealt you a bad hand that you are forced to be a captain save-a-hoe just to give your right palm a break.

Lucky you, you've got some *education*. Not to worry though, soon those GRE word play will become a bore and you'll type like your feminist Master Adichie. Even with them GRE, SAT, TOEFL etc paperworks in my academic certificates file, I still use English this way. In other words, eventually you'll leave those fancy words and communicate the way the Press Sec of Trump does. The simple way. When you get to that level, know you maturity level then is my maturity level now.

By the way kid, the word EDUCATION I used in the last paragraph is indicative of the one your mum gave you.

One more thing, the paragraph I referenced for the EDUCATION word is in this very post. As in 2 paragraphs above this very one. I have to spell it out because you turned out to be kinda slow. Wish I could draw an arrow.

I've asterisked the word in the paragraph in question.

I used 2 asterisks - one before, one after - to make it idiot proof. You were in special class in school, weren't you?

I doubt kid will catch my drift in the last 5 paragraphs.

Go get laid, dump a girl, steal candy from a kid, play a video game and use Ronaldo to score a free kick, I mean do something to get your pride up so you can finally pull your head out of a female's ass.

Small pikin.