Wonder Woman (spoiler thread) - skip to pg. 14 for actual movie discussion

[Egalitarianism Always]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

So...I am right in saying that it's a state-specific law and isn't enforced the same way in every place? And that it certainly isn't particularly normal in most states to restrict all gender discrimination? Good to know. 

Dude, it's two showings at one movie theater. I doubt seriously that the Alamo Draft House is now part of the oligarchy, and reject outright that a movie theater that is going to have a Clowns-Only showing for IT is also using its vast power to control humanity's upward mobility.

Sweet! I'm guessing the Wonder Woman topic is when your self-entitled abuse sensor went off and you had to act?

Quote

That is a state specific law, and specific to certain areas. Heck, in  the US it's illegal in some places to drink unless you belong to a club, so you have to buy a membership in order to drink. 

Certain places?  Like in more places than not as state or local law.  Maybe you're not aware of this, but I doubt that as you must be aware of the civil rights movement.

I love Wonder Woman I love the idea of people as people FIRST and FOREMOST which is EXACTLY what Wonder Woman is all about.  Not whatever you think it's about.  The way people like you talk is in simplistic cliches of durr man and durr woman, you never advanced past 7 years old.  Wonder Woman is a literary figure for ALL of  humanity, I know divisive people aren't going to like that, I doubt you even know XX individuals always receive 2000 genes from their mother and 200 from their father.  Your notions of 'man' and 'woman' are hang overs from the bible or maybe not even a hangover.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Traveller between Worlds said:

Certain places?  Like in more places than not as state or local law.  Maybe you're not aware of this, but I doubt that as you must be aware of the civil rights movement.

So...it is legal in some places, and illegal in others, yes? You're aware that it isn't a federal law that requires this, right? Law isn't a majority rules thing where if a law is valid in some places and not others all places are obligated to use it.

And most importantly, that it isn't the law of Austin, Texas, right? You get that?

1 hour ago, Traveller between Worlds said:

I love Wonder Woman I love the idea of people as people FIRST and FOREMOST which is EXACTLY what Wonder Woman is all about.

For you, that's awesome. For others, it isn't. The cool thing about fictional beings is that they're kind of what people want them to be about and are special for them and them alone. 

1 hour ago, Traveller between Worlds said:

The way people like you talk is in simplistic cliches of durr man and durr woman, you never advanced past 7 years old.  Wonder Woman is a literary figure for ALL of  humanity, I know divisive people aren't going to like that,

I'm really not seeing how this has anything to do with a theater in Texas deciding to have special showings for only women. You do realize that this theater has, at the literal same time, showings of Wonder Woman for anyone, right?

1 hour ago, Traveller between Worlds said:

I doubt you even know XX individuals always receive 2000 genes from their mother and 200 from their father. 

You're right, because it's completely bullshit. Each typical human has 46 chromosomes - 23 pairs - and when an egg is fertilized you get a set of 23 from the mother and a set of 23 from the father. You don't get 2000 genes from the mother and only 200 from the father; at best you might get a smidgen fewer genes with a Y chromosome (as it is not as long as an X), but the other 22 are the typical size. 

Now, perhaps you made a typo, in which case you're arguing at about a high school biology level. In any case, I do indeed know that the genetic material for a man and a woman is about 95% the same, though with genetic expression, epigenetics, and environmental cues how that ends up actually behaving is very different.

1 hour ago, Traveller between Worlds said:

Your notions of 'man' and 'woman' are hang overs from the bible or maybe not even a hangover.

I'm guessing you're attempting to do something really fucked up with birth and assigned and chosen gender identity, but trust me - it's really not going well for you right now. Ultimately I (and the Alamo Draft House) don't care if you are genderqueer and choose to go as a woman or you identify as a woman and choose to go as that or even if you simply dress up as a woman and go that way; they're not checking your birth certificate for your birth gender. 

If you are or identify as a woman, you get to buy tickets to these shows, and watch with other women a movie about an iconic feminist superhero, and celebrate it with those other women in a way that might be a smidgen more meaningful than simply seeing it in a normal theater. It might be worse, too. But it'll be different, and it's okay to sometimes do things differently for people who choose to, provided it isn't particularly harming anyone else.

Which this isn't.

[fionwe1987]

2 hours ago, Traveller between Worlds said:

I doubt you even know XX individuals always receive 2000 genes from their mother and 200 from their father. 

I'm a cell biologist. This is a load of crap.

[Egalitarianism Always]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So...it is legal in some places, and illegal in others, yes? You're aware that it isn't a federal law that requires this, right? Law isn't a majority rules thing where if a law is valid in some places and not others all places are obligated to use it.

You tried to say the civil rights movements gains in law only apply in certain areas "like drinking requires membership in a club" as if it is a bizarre thing, when it is nothing like that at all.  From that act of dishonesty you're trying to escape, it's called digging a hole for yourself.

Then you're asking me if I know there isn't any federal law that requires access to all, well as you're asking me what I've already said and in fact I was wrong, there is federal law:

U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 21 -- Civil Rights Title 42, Chapter 21 of the U.S. Code prohibits discrimination against persons based on age, disability, gender, race, national origin, and religion (among other things) in a number of settings -- including education, employment, access to businesses and buildings, federal services, and more. Chapter 21 is where a number of federal acts related to civil rights have been codified -- including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.

(My bolding.)

So repeating what I have already said to you and asking me if I know it when I was incorrect makes you look very foolish indeed.

 

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And most importantly, that it isn't the law of Austin, Texas, right? You get that?

Quote

But non-essential services and private institutions can (and do) discriminate all the time. Clubs are perfectly allowed to have men or women only memberships, and this has been held up again and again. Institutions like the Boy Scouts are allowed to have only boys. Dance places can have ladies-only nights. You can sue if you want, but the amount of case law against it is absurdly high.

U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21 › Subchapter II › § 2000a. 42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation ... (a) Equal access to advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined ... L. 88–352, title II, § 201, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat.

So as you can see denying equal access to advantages and accommodations is federal law and that applies to Austin Texas, and to discriminate based on gender, sex or religion would be a federal crime.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

For you, that's awesome. For others, it isn't. The cool thing about fictional beings is that they're kind of what people want them to be about and are special for them and them alone. 

That's my point not yours, yours is a dichotomous man and woman relic from the bible division, my position accepts many ideas, it doesn't accept extremist positions which then try and hide in relativism.  Relativism in the scientific sense is the only sense, as it is backed by scientific research like XY individuals having 2000 genes from their mother and 200 from their father.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm really not seeing how this has anything to do with a theater in Texas deciding to have special showings for only women. You do realize that this theater has, at the literal same time, showings of Wonder Woman for anyone, right?

Because it's federally illegal and based on religious extreme ideas of what a man and a woman are.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You're right, because it's completely bullshit. Each typical human has 46 chromosomes - 23 pairs - and when an egg is fertilized you get a set of 23 from the mother and a set of 23 from the father. You don't get 2000 genes from the mother and only 200 from the father; at best you might get a smidgen fewer genes with a Y chromosome (as it is not as long as an X), but the other 22 are the typical size. 

Haha it's complete bullshit? You really need to go read up on the X chromosome and the Y chromosome.  The Y chromosome lost most of it's genetic material 150 million years ago, the Y chromosome is 33% the size of the X chromosome, did you

 

This is most conservative estimates for gene size on each of the X and Y chromosomes:

Quote

Because researchers use different approaches to predict the number of genes on each chromosome, the estimated number of genes varies. The Y chromosome likely contains 50 to 60 genes that provide instructions for making proteins.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/Y

 

Quote

Because researchers use different approaches to predict the number of genes on each chromosome, the estimated number of genes varies. The X chromosome likely contains 800 to 900 genes that provide instructions for making proteins.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/X

 

That's NIH, The National Institutes of Health it is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and public health research. Going by their established research the difference would be even greater than the 200 Y genes to 2000 X genes.

 

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Now, perhaps you made a typo, in which case you're arguing at about a high school biology level. In any case, I do indeed know that the genetic material for a man and a woman is about 95% the same, though with genetic expression, epigenetics, and environmental cues how that ends up actually behaving is very different.

Sorry but you don't even know difference in how many genes the X and Y chromosomes carry.  The issue with epigenetics and environment is it's shaped by social pressure, 'environmental cues' you mean social cues when environment is something completely separate from social pressures (pressure can be good and bad, chosen and not chosen.)

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm guessing you're attempting to do something really fucked up with birth and assigned and chosen gender identity, but trust me - it's really not going well for you right now. Ultimately I (and the Alamo Draft House) don't care if you are genderqueer and choose to go as a woman or you identify as a woman and choose to go as that or even if you simply dress up as a woman and go that way; they're not checking your birth certificate for your birth gender. 

Trust you? haha, I've established that you're ignorant and arrogant.  You don't even know what being homo sapien sapien means, you have again either idiotic simplistic bible notions of 'man' and 'woman' and/or idiotic simplistic historical shaped social pressured notions of 'man' and 'woman'.  You have the divisory mindset, you know that's a big indicator for being in the closet.  You're talking for the Alamo Draft House as a bible bashing moron, I'm sure they're happy for your scientifically illiterate support.  Don't talk about queer people in any kind of superior tone, it's a very strong indicator for your insecurity.  Whatever the reason for your attitude embrace your truth, I'd love to see the lasso of truth used on you Kalbear.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you are or identify as a woman, you get to buy tickets to these shows, and watch with other women a movie about an iconic feminist superhero, and celebrate it with those other women in a way that might be a smidgen more meaningful than simply seeing it in a normal theater. It might be worse, too. But it'll be different, and it's okay to sometimes do things differently for people who choose to, provided it isn't particularly harming anyone else.

Which this isn't.

Women who receive a dominant X chromosome with 800-900 genes from either her father or mother, and a up to 25% dominant genes from the other X chromosome inherited from the other parent.  Your notions of what a woman is are archaic and as I said come from the bible.

You want a sick society, play the division game, the Oligarchy grows stronger and stronger, more wars, scientific advancements held back and denied the world.

[Egalitarianism Always]

1 hour ago, fionwe1987 said:

I'm a cell biologist. This is a load of crap.

NIH research (like you even know what the NIH is puts the difference as being even greater), 800-900 genes from the X chromosome to 50-60 genes in the Y chromosome, see above for links.  Absolutely disgusting behaviour lying about being a scientist, I do love exposing liars though haha.  You're 30 years old, yuk, if you were under 21 it's forgivable, as an adult you've proven yourself as an abuser.

[Relic]

1 hour ago, Traveller between Worlds said:

You want a sick society, play the division game, the Oligarchy grows stronger and stronger, more wars, scientific advancements held back and denied the world.

Errrrrrr.

A - You're rude, you've got your head shoved firmly up your own ass, and i suspect you've been here before under a different name.

B - Men commit 82% of all violent crimes in the USA. 82 fucking percent.  Even though they make up over half the population women commit 14% of homicides in the USA. Rape? Also a man's game. So no, men and women are not the same and if a woman wants a well deserved break from toxic masculinity to watch a movie about a female superhero she damn well deserves it. 

[red snow]

Another thing worth keeping in mind is that while the Y chromosome is a hell of a lot smaller than the X chromosome there is this thing called "dosage compensation" which balances out the inequality. Different animals tackle it differently - male flies double the expression of their sole X chromosome. Female mammals inactivate one of their X chromosomes. It always fascinates me how something as intrinsic as sex has evolved in surprisingly different ways - male birds have homozygous chromosomes ZZ vs female ZW (where the Z is the bigger chromosome) and the variety of ways they circumvent the inblance of gene dosage. I always feel like that's the kind of thing you'd sort out once early on.

But the key thing is the expression profile of genes and not the number of them. I once read/heard at conference (can't remember which) the claim that the main difference between a mouse and a human is the way in which the genes are spread across the chromosomes eg you could cut up a mouse genome, rearrange it in the same order as a human and you'd probably get a human. Apes have 24 chromosomes, we have 23 but that appears to be because two of our chromosomes fused into one. It could be the underlying difference as opposed to us have a range of additional (or reduced) number of genes.

As gene arrangement affects expression it again highlights how the expression levels (and where/when they are expressed) are much more important than how many.

It is true that the mammalian Y chromosome is "degenerating" over time. This makes sense though as it's only function is to specify male sexual identity. Anything that may have been useful from the Y chromosome's previous life as an autosome has been transferred onto other chromosomes (it would be a bit stupid to have useful genes for both genders only present in males). I vaguely recall there being a paper with some evidence suggesting the Y chromosome has gained genes from other autosomes too (which would also make sense if said gene is only required in males). Worms (C.elegans) don't even bother with a chromosome for specifying sex - if they only have one X as opposed to two they become male (although they are hermaphrodites by default so a different system).

Another thing to highlight is that more genes doesn't equal better or even more genes being expressed. An "extra" gene could well be a repressor that switches off or reduces the expression of potentially hundreds of other genes. Or it could be a transcription factor increasing the expression of hundreds of genes and when and where it is expressed.

In summary it's really fucking complex and can't be boiled down to paragraph quotes from papers. Anyone claiming to think they have it all worked out is as likely to not have a clue as those who openly admit they don't understand it. I know enough to know we don't have it worked out yet (we'll get there with research/time).

Wonder Woman is out in the UK now - I'll probably see it over the weekend.

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 hour ago, Relic said:

 

B - Men commit 82% of all violent crimes in the USA. 82 fucking percent.  Even though they make up over half the population women commit 14% of homicides in the USA. Rape? Also a man's game. So no, men and women are not the same and if a woman wants a well deserved break from toxic masculinity to watch a movie about a female superhero she damn well deserves it. 

Mostly against other men.. so maybe men should be allowed in, to hide from other men. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Austin Texas Mayor Steven Adler pretty much owns this topic:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.kvue.com/amp//news/local/adler-respond-all-female-wonder-woman-screening-email/444672193

From the link:

"I hope every man will boycott Austin and do what he can to diminish Austin and to cause damage to the city’s image. The theater that pandered to the sexism typical of women will, I hope, regret it’s decision. The notion of a woman hero is a fine example of women’s eagerness to accept the appearance of achievement without actual achievement. Women learn from an early age to value make-up, that it’s OK to pretend that you are greater than you actually are. Women pretend they do not know that only men serve in combat because they are content to have an easier ride. Women gladly accept gold medals at the Olympics for coming in 10th and competing only against the second class of athletes. Name something invented by a woman! Achievements by the second rate gender pale in comparison to virtually everything great in human history was accomplished by men, not women. If Austin does not host a men only counter event, I will never visit Austin and will welcome it’s deteriorati on [sic]. And I will not forget that Austin is best known for Charles Whitman. Does Austin stand for gender equality or for kissing up to women? Don’t bother to respond. I already know the answer. I do not hate women. I hate their rampant hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of the “women’s movement.” Women do not want gender equality; they want more for women. Don’t bother to respond because I am sure your cowardice will generate nothing worth reading.

Richard A. Ameduri"

On Wednesday, Adler's office said that he sent the following response: 

"Dear Mr. Amenduri,

I am writing to alert you that your email account has been hacked by an unfortunate and unusually hostile individual. Please remedy your account’s security right away, lest this person’s uninformed and sexist rantings give you a bad name. After all, we men have to look out for each other!

Can you imagine if someone thought that you didn’t know women could serve in our combat units now without exclusion? What if someone thought you didn’t know that women invented medical syringes, life rafts, fire escapes, central and solar heating, a war-time communications system for radio-controlling torpedoes that laid the technological foundations for everything from Wi-Fi to GPS, and beer? And I hesitate to imagine how embarrassed you’d be if someone thought you were upset that a private business was realizing a business opportunity by reserving one screening this weekend for women to see a superhero movie.

[red snow]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Austin Texas Mayor Steven Adler pretty much owns this topic:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.kvue.com/amp//news/local/adler-respond-all-female-wonder-woman-screening-email/444672193

After reading that I was sort of hoping the original email was indeed the result of the guy's account being hacked!

[fionwe1987]

9 hours ago, Traveller between Worlds said:

NIH research (like you even know what the NIH is puts the difference as being even greater), 800-900 genes from the X chromosome to 50-60 genes in the Y chromosome, see above for links.  Absolutely disgusting behaviour lying about being a scientist, I do love exposing liars though haha.  You're 30 years old, yuk, if you were under 21 it's forgivable, as an adult you've proven yourself as an abuser.

What, you googled NIH and that's suppossed to impress us?? Lol. 

Your total genetic material is spread over 46 chromosomes. 23 from your father, 23 from your mother, whether you are an XX OR XY individual. The X does indeed have more genes than the Y, but your statement was:

I doubt you even know XX individuals always receive 2000 genes from their mother and 200 from their father. 

XX individuals get one X from their father and one from their mother, so they get exactly the same number of genes from either parent, as the other 44 chromosomes are also similarly sourced, one of each pair from each parent.

Your claim was utterly nonsensical, based on an incorrect understanding of reproductive biology that a child could have easily corrected you on.

[fionwe1987]

7 hours ago, red snow said:

I once read/heard at conference (can't remember which) the claim that the main difference between a mouse and a human is the way in which the genes are spread across the chromosomes eg you could cut up a mouse genome, rearrange it in the same order as a human and you'd probably get a human.

Not true. If you look at just genetic regions, mice and humans have only about 60% similarity. Take in the intergenic and regulatory and so-called "junk" regions, and the difference is even more stark. Many of the non-genetic regions play a huge role in gene regulation in very complex ways. So no, simple gene rearrangement will not give you a new species, and certainly won't convert one species into another.

The rest of what you said is correct. The second X in females doesn't, in fact, express most of its genes. The ones it does are the ones which have homologues in the male Y, so the dosage will still be equal. Interestingly, in mammalian females, which X gets silenced (the technical term is X-inactivation) is different in each cell. So in one half of female cells, only the maternal X is silenced, in the other half, the paternal X is silenced. Except for individuals with skewed inactivation, females in the X-Y system are all thus genetic chimeras, and the males are not.

What effect this chimerism has, especially in that most complex of organs, the brain, isn't yet fully known. But whatever they are, they aren't staggering, or anything. Subtle differences in the way in which the same effect is achieved is more what you see, rather than stark contrasts in effects and behavior. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I didn't realize that the director of this film (Patty Jenkins) also directed the Chalize Theron Indie flick Monster. Kind of interesting in that if memory serves there was some sort of MRA bitching centered around that film as well. Came across an interesting article featuring the director in The Hollywood Reporter last night...

 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/complex-gender-politics-wonder-woman-movie-1008259?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[Zorral]

This troll outrage is beyond pathetic.  Why not give all that pseudo outrage to the Manchester, England terrorist whose hideous decision and act has prevented Wonder Woman's premiere there -- nobody can see it!  O - wait, that terrorist targets were girls . . . .

Movie theaters are rented for private viewings -- parties, charities etc. -- all the time.  The proceeds of these screenings go to Planned Parenthood.

There is not a single person in the world who will be prevented from seeing this comic book on screen by these women only screenings.

Whereas women everywhere pay more for a blouse to be cleaned at a dry cleaners or laundry than a man's shirt.  The same for hair cuts, you name it.  Yet nobody seems to mind that . . . .

 

[dbunting]

Wow. I have been following this topic for a few days now and what the hell? Who knew a WW topic would generate such animosity?

 

For the record, I am not a scientist, far from it, didn't really care for it in school. I am also not religious. I don't hate religions i just don't believe in them. So does my opinion of what a man and woman is count? Last I knew the being born with dangly parts between the legs was a male and the being born with the vajayjay was a female.

My feelings towards the movie based on the previews has been luke warm but I do plan to see it, if not this weekend then for sure next.

[Kalbear]

I especially like how discrimination went from 'this business must accept people based on sex' to 'this business cannot have any areas at any time designated by sex', meaning that any bathrooms based on sex are now also against the law.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

This troll outrage is beyond pathetic.  Why not give all that pseudo outrage to the Manchester, England terrorist whose hideous decision and act has prevented Wonder Woman's premiere there -- nobody can see it!  O - wait, that terrorist targets were girls . . . .

 

What on earth are you talking about.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/27/man-buys-movie-ticket-breaks-internet/

So some guy bought a ticket for the womens only screening and people lost their minds.

* please note that was the first result on google , its not a website I endorse or read, its clearly trash. However, I do wonder what the situation would have been if the screening was open to white women only. Just one night, you can only buy tickets if you are a white woman. Why would anyone complain about that?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/27/man-buys-movie-ticket-breaks-internet/

So some guy bought a ticket for the womens only screening and people lost their minds.

* please note that was the first result on google , its not a website I endorse or read, its clearly trash. However, I do wonder what the situation would have been if the screening was open to white women only. Just one night, you can only buy tickets if you are a white woman. Why would anyone complain about that?

Again, it's not just one night; it's one (and now two) showings. 

Seriously, dude - why does this upset you so very much? Do you barge into women's bathrooms and declare that it is discrimination? Do you go hang out at local Pakistani gatherings and get super offended when they ask you to politely leave after you require that they speak to you in English?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

No, honestly I don't care about the screening. But I, and I guess most of these ' man babies' are well aware that if the situation was reversed, if for instance there was a screening a few years ago for the Dark Knight that only men were allowed into, and women were out right banned from watching, then things would get nuclear. There would be protests against the movie, Nolan himself would be hanged and the Patriarchy would be blamed for the whole thing. 

It's the reaction to the reaction that interests and annoys me most, the outrage at the outrage.