Hey Veeky Forums, had a question. Have there been any published peer-reviewed studies regarding multiple genders and whatnot (for or against). Not looking to get anyone fired up. I'm just having a hard time finding evidence that isn't a little sensationalist or provided by someone without a dog in the debate.
If anyone could help me out that would be awesome. I really don't have an opinion one way or another but I don't want to form one without scientific evidence. Thanks Veeky Forums.
Sorry, after I re-reading my post it may have been a little vague. I mean is there anything out there supporting the idea of gender fluidity/non-binary status/etc? Just curious if there was a biological foundation or is it more psychological. Thanks again.
Tbh isnt the biology irrelevant to when people identify as gender fluid?
Xy is diacrete but many other variablea that define sex are continuous. Obvi there is intersex too and other aberrations. I feel like it is better characterised aa discrete.
Unfortunately, gender disorders fall into the realm of psychology, which is a non-science. Psychology is basically on the same level as mystic shaman and newage gurus.
When it comes right down to it, what a gender is basically just comes down to semantics and opinions, not fact.
Sorry, so do you mean XX vs XY with each being discrete variables? And so male vs female as discrete rather than continuous?
I guess this is what I was wondering: if this is distinctly a psychological issue or if it has actual (not imagined) biological roots.
Genders are bullshit
You go by sex. If you lack Y chromosomes you're female if not you're male
You should probably include an exception for genetic mutants with XXY or some such. Even though they're an extremely tiny fraction of the population and generally don't have anything whatsoever to do with the "transgender" community, people like to point out these genetic disorders as a counter to chromosomal arguments.
Nah XXY is still male
Yeah . I think discrete functionally.
That seems like an exceptionally arbitrary position.
No, individuals with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) are considered male
Not if female is lacking y.
sry -> male
that's sex
gender is whatever
Well, let's do a simple exercise. Draw a diagram of human lifecycle.
So would you say gender is more psychologically based whereas sex is strictly biological?
Lol so without actually doing this, is your point that the only reproductively-capable pair is XX and XY, therefore making it the only evolutionarily-legitimate set of genders?
I dont see how thats so if its a mutation with dysfunctional problems.
This makes sense user.
not a clue, I always thought gender = sex
they're different, gender is fluid as in it exists in the liquid state
there's a lot of study going into its convection and flow behaviors atm but that's more Tumblrdynamics
No, because identifying as something doesn't influence reality except when it comes to that person's identity in that person's mind.
Yeah but im saying people dont identifyas tranny due to biology
The answer is simple: gender is a spook. If you want to find studies on gender, you'll need to go into sociology and psychology papers since the concept of sex is biological, whereas the concept of gender is social.
Was the term "gender" hijacked by the lgbt fags?
not a dichotomy as gender and sex almost completely overlap across time and across cultures
Gender is more culturally based. There are biological other genders like intersex, but if you want to research it you will have to do so from an anthropological perspective. Look up third+ genders in other cultures. I think some Pacific Island cultures have a very distinct third gender.
I’m pretty sure anyone with the Y chromosome presents sexually as male.
Certain disorders involving chimerism can result in hermaphroditism, but that’s slightly different since that person actually has a mix of female and male cells rather than a single uniform genotype.
No.
You can be XY and present as female if Androgen insensitive / you don’t make the androgens properly etc they are probably fairly common compaired to other intersex people. It is possible some people’s developing brains are more or less androgen sensitive or are exposed to the wrong amounts or at the wrong time in the womb ...it is something to follow up if you are interested.
No, there's a .99 correlation between biological sex, "gender identification", behavioural mannerism, propensity towards certain activities, and so on.
It was proven long ago that boys ARE boys and WILL be boys, and then a bunch of reality denying hacks came along and fucked with the whole thing to push their progressive agenda.
Anyone who has genetic abnormalities from MALE and FEMALE is not a third gender, they are a DEFECT in the natural BINARY reproductive cycle of MALES and FEMALES.
Trannies are men who cut their dicks off, have to keep a plastic dildo in their urethra to stop their wound from healing up, injected silicon where their pecs should be, and got facial surgery to try and EMUALTE SEXUALLY DIMOROHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A WOMAN.
If you can't handle what everyone knows as a plain as day fact, please fuck off back to your Tumblr (((echo chamber))).
"Gender" in the context of personal representation/identity that differs from biological sex, is more of a question for social science and psychology, but neither of those disciplines are going to give you a rigorous, reproducible explanation for why people identify the way they do. They simply don't have the tools to do it.
Why does a person who is biologically male associate much more strongly with the social norms and appearance of a biological female? Maybe it's hormonal, maybe it's social, maybe it's the result of an infinitely complicated web of experiences that culminate in brain chemistry that works that way.
But there's lots of stuff that we can't understand for the same reasons. Homosexuality isn't perfectly explainable through biology. Same goes for foot fetishism, people who like football, or kids that won't eat brussel sprouts. Brain is far too complicated to tie specific aspects of human behavior to specific biological causes. At least for now.
What's more important, which falls out of the realm of science, is that you should strive to treat people well. Transgender people have dysphoria associated with the gender they were assigned at birth, and their choice to identify and present themselves in another way is effectively a treatment for that dysphoria. Unless they're being physically violent towards you, you ought to use their chosen pronoun, since I promise it means a lot more to their own well-being than it does to you. That is an arbitrarily small sacrifice made to significantly improve another person's life.
On another note, the obsession over tying the word 'gender' to 'sex' is meaningless. People who use the term 'gender' in the academic, social, 21st century context mean something that's completely different than biological sex. You can argue that gender ~should~ be the word for biological sex, but ultimately words are invented and change, and their meaning is whatever society agrees upon.
>No, there's a .99 correlation between biological sex, "gender identification", behavioural mannerism, propensity towards certain activities, and so on.
Likewise, there is a .99 correlation between which chromosomes you have and which genitals you bear. But there are intersex individuals who have both because of various genetic causes. Does the fact that there's a .99 correlation mean that those intersex individuals do, in fact, only have a penis or a vagina?
I know you're trying to appeal to the whole 'science and math is fact' angle, but you're actually abusing it here. Highly bimodal distributions do exist. There are extreme outliers which do represent real phenomena.
I guess that's what I'm getting at though. Since it does seem to be more of a matter covered under the umbrella if "social science", are there any peer-reviewed publications out there that are definitively for or against gender being on a spectrum?
I try to keep an open mind but there seems to be an agenda tied to this assertion that's usually pushed by people who don't strike me as the type to strongly value a scientific consensus. IE, their feelings are an adequate substitute for hard evidence (for them).
Also if this conventional way of thinking was proven at some point, can you direct me where to look for the proof? Definitive proof one way or another is what I'm after here.
>genetic determinism
people could just pick up a book and start reading and stop doing bad shit right now and all these arguments would be moot
>are there any peer-reviewed publications out there that are definitively for or against gender being on a spectrum?
When people are using 'gender' in that context, they mean the range of identities and behaviors that people present.
In which case, there's the archetypical male, female, and then there's the whole male-to-female people, female-to-male, and the non-binary folks who fall somewhere between. This does imply that there's a range of identities that people present, so that would imply that gender does exist on a spectrum.
Again, this boils down to behavior, which isn't something we can physiologically measure. Whether it's something they feel innately or whether it's invented is pretty much just a matter of opinion. I can't look into their minds, so I assume that they're being genuine since there's lots of transgender people and I see no major reason to say it's illegitimate.
I could find you peer-reviewed publications, but they aren't going to answer the kind of question you're getting at here. I could conduct a study to see whether preference for sports exists on a spectrum, but ultimately it relies on the idea that a specific preference for a sport is a thing. We're not measuring brain signals here - we're querying someone about whether they like football or soccer. The assumption is that we believe their answer.
So the same with gender studies. You can ask a bunch of people what gender they identify with, and some of them will say that they're non-binary. That's the spectrum that exists. There are no studies that attempt to biologically explain this, much like there are no studies that explain preferences for sports or taste for foods. It's an invented term that describes a range of human behavior.
Does that mean gender is 'fake'? Not necessarily. It just depends on whether you believe the people who are answering the question.
>tldr
but that's bullshit, having a personality/demeanor etc doesn't constitute a gender
they literally had to redefine the word
>but that's bullshit, having a personality/demeanor etc doesn't constitute a gender
You say that, but you've just used two terms, 'personality/demeanor' which are basically completely invented concepts that describe a range of how human beings work.
Yeah but personality/demeanor are subjective concepts
A person that consideration themselves to be introverted may seem outgoing to someone else
gender isn't subjective, well it's not supposed to be
you can't just fuck shit up like that
>Yeah but personality/demeanor are subjective concepts
>gender isn't subjective, well it's not supposed to be
Gender is subjective in the sense that it's something that the person puts on externally to represent something internally.
It's kind of like being raised as a certain religion. There's not a well-characterized biological definition of what constitutes a certain religious sensibility, but the person puts on that identity for the outside world.
But religious affiliation is a term we still use. There aren't throes of people trying to prevent people from using that word and it's connotation, despite the fact that it has just as much basis in fact and objectivity as gender. So what's the problem with treating gender the same way?
>you can't just fuck shit up like that
It's not a big deal when you recognize that seeing gender in this way doesn't change anything about how biological sex works. It's still the same thing, it's just neatly characterized under 'sex' rather than being conflated synonymously with 'gender'.
There's a worldview where gender is a spectrum that has nothing to do with tumblr SJW bullshit or made-up nonsense like 'genderfuck' that shows up on like three people's blog sidebars. You can buy into the whole idea that it's a spectrum without ever associating with that crazy worldview.
>There's a worldview where gender is a spectrum that has nothing to do with tumblr SJW bullshit or made-up nonsense like 'genderfuck' that shows up on like three people's blog sidebars. You can buy into the whole idea that it's a spectrum without ever associating with that crazy worldview.
I'm actually really glad you brought that up, because I think that's what makes it hard for me to accept the whole idea of a spectrum... The idea of intersex or transgenderism is easy enough to understand. But I think what hurts the movement are people who seem to make up genders potentially for the sake of getting attention or being "special". I think there definitely needs to be some sort of distinction but I understand that's pretty hard to do considering it's a subjective concept in the first place.
Also to add on, does identifying as anything other than male/female qualify as a psychological disorder? Like another user said earlier, it used to be called gender dysphoria, but is that term still in use?
There's lot of evidence to suggest that there is a basis for transsexuals to be biologically wired to experience gender dysphoria and thus need to transition. There is no evidence whatsoever of any kind of hard-wiring of a third gender or nonbinary gender.
There are three sexes, male - female - intersex. There are three genders as well male, female, and gender dysphoric.
Intersex meaning XXY?
You aren't looking at enough cultures if you think they overlap that much, and as a biologist I can say I spent a lot of time learning about sex and literally no time learning about the concept of gender
>Implying /pol/ isn't an echo chamber
You have to go back, you can have an autistic fit about what other people do to their bodies with your fellow r/The Donald transplants
What delusional nosense is this? And what if they were born in any other point in history where medicine and surgery hadn't progressed in capability to the point it had to mutilate their bodies for the sake of profit, would they console themselves to be homosexuals or what?
Transgenderism is a product of contemporary civilization, it is not an innate reproductive dynamic, because faggots assholes can only give birth to aids polyps, nothing more.
"Intersex" individuals, previously known as hermaphrodites, were born with one fully functioning set of reproductive organs, and a half developed set of non-functioning organs of the other biological sex.
This happens because of a mutation during conception, and the individual is only capable of performing the role of one biological sex in the role of reproduction, not both - making them by allow accounts, either MALE or FEMALE, not a unicorn.
I am sick of liberal retards purposely using ambiguous terminology to obfuscate the truth of the matter. If they were truly "intersex", they would be able to provide both semen and eggs in the reproductive act, and would therefore be able to inseminate themselves, making them literally an asexually reproducing organism.
Because the way human hormones work, it is physically impossible for one human to become pregnant and produce semen - so no, there is no such thing as "intersex" people, their own innate human biology forces their fucked up genes to conform to one biological sex, and that's that.
yes ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Yeah, get fucked. A single author produces a study ON FISH, an organism that is known to be HEMAPHRODITIC in nature, and they attempt to extrapolate that onto humans (WHICH IS SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC IN NATURE).
NO! Unless someone is capable of reproducing this in laboratory mice, you are incorrect - period.
I will add nothing to my lexicon but further redefine pseudoscience to incorporate much of that which is produced by the social sciences.
Gender is a matter of sociology and politics.
That's a great point. So biologically speaking, there's male, female, and that's it, right? Full-stop?
But psychologically speaking, if someone is male and considers themselves female, is that technically a mental disorder as much as schizophrenia is?
Humans can't swap genders in a natural way to do what is needed in a population, which for me, genders are different functions provided by two individuals of the same species to fulfill their biologic roles. There could be an animal who requires more than one gender to reproduce? wouldn't be efficient on evolution terms, so i guess no, more males or females though could be required, but not a third gender/sex.
So all the gender fluid thing doesn't fit in the biology, only on sociology, politics or mental illness.
No.
>if someone is male and considers themselves female, is that technically a mental disorder as much as schizophrenia is?
Yes. But you're saying that in reference to transsexuals, who do not actually think they're biologically female while being male or male while being female.
I dont want yes to be right but under current definitions it might be but then again i think mebtal illbess is a social construction. Not to sound sjw. But we do decide whats mental or not and its arbotrary coz really were dealing with extremes of human behaviour. Mental illness usually adds on that it causes failure to function. In that sense maybe the dysphoria assocoated with transgenders is the mental illnesss but not their belief itself but then again thats also contradictory.
Even if it is a mental illness by other definitions, should it be stigmatised as such when the solution for many is easy. I understand that suicide rates are the same after transition but is that a result of their feelings about sex or associated things.
If your thinking about gender fluidity then easier.
Do you even know what the definition of mental illness is?
>the dysphoria assocoated with transgenders is the mental illnesss
Isn't that obvious? Gender dypshoria is literally a mental illness in the DSM-5.
>If your thinking about gender fluidity then easier.
That has nothing to do with gender dysphoria at all. It's not about identity or personal feelings, it's about biology.
There is no way to dance around the pretty plain fact that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. It is a different flavor of good old fashioned delusion. Your personality is merely an expression of your biological makeup, there is a reason why trannies seriously overcompensate in trying to act out a role rather than naturally express feminine or masculine behavior.
Delusion disqualifies you from being diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
Does anyone in this thread understand anything about mental health or is it just people regurgitating what they read on /pol/?
What I understand about mental health and psychiatry is that their definitions of things are hazy and change by the decade and they think 70% of children have ADHD and that anyone who walks into their office professing inattentiveness needs to be pumped full of SSRI's
It isn't /pol/, if you walk outside and talk to average people you are going to find that the strong majority aren't on board with the latest pseudoscientific psychological meme
If schizophrenia is a mental illness then thinking you're another fucking gender is 100% so
The definition of mental illness itself is clear cut.
>I feel like a girl inside
>I believe in God
Which of these is a mental illness? You should know if you have done even the most simple and basic research on what you're discussing.
The first one, there is something wrong with your brain as it is in jarring disharmony with its body
Do you think trannies don't need treatment then? Since they're mentally fine and stable
Either one can be mental illness, depending on the situation.
Wearing women's clothing is not harmful. A male who gets a boob job gets one for the exact same reason a female gets one. These are not harmful or dangerous behaviors. A transsexual is mentally ill when their gender dysphoria causes them severe stress. As the disease gets progressively more painful each year untreated (and usually this process begins in early childhood sometimes as young as three or four years old), this eventually leads to suicide in a large amount of cases, as well as leading to common coping mechanisms for severe depression such as drug use, reckless sex, or other self-destructive behaviors which increase the risk of suicide. Add in the alienation, isolation, rejection from family, rejection from work, rejection from friendships and relationships and you have one of the most deadly mental diseases known.
Not every transsexual experiences dysphoria, and some transsexuals who successfully transition (usually a combination of great genetics, taking hormones very early, passing well in public, having a strong support network most important the parents) will cease to have dypshoria significant enough to cause distress and dysfunction in their daily life.
What about other statement? Believing in God can or cannot be mental illness. By being a Christian, you are typically admitting to believing in the supernatural, ghosts, demons, telepathy, spiritual immortality, other planes of existence, basically the full deck of usual /x/ tropes. But believing in God can be healthy, it can bring you comfort, it can increase your daily function and mental well being. However, if you believe for example that God spoke to you and told you to kill someone, or told you you are not worthy of him and should kill yourself, and these things caused you enough distress and dysfunction to impact your life, that would instantly make your belief qualified as mental illness.
I didnt statt out with gender dysphoria. Was contemplating is beimg a trannie mental disease.
If your mental state requires treatment then that state is an illness. I am aware that masculine and feminine people exist of either gender. There is nothing wrong with expressing yourself how you see fit. It is an illness if you have a concrete belief that does not reconcile with reality and it requires medical intervention, like transitioning hormonally or cosmetically. Or being so crazily religious that you believe yourself to be an angel or instrument of God and posing a threat to your peers or society. Both are examples of being a nutcase and this is pretty much where I draw the line as far as SJW societal engineering, there is never going to be more than 2 genders and those are determined at your birth. Feelings do not define our common reality, I do not accept that the flat earther thinks this planet is flat or that the climate denier thinks we are not getting progressively warmer.
Isnt mental illness a social construct.
Dickhead. Delusion isnt necessarily mental illness and feminine or masvuline how u conceove it is a social construct. We are sexes but u dont dress in ur clothes or cut ur hair short or shave cpz of ur sex. Its culture.
You are not making a point.
Yea people like veterans just kill themselves because they're weak.
My point is that mental illness is based on failure to function and should be taken with a pinch of saltm judge case by case. Abnormal behaviour isnt mental illnessm people pretend theres a naturalism to behaviour. No evolutipm doesnt work that say. Failure to function. Im not gonna hospitalise a guy for being weird. Fuck off mate
that appears to be the situation
Im not saying that. Im saying that.. people behave coz of their environmental and genetics. When this is harnful this is considered mental illness. But this is still a subjective judgement. Theres no biological mental health nadge. So im saying. Just coz someones weird or different. Dont say they have a mental health problem unless it affects the way they live
And whe it does
Lets mot assume some "natural image of man and woman". Just fic them how they would like. Dysphiria is mental illness. Transgender is not. People dont understand
Mental illness doesn't imply hospitalization you total retard
Common depression is a "mental illness"
Replace hospitalise with refer to a gp. You fucking idiot im.making a point.
Do you not understand that mental illness is a human conatruction. We have a wide continuum of behaviour. We onley define it for the painful parts. Yes its arbitrary. And it means if someone woshes they were the opposite sex then theres no default natural option they should fall to. Im say dont treat devisnt behaviour as psychopathological. Think about it. And dont use arguments of naturalness.
I'm not usually one to criticize typos or anything but you type like you have a mental illness
Im dyslexic so yes. Fuck off.
Boipussy.
Why you talking to me. I agreed with you. Stupud cunt..all your facts are false. I agree eith you but ure a pleb. Uneducated. Not worthy of willliam f buckley
Have a cute girl for your effort :)
Different user here, but if you concede the .99 correlation and even admit that the rest are outliers, haven't you just made the other user's point? Yes it exists, but it is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the population and a genetic aberration. Since it can hardly be evolutionarily advantageous, it won't propagate (unlike homosexuality for some unknown reason).
>Like another user said earlier, it used to be called gender dysphoria, but is that term still in use?
Not everyone who experiences gender dysphoria can be classified as having a 'mental disorder'. The DSM-V doesn't include gender identity disorder as a thing, mainly because it's not well-defined as a disorder. Basically, the symptoms have to constitute disability, and lots of transgender people don't experience much gender dysphoria after transitioning, which means under the current paradigm that they can't be classified as suffering from a disorder .
Again, largely semantics, but under the current paradigm of psychology it isn't considered a disorder or disability.
Look up the whole Jordan Peterson Bill C-16 debate from last year. You'll get an idea as to what these people's agendas are.
>Yes it exists, but it is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the population and a genetic aberration.
Extremely rare does not mean dysfunctional or imaginary. There are extremely rare eye colors out there - doesn't mean that they aren't a valid eye color.
Also, the other guy's comment about intersex being 'wholly one sex and a little bit of the other' is largely false. There are lots of intersex people who have pretty significant parts of both organs, but are sterile in both respects.
>(unlike homosexuality for some unknown reason)
you're thinking of genetic drift friendo
>"Gender" in the context of personal representation/identity that differs from biological sex, is more of a question for social science and psychology, but neither of those disciplines are going to give you a rigorous, reproducible explanation for why people identify the way they do.
For anthropology this is correct on an individual level (as in, a mechanism that explains how a particular individual identifies as a gender that is usually assigned to the opposite sex), but on a collective level there are sound theories (as in, why there are socially accepted 'third genders' in certain societies - although a lot of these third genders today are not as widely accepted in their respective societies as some anthropologists present them to be).
The most popular one being that in societies with a division of labor between the sexes/genders, if there are not enough females to do all the work necessary for subsistence, some males will form a third gender and do work usually done by females.
Anthropologists like Marvin Harris suggested (although without ever forming or publishing coherent theories, because it would instantly kill anyone's career) that homosexuality and trans-sexuality are on the rise under capitalism, because the 'sexual liberation' only liberated a lot of women to have sex with few men (the infamous 80/20 rule), leaving a lot of men sexually unsatisfied. Since those sexually unsatisfied men also do not have anymore wars, famines, or other catastrophes to die in, homosexuality is a mechanism to prevent social unrest among them.
It doesn't matter what organs they physically possess, what matters is which one functions, that determines which biological sex they are - and consequently will change their hormonal profile, which will cause their entire body to mature into that sexually dimorphic profile.
They are not a unicorn, they do not exist in an equilibrium between the sexes, they are genetically defective from the binary - that is their real classification. Their own body will force their corrupted genetics to conform to the binary so they can correctly develop.
Good post.
>homosexuality and trans-sexuality are on the rise under capitalism, because the 'sexual liberation' only liberated a lot of women to have sex with few men (the infamous 80/20 rule), leaving a lot of men sexually unsatisfied. Since those sexually unsatisfied men also do not have anymore wars, famines, or other catastrophes to die in, homosexuality is a mechanism to prevent social unrest among them.
I've read a lot of stuff in my life, but that theory has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Legitimately.
They're correct about the Pareto principle having a solid basis in female sexual selection.
OkCupid, one of the world's largest online dating sites, conducted a study of hundreds of thousands of participants to determine which traits men and women find the most desirable in the other sex's profiles, to help them have the most matches.
What they found was that whilst men were pretty good overall at forming a natural bell curve of most women being 5/10 in looks and desirability, and extreme ugliness and attractiveness largely being outliers of the population, women on the other hand only rated a total of 20% of all profiles as being desirable enough to want to date - pic related is from their own Website on the phemonenon.
Link: theblog.okcupid.com
Once the news broke out a year ago, people were clamoring to see how bad it was with Tinder, but they refused to make a public statement on how many people swipped right for each gender. In response to that, many news outlets conducted their own studies and found that your average woman had a 75% swipe right chance (ergo most men were swipping on every women to try and get a match), where women only swiped right 15% of the time on all profiles, even worse than OkCupid.
What this poster is saying is true, and forms the massive basis of the Manosphere, MGTOW and Men's Rights movement, which largely recognizes and addresses the issues women's biological nature and unfettered sexual selection (something which has never existed until the last 70 years in human history) has had on families and society at large.
Imagine that, three quarters of the entire male population could die tomorrow and women wouldn't care, because they never even noticed them to begin with.
Women's rights was the biggest mistake mankind has made in its entire history.
>biological foundation or is it more psychological
But psychological phenomenon ARE biological phenomenon.
>Just curious if there was a biological foundation or is it more psychological. Thanks again.
I have to go even further with this Very few psychologists worth their salt would ever suggest that biology and psychology are not interrelated. The three main approaches in psychology are Biological, Cognitive and Sociocultural, NO good psychologist would argue that these three are distinct, biology runs through all of these and all three approaches although differing in focus are interconnected.
The issue is there are a lot of bad psychologists (generally social psychologists) whom aren't actually that good at science so make it seem like psychology sees itself as distinct but it really isn't. Also psychoanalysis/therapy=/ experimental psychology.
>not wanting to reproduce with son one means they don’t notice then
MGTOW: Another day, another retarded statement
>whom aren't
I believe the correct pronoun there is who'm's't'ev'er.
This has always been the case. 80% of women procreate while only about 40% of men do
I have never used whom in my life I just read the post back and have no idea where that came from.
Not when monogamy was the norm was that the case. Women's rights must be rescinded and made the legal property of men once more. One woman for each man.
academic.oup.com
Yes, it was probably always the cause. It can genetically be verified and it is absolutely shown in current societies around the globe.
Sorry mate, women's rights have nothing to do it.
Lol when did rights havr a genetic basis
>never
You mean to imply that if women had no means of earning resources from themselves, they were forced by law and heavy social stigma to only mate and marry with a single male, that the women would still only seek out 20% of the male population, even though now you have socially engineered a situation where the overwhelming majority of males are seen as desirable mates, and are forced to pair bond with a single man for the rest of their life?
You are incorrect, and are spouting sociological psuedoscience that is not supported by Western historical precedent, but is of an opinion of "an enabler", or a beta cuckold, as conservatives would call you; unless you're a woman, in which case you do not wish you relinquish your power over men.
J. D. Unwin, an Oxford Social Anthropologist, published in 1934 a work "Sex and Culture", where he conducted a study on 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilization through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe. According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality, and as a result loses its cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The effect, said Unwin, is irrevocable. Unwin also wrote that inequality between men and women is necessary for absolute monogamy.
If you have the time, it's highly worth a read:
archive.org
Short end of the stick is, every man is better off if every woman is worse off (both financially and educationally). The only men knowing this who would logically support women's sexual emancipation are cuckolds who believe they will be rewarded with sex for being a woman's slave (even though they will not be), and men at the top of the food chain.
Boring. Fuck off.