Has there been any register of trannies in the West before the 20th century...

It's a non-issue.

This, real trans people don't fight for more then 2 genders. They fight so they can become the other gender, and recognized as such.

Real trannies don't talk about it. They might look obviously the other gender but they wanna keep that shit to themselves. This Tumblr "you can be trans even without gender dysphoria!"bullshit is hilarious. Sad to say but trannies are fucked. The real ones obviously won't talk about it so these vocal fags are the only ones people see, so good luck being taken seriously any time soon.

Only tumblrtards think along those lines of "muh penis is a gurls penis". Most trans people just want to be a normal person of the opposite sex. But, you could make a convincing case for emperor Elagabalus being transgender as he crossdressed frequently and wanted to find a surgeon who could give him female genitals.

I'm fine with trans women saying their penis is a female penis, since the alternative is normalised genital mutilation to make fake vaginas, which could have horrible mental health effects once they realise they didn't want to butcher their body to fit a predetermined idea of how they should be.

"There are only two genders" is also scientifically inaccurate so if you're not a pseud you'll stop that shit, but tumblrite definition of exactly 74.9 genders and extra pronouns for English is pretty cancerous.

>"There are only two genders" is also scientifically inaccurate
the number of intersex births is so low that there might as well just be two genders

>"There are only two genders" is also scientifically inaccurate
t. just learnt about intersex a few weeks ago

Look up the Cult of Cybele in the Roman Empire.

You're thinking of sex. Numerous historical and modern civilizations have considered there to be more than two genders, from the ancient Greeks to Romans to Israelites to Native Americans to modern Indian Hijras.

can we stop with this gender/sex bullshit

if one is in your pants and the other is in your head, why should anyone care about what's in your head?

A lot of the whole "lol there are only TWO genders and if you have a DICk you are MALE" thing comes from foreigners having no idea gender doesn't mean sex.

That's sex you dongles, not gender. There's a lot of eunuch fuckery and such around the world, and through history.

if gender isn't physical then how does it have any relation to science like first post claimed?

To me, the concept of gender being different from sex is double think. I find it hard to believe that the two words are not synonymous.

please show me gender being used in a sentence using a pre-tumblr context with a different meaning from sex.

Gender and sex aren't the same thing, user. Gender is just what society attributes to you, sometimes based on your sex and sometimes not. "Men don't wear dresses" is a matter of gender. "You have a dick" is a matter of sex, "be a man" is a matter of gender.

If you want me to phrase it in a way Veeky Forums would understand gender is a spook.

This. Plus, don't forget, that there is a small margin of people who don't have one of the 2 dominant sexes.

why should anyone care about gender

Cause it's quite obvious historically contingent because it's a social and culture product.

because gender identity is fucking huge even if you're not a tranny.

Whether you admit it or not you concern yourself with whether you're acting masculine or effeminate, there are expectations placed upon you according to your gender.

This tends to mirror your sex (you've got a dick, you're a man, a man behaves such and such a way), but it's foolish to ignore that "a man behaves in such and such a way" is usually an artifact of your society, not a product of your biology.

I don't think you understand intersex

it's not a seperate sex/gender whatever the fuck you want to call it

it's a genetic defect that makes it harder to determine their gender, but sexual reproduction by definition only has 2 sexes/genders and since humans practice sexual reproduction and intersex people are human, by definition they fit into 1 of the 2 genders (unless they're asexual which as far as I know hasn't been observed in humans at all so far)

there are countless other behavoirs like this that don't have names specific to them

gender has been reappropriated by sociologists or whoever started this whole trend but it's just a synonym of sex, and what you're describing is just human social behavoir

this whole sex=/=gender bullshit is a recent trend started by sociologists with no grasp of biology

>WE REAL TRANNIES AREN'T LIKE THOSE OTHER MENTALLY ILL TRANNIES WE JUST WANT TO LOP OUR COCKS OFF, WE AREN'T PRETENDING WE HAVE GIRLCOCKS I SWARE ON ME MUM WE ARE NORMAL

Back to you abominations

Firstpost user here, if your argument is reliant on "Gender = Sex", then you literally can't argue "There are only two genders" when intersex conditions exist, without over-simplifying your stance to the point of ignoring facts.

Cultural gender and biological sex are different things though, and other anons are pointing out historical precedence for societies where genders that aren't male or female existed.

There is no doubt in the history department and the exampled are countless:
google.com/search?q=gender&newwindow=1&safe=off&tbm=bks&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1900,cd_max:1999&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkqtjPn8DRAhXIXiwKHXeSB8sQpwUIFQ&biw=1920&bih=1036&dpr=1

Nah, I do but you refuse to acknowledge that a biological fact doesn't entirely determine social reality. Also intersexuality can be the result of hormones and not only genes.

please read
because I don't think you understand very much about intersex

it's in the name INTERsex, not seperate sex

>intersexuality can be the result of hormones and not only genes
and what are these hormones determined by?
what a stupid post

>this whole sex=/=gender bullshit is a recent trend started by sociologists with no grasp of biology
This is entirely wrong and proves that you are simply not familiar with the topic. Take Donna Harraway for example.
Also no one denies the biological facts just the idea that the biology fully determines the social outcome of sex.
It's really not that hard to understand.

At the end of the day these arguments generally amount to two camps working with different definitions of a word and shouting past each other.

You just need to understand that some people are going to use the word gender as a casual synonym for sex, but others are going to use it in reference to social roles (often tied to sex but artificial).

When you dress up as a woman, act like a woman, etc. you are assuming a woman's gender role, you're not assuming a woman's sex.

Acknowledging intersex conditions requires conceding that there are more biological gender expressions than 100% male and 100% female, and intersex conditions do not fit cleanly into either definition.

>and what are these hormones determined by?
A lot of things: fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2014/april/environmental-hormones.html

*biological sex expressions

English a shit.

Intersex conditions still exist within the binary sex. CAIS individuals are still males for example.

still don't see why gender needs its own word and can't just be called "another generic social factor" like so many others are

this is just a google search of books that have the word gender. interestingly, here's the first result:
>Grammar and Gender
>Traces the history of sexual bias in the English language, examines attempts at reform, and discusses new words coined to reduce sexism in language
This summary just equated gender and sex, just like every english language speaker does all the time. this gender is not sex is just as silly as the arguments that blacks aren't racist because racism is power plus prejudice, a definition that no one uses. if you have to constantly re-explain that the definition of gender is not the same as sex do you perhaps realize as some point that they actually are synonymous for nearly every native speaker, making it the "correct" definition?

again it's just a genetic defect, it's not the norm

similar argument would be saying there are several types of human genotypes because people with downs syndrome have 47 chromosomes

>still don't see why gender needs its own word

Why shouldn't it? Language assigns words to concepts so that you don't need to explain the entire concept every time you refer to it. It's like saying "why call it an allen key when you can call it that weird z shaped tool you put in hole to turn a thing?"

Sourced from the Wikipedia entry on CAIS.

Fundamentally you are right (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality) but take a look at the world. Division of labor, clothing, moral, education and many other things are distributed according to gender. Historically "gender" is a tool, which many first and second wave feminists despised, to further develop a concept of equality.
>inb4 regressing to physiology

Yes and they're still chromosomal males.

notice that it says "raised with a female gender identity", not "gender"

K, then Philology has an own meaning of the word. Try:
books.google.de/books?id=HNR6RcvCJ8MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gender -grammar&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQkcGZo8DRAhWFHJoKHW26DyEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=gender -grammar&f=false

It's really sort of redundant to prove that. Judith Butlers stuff, and she is responsible for all the confusion, came out in like 1990. It has nothing to do with tumblr.

This. Any person born intersex is just as deformity. There is no sex other than male or female in the human reproduction system.

To further point out: I despise tumblr and their shitty pop-feminism.

>defect

There is no blueprint that humans follow for the term "defect" to hold a similar meaning to factory production defects.

Severely maladaptive or disadvantageous conditions in biology exist, but they are not "defects". Sickle cell anemia for example is extremely disadvantageous in most circumstances, but his adaptive towards protection against malaria where the condition is most prevalant.

I fucking hate these threads trannys and tranny enablers should be gassed

Plz god cleansing nuclear hellfire can't come soon enough

You just ascribed a word to a phenomenon.
>interex=deformity
Why are you so defensive about ascribing another word to it? It's almost like you are as obsessed about semantics as tumblr.
Also:
nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
But I guess nature is a cucked Jewish liberal shillary journal.

I don't care what you call it. Whether or not you call it intersex, the human species only has two sexes

>I refuse to click the links cause my brain doesn't want me to change my ideology hhhgjgghg
>When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.

All this gender bullshit is logically inconsistent.
If you take to it's logical conclusions, either there is a larger number of genders than there have been humans on the planet, or gender doesn't exist.
aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison
Just abandon the whole thing. It's bullshit.

>my brain hurts too much when i don't think in absolutes

This is unironically what Zizek says and I am inclined to agree. Again tho, as a historian, gender is a useful analytical category. You are basically talking about the future (same as "activists).
Then again: If someone is happy about being called ** or something I simply do not care and go with it - exactly because I believe those categories, as a tool for liberation, are crap.

no, really, read the article.
Gender makes no sense.

>Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1][2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences[4][5] and documents written by the World Health Organization (WHO).[3]

>In other contexts, including some areas of social sciences, gender includes sex or replaces it.[1][2] For instance, in non-human animal research, gender is commonly used to refer to the biological sex of the animals.[2] This change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s. In 1993, the USA's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) started to use gender instead of sex.[6] Later, in 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using sex as the biological classification and gender as "a person's self representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation."[7]

Gender is literally just a grammatical cathegory, nothing else. Not "self identification", not biological sex, a fucking grammatical cathegory.

yeah, so?

>implying you even know what that means and are not just using it for your confirmation bias

The human species only has two sexes. The infinitesimally small number of people born 'intersex' are faulty humans. They are literally sub human really.

This doesn't really prove anything to me because this is a feminist academic work. I already know that they have a different definition for gender. in terms of whether gender does or does not mean the same thing as sex it matters how lay people use it, not a small group of ideologues that don't represent most of the population

like in various european languages, where substantives fall in 2-3 categories, and grammar wraps around those things?
Yeah, of course.
We are talking about the modern definition of the thing.

it points out when this gender =/= sex thing came about.

the modern definition used by some academics or how the word is used in the vast majority of the population?

So instead of arguing you just go into ad hominem mode?
I think you are really proud of that biology class you took in High School, good for you. I work at a teaching hospital, as a data analyst, and I can tell you that research has moved beyond your dichotomy.
But we are talking ideology now I guess so no matter how recent papers I present you won't change your opinion because you are turbo butthurt.
But let's try once more, shall we?
scopeblog.stanford.edu/2015/02/24/sex-biology-redefined-genes-dont-indicate-binary-sexes/
Okay but I don't see how this helps us. Language is men made so it had to come from somewhere.

the modern definition used by post-modern feminism.
Though i consider even off-hand usage of gender as used by the population to be stupid.

Well he's right. Intersex people and chromosomal defects still fall into binary framework.

XXY = male
XXYY = male
XXXY = male
XXX = female
XXXX = female
XXXXX = female

etc

This is basic biology but literally every geneticist will agree about that.

The initial point was that it came from tublr. You want me to show you a non-feminist using the word in that sense?
>small group of ideologues that don't represent most of the population
Literally ad populum. By the same fallacy you could say the theory of relativity is crap.

I

>Language is men made so it had to come from somewhere.
yeah, and it matters where the usage comes from. is it an organic creation of the larger community or just a redefinition of terminology for academic works? in here lies the whole disconnect: gender = sex reflects the common usage and gender =/= sex reflects how the terms are used in academic papers. in trying to force the "correct" academic definition you are simply being a prescriptivist

>neo-vagina

That article doesn't support your claim. Again, you have a starting belief from which you will not waver and anything that sounds remotely supportive like 'wow not all of your cells are identical' just triggers your confirmation bias and you conclude there must be a trillion different human sexes.

I am not trying to force anything or anyone. I just assumed that "high level of discourse" means we don't talk like peasants here.

>Though i consider even off-hand usage of gender as used by the population to be stupid.
why does your personal opinion on words matter, prescriptivist?

>The solution is not to reify gender by insisting on ever more gender categories that define the complexity of human personality in rigid and essentialist ways. The solution is to abolish gender altogether. We do not need gender. We would be better off without it. Gender as a hierarchy with two positions operates to naturalise and perpetuate the subordination of female people to male people, and constrains the development of individuals of both sexes. Reconceiving of gender as an identity spectrum represents no improvement.

This whole analysis seems fine when describing the process and functions of both its self-described patriarchy and gender spectrum, but it's odd that it finishes with nihilistic postmodernism. Nothing makes sense when you analyse it with postmodernism, which is the point of postmodernism, but not offering applicable, functional alternatives is degenerate postmodernism.

Again no argument, no paper, just ad hominems. It's late brospeh. I am done with you. Good luck at uni.

>Literally ad populum. By the same fallacy you could say the theory of relativity is crap.
not at all. language is defined by how it is used by most of the population, there is nothing truly more "correct" about one definition or another, all that matters is how the native speaking population at large uses the word.

This is because he misses the one true dichotomy. The one that matters.
>captcha: Engels

I'm sorry that people on an anonymous messaging board would use definitions not used in academic settings

How do these people reconcile the fact that animals perform different roles based on their sex, having never been socialised into doing those roles by some vast nefarious conspiracy to impose an invented 'gender' upon them?

There is literally no such thing as gender, there is only Sex. Gender is a made up meme idea so feminists can pretend like their biology is inconsequential.

>language is defined by how it is used by most of the population
Eh, I don't bro but historically for German is highly incorrect since the most important works for the German language were written by academics. True to some degree they wanted to capture the Volkssprache. To some they didn't.

just a personal opinion

that's just part of the historical interplay of different groups influencing language. these works are "important" because they are influential. either through the reading public or schooling these works influence how lay people speak, thus changing the language.

>when feminists work for decades to dismantle the relevancy of gender and you run a massive psyop on the mentally ill and convince them to cut their dicks and you see a return to gender essentialism and watch them all squirm

>How do these people reconcile the fact that animals perform different roles based on their sex, having never been socialised into doing those roles by some vast nefarious conspiracy to impose an invented 'gender' upon them?

Because humans can operate on an extremely abstracted level of thought compared to animals, you dingus.

You also mistake "Enforcing gender roles through social pressure" as "Nefarious intentional conspiracy", instead of normal non-conspiratorial people trying to enforce what they think is correct onto other normal non-conspiratorial people people.

For an example, it was only a couple hundred years ago that the objective fact in medicine was that your body's four humours are what determined your health, and unbalanced humours caused sickness. This was academic practise, was factually incorrect, but it wasn't a vast conspiracy.

Animals can't even concieve of any idea like the four humours, so they are physically unable to make that mistake.

but animals do have gender roles based on their sex. there's no "mistake", it's just social behavior that develops in different species, just like morality

the matter of fact is that it's not the norm and you can not treat is as such

mutations and malformations are not a "third gender" or a "seperate kind of human" they're just exceptions that differ from the proper human genotype

to think that intersex are a different sex would also think that people affected by downs syndrome are a different type of human with more chromosomes, or anyone born with genetic issues aren't actually ill they're just "different"

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder

My point is that most animals display behavioural differences and perform distinct roles based on their sex. This cannot be due to an idea of Gender because they have no capacity to think on that level. There is no reason to think that humans have no behaviours or roles that are biologically rooted in sex.

Feminists delude themselves in thinking that all differences between men and women can be ascribed to the idea of 'gender' which is invented and so malleable, and so which can be moulded into anything they want, or done away with entirely in which event men and women would be exactly the same, as they see it.

Most animal behaviour is not learned, it is inate and derived from instinct.

just to expand on this user's thing, geneticists are perfectly comfortable saying that humans have 46 chromosomes. they are well aware that there are humans that don't have 46 chromosomes, like in the instance of down's syndrome, but they are the exception to the rule

So is human behavior you chucklefuck

>muh free will and human spirit

Animals' can't concieve of abstracted gender concepts, and so are physically unable to make any sort of behavior in regards to cultural gender concepts.

To apply animal sexuality and social behavior to human sexuality and social behavior is has very limited use.

I agree

>learning how to build an aeroplane is exactly the same as instinctive hunting behaviours

Abstracted thought is a capacity we have that lets us act outside of pure instinct, for better and worse.

that's a huge simplification. this is largely true for invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles, but birds and especially mammals take time to raise their young and socialize them. don't tell me you think humans are the only animals that raise their young. if you need proof just look at any of the cases of animals raised in captivity that are unable to adapt to being released into the wild.