Continuing thread from >>2795802

Doesn't matter even if this were true (and it isn't, even the most "evolved" social constructs are still strongly biologically correlative).

/pol/tards usually migrate to troll. There's no reason to troll on /pol/ you know, since it's essentially an echochamber.

Here's a hot tip to avoiding this in the future: Just ignore the idiots, you can't change their minds and arguing with them just makes you as retarded as they are.

Exactly because it's /pol/-tier. Ever wonder why every single day someone brings up how subsaharan africa hasn't produced any worthwhile civilization?

>even the most "evolved" social constructs are still strongly biologically correlative

Explain the biological correlation of private property rights, paper money, human rights, laws etc.

ar·bi·trar·y
adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Can you use the word right please. Its obviously not arbitrary - calling it such is what makes all you sociology majors think its something to be entirely rewritten.

Not destined in the exact way, but definitely they have a greater inclination to go into fields (like STEM) which emphasized object-oriented thought rather than social expertise

But I think I can tho

I thought the secondary targets like Veeky Forums would be quieter while /bant/ is going on
Like, who are we even trolling here? History nerds and christian Evangelists?

Try going into a monkey cage and taking their bananas off of them. There's your biological basis for property.

Except social constructs vary a fair bit from culture to culture, even while keeping a few constants. It's not like there's a biological reason our perception of homosexuality differs from now to ancient greece.

You're wrong, but the fact you think this proves that you're already as dumb as they are, so knock yourself out. I mean that literally, take a brick, and smash it into your head until you lose consciousness.

I mean, I frequent Veeky Forums not /pol/ for the exact reason that there are more ideas. Plus this counts as humanities (+a bit of history when we talked about ancient cultures' genders)

>It's not like there's a biological reason our perception of homosexuality differs from now to ancient greece.

It doesn't, most people are revolted by homosexuals. We don't put them to death any more, but fundamental attitudes are much as they've always been.

...

They end up not being closely linked to biology. Is that what you wanted me to write? Fine. I think everyone already understood it perfectly fine though.

the Olympics should no longer hold women as a protected class if gender is as arbitrary as people (read: fags) say it is.

>Sexual roles are as arbitrary as IOU notes

Convincing them doesn't mean they have to concede in-thread. Simply exposing them to ideas they can not wrestle with is a catalyst for change. That is what is aimed for in exchange you fuckin NEET

Yeah, exactly, create an echochamber, dont listen to different opinions!

Point is, you simply got to deal with shit being socially constructed, even if it's too hard for your pre-Enlightenment thinking head.

This won't be a problem for long anyway, since the top competitors in "women's" sports are all transexuals.

Don't worry, some males athletes are ready to a lot of things to get a medal. Sports will soon become a shitstorm festival.

Firstly, fuck you. Secondly, I have no issue with social constructions, because unlike you, I understand what they actually are. Thirdly, lick my asshole you faggot.

Gender and gender expression is as arbitrary as money, that is to say, not arbitrary at all, because money is literally one of the most important things in the world and it's still a social construction.

I actually doubt that, and the use of "arbitrary" is testament.

From this we can say that, unless you change human biology, gender will exist as a strong correlative to sex and properly along a masculine-feminine line.

and is also representative of real material value

not the user you are replying to, but I have to defend this guy... You asked for a biological basis for personal property and he gave you one, and you respond with petty insult

the social hierarchy is based on the biological need for food and reproduction, things like money and property are inherently biological, even if they have developed to a higher level of complexity as our society grows

No it's not. That's literally what is "socially constructed" about it you moron.

Most people weren't before, in a lot of cultures. Egyptians were seen as extremely effeminate to the romans, because their culture had a different concept of how a male should behave. In the past lots of things changed: everyone wore skirts, the greek idolized small penises, egyptians wore makeup, the "boy" colour used to be pink, and in the Aka tribe in africa the women hunt while the men watch out for the children.

These threads are always a shitfest because of people like you who can't understand that noone here is claiming that there is no biological difference between a man and a woman.

>>>>>>holy
>>>>>>fuck

Obviously the paper its-fucking-self isn't the value but the only reason why it exists is because its backed by the real value of the government institution which prints it - THUS it is representative of the wealth-value of that nation. Fiat money. Value does not always equal physical commodity you idiot

>You asked for a biological basis for personal property and he gave you one

Well I didn't say personal property. I said private property.

Saying that a monkey being pissed off because you're trying to take his banana is analogous to Bill Gates owning 500 factories where thousands of people work is facetious and retarded.

cmon guys accept that gender is different than sex

just do it or ill cry

>because their culture had a different concept of how a male should behave.

No they didn't, aside from a handful of trivial cultural differences. The ideal male in Egypt had the same virtues he would have in Rome, such as strength, courage, being a good provider, being loyal, etc etc.

> Aka tribe in africa the women hunt

Nope.

>while the men watch out for the children.

They spend more time with their kids than is usual for males, that's true enough. But they don;t have different standards for what an ideal male is, and they certainly aren't "gender-blind" as some have claimed, they have the same exact concept of gender every other society has.

Masculinity and femininity have obviously been divided culturally because there's an obvious difference between the two groups. It made more sense for women to watch the children and for the men to hunt since a tribe can't afford a low female population but it can afford a male one. Plus the male body is more build for athletism blah blah blah. That is true.
However, a lot of the behaviours we often attribute to a certain gender are just influenced by other social norms, who themselves are influenced by other and so forth, and the correlations often drawn from that reasoning don't necessarily make sense or are linked directly to our nature.

Bill Gates happened to climb the dominance ladder, and now is the king monkey who has a tribe of monkeys gathering bananas for him

The reason you classify things as "strenght, courage, being a good provider" as not trivial but others such as fashion and sexual preferences as trivial is not because they are different in nature, but because one is older, and therefore a common denominator in all of our cultures. The're both ultimately the same thing. And even if they are more closely related to our biology, it doesn't mean they are innate to us. Just that they developed pretty early into our culture.
Ultimately if we can change the way we dress and have sex with eachother, then there is no reason we shouldn't be able to ditch other gender norms, such as men going to war and providing for their family.

>People using hunter-gatherer social structures as arguments for why women should stay in the kitchen and men should go out and work even though in most Western countries very little work even requires physical strength

wew lad. That's some hilariously retarded shit.

>clueless user comes into a thread late and makes a strawman that doesn't come close to resembling any argument made
wew
lad

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muxe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_sworn_virgins
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhannathun
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koekchuch

from the last thread
interesting

>it made sense for women to watch children, be meek and organize the household while men went out and hunted, so this means this kind of organization is good forever

>>it made sense for women to watch children, be meek and organize the household while men went out and hunted
we are saying this, no one is saying
>>so this means this kind of organization is good forever

if its such a open question maybe the definitions and cathegories used are vague as all fuck

how is a gender even defined?
by function? by role?

which functions and roles are those? do they involve reproduction?

going that way in the end there are basicaly just two genders, top and bottom, the rest is just biologicaly inherent differences in anatomy and character and whatever

this thread is literally flypaper for /pol/ crossboarders

I'm lovin' it