This is one of the most cited scholars in academia

>outside

>upside

>downside

Gender has always been sex no matter how much retarded post-modernists want to change that.

Xhe is right though.

No it hasn't. Trannies have existed since time immemorial, many savage peoples had "sacred transvestism" where the shaman would dress and be treated as a member of the opposite sex.

I agree with her.
I don't see the problem honestly, does she have more controversial opinions?

the whole point of a tranny in that context is that IT'S A MAN DRESSED AS A WOMEN. no one though "hmmm i guess since that dude is dressed like a woman than he's an actual woman". people who fucked trannies specifically wanted a MAN dressed as a woman.

thought*

That there have always been exceptions in no way implies there as not been a strong connection between birth sex, and the biological hangups that come with that, and gender.

>humans are born with zero hormones in their bodies
nigger what

She's right, though.
Your gender has always been your sex. It's not the same for everyone.

>genders aren't real
>but transsexuals still exist
really makes me think

>Social constructs aren't real

>how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real

It's almost always correlated with sex. Exceptions do not make the rule.

The range of possible expressions of "being a man" is far broader than the range of possible expressions of "being male". You're "male" if you have XY chromosomes, but you can "be a man" while being a tough, burly thug, while being a lisping queer, and while being anything in between.

Nations, law, governments, and the value of money are all social constructs and are all undeniably real.

It hasn't, and gender expression is different than genetic expression. We are taught to act certain 'proper' ways through simple acculturation and people respond to this acculturation in different ways based on their biology, adapting certain things and rejecting others, either consciously or unconsciously.

Gender expression is just an extension of genetic expression. While the tiny details of gender may differ from culture to culture, the underlying themes are the same across almost all of them (men protect and provide for the family, women take care of the children and the household). The overreaching ideas are almost entirely genetic.

>Gender expression is just an extension of genetic expression

Not entirely.

>(men protect and provide for the family, women take care of the children and the household)

Very little gender expression comes from these points, and in less complex societies women also provide for families. They are gatherers after all.

>Gender expression is just an extension of genetic expression.

Clearly false as the existence of trannies proves.

I was responding to a guy who said "Gender has always been sex"

>not entirely
That's my point, it isn't entirely genetic, but its mostly genetic.
>very little gender expression comes from these points
almost every aspect of gender roles comes from shit built over this basic idea. In the less complex societies you mentioned, gathering takes a secondary role to taking care of the children and the household, something which is not true for males.
its almost like there's something genetic going on with trannies........

Gender is biological, if you think you are a woman trapped in a man's body, that has a biological cause too.

More importantly for this debate, you don't get to decide you are a man or a woman. Science does. Forcing someone to say you are a man or a woman when they cannot possibly be made to believee otherwise because of the facts and logic in favor of their argument is immoral.

>gathering takes a secondary role to taking care of the children and the household,

Not at all, it's the primary source of food because hunting takes so long. Older children and elderly adults take care of children. Women gather and do general community maintenance while men hunt or raid.

>its mostly genetic.

Mostly? Tasks generally depend on what needs to be done for survival rather than what one is genetically disposed to do. In advanced societies the threat of non-survival isn't as great so there is further sophistication of gender roles as there is further sophistication of most things in a given culture

So am I correct to assume mayonnaise is a gender?

Your gender is 'problematic shitlord'

>not at all, its the primary source of food because hunting takes so long
Hunting was far, far more important to the survival of pre-industrial peoples than gathering was. Humans would not have migrated had it not been for them following animals, and most primitive tools rely on materials taken from slain animals
>tasks depend on what needs to be done for survival rather than what is genetically disposed to do
Hunting and warfare were almost exclusively male pursuits due to a genetic predisposition towards larger muscles, more efficient ATP generation, thicker bones, etc. There isn't nessecarily more sophistication in gender roles in a more advanced society than a less advanced society, considering that males are generally more suited to the role of breadwinner even in post-industrial societies.

>Hunting was far, far more important to the survival of pre-industrial peoples than gathering was.

Sure, but it still took a while which involved hitting the animal with an arrow (poisoned) and tracking it to the location of its death and bringing it back to prepare. In the meantime people had to be fed by what was gathered.

>Hunting and warfare were almost exclusively male pursuits due to a genetic predisposition towards larger muscles, more efficient ATP generation, thicker bones, etc.

Sure, but this isn't the basis of what we consider 'masculine' today. We can abstract it and apply it to risk-taking or whatever but these are sophistications made on the basis of the evidence through observation of a biological 'text' rather than genes directly dictating certain personality traits. There will always be males who aren't winning the bread.

female sexuality is the strongest force humans can experience, does a non-binary gender spectrum even fit in with this at all?

>But it still took a while, tracking it to the location and bringing it back to prepare
A single day's labor of hunting will keep an entire family fed for several days; The same amount of effort and calories spent on gathering might feed a family for a day at most. Hunting was the primary method of gathering food in all pre-agricultural societies.
>Sure, but this isn't the basis of what we consider masculine today
Everything that is considered masculine is something that a y-chromosome makes you more predisposed to be better at
>Sure, but this isn't the basis of what we consider 'masculine' today. We can abstract it and apply it to risk-taking or whatever but these are sophistications made on the basis of the evidence through observation of a biological 'text' rather than genes directly dictating certain personality traits.
But genes do directly dictate the personality traits that make someone masculine or feminine, and bar mutations these are generally the result of hormones, which are directly regulated by genes and are of provably different concentrations in either sex. The fact that there will always be males who aren't winning the bread is irrelevant, they are exceptions to the rule rather than the rule itself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadza_people#Subsistence

To get an idea of pre-agricultural life.

>Everything that is considered masculine is something that a y-chromosome makes you more predisposed to be better at

The idea of what is masculine is culturally determined by observation of what males do, and omitting some patterns of male behaviour for whatever reason in favour of others, rather than knowing about genes and genetic expression (an extremely recent discovery). Rites of passage determine when a child becomes a man, and is allowed to act officially like a man, rather than any biological underpinning. What is accepted male behaviour depends on cultural context ('acceptance') rather than allowing all male genetics to be considered expressions of masculinity. The 'rules' you mention are bound up in this cultural idea of inclusion/omission for male behaviour. Generally in the West we have a middle-class understanding of gender from the industrial revolution.

>the idea of what is masculine is culturally determined by observation of what males do
Do you want to know why males do what they do? I'll give you a hint: its genetics. You don't need to know what genes and genetic expression are to be influenced by them. Rights of passage merely serve to separate when children are allowed to partake in the activities that their genetics predestined for; Since humans can't exactly look into genes and determine at what age someone is capable of preforming their duties, they turn to other ceremonies which test bravery, strength, toughness, etc (all traits which are much more strongly expressed in males than in females, due to DNA regulating muscle density and hormones). What is accepted male behavior depends on furfilling your duties as a male, which are oftentimes slightly distorted by the environment, but always possessing the same underlying principle. The rules I mentioned are bound up in the cultural idea of male behavior, sure, but again, these ideas are simply extensions of genetics.

It's the biased observation of genetics rather than genetics themselves. Gender is determined by categorising gender expression which is based on knowledge and thus culture. The reason we know why a man acts like a man is because we can compare it to how women act and come to some ideal of male behaviour. But this involves omitting some expressions of genetic maleness. This is why gender expressions differ between cultures, because they are idiosyncratic. The idea of breadwinners etc. is an unconvincing application of Western ideas onto every other culture on earth which requires more than just reasoning, it requires evidence.

>omg gender is dictated by culture shitlord just look at bizarre yet equally valid customs of this savage tribe of pygmies from the Amazonian steppe
>so you should totally abandon your own cultural practices regarding gender since they're clearly wrong and not valid

I am increasingly of the opinion that my culture should adopt the traditional ceremony of ritualistically sealing up subversives, crossdressers, homosexuals and other heretics in old oil barrels and setting them adrift at sea.

cross-dressers have been around for a long time,yes, degenerates that cut their genitals off and call themselves a woman when in reality all they have is a knife wound and an asshole have not

It isn't a biased observation, though. Most males act in ways that one would expect people with higher testosterone levels to have, and vice versa. While gender may well have originally been based solely off of observation, the models still hold up even if we bring genetics into it. For example, one of the most common traits exhibited by a "masculine" person in all cultures is bravery. The hormone testosterone, which males are gentically predisposed to produce more of, has been proven to reduce fear responses in both humans and mammals (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15939408). Gender expression differs between cultures due to minute variations in the environment, and yet most of them still possess the same underlying gender roles.

This. Just think if all the many and varied cultures throughout history where the military has been made up pf women such erm, erm, hold on a minute.

Actually, they have. Indian Hijra remove their genitals with knives, and they've been around as far back as anyone knows. Also, if you remember Apuleius (The Golden Ass), the way the Eunuchs were described certainly implied castrated transgender, and that was in ancient Greece.

But not for transvestite reasons, castration has been used as a mark of a slave but not for sexual reasons, thats a modern use of castration and genital mutilation

>indian crossdressers
crossdressing is for white and asian bois only, hun, sorry

>It isn't a biased observation, though.

It is. It's fair to assume that observation in an isolated cultural environment is biased because it hasn't developed scientific standards of objectivity that we have in the West and it can't compare it to other cultures because it doesn't know other cultures to exist.

>Most males act in ways that one would expect people with higher testosterone levels to have, and vice versa.

Most males act in the way they have been made to believe are the ways males act. A contemporary French male acts differently to a contemporary Chinese male, and either of the contemporary males act differently to a male of the 18th century. Again, you can make abstractions but to abstract you have to omit certain evidence.

The study suggests there are fear-reducing properties to testosterone, not that this is a basis for the masculine idea of 'bravery' "in all cultures". Ideas of bravery are culturally dependent, and if you aren't as affected by fear it doesn't mean you are 'brave' necessarily. That's not to say reduced fear isn't a factor in bravery, but the definition in Google (which is not a direct, transparent window onto 'bravery' but provides an adequate model for our cultural idea of bravery) suggests there is a factor of endurance.

>still possess the same underlying gender roles.

Like I said before, you'd have to provide evidence for this statement.

ITT eugenics fag btfo. An no, no one said the word eugenics but this is what genetic determinist arguments almost always lead to. In fact, it's why they are made.

>Most males act in the way they have been made to believe are the ways males act.

So there exists no individual agency for the majority of men? Do you view other people as cattle that must be led by cultural narratives? If so then aren't you just arguing against the prevailing socio-cultural narrative so that it might be replaced by one more amenable to your particular beliefs? And if so then why not just be upfront about wanting to replace it instead of just tearing everything down? What is your proposed alternative?

>indians can perform complex gender altering surgeries
>still can't shit inna toilet

>ITT: /pol/ tries to refute world famous academic J. Butler without a single argument.
Why am I still on this board?

>turn around

So I'm a dumdum, is he implying that our biological sex has NO bearing on our behaviour? Because if so he's literally going against a shitton of studies with basically just his own opinion.

don't use "fancy words" like obscurantist if you can't fucking spell them

I hate Butler with a passion and I am leftist.

I wouldn't mind if we had in academia nazi style book burnings and burned her books and Foucault.

Studies are just tools of the white heterosexual normative patriarchy to oppress women and PoC.

Obscurist actually is a word, but yeah it's so rarely used he probably just meant to write obscurantist.

He's obviously talking about the definition of "gender"
It's always been a synonym for sex. I don't know why lefties didn't just come up with a new word for their fun little idea, instead of playing games by swearing "um this idea we came up with 40 years ago, yeah, that's actually always existed and in fact this word that's been around for centuries is actually defined as this thing we've just 'discovered'"

If you just said "gender expression isn't always the same as biological gender" nobody would disagree with that, nobody!

Try reddit. Might be more up your alley

>I don't know why lefties didn't just come up with a new word for their fun little idea
Because if their aim is to shift around advantages and disadvantages of sex, they can't just come up with something altogether different. They have to start with something synonymous and then separate it together with the advantages they want.
Basically your mistake is thinking they're out for intellectual honesty. They're just academic politicians.

Modern academia is a leftist scam. It all got started by the Frankfurt school. Avoid it like the plague if you want to stay sane.

>If you just said "gender expression isn't always the same as biological gender"

Thats wrong though. You are inclinded to act like your biological sex no matter what your marxist professor told you.

Academia was always a "scam", in the sense of politically motivated bullshit taking precedence over actual research and inquiry. The frankfurt school just contributed to the left wing (relative to modern politics) shift in its focus.

I mean obviously the point is to get people to go "wait, what, that's retarded!" so they can act like you've "attacked" them somehow and shame you for it, but it's just so blatantly shitty.
I'm not exactly on board with this whole mess but cross-dressers certainly *exist*

>it's just so blatantly shitty
Whatever works user.
The bluster itself is far more important than the content, because most people don't care and as such don't listen to the content, but they can't not hear the bluster.

This is not a healthy attitude to have. The right should quit thinking this way.
Academia is in some ways worse than and in some ways not nearly as bad as the right-wing caricature of it.

So are you yourself for or against this?

I'm not against what Academia could have been, im against what marxist and leftists have done with it. Turned it into a propaganda brain washing mashine

>parroting /pol/ memes
How are you doing anything different from what an undergrad at college would do

That's like asking if I'm for or against the use of firearms. I cannot afford not to use those means, so I must be for.

Unless you meant if I'm for or against gender babble, in which case I'm against, because it's a very complex subject (by which I mean there are a shitton of nuances to consider, not there are a shitton of genders) and the massively oversimplified version they band about is revolting.

The west as we know it is lost.

I'm a right-wing guy and I think it's... well, it's definitely a lefty shithole, absolutely. But certain departments, like History, are actually very good.
You really can't write something without citations, and you aren't told you can't write something if you have a good citation for it.

There's obviously politics and hysteria in it, but I think in raging against the lefty-domination that too many right-wingers throw the baby out with the bathwater. I wish they would not do that.

This. And its a damn shame.

But then if you think about it that's just what differentiates left and right. Once upon a time reactionaries harped about class differences (aristocratic rule) and progressives about racial division (scientific racism used to be a leftie thing). It's not so much that the left wing took over academia as much as it is that the left wing IS the academia.
Politicians from the left source their ideology from academia, politicians from the right source their ideology from recent society.

She is not one of the most, she's merely popular within an obscurist field.
It gets worse. So much worse.

Yes, but that's not what was said, was it? What was said was:
"Gender HAS ALWAYS BEEN sex."

Absolutist statements are often stupid to make, because it is rare to find something that is always true 100% of the time, especially when it comes to human culture.

nytimes.com/1995/01/19/us/gingrich-s-piggies-poked.html
Newt?

I agree with that to an extent, absolutely. I only think the progressive racism wasn't necessarily a lefty thing. The centre-"left" and the radical left are very distinct entities. The progressives tended to be centre-left, at most MAYBE social democrats, but for the most part they were distinct from the actual socialists of their era.

The right, also, used to have a much stronger presence in academia. In fact, history as a field was essentially "founded" by VERY right-wing thinkers back in the 1800's.

Who's him?

>The right, also, used to have a much stronger presence in academia. In fact, history as a field was essentially "founded" by VERY right-wing thinkers back in the 1800's.
For every Ranke there were ten thousand hegelians user.

>him
As sad as it is, that's actually a woman.

You know, I don't really know enough about Hegel or his followers.
I know he was a big historicist, and I know the rough layman's version of his dialectic, but aside from that I just don't know enough about the guy

>physical space