BOO HOO HOO WE HAVE TO SLEEP WITH MEN WE'RE NOT ATTRACTED TO

Yeah, a lot.

what isn't a social construct

does that mean that anything that isn't a social construct is wrong

top fucking kek

So is language.

That doesn't justify her being a chomo

And so what? Human rights are also a social construction.
Social constructions aren't inherently bad bro.

so basically it relies Sartrean voodoo (he was a man fyi) and if Sartre is wrong, then the whole thing is garbage.

what is a woman my friends?

the fuck?
a social construct is something contingent related to the culture, so dependent on historical reasons.
>does that mean that anything that isn't a social construct is wrong
u are amazing

That it is. You know what else it is? Extremely unsurprising and common to everyone, not just "women".

Freaking identity politics turning every little stubbed toe into history's greatest tragedy and a massive conspiracy by them against the special snowflake we.

mein Gott nobody said that social constructs where bad
in any case the asymmetry that generates certain social constructs are the problem
you need to go full queer in order to say that gender itself is a bad thing
and if u have this problems understanding first wave feminism, don't even try

third wave feminism killed identity politics
go read Butler mein gott
queer theory
anybody read books?

>what is a woman my friends?
it isn't "an ideological mythology that doesn't reduce to biology and/or psychology." unless that's just a really dumb way of saying the concept of woman doesn't exist
>a social construct is something contingent related to the culture, so dependent on historical reasons.
does this parse for anyone else
>u are amazing
maybe you just have some kind of space brain but i have no idea what you're on about you obscurantist
>queer theory
so the answer to my thread is no i didn't miss ANYTHING, thanks

Guaranteed replies

>in any case the asymmetry that generates certain social constructs are the problem
explain

>muh oppression
Literally obscurantism 101, learn to read.

But the concept of woman EXIST since it is inscribed in the bodies of some "individuals", and therefore not inscribed in others
don't misread Butler
not everything is a social construct (how social constructs are imposed, for example, are not)
i am not saying that Beauvoir doesn't have big gaps in her theory, but c'mon, women were considered beasts at their time, just her development of the concept of woman is worth reading for historical reasons

youtube.com/watch?v=x_fBYROA7Hk

what is the butlerian response to gender dysphoria?

what is the point in taking hormones and mutilating your genitals when you can just be your queer self?

>But the concept of woman EXIST since it is inscribed in the bodies of some "individuals", and therefore not inscribed in others
doesn't parse
>how social constructs are imposed are not social constructs
explain
>women were considered beasts at their time
they are beasts

ehow.com/info_8688449_asymmetrical-social-relationship.html

>gender dysphoria
go back to Saint Foucault, you are not prepared yet to Queen Butler.

(you are using a pathologizing discourse in order to refer to some social practices. trans people are more than one person wanting to be of the other gender: in fact, this kind of reasoning still in the binary framework. If you are interested in the topic. I recommend to you Paul B. Preciado (former knew as Beatriz Preciado). some kind of trans Butler )

>explain

they are outside the possible discourse (repressed) so they can not be social constructed. they are outside the language/Law.

I am not responding to anything else of your post because either u are trolling, or a stemfag or a really sad person

good luck man, in 30 years you are going to be living in a world that u will not be able to understand (if u have not killed urself)

lol wat

plenty of BBC around to choose from

>they are outside the possible discourse (repressed) so they can not be social constructed. they are outside the language/Law.
doesn't parse
>good luck man, in 30 years you are going to be living in a world that u will not be able to understand (if u have not killed urself)
>he thinks his gay white people shit has any serious traction
we'll start stoning you faggots and women again within 30 years

uf a mudslime
[the problematic intensifies]

by the way I recommend to you Pornoburka by Brigitte Vasallo!

>trans people are more than one person wanting to be of the other gender.
behind all the buzzwords. is just that.
why somebody put so much effort in bring down such a concept like gender?. self interest.
gender is a lie . every concept of the fucking world is a lie. i mean, what is so much deep about?.

>gay white people shit
it's not even a muslim thing you're just an easy target when things go to shit

>Saint

First-wave feminism was nothing but bitching about how men won't let them get jobs instead of capitalism, and shaming men for wanting younger girls instead of old '''''''''interesting'''''''' hags.
Beauvoir is a massive hypocrite.

Because behind that concept/lie there is a lot of suffering and inequality. If you don't understand why for certain groups of people it is that important, you have a really bad grasp of subjective experience.
Following your reasoning, every dissertation/theory/essay follows that.
Maybe u are some STFU guy (Wittgenstein, Lao Tze, Confucius...) but it is such a easy standpoint when the languages games doesn't make actually ur life a lot more complicated.

You clearly don't have any idea of social practices of the upper-classes.

Whatever, I don't even want to imagine to what kind of suburban plebs I am talking with.

i'd rather be a pleb than a faggot

it's somehow related, babe :*

faggot...

the fact is that language games make life more complicated to everyone. when you want to free a little concept alone (gender) like was the most fucking and disgusting mental mistake on earth, seem childish to me.
i mean, you dont really care about the "lie" behind the concepts, you just wanna be perceived like "normal" when you trans.
it´s true, if you really think the gender is a false concept you dont put that effort in being anyone.

can u read spanish?

trips of truth

No one said anything about being bad, just that its pretend

It's not voodoo. A woman could hypothetically reject whatever she is naturally compelled to do and live her life pretending to be a cat because she has a brain and is therefore condemned to freedom like the rest of us.

Same for anyone really: at any moment you can do absolutely anything. Saying "oh I'm just a woman, I can't do that" is cowardly, and likewise when you say this to someone else you reduce what you see of the individual's infinite possibility to stereotypes and statistics. When this possibility-denying seeps into legislation and law-making you can understand why the first two waves of feminism were largely on the mark.

...

Human rights are more grounded in objective reality than pink dresses and shiny earrings I would without thinking state but hardly attempt to argue

>there is objective reality
top kek

Just because subjectivity cannot perfectly know objective reality does... mean that at least one subject can scoff at the notion that reality equals itself

Fuck off ESL.

I hope I get a good one!

>Fuck off ESL

What did they mean by this?

Don't confound being "normal" and not being "pathologized".

lrn2english

plz kek

Holy fucking shit it worked

I bought a second-hand copy of this version of The Second Sex online, not knowing it was just "extracts". It's literally one chapter from the book and over 50% introduction/notes from editor/whatever.

That's second wave feminism. First wave feminism was about legal emancipation. They wanted the right to vote and for equality in marriage and inheritance laws.

This is like saying
>alcohol is heavily understood and conceived of through culture
>therefore "alcohol" is just an ideological mythology

observe

It's not like saying that at all. Alcohol is an actual thing. Gender is an idea.

One has pee pee, other has vagoo. It's not an "idea" it's literally biology.

I don't get what the argument is considering that actual cases of hermaphroditism are extremely rare. I like traps as much as the next man but let's be honest, traps and their liberal "allies" are completely bonkers.

damn bro. you made it

"Alcohol" isn't an idea? And a word?

Gender is not the same thing as sex.

That's not gender, that's sex - which you're correct in saying is very real and important, but gender is more complex; it includes non-physical things (psychology, cultural norms for how each sex behaves, broadly the "ideology" of being male or female) as well as the simple existence of the biological organs.

Also, what's your actual objection to a person of one sex, who decides they'd prefer to be the other, surgically altering themselves to be so? I don't see why that's not feasible.

The vast majority of gender norms are born out of sexual differences. Why is this so hard for you?

Alcohol is a real thing. It can be physically interacted with. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

I think you underestimate the power of social influence on gender. Any look into anthropology shows just how very different women have been throughout mankind's history. Also the fact that they are related does not make them the same.

Gender is a real thing, it involves hormones, genitals and chromosomes.

>but gender isn't the same as sex!
This is similar to dichotomizing "booze" and "alcohol," and saying, "Drinking alcohol does not make alcohol booze, because you can drink it with different cultural signifies than booze has." It's just splitting hairs.

And guess what: alcohol has had all sorts of different significations in history and culture too.

Booze and alcohol are two names for the same thing. The exact same thing I said for alcohol applies to booze. They don't have a relationship to each-other, they are the same thing.

Because that's only partially true - some things, like ideas relating to motherhood, have obvious sexual and evolutionary reasons, but there are (or were) also many norms about what type of clothing each sex should wear, how they should behave in social situations, the old idea of "a suitable occupation for a lady" - little of that is biological, or related to anything strictly real.

A more apt parallel would be the term "alcohol" vs the term "all sorts of different significations in history and culture relating to alcohol"; that's essentially what's meant by "gender" (at least in this context).

"Booze" is a culturally charged word. Surely you agree that alcohol has a ton of cultural connotations and can be signified in radically different ways? And can signify radically different things? From being in a champagne glass, to a communion chalice, to a paper bag. It can evoke sophistication and class, or the dregs of society. It can evoke sinful dissipation, or mystical union with the divine.

Every human society that has ever existed has had gender roles. If the two sexes were interchangeable gender norms would not be part of our history. Women's bodies influence their thinking, emotions, and place in society, and the same is true for men.

>Also, what's your actual objection to a person of one sex, who decides they'd prefer to be the other, surgically altering themselves to be so? I don't see why that's not feasible.

They can do whatever they want with their own money and their own bodies. I only object to government funded hormone treatments or surgeries. They don't shell out for boobjobs and facelifts after all.

Plus, wanting a different body is sexist because gender isn't real lmao. Why do you need mones to be a woman? Just try to identify harder!

And all these expressions of alcohol, are still expressions of alcohol. The female gender is a way of expressing the female sex. Sometimes this gendered expression can be abstractly detached, but so can alcohol: Nietzsche loathed actual alcohol, but exalted the "Dionysian". But if you tried to completely separate the "Dionysian" from alcohol, you'd be drastically perverting things.

roll

The connotations are different but they refer to the same thing. Gender and sex do not refer to the same thing though they are related.

Sex describes physical things. In this way it's use is like alcohol. Gender is the socially constructed idea about what it means to belong to a sex. What sex is to alcohol gender is to, for example, drinking etiquette. Drinking etiquette is related to alcohol but not the same thing.

Alcohol describes an actual thing. Drinking etiquette describes social attitudes related to that thing. Sex is an actual thing. Gender describes social expectations of what it means to belong to a sex.

>If the two sexes were interchangeable
The reason I emphasized transgender people is because they're doing exactly this; unlike "every human society that has ever existed", it's now possible for one sex to become the other, or combine elements of both (and this will only get easier as surgical tech advances - there are SF stories about it). The idea of gender may lose a lot of its usefulness as biological sex becomes customizable.

>Women's bodies influence their thinking, emotions, and place in society
One of these things is not like the others. The effect of sexual hormones on the brain, which causes thinking and emotions, is obviously different in males and females, but place in society is not biologically based; it's set up according to learned norms and traditions (ideology).

There is a ton of socially constructed ideas about alcohol. It's one thing to point out that they're socially constructed; it's quite another to say they should be totally detached from alcohol, and should be freely used to signify things like water or Kool-Aid. Our very words are signifiers of something other than the words themselves, your perspective is akin to saying, "A word should only signify the word and not what the word is used to signify."

>and this will only get easier as surgical tech advances - there are SF stories about it

Literally artificial my dude. And no, a transexual does not really become his or her desired sex. That Danish man, for example, they tried to give him a womb and it killed him, it's like Frankenstein's monster.

>but place in society is not biologically based

Women are physically smaller and weaker than men, a lot weaker in fact. What's more, they're out of commission for up to a week a month. My ex got bad cramps, she had to take days off to writhe in bed and be miserable. That's why my ex would have stayed at home rearing children and spinning cloth while I would have worked in the fields or in the mines. Division of labour. Why do you think 99.9% of soldiers are male? Because we literally evolved to fight and kill other males. Our fists are stronger, our faces bonier, our voices deeper and scarier.

When science advances to the point where we can make a perfect trap, I'm going to have myself teleported back to the neolithic and just fight and screw all day, it'll be great.

"Will get easier", not "is currently perfect" - after all, there were many failed attempts at a heart transplant before Barnard.

Soldiery and heavy labour is a good example of something determined by sex, though, and I would argue points out the difference between it and gender - sex is "hardware", things like that which physically exist, while gender is "software", ideas about sex that can change over time. I don't think Beauvoir (we've strayed way off her) was arguing against the existence of sexual differences, only saying they shouldn't result in the idea of one sex being superior to the other or having a dominant position in society. (Also, technology has an important role here - most people don't work in a mine or a field, and even warfare is moving away from physical strength in favor of guided missiles and drone aircraft).

Sometimes I worry that women really are mentally inferior, and that my one chance to experience life won't really be a full experience because I'm not a man.

>All this tumblr ITT

You have so much faith in technology. Have you ever had a power outage? How well does your computer work with no electricity? In human beings there is no difference between "the hardware" and the "software." We are our bodies, and the brain is a part of that physical body just like our arms and legs and genital organs.

>most people don't work in a mine or a field, and even warfare is moving away from physical strength

It's like you've never left the suburbs. Banks's Culture is a long, long, way off for people who aren't fortunate enough to live in the modern West. The vast majority of fighting is done with weapons designed in the 1940s, and the vast majority of work is done with hands and strong backs. You have no idea how the world works because you spend all day reading Beuavoir and Butler and Foucault and never think to look out the fucking window. You talk about ideology when you're the most indoctrinated ideologue in the coffee-shop.

Google "farming in India" and tell me about the advanced futuristic technology you see there, in the second most populous country on earth. How about "coal mining in China." How do think a woman who can't even lift her own body weight would do in a coal mine?

Different != worse

>In human beings there is no difference between "the hardware" and the "software."
Like I said, the software is literally ideas - if you don't like the term "ideology", it can also be described as "memes" in the original Dawkins/Blackmore sense, but the fact remains that cultural concepts aren't based in physically real things. That's all it means.

>The vast majority of fighting is done with weapons designed in the 1940s
Most of which (rifles, mortars, etc) don't rely on physical strength so much as accuracy, speed etc, which aren't gender based.

>the vast majority of work is done with hands and strong backs
Simply not true; developing economies like India and China by definition aren't at the forefront of tech or representative of the world's trajectory as a whole, but even they're advancing dramatically to catch up with the First World (which is why the West is so anxious about China in particular). We're talking about people who mass-produce iPhones.

>It's like you've never left the suburbs
>the most indoctrinated ideologue in the coffee-shop
Up till now, I was actually impressed that you weren't using caricatures in place of arguments

Tumblr would just scream "offensive" and retreat to a safe space

>Up till now, I was actually impressed that you weren't using caricatures in place of arguments

This is generally right though. I have a lot of experience with lefties.

What is it with them and coffee shops?

Friendly reminder that Simone was a sexual predator, pimp and degenerate who would be jailed today

For whatever reason coffee shops have an image of being meeting places for intelligensia (a French thing, maybe?) and they really, really care about projecting that image. Tends to be more your Huffington Post neoliberal though.

I don't want this to become bogged down in semantics more than it already is since I see you taking issue with things that are besides the point.

>There is a ton of socially constructed ideas about alcohol
>about
Exactly my point. They are about alcohol. They are not alcohol. They are not the same thing. Regardless of how you want words surrounding them to function you admit that they are two different things. That is the important thing, not how our words are used to describe these things but that we are talking about two related but separate things.

It is exactly the same with sex and gender. Even if you want to make gender and sex mean the exact same thing that doesn't remove the existence of social attitudes towards sex. It is these social attitudes to which I am talking about. This is gender. You can choose to use the word how you want but the thing to which that word was used is still there.

Gender is the socially constructed ideas about what it means to belong to a sex. It is tautological to say that gender is a social construction. It is impossible to be wrong. To say that gender is not a social construct is to say that drinking culture is not the same.

Yeah, maybe a proper coffee shop on some bourgeois Parisian street. How the fuck did a coffee chain like Starbucks create that impression for itself?

kill this shitty thread pls

The anglo distinction between gender and sex is bullcrap by the way.

There are certain elements that are biologically and psychologically inherent to the female and male gender and that dictate female and male behaviour.

There are some social constructs that tie into that but their influence is rather miniscule.

What is wrong with it?

god FUCKING DAMMIT when will this meme die