Is gender a spook?

Is gender a spook?

it can be, and very often is.

is there anything that isn't a spook to you faggots?

Yes.

Amusingly modern progressives don't get this.

In which instance is it not?

I would assume in its extension beyond biology.

No.
>inb4 le everything is a spook Stirnerposting kids
Stirner was a retard

when you do not consider it a concept which demands are higher than your own desires.

Like, one may act as a man and be adressed with male pronouns and be very manly because one enjoys that role very much.

You know, when it doesn't qualify as a spook.

Gender roles are enforced by biology and not social programming though
>inb4 men used to wear high heels!
The roles of men and women have been constant throughout human history,

You disproved your own point in your own post though.

Does it matter? If you take that concept of masculinity and think it to be perscriptive rather than descriptive, in an extent beyond it serving your interest, it is, per Stirner, a spook.

Or you could say the belief that statements of biology are anything but that, statements of facts, is the spook you're under then, but it's just splitting hair at that point.

Fashion != gender roles

I assure you those high heeled men were not submissive as their wives.

Is mayonnaise a spook?

It can be, but probably never is.

In which instance is it?

wtf is a spook?

Yeah

Any sentiment that you ought to do something that is not serving you.

How old is sexual dimorphism? +100 million years?

That's anything but a spook.

when someone takes mayonnaise and the furthering thereof to be a more pressing motivator than their own desires.

I did say it probably never is.

How do I know what is serving me? What if I have a parasite in my body that is subverting my true desires? What if my real desire is not what I think I want because I am being deluded?

>What if I have a parasite in my body that is subverting my true desires?

That does not matter.

>What if my real desire is not what I think I want because I am being deluded?

You are appealing to subjectivity of service.
I was referring to that which is objective or measurable, which is physiological and psychological health.

>That does not matter.
Not an argument.

>objective and measurable
those sound like spooks

>Not an argument.
Oh is it not? What then if I have a large tattoo on my back depicting a rainstorm on an Irish landscape?

>those sound like spooks
what is a spook?

>those sound like spooks

Not an argument.

>what is a spook?
A miserable little pile of secrets.

The differentiation of clothes into men's and women's clothes is inexplicably tied up in gender roles

>I assure you those high heeled men were not submissive as their wives.

And the submission of women to men was enforced by these societies. Were it natural there wouldn't need to be social mores to enforce their submission.

>little pile of secrets
how many secrets make up a little pile vs a medium or large pile?

What, if anything, is the difference between Stirner's spook and Zizek's ideology? Are they both just abstract concepts we mistakenly think we owe shit to?

yes it is
>The roles of men and women have been constant throughout human history
that proves op's point
>sexual
we're talking about gender

gender has its roots in the economic system of primitive tribes btw

Yep. While personality is to some extent influenced by sex, this is often down to social influence. I'm not sure why the idea of gender even exists when we already have the idea of personality. I suppose it plays into romantic attraction alongside sexual attraction. But what we find attractive is pretty arbitrary, externally influenced, and even an evolutionary disadvantage, given that the pressures nowadays are so different from the original ones.