Veeky Forums, do you believe sex/gender is
>fixed? (i.e. can't change during life)
>biological? (i.e. not social/constructed)
>binary? (i.e. not fuzzy/multi-valued/a spectrum)
keep in mind that while these are often treated as one, they are different and may vary independently
Other urls found in this thread:
sciencedirect.com
pnas.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
journals.plos.org
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
twitter.com
They are words that are only and exclusively useful when binary.
Nobody ought to give a shit what you "identify as". What matters is who can fertilize, and who can get fertilized.
The SRY gene is a social construct you fascist
Sex is a biological thing. It can change, theoretically, but odds are it doesn't for any one individual.
Gender is a social construct, it can change, it can be non-binary and while it is influenced by choice, it isn't wholly under the control of the individual.
That said, nobody ought to care about anyone else's gender, or rub their own gender in anyone's face. It's a non-issue and in most cases is simply used as a way to harvest attention from others.
Our society accepts cis gendered people and it should not have to be tolerant to any other form of gender identification. Once the flood gates open...
Sex is biological, binary.
Gender is a social construct, on a spectrum. Anyone who disagrees with this is probably still in their edgy """anti-SJW""" stage, and will mature to accept this eventually. However, I do agree that some people abuse this spectrum and try to get the most off-the-wall identification just so they can think they're special.
Agree entirely with this.
What's the issue with being tolerant towards what someone wants to call themselves. Is it really that big of a deal if they're not causing issues?
So go fuck a transman, since they can get fertilized.
the problem is that you're telling us we're required to call you a nonbinary genderkin wolf, if that's how you choose to identify yourself.
I can't, nor will I ever attempt to, control what you choose to call yourself. On the flip side, you can't (or otherwise shouldn't), attempt to control what I call you.
We can call each other fucking faggots for all we care, but neither of us can honestly tell the other to not call us a fucking faggot.
That just makes me want to call you a fucking faggot some more
The simple fact that there is a debate about this that cannot be settled empirically proves gender is not binary and to some extent socially constructed. Many forms of categorization are non-binary and constructed, like species.
First off, I don't think anyone should be "forced" or "required" to call anyone anything.. that's not the argument at all.
But, if someone came up to me and asked if I could call them fairykin, I would do so because it doesn't really matter, and I'm not an asshole. It's not like you're running into these people on a daily basis, and it'll make the dude feel better about himself.
Call someone what you want, I'm not forcing you. Just know that if you go out of your way to refuse something that simple that could make someone a little happier, I'll think you're just a dick. It's a matter of being a decent human being.
I can't force you to call me a man even though I'm a "cisgendered male" but you do anyway because it's the polite way to behave. If you accidentally called a man who looks like a woman "her" you would probably apologize. Why, if you don't care?
Kill yourseves you anti-scientific retards. You have no business being on this board.
...
ITT: SJWs astroturfing.
>>>/tumblr/
>>>/anywherebuthere/
This is Veeky Forumsence. We have enough cancerous cranks on our hands as it is.
you know sex and gender, by definition, have two different meanings right
do you live in the deep south or something? or do you just like to think your definitions are more correct than the actual real definitions? you either need to mature, or you're just braindead
>it's not draconic authoritarianism, we just want you to be polite
Kill yourself.
To the extend that they mean anything and point to something real, sex and gender are one and the same thing. Gender is a 1960s invention. It is entirely fictive. A term borrowed over from grammar for purely ideological reasons.
Nouns have gender. Organisms have sexes.
Once again, I kindly ask you to go back to
This reminds me of something. It's speculated that the anglosphere has went so batshit insane over this because the English language has abandoned gender as a grammatical category. I think it was some French feminista who pointed it out.
>he actually believes the strawman that all non-edgy """anti-SJW""" teens are that unreasonable when it comes to trans people, and that the government will eventually jail you for misgendering someone
Watching a little too much Sargon lately buddy?
>a sociological term isn't "real" because it was invented in the past 100 years
Whelp guess we'll just throw out all recent discoveries. Didn't know science and humanities worked like that.
>hurr gender is science
No it's not you dumb LARPer.
I believe sex and gender are distinct, heavily linked phenomena that are based heavily in biology and culture.
No, I call you a man because that may be how I perceive you. If I perceive you as a boy, I'll call you a boy. Politeness has to do with the context of the interaction, not the objectivity of the situation.
>Whelp guess we'll just throw out all recent discoveries
Keep trying. "Gender" is not a discovery. It's entirely made up. Humans exhibit "gendered" behaviour at birth* for fuck's sake. Fuck off with this anti-scientific bullshit. There is no such thing as gender.
(*) DOI (Archives of sexual Behaviour, Springer): 10 [dot] 1007 [forwardslash] s10508 (hyphen) 008 [hyphen] 9430 [hyphen] 1 (link broken up because it got caught in the spam filter for some retarded reason)
>Sex Differences in Infants’ Visual Interest in Toys
>Consistent with primary hypothesis, sex differences in visual interest in sex-linked toys were found, such that girls showed a visual preference (d > 1.0) for the doll over the toy truck and boys compared to girls showed a greater number of visual fixations on the truck (d = .78).
>Our findings suggest that the conceptual categories of “masculine” and “feminine” toys are preceded by sex differences in the preferences for perceptual features associated with such objects.
Males and females have different brain: sciencedirect.com
>muh gender
More: pnas.org
>b-b-but muh GENDER
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Only sex predicted means for all four traits, and sex predicted trait means much more strongly than did gender equality or the interaction between sex and gender equality. These results suggest that biological factors may contribute to sex differences in personality and that culture plays a negligible to small role in moderating sex differences in personality.
>These results suggest that biological factors may contribute to sex differences in personality and that culture plays a negligible to small role in moderating sex differences in personality.
So if you perceived a person as a boy and then someone pointed out to you that that person is 36 years old you would continue calling that person a boy? If yes, you're being impolite. If not then clearly politeness has little to do with perception.
journals.plos.org
>The idea that there are only minor differences between the personality profiles of males and females should be rejected as based on inadequate methodology.
>the true extent of sex differences in human personality has been consistently underestimated.
>MUH GENDER
>he is still trying to push this bullshit here
wew
>humans exhibit gendered behavior
>there is no such thing as gender
What did he mean by this?
>The brain typically displays sexual differences
>atypically brains do not display these differences in a way that matches their sex
Therefore gender exists.
Are you blind? I put "gendered" in scare-quotes. Exceptions prove the rule dumb-ass. The existence of outliers does not invalidate the results. A 10% overlap in distributions is very small. Gender is proving to be a "theory of the gaps". Like all nonsense, hiding in ever narrower nooks and crannies of "unexplained" variance.
>RA Lippa
>This engaging text presents the latest scientific findings on gender differences, similarities, and variations--in sexuality, cognitive abilities, occupational preferences, personality, and social behaviors. The impact of nature and nurture on gender is examined from the perspectives of genetics, molecular biology, evolutionary theory, neuroanatomy, sociology, and psychology. The result is a balanced, fair-minded synthesis of diverse points of view. Dr. Lippa's text sympathetically summarizes each side of the nature-nurture debate, and in a witty imagined conversation between a personified "nature" and "nurture," he identifies weaknesses in the arguments offered by both sides. His review defines gender, summarizes research on gender differences, examines the nature of masculinity and femininity, describes theories of gender, and presents a "cascade model," which argues that nature and nurture weave together to form the complex tapestry known as gender.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
>Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences.
(Note: the author is using gender as a "polite" synonym for sex. Throughout the article, gender is used as two categories: men and women.)
How does this conflict with gender exactly?
It seems like you just posted the first results you got on Google without even reading then and then proclaiming gender BTFO.
>Are you blind? I put "gendered" in scare-quotes.
Yes and then you presented research which shows gendered behavior.
>masculinity and femininity
Yes, he's talking about sex in a PC way. Probably just to get lunatics like you off his back.
>Exceptions prove the rule dumb-ass.
That's a nice cliche but how about you actually respond to the argument? You just showed that gendered behavior can diverge from sex.
>The existence of outliers does not invalidate the results.
Of course, because the results are not GENDER DOES NOT EXIST HURR DURR. You just can't read.
It shows that "male" and "female" are fixed categories and "gender" is only an obfuscation of sex.
As long as you use gender as a synonym for sex.
Why am I reading this garbage.
What would be the point of having sex and gender mean the same thing?
It's not a cliche. > the results are
that to the extent that it is anything, gender is the same thing as sex.
I see you changed tactics: what would be the point of having them mean different things when all evidence available points to them being the same?
>he's j-just being p-polite
>he only refers to masculine and feminine Because those are the two poles of the gender spectrum around which the population is massed. You just can't stop arguing against yourself.
Nice, more pseudoscience. There is no such thing as a gender spectrum.
>It shows that "male" and "female" are fixed categories
That statement is so vague its meaningless. I don't disagree with it. It also didn't seem to be the point of the paper.
Keep backpedalling with pseudoscience pal.
Why don't you spare us all your nonsense and go back wherever it is you came from.
Funny how the "gender and sex vary independently" crowd is yet to provide any evidence.
If gender is a synonym for sex why did we need a paper linking gendered behavior to sex? And why is the link not 100% predictive. In reality, what the paper shows and what we all know is that sex is usually matched with gender and sometimes not. Thus not synomous.
>that to the extent that it is anything, gender is the same thing as sex.
Except when it's not. Thanks for playing.
So then everyone is either male or female right? And all males exhibit masculine behavior and all females exhibit feminine behavior right? Except the research you just posted disproves that.
>backpedaling
LOL You're the one who backpedaled to "male and female are fixed categories."
>why is the link not 100% predictive.
Because biological development is a very noisy process. Errors can occur at any level and accrue. I like how you have to cling to the Nirvana fallacy to keep a foot in the door.
There are people which are born with various abnormalities. They are extremely rare. Like I said, exceptions prove the rule. In more than 99% of cases a person's identifiable sex phenotype is the same as their genotype.
The evidence was already presented. Sex does not determine gendered behavior 100% of the time.
All the articles I posted unambiguously refute the nonsense straight out of the trashcan of ideology that is gender studies that gender and sex somehow vary independently.
>Because biological development is a very noisy process.
Yes therefore gender exists. You've already admitted that I'm right, now you're just arguing semantics.
Your thermometer doesn't measure the temperature in your perfectly accurately either. Doesn't mean there's no such thing as temperature.
>Veeky Forums, do you believe sex/gender is...
D) Obsessed about by people of low imagination and curiosity who aspire to achieve nothing of value in life
>99+% concordance between sex and "gender"
>AHA! THEY VARY INDEPENDENTLY
You're a fucking brainlet. The only one arguing semantics here is you.
>There are people which are born with various abnormalities. They are extremely rare. Like I said, exceptions prove the rule. In more than 99% of cases a person's identifiable sex phenotype is the same as their genotype.
The rule the exception proves is that gender generally matches sex. Not that gender does not exist, moron. You keep failing to respond to what I'm actually arguing.
>gender does not necessarily match sex
>>yes it does, see this research shows gender correlates heavily with sex
>not an argument
No. The rule the the exception proves is that phenotypical sex matches genotypical sex. If gender is anything, it is phenotypical sex.
GO THE FUCK BACK TO WHATEVER BRAINLET HELLHOLE YOU CRAWLED OUT OF.
>they vary independently
But this is a strawman you just made up. Here's what I argued:
>Gender exists
Here's what you argued against:
>gender is not correlated with sex
Do you see a difference?
You're reduced to memery. As expected of a brainwashed brainlet.
>Links research showing the obvious fact that sex and gender typically correlate
>"HAHA THIS MEANS GENDER DOESN'T EXIST"
god some people are retarded
>you just made up.
LMAO
>keep in mind that while these are often treated as one, they are different and may vary independently
Cognitive dissonance is hitting hard I see. No worries, in time you will accept the fact that gender and sex are the same thing.
And
>Here's what you argued against
No, I didn't argue against that at all. If that is your position than "gender" is an entirely redundant concept that just means (phenotypical) sex.
>you just made that up
No lol that's actually what you did. He never said they vary independently, retard. OP said that they "may", and this person isn't even OP.
Jesus christ dude
>"I think you're wrong so you're experiencing cognitive dissonance"
Nah if the evidence and definitions actually pointed towards them being the same thing I'd accept it. I'm a cis male after all, there's no harm to me if they were the same thing.
LOL what does temperature analogize to here?
I'm not saying something does not exist because gender and sex are only correlated. I'm saying that gender exists. This is essentially tautological. You're only arguing against a strawman.
>be a transgender
>"I use a skirt, therefore I'm woman"
This is why I can't understand all this shit. Trans talk about oppression but they validate this old concepts of masculinity and femininity.
At this point you're clutching at straws.
You're just arguing semantics, which you (pr some other moron) accused me of doing.
Gender is sex or it is nothing at all. If you want to be more precise: gender is phenotypical sex.
This is a cold hard fact. End of discussion.
>The rule the the exception proves is that phenotypical sex matches genotypical sex.
Which is only generally true. Which is what I'm arguing. Yes or no?
Only good point I've seen from anti-gender ITT
>Shit guys, I got BTFO'd.. uh....
>"At this point you're clutching at straws."
This discussion is finished.
You're arguing that gender is just developmental noise/errors? I'm pretty sure you aren't. You have a whole lot of other baggage attached there.
You just spent the entire thread stating over and over that gender is correlated with sex.
We never had a discussion in the first place because you're an intellectually stunted ideologue. Sorry this isn't your gender studies classroom.
No, I pointed out the fact that it is the same thing as (phenotypical) sex. (Provided you want gender to point to something real, not just looney bullshit in your head.)
To go back to the OP
It is a fact that "gender" is fixed. It is a fact that it is biological. It is a fact that it is binary: there are male human organisms, and female human organisms.
Every argument against these facts is the same as saying "hands are not fixed and not biological because some people can be born without hands" or something retarded like that.
I'd rather kill myself then take a gender studies class, I'm just not a raging reactionary teen. Most matured and educated people accept my stance, the other side is almost entirely composed of people like you.
Mixed definitions there, buddo. You're talking about sex there.
Gender is phenotypical sex or it is nothing whatsoever.
>You're arguing that gender is just developmental noise/errors?
Thank you for articulating you can't read and/or can't argue honestly.
Every piece of research you posted shows they aren't the same thing, just heavily it correlated. If they were the same thing they would be 100% determined by each other. You lost, get over it.
...
>Every piece of research you posted shows they aren't the same thing
No, every article I posted shows that gender is indistinguishable from phenotypical sex.
>If they were the same thing they would be 100% determined by each other.
Wrong. Developmental errors can happen. No phenotype is 100% correlated with the underlying genotype. If you'd clone an organisms, its clones would still be slightly different.
Thank you for once again demonstrating that you are a fish out of water though.
Nicely memed
>No, every article I posted shows that gender is indistinguishable from phenotypical sex.
If they were indistinguishable then it would be impossible to perform a study finding a only a correlation between them. They would just be the same thing. You can't have a correlation between a thing and itself less than 1, numbskull. You proved yourself wrong, but your tiny pea brain can't handle it. Time to go back to /pol/.
>No phenotype is 100% correlated with the underlying genotype.
So by your logic genotype is the same thing as phenotype and phenotype does not exist/is meaningless.
The imperfect correlation is between the genotype and the phenotype you fucking imbecile, and it is entirely expected. I just spelled it out to you a post ago (and a couple ones before). Can you selectively illiterate or something?
There is absolutely no study (not one) that shows gender is something distinct from phenotypical sex.
Jesus Christ you're fucking dumb.
Fuck off.
>The imperfect correlation is between the genotype and the phenotype you fucking imbecile, and it is entirely expected.
Sorry, no phenotype does not exist. The exception proves the rule etc. Everything is genotype and everything which is not genotype doesn't count. I win.
To show that gender is distinct from phenotypical sex you have to show that it is not correlated with sex genotype (Y chromosome). Every measure of "gender" developed is very strongly correlated to sex genotype, i.e. gender is just another name for sex phenotype.
>There is absolutely no study (not one) that shows gender is something distinct from phenotypical sex.
Except for all the studies you posted in this thread. It's not like any of them determined sex genotypically.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. Kill yourself and spare us of your stupidity, you uneducated mouthbreather.
I don't think you understand what phenotype and genotype mean.
>To show that gender is distinct from phenotypical sex you have to show that it is not correlated with sex genotype (Y chromosome).
False. They clearly are correlated. You realize two distinct things can be correlated right? You fail at basic logic buddy.
>Every measure of "gender" developed is very strongly correlated to sex genotype, i.e. gender is just another name for sex phenotype.
So if gender is the same thing as sex genotype then the following sentence should make the sane sense:
>Every measure of sex phenotype is very strongly correlated to sex genotype, i.e. sex genotype is just another name for sex phenotype.
Is genotype the same thing as phenotype? Does correlation mean equality?
I don't think you understand what phenotype and genotype mean, since you think they're the same thing.
No, that's not what Gender means. But the confusion is easily made when supposed figures of academic authority begin using this new definition without quesiton. But really, you can't just change language defintitions and expect people to go along with it. The Etymology of the word is devoid of any mention of social constructs until recent years. It has not been long since a particular group of people just suddenly decided that this was going to be what the word means now. A more accurate and professional way of describing the new phenomenon would be to call it, specifically, gender-identity. As to not confuse it with biological gender or gender-role, or any other use of the word.
The War on Words was a thing Hegel predicted would come to pass eventually, a prediction he made over two hundred years ago.
Non-english speaking regions of the world are just going to scratch their heads over this social constructionist nonsense. Because while many languages evolved along the same lines, to attribute this loaded meaning to a word to convey a complex political ideological suggestion is not a meme that can survive outside of the anglosphere. What I'm saying here is that this new definition of Gender will no longer be a translation for how it is used in just about every other language the world has.
>Not an argument