I have to write a paper arguing against gender-fluidity / multiple-genders

As far as I understand they are defined by their mutually exclusive means of gaining pleasure which originates in the ability to identify with the mother or the father

So Freudian shit?

>tfw she's bald
feels bad desu.

Yeah of course, Lacan is a Freudian

Basically can you keep your mother's affection and attention by providing what it is that she valued outside you (your daddy's big cock) or can you one day receive the thing yourself (your daddy's big cock). Although Lacan diverged from Freud by seeing the thing as not literally reducible to the phallus

Girls have XX and vagoona
Boys have XY and peepee
Source: any textbook on biology/genetics

There I wrote the paper for you

What about non-binary?

Pretty bad paper. Good papers address arguments made against their position.

Holy fucking christ man your writing is painful to read.

Mutations, not magical 'new' genders. Down Syndrome is not a gender, for example.

Yeah sorry I never explained this before so I was kind of working through it as I wrote

Mutation of what?

It wasn't that bad. I have no idea why it was singled out.

What about XXX, XXY, XYY, single X, and other permutations?

Deviations from the biological norm that almost invariably come with health complications/etc (such as sterility/etc) and which should certainly not be promoted or abided.

this is fake and bait

It was singled out, samefag, because it was obvious you were trying to write on a certain 'level' by your vocabulary and structure but your thoughts were poorly expressed and the aforementioned qualities poorly executed. It's just Veeky Forums so whatever but if you want to argue something at all seriously you gotta write that first draft of "thinking through it" and then once your thoughts are in order go back and express yourself more clearly and concisely.

What about people born with two heads or no legs? Shall we call them a new bicapital, legless strain of human genos? Or just what they are - unfortunate genetic fuck ups?

I'm not a samefag I just didn't think it was that complicated or even the worst post of the thread.

Why are people treating these like exact synonyms?

Sex = biologically determined by XX or XY chromosomes
Gender = the social construct around being masculine/feminine

Yeah but like I'm curious. I believed / understood the non-binary concept as soon as it was introduced to me so it might be interesting and generally helpful to see if there are any arguments against it that aren't gender = chromosomes. Just to foster some healthy growth and openness and probably strengthen my knowledge in the subject.

Yeah but the poster/you was obviously trying so of course he's gotta be called out for it bc edgy Veeky Forums. Sincerity is punished.

Go to /pol/. Get redpilled on this shit. Basically it's because special snowflakes want political power and by marginilising themselves into minority "persecuted" groups, the cultural Marxists will grant them power.

It's hard to find arguments against gender being non-essential. Most of the ones I've encountered (and admittedly, I haven't really looked very hard) seem to be just "muh chromosomes" or suggesting that binary gender is innate because its based on sex, and that deviating from this is a sort of defiance of conventional societal norms.

The social reality of the symbols is indeed outside the individual but individuals compose society so once enough individuals accept the new significance of the symbols their external social reality will have changed. We are just in a period of flux wherein we experience social tension bc society does not yet recognize the new symbols but a large (and growing) portion does. Don't put the cart before the horse; symbols do not define man and did not precede him.

Can you identify masculine gender as anything but the negation of feminine and vice versa?

Those types of arguments have never interested me. Seem to focus solely on the motivations for the assertion rather than actually addressing the validity of the assertion itself.

Dear me. People still mix up their genders with their gender roles.

I still don't understand what people have against the 'muh chromosomes' or 'muh sex' explanation. Gender is predicated on sex and it's the only way it can have an internal logic to itself. Sure, it's modulated by culture, but if you don't like the negotiation of gender roles, making up new genders or transitioning is reinforcing the very social constructionist aspect of gender you're trying to fight.

Yeah well kids are dumb and not very well-informed philosophically so

Still phenotypically male or female you willy face

they have a problem with muh chromosomes and muh sex because science says "er that doesn't work all the time". chromosomes are especially useless for determining sex. people like to believe they're just XX or XY and that science's only answer therefore must be XX and XY. it's bad science which only exists because retards who don't understand chromosomes think chromosomes must agree with their social understanding. they don't and if you don't want to address different parts of a chimera's body as a variety of sexes, stop pretending you know shit about chromosomes.

Do the opposite. Research the arguments for gender-fluidity and use them to propose something completely ridiculous, like trans-speciesism, but in a most serious and logical fashion.

How can you be born the wrong gender if gender is a social construct?

Also, regarding With some issues, if you don't care about the Cui Bono, you'll never understand the issue itself.

>How can you be born the wrong gender if gender is a social construct?
Like society forces you into whatever gender it sees fit. And sometimes that's not the "true" gender that you feel you have, and therefore the oppression happens.

youtube.com/watch?v=fBsR7-SiLPY

Haven't read Lacan, but I'm interested in doing so, plus someone gifted me Ecrits not so long ago. In which of his writings does he talk about gender, and the concept of polygender?

But if masculine and feminine are just spooks and social constructs, then how can you be born the wrong one?
Take Bruce Jenner: Why does he have to be a woman to wear dresses? And why would wearing a dress make him more of a woman?

If there is no connection between your biological sex and your gender - how can you be born the wrong one?

I think that this crowd sounds so schizophrenic because it's essentially composed of two very different momenta. One is the identity politics that is essentially about people divided into strict groups (be it gender, sexual orientation, race or whatever) and about making the relationships between different groups more "just". Another is the postmodern movement that ultimately seeks to destroy any division into groups (as Zizek said somewhere about the genders-whatever movement, that their endgame is essentially denying gender at all). Both movements are quite insane, in my opinion, but at least they're somewhat consistent on their own. And blended together they become a fine exercise in doublethink.

I completely agree, which is why I want an answer from the guy who holds those opinions.

"Gender" is a recently reappropriated word. The only "evidence" into the viability of anything resembling transgenderism, are mostly, usually completely undetectable minor, technical mutations in a very rare few. This has been know has hermaphroditism. There is also the same logic of declaring themselves apart of a gender, which is impossible unless gender roles exist in the first place. Hi "I'm a male now" I'm going to get plastic dick, take testosterone, grow hair, and other such traits that used to be the exclusive definition of "male gender."

1997: What is your gender? Female. What is your personality? Tomboy.

2017: What is your gender? Panpolybibandgender. What is your personality? Cunt slut bitch, want some of dis oh oh hoh sex parts?

Any biology book and just watch Blaire White's video about it.

Base it on two pheromones studies

if you base it on studies that acknowledge pheromones you dismiss any shitty arguments based on emotion, and get to use pure science. DONT use any qualitative data.

find a study that shows certain men are attracted to certain pheromones, certain women are attracted to certain pheromones, on a subconscious level. doesn't matter if it cites same sex attraction, not important for this report. quantitative data, larger the test the better.

next, get a scientific report that says your pheromones are permanent (or change at puberty, but then are 'locked in')

you've now got an argument that humans are naturally attracted to other humans pheromones, on an instinctive level, and that pheromones cant be changed, therefore gender fluidity is unnatural and influenced by factors other than human nature - conclude with genderfluidity is a mental illness.

your welcome.

you can assert that any attraction that isn't based on animal attraction, pheromones, is attraction based on emotion, emotions lead to irrational states (cite appeal to emotion fallacy).

so people claiming they are attracted to different sexes are doing so because theyre irrational (mental illness)

>Implying Freud was wrong

TRIGGER WARNING FOR FAGGITS.

>You can smell a person's GENDER: Humans subconsciously identify sex using the subtle odour of pheromones

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2617977/You-smell-persons-SEX-Humans-subconsciously-identify-gender-using-subtle-odour-pheromones.html

there are chromosomal abnormalities such as the Klinefleter Syndrome, but all of these would still fall under the male-female categorisation. Two X chromosomes still makes you male.

I'm not an intelligent alien observer might see a more sensible biological basis for gender categorisation - biological inputs that have a higher predictive capability in determining fixed group-based social outputs. In full agreement. If his were the case, it merely undermines sex as a poor basis for categorisation, rather than suggesting it's a social construct. Being that the survival of our species rests upon our reproductive function, it is only natural that we take interest in sex as the criteria upon which gender is predicated.

People should fight strict gender roles like they have in the past, not biology. The fact that they would rather make up arbitrary gender categories based on the very social constructs that they are claiming to fight is the toppest of toppitty keks.

People should fight strict gender roles
Why exactly should they?

>I chose it because any more than two genders sounds like bullshit to me
Your prof will flunk you.

no, that's why gender forms a binary

>The researchers found homosexual males responded to gender pheromones more like heterosexual females did.

Not him, but personally I think gender norms should be about 10% less strict and those 10% are fairly reasonable, so they make for reasonable examples, and then people use these reasonable examples to convince others to do away with gender roles altogether and then you get the mess we're sliding into now.

>please let me pretend chromosomes work that way
it's not even a gene which is restricted to the Y chromosome that makes males, it can appear in people without Y chromosomes. you're just too retarded to understand what those things are scientifically, but arrogant enough to be convinced you learnt it all in a biology course for 13 year olds. you're as bad as a creationist. chromosomes define gender is about as good as "white hair defines old age".

That's not what mental illness is, and everything you do is based in emotion.

It's the cognitive representation of the neurological catalysts required for you to do literally anything.

Holy fuck this is the stupidest fucking board on this god damned website.

You aren't making sense then.
>non-binary genders aren't real because we can only define them by negating qualities of binary genders
>yet it's okay for binary genders to be defined by nothing but negations??

wew lad, okay, the whole range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex is what gender is predicated upon.

no because then we would be giving millions of cancer patients gender changes

gender doesn't have an internal logic, it's a grandfathered behavioral scheme that spawned out of the pre-cognitive behaviors everything abided by millions upon millions of years ago.

There's literally no reason to keep it around. It's also the #1 reason I fucking hate transgender people. Whereas transsexuals have a legitimate mental illness with body dysphoria, transgender fucktards perpetuate the thought that gender is anything more than an antiquated holdover that would have been thrown out by the Greeks if society was actually a top down designed thing.

nope, you can't just pick one factor after you've just complained about me doing the same thing.

What do you think gender is then?

Speaking of Freud and lacan, where are good places to start with them respectively?

Unpacking Queer Politics by Sheila Jeffreys

Free PDF:
radfem.org/

Recent radical feminist platforms/people who write on this:
Feminist Current: Meghan Murphy, Penny White, and friends
Sister Outrider / Claire Heughen
Glosswatch / Glosswitch
Deep Green Resistance / Lierre Keith

Warning: you will unilaterally be labeled a "bigoted TERF idiot who needs to die" if you criticize transgender ideology from the perspective of women's rights.

>gender doesn't have an internal logic
>There's literally no reason to keep it around.
Same argument holds for all of human, not just gender, to be honest. There's no more reason to keep gender around than to keep whatever you like about humans in general, provided you like anything.

>find my sources for me
>basically do the actual hard part of writing a research paper for me

How about fuck you.

>i don't understand what a bone marrow transfusion does
I'm complaining about your definition because you have no idea how utterly irrelevant the "science" you're trying to quote is. Chromosomes have nothing to do with how humans divide gender, and it's a good thing they don't or else we would have people who are many gendered, who changed gender after a transplant, who change gender due to accident or illness, or who are regarded as intersexed with far greater frequency than tumblr could produce. You think you're arguing for less genders but it would make for far more complex and useless genders to rely on chromosomes or hormones phenotypes. Genetics already made a lot of those mistakes with injecting all kinds of shit into tall girls to make them not male, seeing if fat boys were really just girls, taking kids off parents because they tested the wrong part of their body to get a genetic match and prove them blood relatives. Using the heuristic which isn't even scientific of XX/XY is just pseudoscience on par with creationism, as is using hormonal profiles. Social gender is obviously not defined by those things and those things don't determine what you think they do. It would be worse than the SJWs want it if they did, and social gender would be more fucked up.

im schizoid so no, but gender is a huge talking point for some reason these days and that's my spicy take on the matter.

How sex is determined, roughly, with some mention of {{ intersex conditions }} in between:

The Y chromosome contains a part called SRY, which triggers the development of testes in the fetus. It doesn't matter what exact chromosome layout you have (XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XXYY, etc.); the important thing is whether you have at least one Y chromosome or don't have any.

{{ XX male syndrome: an X chromosome erroneously contains the SRY gene and triggers male development. The fetus develops into a relatively normal male, though sterile, despite the person only having X chromosomes. }}

{{ Some other genetic defects (like Klinefelter): the person has an unconventional chromosome set, other than the typical XX or XY. This leads to some minor strangeness in sexual appearance, and is therefore often considered to be under the intersex umbrella, even though it's relatively unambiguous what sex the person belongs to, in line with whether they have a Y chromosome or don't. }}

The testes of the fetus produce androgens like testosterone, which trigger the development of the rest of sexual anatomy and physiology of the male, such as an enlargened prostate, the testicles, penis, etc.

{{ Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS): the cells of the body do not respond to androgens. The body converts the androgens into estrogens, and instead develops female. Depending on the severity of the androgen insensitivity (the most severe called Complete AIS i.e. CAIS), an externally female child is born, with a vulva and vagina, however internally the child lacks the ovaries and uterus, and instead has undescended testes in its belly. (These are sometimes surgically removed to prevent them from growing into tumors.) }}

If all went fine, you now have a child that has either XX chromosomes and a female body, or XY chromosomes and a male body. When the child reaches puberty, another surge of hormones lead to the second major sexual development phase.

{{ Penile ablation: the child is for some reason born missing a proper penis, even though all else went fine. Sometimes the child is raised as female due to this, which is then considered to be a condition under the intersex umbrella, even though the child's sex is originally quite unambiguously male, although sometimes genital surgery and hormone therapy are applied to feminize the child's anatomy. }}

Lastly, gender dysphoria: there is no really good scientific evidence to suggest that this is an intersex condition. Patterns in neurology observed among trans people are sometimes simply explained by homosexuality and disappear when this factor is controlled against. Otherwise, said neurological patterns possibly correlate with a stereotypically feminine personality in boys / stereotypically masculine personality in girls, and as such leads to socially induced distress over one's sex. Claims that MtF transsexuals are "really women inside" and FtM transsexuals are "really men inside" have no solid basis in science.

Why would you care so far as to write an academic paper about why other people shouldn't have more comolex gender identities than you? How could that have possibly seemed like a good use of your academic time? You are objectively bad at utilizing your college career and your time there to enrich yourself. I hope you look back on this someday and realize what a waste of time it was.

Not OP but gender identity ideology is extremely detrimental to women's liberation.

you're leaving out the part that you also need to control trannies for sneaking hormones. most of the hippocampus studies and pretty much every study since we started running them is damaged by later disclosed hormone treatments (i.e. a lot of what proves trannies to be physiologically closer in some aspects to their target gender is just proof taking hormone replacement works to enforce those structures in either gender)

>the important thing is whether you have at least one Y chromosome
no. nobody competent taught you that.

What exactly do women need to be liberated from..?

If you want to wear a skirt and play with dolls and that makes you happy, why should anyone try to stop or make you feel abysmal just because you have a penis and balls?

Being called a man implies all the cultural roles and signifiers that go along with it. When people say they don't want to be either female or male, or that they want to be what's opposite to their sex, what their saying is that they don't identify with how our society has signified "man" or "woman". They feel the label would put associations on them that are completely antithetical to who they are, what they like, and how they act.

>>the important thing is whether you have at least one Y chromosome
>no. nobody competent taught you that.
What intersex conditions are there in which a person has one or more Y chromosomes but develops female, or has no Y chromosomes but develops male, other than XX male syndrome and CAIS?

Start with Woman Hating:
radfem.org/dworkin

Not really. Only a very narrow conception of feminism would be challenged by this in any significant way. Feminism is a liberatory movement. Dismantling gender/sex based oppresssion through feminist ideology would hardly balk at helping people with more complex gender identities. Second-wave feminists were critical of transgender folks, but third wavers generally welcome anyone that wants to help or needs to be helped. Feminism is about more than making women competitive economic agents with men now. It's about the total dismantling of patriarchal systems of social domination, of which the rigid enforcement of traditional gender binaries is certainly part and parcel.

I don't completely disagree but probably because those norms evolved over thousands of years in order to create stable societies and because people always use the example of playing with dolls but then it becomes a slippery slope into why shouldn't women be allowed to join the army and then they do and then they get special treatment and so on and so on.

It also doesn't stop at some guy playing with dolls, it becomes him demanding respect for being so brave to play with dolls, the government making a publicly funded movie about this brave doll-player, hate speech laws to make it illegal to snicker about the doll playing, and so on and so on.

yeah, they negate each other, so it's a closed symbolic system comprising all possibilities of "gender". You can have black, white, or a mixture, but you can't have "not black, not white" in the system of shades between/including black and white. you can have red or blue, something completely other, but you're not playing the game of "shades" (i.e. gender) anymore

oh, so you think gender is a social construct. okay. you should've said so from the beginning. you're wrong by the way.

Your example of something women need to be liberated from is "woman hating" (whatever that is) and your proof is a link to the most "man-hating" person there has ever been?

You're bizarre. Do I need to get liberated too, now? Or is there no crime against men?

>Chromosomes have nothing to do with how humans divide gender, and it's a good thing they don't or else we would have people who are many gendered, who changed gender after a transplant, who change gender due to accident or illness,
>transplants, accidents and illness change whether you have a y chromosome
What the fuck am I reading

>let's make a random distinction which has two obvious exceptions as a defining term
what matters to an intersex condition is not limited to Y vs X chromsomes as your two obvious exceptions prove. there are other exceptions also which are mosaics, where parts of the body will test as 46XX, while another sample from the same body will render as 46XY, and these do not necessarily imply intersex, though intersex individuals can occur with the same condition. likewise CAIS is a syndrome because it's by the physiological signs, not by the chromosomal makeup, that it is considered complete insensitivity, vs a different condition.

also, mutations in the SRY region can lead to more typically female phenotype in XY individuals
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

y chromosome loss is a sign you probably have leukemia, and there's a variety of other DNA changes cancer and cancer treatment can bring about which would affect your sex if you listen to the "chromosomes are sex" people.

You haven't been following recent developments, senpai.

This is superficially a sensible way to look at things but on a political level it leads to severe problems, starting with it being an acceptance of the sexist idea that "man" (which literally stands for "adult male") cannot be separated from masculine and "woman" (which literally stands for "adult female") cannot be separated from feminine.

These can and should be separated. So long as society continues to believe in the mythical image of the manly man and feels that a man who is frail, effeminate, girly, etc. is "not quite a man", and vice versa for women, patriarchy will be upheld.

Do you expect an anonymous person on an imageboard created for the dissemination of snapshots from and discussions of Japanese cartoons to give you an in-depth explanation of the politics of women's liberation, and convince you about its truth and importance even when this challenges many of your preconceptions about the world?

The user means that when you look at someone and decide whether they're female or male, you're not making a genetic test in that moment. And the user listed some things which can partially change a person's chromosomes, though I'm not very well informed on those things... Basically different parts of your body can have different chromosomes AFAIK.

It's not "random" because it correlates with the rest of your anatomy in 99+% of all cases.

>what matters to an intersex condition is not limited to Y vs X chromsomes as your two obvious exceptions prove.
I was talking about the "base rule." I.e. given the lack of any further intersex conditions.

>mosaics, where parts of the body will test as 46XX, while another sample from the same body will render as 46XY
Can you give me more information about this? Well, I'll google it too in a bit.
Does it have any bearing to intersex conditions at all, or is it just some parts of the body having different chromosomes than the "base" cells which led to sexual development?

Thanks. I'll think of putting up the text above somewhere once I make sure it's a little more complete and biologically accurate. Just wanted to give a basic idea to people who may not know these things at all.

Literally every time I ask someone on here to make an argument instead of just screeching "go read the sources", I get this "hahaha this is just a mongolian horse painting board, you really think I would take my time to explain my arguments in a debate here" - which doesn't stop them from making lengthy posts and smugly thinking they've won the debate, of course.

Tell me what the modern Western woman needs to be liberated from. The wage gap? The rape culture? Are you MtF by any chance?

But this is precisely what non-binary people claim. Non BINARY, Non 0,1. The claim is that it's possible to be 0,63 or 0,11, not that you can somehow possibly identify yourself sexually with a washing machine, this is a complete misunderstanding of queer theory.

Just as you did not make any prior research I did not read the rest of the thread at all (lol). But IMO you should just go with arguing that introducing fluidity is a mere analytical continuation of the male/female dichotomy and does not invalidate the dichotomy.

Consider the color spectrum for example; You may initially argue that inbetween each light frequency there is an infinite number of possible other frequencies such that inbetween "red" and "blue" there is an infinite number of other colors that are "blueish" or "redish". But upon closer inspection, that is neither analytically true neither physically: Colors can only exist as combinations of very specific wavelengths/frequencies of photons and also as combination of fundamental primary colors, but only as that, and not in the same way real numbers work for example.

Within this framework, everything in nature that appears to be continuous is truly discrete and can be defined as a linear combination of the two (or more) "perpendiculars", e.g the male/female dichotomy in this case. So whatever new X gender you try to define will be merely X = a Male + b Female, where a and b are the intensities of how much "male" and how much "female" the gender is.

Before you all get angry at my post on how cheap it is to apply fucking linear algebra to social matters, I am not making any claims to knowing my shit here, just making it up as I go so OP has ideas when looking for actual authors. I definitely do not believe he should quote me on this, but on the other hand I don't really buy that "gender is on a spectrum" thing, and will definitely look up if I can learn something more concrete about this.

I wonder how many folks in this thread posting reactionary traditional gender roles are also on Veeky Forums jerking off to traps every day.