Should "gender" be accepted as real, at all? - If you ever said "there are only two genders", you're either clinically retarded, or have been mentally colonised. Or both.

[Snuckening2]

Every time I see some Steve Crowder/PJW-watching boomer telling troons "THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS" as some epic own, it makes me cringe.

Because, if the battle-ground is the murky, subjective, definitionless field of "gender" the we've ALREADY lost; There are only two SEXES- Objective, immutable, defined by universal, evidence-based criteria. You may or not believe in "gender" as well as sex, idc- But you can't NOT believe in biological sex. The pro-trans side NEEDS the subjectivity of "gender", or else thier arguments are a non-starter. But, for somebody OPPOSED to trans nonsense, whether you believe in "gender" or not- It's pretty undeniable that "sex" is a more advantageous battlefield, for our side of the argument; So why even accept/acknowledge "gender" AT ALL?!?

Before ~late 90s/2000, "gender" was just an obscure academic term that nobody used; Government forms, business policy statements, popular language, drivers licenses, etc ALL had "m" or "f" marked down under "sex", not "gender". Even the most far-left, the most liberal feminists, the most radical gay/lesbian activists talked about "SEXism", not "GENDERism", "sex-change operations", "transsexuals", "same-sex-attraction", "sex-roles", etc. Anytime people talked about men and women, males and females, they were discussing "SEX", not "gender". Which worked fine.

Then, around the late 90s/early 00s, there was a fairly subtle trend to replace the term "sex" with "gender" in all the above contexts; "Sex" and "gender" were thought of as being synonyms and interchangable, so why not? At worst, it was yet another example of the pointless PC language-treadmill, like the shift from "negros"=>"blacks"=>"colored people"=>"African Americans"=>"POC". Or from "crippled"=>"handicapped"=>"differently abled"; Terms that maybe had different "tone"/connotations, but the basic definition didn't change, so who really cares, either way? So "sex" largely passed out of common usage, and was virtually universally removed from "official"/"instituational" use, without any real protest, and the Trojan Horse of "gender" slipped through the city gates, unopposed....

But it turns out there WAS a real difference between "sex" and "gender"- A difference that seemed trivial, back then, but which ended up opening up the gates of Hades; Obviously, this is the fact that "sex" is objective, fixed and immutable- A term from the hard science of biology, with clear, universal criteria used consistently, not just for humans, but for every animal, insect, or plant that reproduces sexually- "females" are species-members geared towards production of large gametes/ova/eggs. And "males" are species-members geared to produce small, mobile gametes/sperm. Definitionally, there CAN ONLY EVER be two sexes, unless the most basic biological mechanisms of reproduction fundamentally change; Because every single organism from any sexually-reproducing species on earth, ever, has/had exactly two parents- One female, one male.

But "gender" on the other hand, is a term from the murky world of the humanities; Inherently subjective- "Gender" itself has no clear, universally-accepted definition as an overall catagory. And each SPECIFIC "gender" has no clear, specific definition or criteria, like the sexes do, either. In fact even in the "gender"-believing pro-trans camp, it's up for grabs exactly HOW MANY "genders" exist- 2? 3? 7? 68? Infinity? Your guess is as good as mine- EVERY ASPECT of "gender" is subjective and arguable... As opposed to "sex", where arguments are pointless and irrelevant; Large gametes = female, and small gametes = male. And no argument will ever change that provable, ideologically-neutral, evidence-based reality.

So personally, I don't see any reason to acknowledge "gender" as being a real thing AT ALL. The version of "gender" that Tumblr and Twitter believe in, where it's possible to be a biological man who suddenly realises at age 36 that he's "REALLY a woman" (in some mystical, undefined, evidence-free sense), or where both biological males and females can share the same "gender", as being "trans non-binary", or "gender-fluid", or whatever other goofball faggotry they invent next week, and where "transwomen are REAL women", exactly as valid and woman-ish as the pregant, breast-feeding mother of four, is pure fiction, based on no evidence at all. Either a pseudo-science, or a religious belief; Something that's treated as objective truth, and even as 'science' (being used as the basis of "medicine", even for children. Assuming that speaking the words "I identify as a woman" will make men suddenly conform to female sex-crime stats, instead of male. Ditto for sports perfomance, etc), but which has no empirical evidence, at all. I see "gender" (the current/Tumblr version, at least) as being comparable to any other religious belief- "chakras", "Chi energy", "the soul", Scientology's "thetans", etc. Which is exactly how the government, law, medicine (ESPECIALLY children's medicine) should treat "gender"- the same as ANY religious belief- ie, as basically an irrelevency, ackowledging only evidence-based sex.

(Even the pro-troon left admit that "gender is just a social construct"... Which is an ADMISSION that it's no basis for medicine, and comes damn close to admitting it doesn't exist at all- But I kinda agree; in the same way that "chakras" and "star signs" are "just social constructs", so is "gender". Or, a better comparison to how the left thinks of "gender", might be social constructs like "being a goth" or "a scene-kid"/"raver"/"metal-head"/"surfer", etc, where "gender" is a kind of fashion/social choice you make, by picking certain clothes, hairstyles, slang, etc)

To the extent that "gender" DOES exist, it's inherently dependant on sex; Of course there ARE certain clothes, hobbies, jobs, etc associated with men, or with women. And I get that this is what is many people mean by "gender"- But this is a different thing to what left call gender; You can't be born with a predisposition to long hair or short, or pink or blue (not to deny that men and women have innate differences, but not THIS specific. And certainly not for the specifics of the OPPOSITE sex). And there were NO associations with "non-binary" or any other made-up "genders", until the left started creating them. So I think THIS kind of "gender" (the kind that actually exists) is more accurately, better described as "sexual stereotypes", or "male/female norms", or maybe "common associations with sex", rather than "gender", in order to make it clear that these things DEPEND on sex, and can't ever be INDEPENENT from sex, like the lefty concept of "gender".

[I just wanna make it clear I'm not a "gender abolitionist"- Men and women have different hormones, and hormones influence behaviour and brain development, so I fully expect that men and women will always act different, because we're hardwired that way. Which is fine by me (tough shit if it wasn't, coz that's just reality. May as well have an ideological opposition to water being wet, or to 2 + 2 equalling 4) I just think THE WORD "gender" has been poisoned by the last two decades, where it's meant "being a man/woman is independent of sex (at least in SOME cases)". So now accepting "gender" is basically an automatic endorsement of troonism, "third gender" nonsense, and the transing of kids, because they're "REALLY" (somehow?!?) not the sex that they physically are. Or at the very least, it's leaving the door open, for those beliefs]

From where I stand, the ONLY reason anyone needs "gender" to exist, is if they want to DENY sex. (If you DON'T want to deny sex, then even if you believe in "gender", you can just re-name it to something explicitly sex-dependent. see above)

-So IS there any reason why anyone opposing troonism and troon-associated nonsense, should acknowledge "gender" as being anything more than fiction?

-DOES "gender" exist at all? CAN IT ever be independent of sex?

-Is there any bennefit in calling it "gender" (with the connotations of being independant of sex, carried by that word), rather than "sexual stereotypes", "traditional sex roles", or similiar term that make the concept explicitly dependent on sex?

-Why do people push for "THERE'S ONLY TWO GENDERS" (accepting the left's dictate that the battlefield is "gender", not sex. ie Essentially ceding the whole argument), instead of "GENDER IS A MYTH" or "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT 'GENDER' EVEN EXISTS"?

-The left's whole argument depends on the existance of a thing that has the exact same evidence as ghosts, dowsing, or star-signs; ie No evidence at all, beyond "but it FEEELS true, to me!!" Why the fuck are conservatives, and even rad-fems (almost all, with very few exceptions- both groups) so hesistant to point this out, and leverage this fact?

-Is opposition to troonism being held back/sabotaged by the fact that the two biggest ideological opponents of trannyism (traditional conservatism, and radical feminism) are BOTH ideogically invested in maintaining belief in "gender"? Conservatives, because traditional gender roles = good, and because "gender" = men's/women's innate nature, as ordained by God. And Radfems, because the "patriarchy" narrative basically falls apart, without a conception of "gender" very similar to the rest of the (pro-troon) left; that men and women are basically interchangable (apart from childbirth), and the assumption that differences in social roles between men and women are based on near-arbitrary social factors, rather than being the inevitable result of innate differences between the sexes, both physiological and psychological? The assumption that we 'should' have near-identical outcomes for women and men?

Spoiler: Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Coz you read all that, heres a cute cat gif I stole from another thread

 

[Blasterisk]

That's a lot of words to say that God made a man and a woman.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

The word and concept of gender was created by John Money and Magnus Hirschfield as a means to try to make the difference between men and women seem less absolute as opposed to the word sex.
The media and even parents/ general public during the latter half of the 20th century began to use the word gender as opposed to sex because it sounded less awkward to use without getting confused with the other definition of the word sex.
All without realizing the intent behind replacing the word sex with gender and we are all suffering the consequences of that decision to this day.

 

[byuu]

tl;dr I like sex

 

[The Tall Man]

Steve Crowder/PJW and the like are textbook controlled opposition offering a defensive posture but never a counter offense, they only function as a hugbox for conservoids to complain at while the overtone window moves in their oppositions favor.

-DOES "gender" exist at all? CAN IT ever be independent of sex?

In language yes and it can also serve a non subversive purpose it can describe retardation where people build a personal fantasy profile for themselves.
Gender does not exists in Nature, which makes it a lie.

Why do people push for "THERE'S ONLY TWO GENDERS" (accepting the left's dictate that the battlefield is "gender", not sex. ie Essentially ceding the whole argument), instead of "GENDER IS A MYTH" or "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT 'GENDER' EVEN EXISTS"?

Because the social egineering right now uses the progressive ideology to further it's agenda and offers the conservitards as a controlled opposition for the hesitant population.

FEEELS true, to me

This is what most people do, it's not significantly more prevalent on the left.
People are ready to deny any truth of nature to avoid dissonance with their ideology.

the fact that the two biggest ideological opponents of trannyism (traditional conservatism, and radical feminism) are BOTH ideogically invested in maintaining belief in "gender"?

You are correct they are not a real opposition they are just the former statues quoe unwilling to take up the new program. They will never attack the root causes of troonism, because most of them rely on the same lies for their ideology.
Feminism was one step towards troons.
Feminism started with women can do the same thing men can, to get them to participate in the workforce.
The ideology became more extreme and men got seen as inherently more evil than women.
Teachers who were part of the feminist ideology instilled this idea of toxic masculinity (men being inherently bad) in their students.
The idea that you can be anything you want despite what nature shows you is an important part of feminism.
Feminism has to deny that men are more capable at everything than women except for birthing children. So the natural truth is that men are more capable than women but women are more valuable.
They have to believe in the mantra that fantasy is more powerful than nature. This makes their opposition against troons only knee deep.

Conservitards have the same meme in their head. Anyone can join the conservative club if he only follows the code and his mind is in the right place they deny race and value hyper individualism with merit based hierarchy but deny natural hierarchies.

"Fantasy over nature" or "mind over matter" is something sneaky and poisonous many people follow in the believe that it is good.

The root cause of troonism is Profilicity.

TL;DR
Children get taught they can be anything they want if they believe in themselves. Children get taught that height, sex, race, intellect and all other naturally fixed parts of their identity aren't real. Only the parts about their identity that springs from their fantasy is real.
This is the meme that has invested most westerners minds. Instead of teaching children their actual worth, for example some are dumb, ugly and weak and would be better off accepting this early and finding a life with realistic goals and being happy with the simple things they manage to achieve, they get told they can be anything they want and end up failing and become unhappy, trying to achieve something that due to their nature they never could to begin with.
People today build their own profiles about themselves from fantasy and ignore the reality of their identity.

If you get taught fantasy is more important than nature and that men are inherently evil and someone tells you if you want to you can be a girl, then it's only natural for the sensitive and weak men to flee into that delusion.

 

[Smug]

So yeah the whole term 'gender' was invented by John Money who performed child abuse experiments on the Reimer brothers throughout their childhood which eventually led to both of them committing suicide, and Money winning a nobel prize instead of jailtime for some reason.

All of that aside, if you want to use the definition of 'gender' even as it was invented, it's still binary. The problem you're facing regarding that term is descriptivism going haywire more than anything else.

I find it easier to just say 'biological sex', even if it's costing you four syllables for the sake of clarity.

 

[The Magnificence]

Gender is a construct, it is not real. Sex is real, and there are only two sexes.

 

[Rozzy]

My first thought was, I'm not reading through all that shit.

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

It's really optimistic of you to believe that they aren't going to eventually claim there's 5000 different biological sexes too.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Gender is a pseudo-scientific term used to describe inner feelings that cannot be measured or quantified in any objective way.
Sex can be easily measured, described etc.
So yes, you are correct. But dude, mega long rant for what should be a rather simple descriptive post.

It's really optimistic of you to believe that they aren't going to eventually claim there's 5000 different biological sexes too.

They can claim that, but they cannot measure it nor can they convince a majority of scientists that more than 2 sexes can participate in human reproduction.

 

[Rainbow Child]

>Should "gender" be accepted as real, at all?
Stupid question. In your post's very first sentence, you already use the third-person singular active neuter pronoun, "it". Neuter is a gender. ...Congratulations, I guess, for writing the rest of that textual mural without using the corresponding masculine and feminine ones (ie "he" and "she"), ever. Count them up: "he" masculine (1), "she" feminine (2), "it" neuter (3); there are three (3) genders. And if you can't accept them as real, then you can't even pass primary level English grammar. And if you cannot even pass primary level English grammar, then you have no business vomitting up seventeen paragraphs of English exposition.

>DOES "gender" exist at all? CAN IT ever be independent of sex?
As we've already demonstrated, obviously gender exists. You've just used the neuter gender once again to refer back to gender itself. Can gender be independent of sex? Yes. Ships, nations, and parish churches, are all feminine in gender, and obviously each of these is sexless and thus her gender is completely independent of sex.

Now, if you really want to KO a troon (which seems to be your real motive over philosophising about gender), rather than pretending that gender does not exist, return to a definition of BOY and a definition of GIRL that is unassailable to word games and to exceptions, a definition which you've forgotten that you once had understood:

Lizards and snails and puppy dogs' tails
That's what little boys are made of

Sugar and spice and everything nice
That's what little girls are made of
​

Obviously the butcher with the face tattoos is a boy and the bookworm with the porcelain doll collection is a girl, regardless of what their lapel pins say, because he's lizards and snails and she's sugar and spice.

Stop being dumb.

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

They can claim that, but they cannot measure it nor can they convince a majority of scientists that more than 2 sexes can participate in human reproduction.

Science is subjected to political and social pressure just like everything else in society, and I absolutely do not trust millennial or zoomer scientists.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Science is subjected to political and social pressure just like everything else in society, and I absolutely do not trust millennial or zoomer scientists.

Not really true.
You think that science is also gender studies and whiteness studies?
Just the shitlib Wiki definition:

Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

It has to be observable, measurable, testable, reproducible.
There are strict limits to what the shitlibs can do. There is no influencing math and physics, nor cardiac surgeries. Planes will drop from the sky, buildings will collapse due to poor materials and designs, people will die repeatedly on the surgical table.
When these things will happen, there will be mass revolt, as quality of life will decrease substantially.
Always reject shitlib propaganda or reluctance to engage in controversial measurements and statistics as woowoo and unscientific bullcrap.
Never let yourself be pulled into the same post-modern attempt at modifying reality that the leftoids will soon fail at, dramatically so.

 

[Dyn]

Of course gender is real, it's a social construct that's provably observed, with profound impact, by every culture in the world that exists, and has ever existed.

The word you've been struggling and failing to find in your enormous bullshit essay is 'intangible'.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Of course gender is real, it's a social construct that's provably observed, with profound impact, by every culture in the world that exists, and has ever existed.

The word you've been struggling and failing to find in your enormous bullshit essay is 'intangible'.

INNER FEELINGS
measure my gender
What unit?
Also stop poasting dumb shit this ain't reddit

 

[Dyn]

measure my gender

Measure my social class.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Measure my social class.

Ah, so you engage in sarcasm and dismissal when cornered and demands of data are made.
Not unlike the spergs in the Russia shit thread, and completely expected from the post-modern unintellectual vanguard, left or right.

 

[Dyn]

Ah, so you engage in sarcasm and dismissal when cornered and demands of data are made.

You're asking for datapoints on something I just said is intangible. You're a retard and deserve to be dismissed, sarcastically.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Ah, so you engage in sarcasm and dismissal when cornered and demands of data are made.
Not unlike the spergs in the Russia shit thread, and completely expected from the post-modern unintellectual vanguard, left or right.

I don't think it's something you can measure objectively like temperature or distance, it's just a term for the cultural and social identities surrounding each biological sex in any particular culture. What may be considered a masculine trait in one culture may be seen as feminine in another, and vice versa, and some cultures have gender concepts that don't correspond to biological sex at all.

The issue of course is these things are cultural and social and change over time as opposed to biological sex which is immutable.

That's the key thing here, though. A man who wears women's clothing and adopts feminine mannerisms is just an effeminate man, not a "trans woman", and vice versa. Even if you truly believe you're that opposite sex, you simply aren't and can't be.

 

[Rainbow Child]

What may be considered a masculine trait in one culture may be seen as feminine in another, and vice versa, and some cultures have gender concepts that don't correspond to biological sex at all.

The issue of course is these things are cultural and social and change over time as opposed to biological sex which is immutable.

You say that like a nomad from the deepest jungle or a time-traveller from the most ancient past wouldn't recognise masculine, feminine, or neither, here and now.

Does TDS in the post-Trump era stand for Tranny Derangement Syndrome?