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.

[AnnLurker]

It absolutely is. What you've offered is your own interpretation of morality, and if you told it to a norse warchief or a 17th century slaveholder, or a Mennonite laypreacher, they would laugh in your face because of how wrong they think you are. Not all morals originated around "this is best for society", there were societies that saw personal glory-seeking at the expense of others to be the ultimate goal of life, there were societies that considered the proliferation of dynasty to be the most noble and moral pursuit of man, and there were societies that willingly sought out their own death and destruction for the glory of God. Morality is very subjective.

You just contradicted yourself- If a society saw personal glory-seeking at the expense of others to be the ultimate goal of life, then it would be moral to act in that way in that society. Morality, like scientific conclusions, changes to fit the new place and time it's in. I said as much and clearly you ignored it. Those that act outside of a moral landscape in that society are outcast or killed because that society as a whole stops existing when it's moral fiber decays. People bitch that America is a Christian nation because it hates fags. Well, yes. And acting in a moral way that helps these outcasts degrades that Christian America, thus is considered Amoral.

Morals are entirely objective, that's the point. It's the society that is subjective and when you act in ways that aren't objective to keeping that society the way it is, that society ends. There is nothing hard about this concept. Cause and Effect.
If your society is based on eating meat and meat only, and one day someone eats plants and you don't shun them for breaking a moral taboo, then it's not the moral that changes, it's the society changing. The moral of eating meat only will stay the same regardless anything else and the rules formed around it as well, but if a society changes to the point where it's moral compass is lost, then it's not the same society anymore.

 

[Dyn]

Morals are entirely objective, that's the point. It's the society that is subjective and when you act in ways that aren't objective to keeping that society the way it is, that society ends. There is nothing hard about this concept.

Oh, this is just semantics then. Fair enough, morality is objective, morals are objective, but moral good is subjective.

 

[Rainbow Child]

It absolutely is. What you've offered is your own interpretation of morality, and if you told it to a norse warchief or a 17th century slaveholder, or a Mennonite laypreacher, they would laugh in your face because of how wrong they think you are. Not all morals originated around "this is best for society", there were societies that saw personal glory-seeking at the expense of others to be the ultimate goal of life, there were societies that considered the proliferation of dynasty to be the most noble and moral pursuit of man, and there were societies that willingly sought out their own death and destruction for the glory of God. Morality is very subjective.

Morality is objective. Because morality is the measure of goodness. The problem is that we are all defective and fall short of that absolute metric of moral good against which all others weighed, such that we have different interpretations. But we could reason those metrics out, theoretically, if we were willing (or able) to set aside our personal preferences.

Bruh... the linguistics concept of 'gender' is an ENTIRELY different thing to the left's opt-in version of "gender". The first is thousands of years old, and was ALWAYS dependent on sex, for humans (autistic, irrelevant trivia about "but, they call SHIPS 'she', doncha know?!?" aside. Not even the most delusional troon uses a definition of "female/woman" that inculdes the QE2, or the Luisitania... When you're stretching these words even WORSE than the Tiktok genderspecials, you may want to take a sanity-check.). And the other is maybe 20-25 years old, and can't even define it's own terms.

Even lefty-captured dictionaries (and normal dictionaries, from 50 years ago) list linguistics "gender" as being entirely different, unrelated usage, to the wider, general term (with roots in sociology, and more recently, in "queer theory" from lit-crit; NEVER had any direct relation to linguistics "gender")

I did initially have a paragraph explicitly describing how linguistics 'gender' (which is obviously "real", in the same sense that past and future tense are "real"; They're consistent, neccessary concepts for the English language) is self-evidently different than the left-wing pseudo-religion of "gender" (troonism, "third genders", "born in the wrong body", etc)... But I cut it, coz SOMETHING had to go; the post was way too long. And nobody could POSSIBLY be retarded enough to try to conflate linguistics gender, with self-ID "gender" ideology... could they?

Of all the paragraphs in that rambling signal of in-group identity, you left out the most important response to the most obvious critique? Again, stop being dumb. Your whole post is a waste of zeros and ones and you're so narc injured about being called dumb about it that you wasted even more. Be Better. Also, you ignore those languages wherein gender does not analog with sex, such as Cree for example, or those languages that don't have gender, such as Georgian for example.

 

[AnnLurker]

Oh, this is just semantics then. Fair enough, morality is objective, morals are objective, but moral good is subjective.

Yes, actually. And I don't normally agree with you. Morality and the laws put in place are objective. The results, the cause and effect, are in place to keep THAT particular society the way it is. If you consider a society good or evil is based upon your own relationship to that society. So the moral good of one society can be completely evil to another because they are at odds with each other. It's simple, really.

Society changes, morals are used to keep a society from changing. This is literally why Conservatives and Liberals are at odds. Conservatives want to retain their society, Liberals want to make a new one by carving it out of the old one.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Three.

Define them.

 

[Snuckening2]

>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.

Bruh... the linguistics concept of 'gender' is an ENTIRELY different thing to the left's opt-in version of "gender". The first is thousands of years old, and was ALWAYS dependent on sex, for humans (autistic, irrelevant trivia about "but, they call SHIPS 'she', doncha know?!?" aside. Not even the most delusional troon uses a definition of "female/woman" that inculdes the QE2, or the Luisitania... When you're stretching these words even WORSE than the Tiktok genderspecials, you may want to take a sanity-check.). And the other is maybe 20-25 years old, and can't even define it's own terms.

Even lefty-captured dictionaries (and normal dictionaries, from 50 years ago) list linguistics "gender" as being entirely different, unrelated usage, to the wider, general term (with roots in sociology, and more recently, in "queer theory" from lit-crit; NEVER had any direct relation to linguistics "gender")

I did initially have a paragraph explicitly describing how linguistics 'gender' (which is obviously "real", in the same sense that past and future tense are "real"; They're consistent, neccessary concepts for the English language) is self-evidently different than the left-wing pseudo-religion of "gender" (troonism, "third genders", "born in the wrong body", etc)... But I cut it, coz SOMETHING had to go; the post was way too long. And nobody could POSSIBLY be retarded enough to try to conflate linguistics gender, with self-ID "gender" ideology... could they?

>"How can you question whether 'the soul' exists? Doncha know that the Motown song you reference is CLASSIC 'soul'?!? You can't deny the existance of 'soul', when you ADMIT to owning Tempations and Marvin Gaye LP's!!
Stop being dumb"

Yeah, you really got me there, using a 100% unrelated usage of the same word to epically own me with FACTS and LOGIC. Great contribution.

Of course gender is real, it's a social construct that's provably observed...

It has? So prove it's observable.

And can a thing be "provable" AND "intangible" simultaneously? If you can prove something, that makes it "tangible". And if it's "intgangible", it's definitionally NOT provable.

A thing can be one, or the other. But not BOTH.

 

[Dyn]

Define them.

Male, female, and genderfucked weirdos.

I think it would be an outright lie to say society views transwomen as if they're women, but just as much of a lie to say we still treat them as if they're men. Our societal expectations and assumptions and treatment of manhanded beardos in dresses are something different completely, and since that's based off the outward sexual characteristics they portray, I believe they make up a third gender that everyone acknowledges but nobody on either side of the issue is willing to admit it.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Male, female, and genderfucked weirdos.

I think it would be an outright lie to say society views transwomen as if they're women, but just as much of a lie to say we still treat them as if they're men. Our societal expectations and assumptions and treatment of manhanded beardos in dresses are something different completely, and since that's based off the outward sexual characteristics they portray, I believe they make up a third gender that everyone acknowledges but nobody on either side of the issue is willing to admit it.

Bruh, you're just describing a mental illness though. That has nothing to do with gender. Just like schizophrenics (who really do believe the voices are real) don't actually have extra ears, or an auditory channel to a different dimension.

 

[Dyn]

Bruh, you're just describing a mental illness though. That has nothing to do with gender. Just like schizophrenics (who really do beleve the voices are real) don't actually have extra ears, or an auditory channel to a different dimension.

Trannies, as a class, experience the norms, behaviours and societal roles associated with being a man or woman entirely differently than men or women do. The expectations we had of them as men are largely dropped or abandoned, and the expectations we have of women are never really applied to them, even if the woke pay lip service into pretending they are.

By definition I think that puts them into a gender of their own.

 

[Rainbow Child]

Define them.

Masculine (he), feminine (she), and neuter [ie neither] (it).

blah, blah, blah

You keep repeating yourself as if that's going to convince me, and going on at great length in your repetition, but you're not taking anytime to stop and think critically about gender.

You don't have this killshot that you think you do against the trannies. It doesn't affect them because gender is a linguistic phenomenon, and they believe that language is everything.

What you seem to really have a problem with, reading between your imprecise madness, is gender identity, not gender. And even that's still real. You have an identity of all sorts of aspects, gender is just one of them. "I'm a physicist, I'm a dad, I'm a lover not a fighter...."

The answer to gender self-ID (or "intransitive gender", and pay attention now), is not to pretend that gender identification doesn't exist, but to remind the tranny that in the act of transitive gender identification (and in all transitive verbs), the object doesn't do the identifying, the subject does. This means that it doesn't matter what you identify yourself as (ie intransitively), it only matters what someone else identifies you as (ie transitively).

If you really want trannies to go away, and I think you do, then remind them that at the end of the day, if they desire you to transitively gender them as the gender which they themselves intransitively gender themselves (trannies call this "passing"), then they have to do such a good job at crossdressing that you can't tell. This means no pronouns on the lapel pin, no flags, no activism, because all these things are detrimental to "passing" (because how can you possibly identify the tranny as the desired gender if he or she gives you big giant clue?).

They call the transitive identification of their gender "misgendering" when your identification and their intransitive identification don't match. But they should more accurately call it "dysgendering" because it's not you who failed (remember, the opposite of "passing" is failing), it's them; they feel bad because they failed. You didn't misgender them, they failed.

When trannies realise this, they desist. What you propose is impotent.

You don't have to be such a try-hard to fit in on the infernal Kiwi Farms. Everything you've said in this thread has been said scores of thousands of times before. You want to be "gender critical"? Then critique, don't react. Faggot.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

Gender was originally a grammatical term. The notion that those opposed to transgenderes lunacy and other radical gender theories confuse gender for sex is an intellectual game of three card Monte. Sometimes words mean the same thing and are interchangeavekz eg twelve versus a dozen, six one half a dozen the other.

This and that talk about gender being a spectrum is just making much more about individualism in humanity than is either necessary or desirable. Yes Joan of Arc was a warriorx yes George Eliot and the Bronte sisters were authors despite societal prejudices against women being authors. That does not make them transgender or gender fluid, it just means Joan of Arc was a warrior (and a martyr) and those and others were female authors. For the love of Christ (and I'm a right-wing atheist).

 

[Snuckening2]

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 whatever they want... (and there already attempts to erode sex, "sex is a spectrum", etc)

But the reality is that sex definitionally CAN ONLY be a binary, unless biological reproduction somehow (?) changes; Every single human, in world history, every single mammal, every single bird, every insect, fish and plant that reproduces sexually, has EXACTLY TWO parents- One female, and one male. No "third options", no "mid-points", no "non-binary".

Because sex is based on objective, real-world criteria, and MUST be reproductive to qualify as "a sex"; So even if they DID do the same thing for sex, as they did for "gender", and just start adding made-up "new sexes" (even if those were evidence-based; Different chromosomal disorders, or whatever) they've just made whatever they're describing definitionally NOT "sex". Because, to be "a sex", a group needs to be necessary for reproduction.

Unless reproduction suddenly changes, for baby-making to require one male, one female, and one Klinefelter syndrome, we will ALWAYS need sex as a binary, to describe real-world reproduction (human or any other species, that isn't some asexual fungi, or sea-sponge or something).

 

[Standardized Profile]

There are not two sexes. Sex in humans exists along a spectrum; your genes and the environment in which you gestate can make you male, female, a hermaphrodite, some syndrome with a German name, an androgen-insensitive genetic male who grows up to be a woman, or a bizarre cluster of Xs and sometimes Ys no one can figure out. It's physical, and physicality is weird.

There are two genders: masculine and feminine. The males and females fit neatly into the masculine and feminine genders. The hermaphrodites, German syndromes, etc. usually gravitate toward one or the other. It's ideal, and we can draw bright lines between ideas.

 

[Snuckening2]

[autistic babble]

"You don't have to be such a try-hard to fit in on the infernal Kiwi Farms...."

nigger, I've been here over 10x longer than you, you absoute retard. Even my NEW account is twice as old as yours, so what the fuck are you even talking about lol?

It's always the 2 week old accounts who try to lecture people with this "lemme tell ya how it is from an oldfag, kiddo" faggotry, any time they lost an argument.

And no, the modern, lefty version of "gender" grew out of "queer theory" which is literary criticism, NOT LINGUISTICS.

Linguistics "gender" is related to modern "gender", to the same extent that "past tense" is related to "tense muscles" or "tense situations". Same word, ENTIRELY SEPARATE MEANING. Pick a less retarded hill to die on.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Masculine (he), feminine (she), and neuter [ie neither] (it).

How do you define masculine, feminine and neither masculine nor feminine?

Also, who makes you the arbiter than there are three genders? Wikipedia has like 50+ listed.

There are not two sexes. Sex in humans exists along a spectrum; your genes and the environment in which you gestate can make you male, female, a hermaphrodite, some syndrome with a German name, an androgen-insensitive genetic male who grows up to be a woman, or a bizarre cluster of Xs and sometimes Ys no one can figure out. It's physical, and physicality is weird.

There are two genders: masculine and feminine. The males and females fit neatly into the masculine and feminine genders. The hermaphrodites, German syndromes, etc. usually gravitate toward one or the other. It's ideal, and we can draw bright lines between ideas.

You're describing birth defects. Just because a tiny fraction of a percent of people are born unable to walk doesn't mean we stop referring to humans as bipedal.

 

[Rainbow Child]

nigger, I've been here over 10x longer than you, you absoute retard. Even my NEW account is twice as old as yours, so what the fuck are you even talking about lol?

It's always the 2 week old accounts who try to lecture people with this "lemme tell ya how it is from an oldfag, kiddo" faggotry, any time they lost an argument.

And no, the modern, lefty version of "gender" grew out of "queer theory" which is literary criticism, NOT LINGUISTICS.

Linguistics "gender" is related to modern "gender", to the same extent that "past tense" is related to "tense muscles" or "tense situations". Same word, ENTIRELY SEPARATE MEANING. Pick a less retarded hill to die on.

What can I say, when you don't bother to stop, breathe, and think critically? At least maybe someone else will read what I wrote and maybe consider it. Try-hard.

How do you define masculine, feminine and neither masculine nor feminine?

Also, who makes you the arbiter than there aren't additional genders? Wikipedia has like 50+ listed.

I already defined masculine and feminine further up thread. Maybe you missed it.

"Sugar and spice and everything nice, that's what little girls are made of".
"Snakes and snails and puppy dogs' tails, that's what little boys are made of".

Neither is obvious, no? Not sugar, not spice, not snakes, not snails, etc.

Nobody made me the arbiter. You learn this literally on the second day of English school. First class: alphabet. Second class: gender. It's been handed down to you by your ancestors and the fact that it's so mysterious is a scathing indictment of the anglophone education system.

 

[Iron Jaguar]

There are NO "genders", only two sexes.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I already defined masculine and feminine further up thread. Maybe you missed it.

"Sugar and spice and everything nice, that's what little girls are made of".
"Snakes and snails and puppy dogs' tails, that's what little boys are made of".

Neither is obvious, no? Not sugar, not spice, not snakes, not snails, etc.

Nobody made me the arbiter. You learn this literally on the second day of English school. First class: alphabet. Second class: gender. It's been handed down to you by your ancestors and the fact that it's so mysterious is a scathing indictment of the anglophone education system.

Thanks for saving us both time and showing you're making shit up as you go. Which is fine. Just don't expect anyone to ever take it seriously.

 

[Rainbow Child]

Thanks for saving us both time and showing you're making shit up as you go. Which is fine. Just don't expect anyone to ever take it seriously.

making shit up as I go? It's literally on the first page.

I remember when I was learning to talk, I thought that dogs were boys and cats were girls, the sun was a daddy and the moon was a mommy, that salt was feminine and pepper was masculine. It made sense in a very juvenile sort of way.

Eventually, I learned that it doesn't matter what I idiosyncratically gender these objects as, it matters what society agrees, and society agrees that they're all neuter. Everyone speaking his or her (or its, let's not discriminate against AI) own language is no language at all. This lesson would benefit trannies, because they would learn to accept that their intransitive gender cannot dictate the transitive gender they will receive from the observer. Ten gazillion genders brought to you by the programmer socks on Wikipedia doesn't mean anything if we as a society agree that the three genders we inherited from our forefathers are a patrimony worth conserving.

It's sad that aesthetics and philology are in such disrepair that we need remedial courses to take us all the way back to the Kindergarten just to comprehend the problem.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

Trannies, as a class, experience the norms, behaviours and societal roles associated with being a man or woman entirely differently than men or women do. The expectations we had of them as men are largely dropped or abandoned, and the expectations we have of women are never really applied to them, even if the woke pay lip service into pretending they are.

By definition I think that puts them into a gender of their own.

I think that's somewhat true on the level of societal dynamics, but that's more so due to their status as non-reproductive. That's the old comparison to eunuchs, and the basis on which the idea has always been appealing to those sitting at the top of the status quo. The ability to produce families has always been a huge factor.

On the other hand on a personal basis I don't know if gender is actually that useful.
If someone's smaller, weaker, and less aggressive then it doesn't really matter if they're a woman or not, and just because some surly 6' guy puts on a dress doesn't mean he'll get treated differently.
I've had to work physical jobs with tough women before, the fact they're a woman doesn't really factor in beyond that they might need your help a little more often, but again that's purely about physical limitations. It's simply easier for you, it's entirely pragmatic.

I've also had to work with little gay dudes too. They aren't not men, but they're also a little more delicate and thus they fall into a slightly different role in the group.

So point is on a sociological level, they wouldn't be that different from gay couples or w/e. On a person level they mostly aren't anything, they're just Bob or Ashley, their personal characteristics supersede their social categorization.