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.

[Linako 2.0]

I figured Gender was a term used by americans because they feared the SEX word and those puritanical values were subverted hard over the years

 

[doodoocaca]

Should "gender" be accepted as real, at all?​

Linguistically? Yes.
Sociologically? No.

Sex is real and apparent. Gender is an abstraction that serves to do nothing but muddy waters, throw chaff, and make everyone play a really stupid gay game for gigantic faggots.

 

[Amber the Hedgehog]

I think you are taking the word choice too seriously and concentrating too much on definitions rather than normal use. Vocabulary changes for none PC reasons all the time and from my observations people organically adapted gender and sex as synonyms.

They don't see gender about identity and sex about biology but just two words about the same thing with difference in tone because it works well. Usually something like gender is more polite and sex is more academic or gender is more clear because sex also means fucking. They are actually more often annoyed with trans activists trying to make them different rather than adapting into seeing trannies and enbies as legitimate.

 

[Fester Chavez]

I think you are taking the word choice too seriously and concentrating too much on definitions rather than normal use. Vocabulary changes for none PC reasons all the time and from my observations people organically adapted gender and sex as synonyms.

I agree entirely. I don't want to use the term "sex" around most people, especially people older than me. It feels awkward. This new paradigm is very annoying just for that change alone.
I'll refer to the trannies' "gender" as gender identity. Gender identity is a pointless concept. It points to nothing, and it tells you very little about a person that you need or want to know.

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.

If you're looking at "gender" as a set of societal sex expectations, and you are willing to ignore sex for trans people, then you make it that much easier to further complicate things by having to create new gender categories for other ways that traditional gender doesn't perfectly fit into reality. For example, when you find out a person is homosexual, you're "gender" expectations for them change, don't they? Alot of the traditional gender attributes are built off of heterosexual mating. Or if you encounter a very disabled or retarded person, you can hardly expect them to meet standards that they are physically or mentally incapable of meeting.
In loosening your conception of "gender" in order to fit in trannies, you are also compelled to fit in these and other exceptions too. This, in my opinion, over-complicates things, and you're better off not making the attempt in the first place.

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.

I do like this idea as a strategy for getting their goat. But it does have some side-effects that I'm not that into.
One being when a person, who isn't caught up in the gender-woo, becomes interpreted as the opposite sex by your method, either by rare genetics or a strong cross-sex appearance preference or both. I think the truth of the person's sex should be able to take higher priority over a person's interpretation of their sex via their appearance.
Also, there should be a way to obligate one of those rare passing trannies to declare their sex when their sex becomes directly relevant, such as prior to the act of sex or prior to entering a space with public single-sex nudity.

 

[Rainbow Child]

I do like this idea as a strategy for getting their goat. But it does have some side-effects that I'm not that into.
One being when a person, who isn't caught up in the gender-woo, becomes interpreted as the opposite sex by your method, either by rare genetics or a strong cross-sex appearance preference or both. I think the truth of the person's sex should be able to take higher priority over a person's interpretation of their sex via their appearance.
Also, there should be a way to obligate one of those rare passing trannies to declare their sex when their sex becomes directly relevant, such as prior to the act of sex or prior to entering a space with public single-sex nudity.

Important critique, yes.

When a person, who isn't caught-up in the gender-woo, is transitively misidentified, and this does happen (not just with gender but with all manner of identification), one of two things occurs. Either, the identifier and the identified have no other relation than a chance encounter, and the identifier maybe tells a queer story to a friend later that day and then forgets about it. Or, some more engaged interaction goes on, whether directly or indirectly, the topic comes up, the identifier learns of his or her mistake, and feels awkward for a moment and reassesses the identification the same way one might when mistaking a leaf on the ground for an insect; maybe an apology is in order, depending on the situation.

The person whose transitive gender identification and intransitive gender identification correspond together surely must declare the sexual history if that sexual history contains a time when those two did not correspond, in those instances where the information is relevant, yes. At the doctor's is a good example, because the doctor's job depends on it. Before marriage is a good example, because the marriage would be null if the other party thought that he or she was agreeing to something other than what was really being agreed. I would argue that the single-sex nudity angle would not be one of these instances, because if the other parties are transitively gendering this naked person as the same sex as them, then there is no discomfort about lustful eyes, and if there is a problem about lustful eyes, then the same problem already exists with homosexually disoriented persons*; practically, with transitive and intransitive gender identities correlating in this naked space, the individual is in the correct single-sex nude space.

*Dykes to trannies: "stop stealing my moves!"

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

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.

This probably helps explain why you have such a convoluted illogical take on things now.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Gender is not a new word and has been in popular lexicon (ie. NOT obscure or purely academic) to be synonymous with "sex" since about the 1500's.
Read a book you niggers. Or at least do a fucking Google search before you start spouting bullshit.

gender | Etymology, origin and meaning of gender by etymonline

GENDER Meaning: "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French… See origin and meaning of gender.

www.etymonline.com

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Gender was merely used as a synonym for sex by the average person for a long time, regardless of its historical meaning and John Money. It's fine to say there's only two genders, but it's probably best to just use the word sex and when anyone says they're different things just insist on the fact that they're synonymous.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Gender was merely used as a synonym for sex by the average person for a long time, regardless of its historical meaning and John Money. It's fine to say there's only two genders, but it's probably best to just use the word sex and when anyone says they're different things just insist on the fact that they're synonymous.

Fixating on the word itself, "gender", is stupid and should be avoided.
This is not a semantics discussion that just somehow happens to take place inside English culture and language.
This is a scientific discussion centered on the human species and its two sexes, as well as its endless mentally plagued spergs that think they can be something else than what their genetics dictate.
The "gender" term is irrelevant. The concept of sex is what matters, irrelevant of the linguistic implications, this is biological and medical.
So "muh social studies" purple hair jobless spergie nerds need to be bullied away from their cushy academic hiding places and put in some rural commune where they can have queer buttseks and fight between themselves about who does the dishes and who smoked the last piece of crack.

 

[Rainbow Child]

The "gender" term is irrelevant. The concept of sex is what matters, irrelevant of the linguistic implications, this is biological and medical.
So "muh social studies" purple hair jobless spergie nerds need to be bullied away from their cushy academic hiding places and put in some rural commune where they can have queer buttseks and fight between themselves about who does the dishes and who smoked the last piece of crack.

The concept of sex is not what matters here, as the prefix "trans" should have clued you in, already. The concept of psychiatric epidemic is what matters. This concept is not limited to the current psycho-epidemic of transgenderism (which is peaking currently, thankfully); confer the psycho-epidemic of multiple personality disorder in the 1980s for one previous example.

So "muh materialism" X-box-playing terminally online NEET debate bros need to be confidently humbled in their cushy online safe-spaces, where they can have their substantively empty tough-guy rhetoric mirrored back at them, with a pint of intellectual curiosity thrown into the mix for their lurking audience to weigh in the balance.

 

[AgendaPoster]

The concept of sex is not what matters here, as the prefix "trans" should have clued you in, already. The concept of psychiatric epidemic is what matters. This concept is not limited to the current psycho-epidemic of transgenderism (which is peaking currently, thankfully); confer the psycho-epidemic of multiple personality disorder in the 1980s for one previous example.

So "muh materialism" X-box-playing terminally online NEET debate bros need to be confidently humbled in their cushy online safe-spaces, where they can have their substantively empty tough-guy rhetoric mirrored back at them, with a pint of intellectual curiosity thrown into the mix for their lurking audience to weigh in the balance.

Agreed we should institutionalize and medicalize with neuroleptics all the queers.
/thread
PS: I could "own" the fuck out of Peterstein and Rogan on anything medical, with both hands tied behind my back and while high on DeeeEmmmmTEEEE

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

The concept of sex is not what matters here, as the prefix "trans" should have clued you in, already. The concept of psychiatric epidemic is what matters. This concept is not limited to the current psycho-epidemic of transgenderism (which is peaking currently, thankfully); confer the psycho-epidemic of multiple personality disorder in the 1980s for one previous example.

So "muh materialism" X-box-playing terminally online NEET debate bros need to be confidently humbled in their cushy online safe-spaces, where they can have their substantively empty tough-guy rhetoric mirrored back at them, with a pint of intellectual curiosity thrown into the mix for their lurking audience to weigh in the balance.

There's only 2 genders you retard

 

[Otterly]

The problems come from tranny bait and switch;
- gender and sex are different!
Led to …
-people can change gender!
Which led to laws allowing men to be legally recognised as women, and now the bait and switch:
-now I am a true and honest woman and if you call me a man you’re going to jail.
The bad stuff has happened when we allowed the trans to confuse sex and gender in ways that benefit them and deny reality. They said sex and gender are different, then say they want legal gender change and we bent over backwards, even though only sex is real and gender isn’t. Now suddenly sex and gender are different but he’s changed gender and if you say he’s a bloke you’re fired and your life is ruined. So they mean sex.
No one can change sex. If gender and sex are different then whatever, call yourself what you want, but you’re still the sex you were born. Oh now sex IS gender? Well that’s very fucking convenient…

 

[The false copy of Sunder]

Gender literally (kinda, basically) was just another word for SEX until sinister leftist marxist gay transgender (possibly jewish) sociologists redefined the terms (like they did with racism to make it mean prejudice + power) and unless concise and compelling evidence to the contrary is presented to me I am going to keep thinking that.

Just as the sky is blue even if 51% of the population suddenly starts saying it's verdant green, there are only 2 genders.

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

The Horse has already bolted on this question. The concept of gender is already accepted as real.

Hence why people thought of sex and gender as interchangeable. The majority of the western world does not think men and women are different mentally or physically. There are people, mostly women, who whole hardly believe women are just as capable as men physically. There are people, mostly women, who whole hardly believe women are just as smart as men. So on and so on. And to hold any belief to the contrary to this is a sin worth being burned at the metaphorical stake for.

Most modern societies have done away with hard (i.e. law) limits on positions and jobs men and women can hold. A woman can legally be president, a man can legally be a nurse, a woman can legally be a lawyer, etc... Cultural divisions are also going away, if they haven't already.

The only final frontier in this regard is sexual in nature. Hence the modern mess over the issue of transgenderism. Enough people are already on board with explicit transgenderism. Let alone implicit transgenderism. The inertia of the past 50 or so years of feminist ideology running amok in most of our important institutions and the defanging others they couldn't subvert. Has and will continue to overwhelm any serious opposition to this gender over sex and by extension explicit transgenderism.

And all of this ties into technological advances currently underway in the fields of medicine related to medical transition. A decade ago nobody was asking questions about the long term effects of opposite sex hormonal replacement or the creation of neo-sex organs. Neither currently can reproduce its natural equivalents, no matter what they say otherwise. However as time marches forward, they will improve and overcome and come closer to desired outcomes.

What was the most important aspect of being either a man or a woman fifty or sixty years ago? Being a parent. Having biological children. This isn't the most important aspect of being an adult in the modern world. What is the most important aspects of a modern woman? Her career and her sexual freedom. What is the most important aspects of a modern man? The same. Modern transmen and transwomen are more culturally related to those they skin walk as, than those same biological men and women are to their grand and great grand parents.

If roles are interchangeable, if cultural expectations are the same, if opposition to either is homophobic or sexist and thus a modern sin. And with "passable" alternatives for phiscal aspects are ready available. How can one not come to the conclusion gender has already replaced sex?