Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.2064

Is gender really a social construct?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Is gender really a social construct?

Also check this out:

Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children

Fixed.

Gender, no
Gender roles, yes

It is in the same sense that "race" is

Funny thing is that even if it is a social construct, that means it's socially negotiated, not something you can just ascribe to yourself on nothing more than your own whim and expect everyone else to conform to viewing you that way.

Like for example, what is considered politeness is a social construct determined by the culture of one's society, but that doesn't mean you can run around cussing everyone out and masturbating in public then say "well it's a social construct and I identify as a polite and dignified person so therefore you have to refer to me as that."

Partly. Biology still matters.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Funny thing is that even if it is a social construct, that means it's socially negotiated, not something you can just ascribe to yourself on nothing more than your own whim and expect everyone else to conform to viewing you that way.

Like for example, what is considered politeness is a social construct determined by the culture of one's society, but that doesn't mean you can run around cussing everyone out and masturbating in public then say "well it's a social construct and I identify as a polite and dignified person so therefore you have to refer to me as that."

If it's a social construct hopefully we can stop giving hormone blockers to young teens.

I mean, yes, according to Google's definition of the word gender.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
I mean, yes, according to Google's definition of the word gender.

That's not the spirit of the question.

Oh Well GOSH! If GOOGLE says it....

There's also a very bizarre logical contradiction. They argue against gender stereotypes, against the idea that men and women are the same... and yet somehow someone with a penis can feel like a woman, as if a man could not feel that way and still be a man because apparently being psychologically male or female is legitimate despite their protests that there are no legitimate differences between men and women that could cause the wage gap. What's more is that this is often performed through gender stereotypes. I myself feel like a man I suppose, but I have no experience feeling like a woman, whatever that means, so I have little point of reference aside from the social norms and stereotypes around men and women... which means transgender identification is likely a decision based around accepting and playing into gender stereotypes... which I thought these people were supposed to be against?

What's also ironic is that the best defense transgender people have, just like gays, is that it's a quantifiable innate characteristic linked to biology and thus something that can't just be dispensed with... however the more radical aspects of this movement undermine this claim by suggesting this weird gender-blender non-binary fluid upside down triangle bullshit where you can identify as whatever you want based purely on whim.

If it's based on whim, where it's perfectly acceptable for some people to just swap through genders on a daily or monthly basis or make up new shit with no clear definition or parameters, then why should anyone be compelled to alter how their use of language and how they conceptually categorize someone?

Our society really is becoming a joke, and not even a funny one.

Gender and gender roles are almost binary (almost)

It's not that gender is a construct of society, rather that society, built and maintained by mostly (white) men, is a construct of evolutionary rules. One of those rules is that men are men and women are women. Quite simple when you think about it really.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
I mean, yes, according to Google's definition of the word gender. Which is the accepted definition in all dictionaries I've ever seen... It's a retarded thread where someone doesn't understand the meaning of a word and wants others to discuss the meaning as they want the meaning to be.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Which is the accepted definition in all dictionaries I've ever seen... It's a retarded thread where someone doesn't understand the meaning of a word and wants others to discuss the meaning as they want the meaning to be.

There must be a dictionary for retards and incels and retarded incels. Only real explanation.

Wondering if one of our retard incel members can post a link.

Originally posted by Robtard
There must be a dictionary for retards and incels and retarded incels. Only real explanation.

Wondering if one of our retard incel members can post a link. They are complete ****ing idiots Rob.

Cute couple.

In your head rent free, Trumper

I didn't vote for Trump.

You should let your boyfriend do the talking, he's at least funny when he's mad.

#feefees

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
#feefees wow didn't take long for that kid to get triggered.

guess that means we're a threesome now. i wanna be the caboose.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
guess that means we're a threesome now. i wanna be the caboose. You can be whatever you want lover, as long as I get to cum.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Gender, no
Gender roles, yes

Agreed.

I don't buy into the "sex's have no defining traits at all" arguments of feminist hardliners, e.g. men can be uniquely violent, women can be uniquely obsessed with kids, and men and women can be attracted to various desirable elements unique to either sex...

... but aside from the fact there's men and women who defy that, it's obvious accepted norms went way too far pigeonholing people into "stay at home mom" and "breadwinner dad"..

I think gender norms are a good thing to have in a society tbh. I think they evolved to reflect the average psychology of men and women, and are thus a good aspect of our culture to have to help a decent number of men and women understand themselves. That being said if somebody wants to deviate from them they should be free to do so.

How can gender roles be little more than societally constructed phenomena when, by and large, these roles have been fairly similar thought-out the majority of cultures. This indicates a powerful force of nature beyond "societal programming" and rather the natural ways in which humans organise themselves.

More to the point, why has women's mental health been in decline since women started competing with men, breaking away from the traditional norm of family related caring, instead of increasing when they have the freedom to do either?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
There's also a very bizarre logical contradiction. They argue against gender stereotypes, against the idea that men and women are the same... and yet somehow someone with a penis can feel like a woman, as if a man could not feel that way and still be a man because apparently being psychologically male or female is legitimate despite their protests that there are no legitimate differences between men and women that could cause the wage gap. What's more is that this is often performed through gender stereotypes. I myself feel like a man I suppose, but I have no experience feeling like a woman, whatever that means, so I have little point of reference aside from the social norms and stereotypes around men and women... which means transgender identification is likely a decision based around accepting and playing into gender stereotypes... which I thought these people were supposed to be against?
You radical feminist you. vin

I agree, it's definitely a tricky area to navigate. Conversely, an opposing argument is that these roles, transgressive or not, exist in our social fabric. Because of that, it's reasonable for someone to choose this construct if it suits them. As long as we don't assume each role is inextricably linked to your biology, then maybe it's simply a category for a set of traits anyone can exhibit.

Or maybe it just all means nothing and humans are silly.
Originally posted by cdtm
Agreed.

I don't buy into the "sex's have no defining traits at all" arguments of feminist hardliners, e.g. men can be uniquely violent, women can be uniquely obsessed with kids, and men and women can be attracted to various desirable elements unique to either sex...

... but aside from the fact there's men and women who defy that, it's obvious accepted norms went way too far pigeonholing people into "stay at home mom" and "breadwinner dad"..
That's not really the argument though. The argument is that "gender" and "sex" are two different things. Sex refers to our actual biology, and gender refers to the socially constructed ideas placed upon our biology.

That still leaves plenty of room for difference among the sexes.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I think gender norms are a good thing to have in a society tbh. I think they evolved to reflect the average psychology of men and women, and are thus a good aspect of our culture to have to help a decent number of men and women understand themselves. That being said if somebody wants to deviate from them they should be free to do so.
I'm not following. Why would that help folks understand themselves better than simply trying what suits them?

I see what you're saying, but the fact that they must "deviate" indicates the problem before we start. Is there a world where the social expectation can exist and people not get ostracized for being different?

Not ostracized, sure. I'd argue we're at that point already.

Growing up, I remember kids being pretty accepting of gender differences. Sure, there were various "rejects", but gender/sex had nothing to do with it.

It was more about behavior, e.g. socially mal-adjusted, anti-social, or plain weirdness for the sake of attention...

Why are we even debating this? Given the dictionary definition of gender, it is a social construct and that's an irrefutable fact.

The Dictionary is only accurate regarding pronouns. Didn't you know that?

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
The Dictionary is only accurate regarding pronouns. Didn't you know that? Hahahaha

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Hahahaha

Remember. This is the man that rapes his House Boy.

Originally posted by StyleTime
You radical feminist you. vin

I agree, it's definitely a tricky area to navigate. Conversely, an opposing argument is that these roles, transgressive or not, exist in our social fabric. Because of that, it's reasonable for someone to choose this construct if it suits them. As long as we don't assume each role is inextricably linked to your biology, then maybe it's simply a category for a set of traits anyone can exhibit.

Or maybe it just all means nothing and humans are silly.
Here's the thing though, if it's not just a person making their own choice, it's a person placing an expectation on other people how they must conceptualize and refer to them, and in the case of "non-binary people" creating this new category in our society and expecting everyone to accept it or else they're a bigoted *******.

If it's so arbitrary that it's basically meaningless (which for the record I'm not saying it is, but it's certainly the message non-binary gender blender upside down triangles who change their gender every week give off), why not refer to people as male or female based on their biology and let them have the personal freedom to express themselves or dress or get cosmetic surgery in whatever way they see fit?

And that's the thing, social constructs are still socially negotiated. What is considered polite in our society is a social construct and socially negotiated, you can't be a prick to everyone and say "I identify as a polite person and therefore you must refer to me as that" and expect to get away with it.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I'm not following. Why would that help folks understand themselves better than simply trying what suits them?

I see what you're saying, but the fact that they must "deviate" indicates the problem before we start. Is there a world where the social expectation can exist and people not get ostracized for being different?
Simple answer, rather than shaming having positive male and female role models, in real life, in our stories, etc. Something inspirational.

Society has no right to take any of the Credit for how screwed up I am.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
you can't be a prick to everyone and say "I identify as a polite person and therefore you must refer to me as that" and expect to get away with it.


What if the person say they identify as a polite person but also incarnate everything that is politeness? In that case their request makes sense and is consistent (I'm not saying that makes it valid).

I can see how denying the construct of politeness and then trying to request it comes out as somewhat nonsensical.

Originally posted by Bentley
What if the person say they identify as a polite person but also incarnate everything that is politeness? In that case their request makes sense and is consistent (I'm not saying that makes it valid).

I can see how denying the construct of politeness and then trying to request it comes out as somewhat nonsensical.
Well sure but in that case it is socially negotiated, there's defined parameters and markers around it.

For a binary transgender person the markers are obvious (male and female gender roles, clothes, appearance, etc.), for someone completely inventing a new category around which there are no deeply culturally ingrained markers or clear conceptualization within society, then that's not socially negotiated as much as you saying "I'm this thing and you have to refer to me as that."

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Remember. This is the man that rapes his House Boy. Fly and his violent homosexual rape fantasies about me as the aggressor. What a ***** he is.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well sure but in that case it is socially negotiated, there's defined parameters and markers around it.

For a binary transgender person the markers are obvious (male and female gender roles, clothes, appearance, etc.), for someone completely inventing a new category around which there are no deeply culturally ingrained markers or clear conceptualization within society, then that's not socially negotiated as much as you saying "I'm this thing and you have to refer to me as that."

Exactly.

"Meaning is use" as applies to linguistics, refers to old words developing new meanings through common usage, or new words coming into being.

An individual who uses words in a different way, or who makes up his own words, is just being odd. He won't single handedly redefine the dictionary.

This gender thing is like that. They're arguing individuals get to define whatever they want, and everyone needs to affirm that.

Originally posted by cdtm
Not ostracized, sure. I'd argue we're at that point already.

Growing up, I remember kids being pretty accepting of gender differences. Sure, there were various "rejects", but gender/sex had nothing to do with it.

It was more about behavior, e.g. socially mal-adjusted, anti-social, or plain weirdness for the sake of attention...
Our President, the ever benevolent Donald Trump, wants to ban transgender people from the military.

Trans people are still bullied, with schools literally cancelling classes because of worries of violence towards a preteen trans kid, incited by parents no less. ....correction, they only cancelled classes over worries of a protest by trans activists. Not because a kid might get her ass kicked for using a damn bathroom once. She normally has to use the staff bathroom.

There's plenty of recent recorded violence against transgendered individuals too.

The fact that transgenderism is even a political topic at all highlights the world's problem with it. You think the average Joe would be cool and tolerant when his son wants to become his daughter?

You may live in a progressive area, and I commend you for your tolerance, but we can't pretend we're in some flowery world where people can always just express their gender identity freely.

Isn't the military thing more about paying for procedures?

That I can see. I don't have a problem with someone's lifestyle decision, but that doesn't mean I'll support society paying for it.

Not when I can't even get it to pay for help for my decrepit grandfather, who can't even pull on his own pants or feed himself, which I consider far more important then someone's elective hormone replacement therapy/surgery.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's the thing though, if it's not just a person making their own choice, it's a person placing an expectation on other people how they must conceptualize and refer to them, and in the case of "non-binary people" creating this new category in our society and expecting everyone to accept it or else they're a bigoted *******.

If it's so arbitrary that it's basically meaningless (which for the record I'm not saying it is, but it's certainly the message non-binary gender blender upside down triangles who change their gender every week give off), why not refer to people as male or female based on their biology and let them have the personal freedom to express themselves or dress or get cosmetic surgery in whatever way they see fit?

And that's the thing, social constructs are still socially negotiated. What is considered polite in our society is a social construct and socially negotiated, you can't be a prick to everyone and say "I identify as a polite person and therefore you must refer to me as that" and expect to get away with it.

Simple answer, rather than shaming having positive male and female role models, in real life, in our stories, etc. Something inspirational.
Well, not quite. It's someone choosing their identity and informing you what the label is. Asking us to use that label is different from placing constraints on personal expression. The idea is that non-binary has always existed, but we never acknowledged it due to ignorance or bias.

In an ideal world, this may actually be a valid approach. Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag so to speak. The constructs around male and female are here, and until society evolves into something else, those terms point to commonly understood modes of expression.

I see socially negotiated and socially constructed as mostly redudant. It doesn't change anything. A rude person doesn't actually participate in any of the modes of polite identity. A transgender person does participate in the the modes of their gender.

I see that as simply encouraging positive traits, which are mostly identical among genders. You don't want to raise honest women but dishonest men. Or kind men but selfish women. A positive model of behavior is probably good, but gendering it isn't necessary. People will still be free, possibly more so, to explore their own individual identities outside of that.

Edit: I think what you're talking about is actually the "I'm not on the spectrum at all" folks. The whole point of adopting the spectrum view of things was to be all-inclusive. The folks thinking they aren't on it at all are misguided. Non-binary makes sense at least, as we can exhibit both masculine and feminine traits at once.

But to claim to be outside of the spectrum entirely....lol. Some folks want to be unicorns I guess.

Originally posted by cdtm
Isn't the military thing more about paying for procedures?

That I can see. I don't have a problem with someone's lifestyle decision, but that doesn't mean I'll support society paying for it.

Not when I can't even get it to pay for help for my decrepit grandfather, who can't even pull on his own pants or feed himself, which I consider far more important then someone's elective hormone replacement therapy/surgery.
Slightly different topic, so I won't derail too much.

I must say that your tax dollars probably already go to stuff you disagree with, and possibly in far higher amounts.

I certainly don't agree with many of our military "conflicts" , but my money still gets funneled there without my consent.

I don't think anyone even read the study in question.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Which is the accepted definition in all dictionaries I've ever seen... It's a retarded thread where someone doesn't understand the meaning of a word and wants others to discuss the meaning as they want the meaning to be.

You are so full of shit; I can see it peaking through my computer screen. Did you even look?

Merriam Webster: a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms

Cambridge: the male or female sex, or the state of being either male or female

Some dictionaries like Collins note that some consider gender to be biological and other cultural so they provide two definitions.

Some of these definitions like Webster are a little vague, but the point is, there is no accepted dictionary definition. And even if there were, that would not invalidate my point; they argue that the social traits are not correlated with your biological sex. The meta-analysis I posted begs to differ. Try again next time.

Yeah Oxford is the only dictionary of the English Language that matters.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I don't think anyone even read the study in question.

I did. This finds the opposite of your claim. Kids didn't really care which toys they play with until a certain age, when gender socialization starts to take hold. That age is actually right where your study begins. We are fed social cues from a far earlier age than most realize.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-017-0858-4

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0

Merriam Webster: a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms

Cambridge: the male or female sex, or the state of being either male or female

Some dictionaries like Collins note that some consider gender to be biological and other cultural so they provide two definitions.

Some of these definitions like Webster are a little vague, but the point is, there is no accepted dictionary definition. And even if there were, that would not invalidate my point; they argue that the social traits are not correlated with your biological sex. The meta-analysis I posted begs to differ. Try again next time.
None of those conflict with gender being socially constructed though.

Except, I posted a meta-analysis which looks at 16 studies and was published after the study in question.



Uh, what? If sex plays a part in Gender, that does conflict with the idea of gender being a social construct.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Yeah Oxford is the only dictionary of the English Language that matters.

What a genius and evidence-based argument from Putinbot1, what an adult he makes all of us look like children.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Except, I posted a meta-analysis which looks at 16 studies and was published after the study in question.

Uh, what? If sex plays a part in Gender, that does conflict with the idea of gender being a social construct.
And none of them covered the age range of the one I posted. They all started after the age where kids are found to have had their preferences altered by social factors.(about 1 year of age)

Your Merriam Webster reference mentions sex as a classification, which it is biologically. That wasn't in question. And you didn't post the rest of their definition

"2b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"

The Cambridge definition specifically adds an "or" after the line about sex, indicating a different definition. The state of being male or female can absolutely still be socially constructed. It didn't say it was restricted to biology.

Cambridge also has this listed as a definition.
"The physical and/or social condition of being male or female"

There does, in fact, seem to be agreement that gender is socially constructed. There is probably a complex interplay of biology and society at work here though. We use gender to refer the social stuff, and sex to refer to the biological stuff.

Originally posted by StyleTime
And none of them covered the age range of the one I posted. They all started after the age where kids are found to have had their preferences altered by social factors.(about 1 year of age)

But it doesn't matter, because they make clear that while the presence of social factors does play a role, innate factors are more significant(they observe this as the presence of the parent plays no role). But, even the study you cited never denies the role of biology in preferences, in fact, it subtly endorses it lol. Here is a study which finds differences at nine months: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm

Originally posted by StyleTime
Your Merriam Webster reference mentions sex as a classification, which it is biologically. That wasn't in question. And you didn't post the rest of their definition

But it does do that. It says that gender is partly based on a few distinguishable characteristics and mentions sex. You posted a secondary definition, but given that they were in different contexts, I felt no need to post it. I never denied that the dictionaries didn't favor Putinbot's interpretation. I just made clear that dictionaries are quite vague when approaching the topic, and thusly have little bearing in this discussion.

Originally posted by StyleTime
The Cambridge definition specifically adds an "or" after the line about sex, indicating a different definition. The state of being male or female can absolutely still be socially constructed. It didn't say it was restricted to biology.


Yes, they cite two definitions which makes clear that it is up for debate on whether or not gender is just social. The strawmen here are disturbing.

1. You cite a study which shows social factors play a role in gender development.

I never deny this fact, but simply note that biological factors are also significant.

2. You tell me that the definitions are contentious.'

I never deny this fact, but simply note that the dictionaries are not clear on this topic.

1. The very fact that "or" is there means there are two different definitions which automatically invalidates that idea that there is one set definition.

2. That isn't true sex purely refers to your organs there are traits which are biological.

Anybody who doesn't know the Oxford English Dictionary is the premier English Dictionary in the world is retarded.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Anybody who doesn't know the Oxford English Dictionary is the premier English Dictionary in the world is retarded.

Ever talk with a linguist? They love to say how all dictionaries are several years behind the trends, and how much of it is out of use terms nobody uses anymore.

Makes sense.. If you read a dictionary in 1990, I'd imagine all the definitions would be from the 1980's. And when they finally edit the new terms in, it's y2k.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Anybody who doesn't know the Oxford English Dictionary is the premier English Dictionary in the world is retarded.

Its considered the premier for England whereas as Webster is the premier for America.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
What's also ironic is that the best defense transgender people have, just like gays, is that it's a quantifiable innate characteristic linked to biology and thus something that can't just be dispensed with...Actually, most of us aren't interested in trying to prove our existence to straight people.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I'm not following. Why would that help folks understand themselves better than simply trying what suits them?

I see what you're saying, but the fact that they must "deviate" indicates the problem before we start. Is there a world where the social expectation can exist and people not get ostracized for being different? Agreed, it's infantilising to suggest that people need gender norms to navigate their personality, or in other words be told how they should dress, act, think etc. More than that, it's often a failure to conform to more harmful stereotypes that form leading causes in depression, suicide and the like.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well sure but in that case it is socially negotiated, there's defined parameters and markers around it.

For a binary transgender person the markers are obvious (male and female gender roles, clothes, appearance, etc.), for someone completely inventing a new category around which there are no deeply culturally ingrained markers or clear conceptualization within society, then that's not socially negotiated as much as you saying "I'm this thing and you have to refer to me as that." Or in other words, DMB is unable to conceive something that exists outside the gender binary, something that (very probably) frightens him.

Fortunately more open minded people who don't approach non-binary and gender fluidity with mockery and dismissal as "weird upside down triangle bullshit" are socially negotiating these new spaces by actually listening.

My prediction: in years to come those 'I-identify-as-an-attack-helicopter' types will find themselves increasingly pushed to the fringe as society moves on without them. I suggest we plow ahead with the new world order right now, and identify this sad sub-group of people as a prehistoric reptile of choice, like a diplodingus.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Its considered the premier for England whereas as Webster is the premier for America. Who invented the language.

@dmb

Are you one those people who believe sexual attraction and more to the point you made homosexuality, is a choice?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Who invented the language. it's considered top for "English" in the world. Agreed! Anyone who thinks otherwise is retarded!

Originally posted by Robtard
@dmb

Are you one those people who believe sexual attraction and more to the point you made homosexuality, is a choice? Think he is.

Originally posted by Robtard
@dmb

Are you one those people who believe sexual attraction and more to the point you made homosexuality, is a choice?
**** no.

I think the research there is quite clear that there's a genetic and environmental component to it. If you look at identical twins for example, they're both a lot more likely to have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly a genetic component, but it's also not the case with all identical twins that they have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly an environmental component as well.

It's not a choice though.

The point I was making is that for LGBT issues, saying it isn't a choice is one of the best defenses they have. So treating gender identity as something so flippant that you are whatever you say you are regardless of if there's any solid definition or markers around it makes it not look like something as solidly grounded.

Contrary to what some of you might think I'm not anti-gay. I used to be years ago, but that was more based on the "haha you're gay you ****ing f@ggot" culture of middle school when I was first learning what sexuality actually was, as soon as I met an actual gay person and befriended him (King Joker) that kinda died off as I gave it actually serious thought as opposed to social maneuvering in a toxic environment (ie. middle school).

Originally posted by Emperordmb
**** no.

I think the research there is quite clear that there's a genetic and environmental component to it. If you look at identical twins for example, they're both a lot more likely to have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly a genetic component, but it's also not the case with all identical twins that they have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly an environmental component as well.

It's not a choice though.

The point I was making is that for LGBT issues, saying it isn't a choice is one of the best defenses they have. So treating gender identity as something so flippant that you are whatever you say you are regardless of if there's any solid definition or markers around it makes it not look like something as solidly grounded.

Contrary to what some of you might think I'm not anti-gay. I used to be years ago, but that was more based on the "haha you're gay you ****ing f@ggot" culture of middle school when I was first learning what sexuality actually was, as soon as I met an actual gay person and befriended him (King Joker) that kinda died off as I gave it actually serious thought as opposed to social maneuvering in a toxic environment (ie. middle school). very good post mate. Hope for you yet!

Originally posted by Emperordmb
**** no.

I think the research there is quite clear that there's a genetic and environmental component to it. If you look at identical twins for example, they're both a lot more likely to have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly a genetic component, but it's also not the case with all identical twins that they have the same sexual orientation, so there's clearly an environmental component as well.

It's not a choice though.

The point I was making is that for LGBT issues, saying it isn't a choice is one of the best defenses they have. So treating gender identity as something so flippant that you are whatever you say you are regardless of if there's any solid definition or markers around it makes it not look like something as solidly grounded.

Contrary to what some of you might think I'm not anti-gay. I used to be years ago, but that was more based on the "haha you're gay you ****ing f@ggot" culture of middle school when I was first learning what sexuality actually was, as soon as I met an actual gay person and befriended him (King Joker) that kinda died off as I gave it actually serious thought as opposed to social maneuvering in a toxic environment (ie. middle school).

Well good. Agreed, I don't believe it's a choice either, as least I don't recall a moment in my life where I decided to be straight and to more specifically be attracted to bubblebutt blondes.

I think most of us have had that middle school mentality at some point. So not worries, glad you grew out of it.

Like South Park said, "Not gay! "GAY!".

Same way a woman can say "Don't be a pussy" to a guy, and not mean "girl".

Originally posted by Robtard
. . . and to more specifically be attracted to bubblebutt blondes.

https://media.giphy.com/media/l46ChfKJMVXa5CPFC/giphy.gif

Originally posted by cdtm
Like South Park said, "Not gay! "GAY!".

Same way a woman can say "Don't be a pussy" to a guy, and not mean "girl".
That is what I'd say for a lot of people who say shit like that... but nah in middle school it was like specifically referring to homosexuality. Like yeah it was used for shit that wouldn't be at all related to two dudes ****ing, but the idea of a dude wanting to **** another dude was also pretty heavily ridiculed.

Not like the episode of South Park where they're like
Kyle
You can be gay and not be a f@g.
Stan
Yeah, a lot of f@gs aren't gay.
Judge 2
I happen to be gay, boys. Do you think I'm a f@g?
Stan
Do you ride a big loud Harley and go up and down the streets, ruining everyone's nice time?
Judge 2
No.
Stan
Then you're not a f@g.
Judge 1
So what if a guy is gay and rides a Harley?
Cartman
Then he's a gay f@g. I mean, is this really this hard?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://media.giphy.com/media/l46ChfKJMVXa5CPFC/giphy.gif
https://i.imgur.com/0Kv13GJ.gif

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The strawmen here are disturbing.

Meh, you didn't expand your stance until now. Going with what you posted, our reactions were perfectly reasonable.

You've misrepresented me as well, but I take it as an opportunity to clarify my meaning, rather than go the route that ends with pages of snide quips. It won't get us anywhere broski. I'm going to kinda block response here, rather than point-by-point this, as we aren't actually disagreeing on most of this.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
But it doesn't matter, because they make clear that while the presence of social factors does play a role, innate factors are more significant(they observe this as the presence of the parent plays no role). But, even the study you cited never denies the role of biology in preferences, in fact, it subtly endorses it lol. Here is a study which finds differences at nine months: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm

The parent isn't the only socializing agent though. I disagree that biology is "more significant" though, and the APA would cosign on that. In an analysis of 46 meta-analyses, they found that men and women are mostly alike, even in traits like aggression once you control for context.

Regardless we can cherry-pick studies all day and make zero progress. I was hoping to highlight that initially but I am typing on my phone at work so I failed to articulate myself properly. I think we can connect on this, as we aren't totally divergent in our view.

When we speak of gender as social construct, it doesn't mean ignoring the complex interplay of biology and external factors on our behavior. The construct is actually an aggregate of these things. In our world, we take gender as both a physical presentation and modes of behavior. "Boy" is one set of ideas, and "Girl" is its opposite.

The problem is these things aren't natural rules, and may even change within one individual. Even in both our studies, for example, not all biological boys prefer "boy" toys. Likewise, for girls. Even if we found a typical preference or behavioral pattern, it isn't actually a pre-requisite for maleness or femaleness. We, as a society create the idea that it is, however. This expectation is where the tricky stuff sneaks in.

The expected performance, taken as a whole, is the construct.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
1. The very fact that "or" is there means there are two different definitions which automatically invalidates that idea that there is one set definition.

2. That isn't true sex purely refers to your organs there are traits which are biological.
Okay, maybe I misunderstood what you meant.

I was including behavioral traits that may have a biological basis when I said "biological stuff." Not just organs.

At one year old, the parent is the only significant socializing agent, and I doubt they allowed other considerable confounding variables to effect these studies. The APA meta-analysis doesn't demonstrate much. It shows that gender differences are relatively minimal. But, it does not prove that the differences that do exist are primarily social. Also, I think this study has less merit, as it accounts for fewer variables than children toy studies.



The fact is though, that are set behaviors which are attributed to the female and male sex alike. The brains have some distinct characteristics which differentiate the genders. There are 100 MAJOR differences between female and male brains.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

Originally posted by cdtm
Like South Park said, "Not gay! "GAY!".

Same way a woman can say "Don't be a pussy" to a guy, and not mean "girl".
Originally posted by Emperordmb
That is what I'd say for a lot of people who say shit like that... but nah in middle school it was like specifically referring to homosexuality. Like yeah it was used for shit that wouldn't be at all related to two dudes ****ing, but the idea of a dude wanting to **** another dude was also pretty heavily ridiculed.

Not like the episode of South Park where they're like
Kyle
You can be gay and not be a f@g.
Stan
Yeah, a lot of f@gs aren't gay.
Judge 2
I happen to be gay, boys. Do you think I'm a f@g?
Stan
Do you ride a big loud Harley and go up and down the streets, ruining everyone's nice time?
Judge 2
No.
Stan
Then you're not a f@g.
Judge 1
So what if a guy is gay and rides a Harley?
Cartman
Then he's a gay f@g. I mean, is this really this hard?
I agree with South Park in the abstract. People don't necessarily intend to marginalize with these words.

I started refraining from that language once I realized we are inseparable from our social context though. There are plenty of other words I can use to express the same feeling, and I don't have to make some gay guy feel like shit to do it.

Then again, I'm not big on using cuck either...lol
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://media.giphy.com/media/l46ChfKJMVXa5CPFC/giphy.gif

It could be argued that Gender is Not a Choice but SEX is. Because Gender is WHAT you Are, but Sex is s Physical Act thus making it a CHOICE!

Derp

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Derp

Broken and Triggered at the same time.

Hah Funny!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Broken and Triggered at the same time.

Hah Funny! durhulk

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
At one year old, the parent is the only significant socializing agent, and I doubt they allowed other considerable confounding variables to effect these studies. The APA meta-analysis doesn't demonstrate much. It shows that gender differences are relatively minimal. But, it does not prove that the differences that do exist are primarily social. Also, I think this study has less merit, as it accounts for fewer variables than children toy studies.

The fact is though, that are set behaviors which are attributed to the female and male sex alike. The brains have some distinct characteristics which differentiate the genders. There are 100 MAJOR differences between female and male brains.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders
Well, not quite. The parents' absence for one study doesn't counteract the socializing effect they have. Additionally, unless this child never watches television, never interacts with family/friends/non-parental caregivers, other kids, etc, they're getting hit with all manner of messages. You'd need to raise a child in complete isolation to realisticaly start to address this, and even then, there's problems. The APA meta-analyses is perfectly valid though, and my intent was never to say every single thing is socially constructed, like you keep saying.

Again, not quite. A set behaviour would mean without exception, which hasn't ever been shown true anywhere. The one consistency in all these studies is that men and women behave like individuals. 100 "major" brain differences hasn't actually accounted for much behavioural difference, as the APA showed. No one claimed male/female brains were 100% identical on average. However, that is at the group level. A random man and a random woman won't necessarily fit that mold.

This is true.

But does that prove against social norms?

If, say, 1-4% of European men are passive, while the rest are aggressive, and this holds true across multiple societies in the present, and in the past, can we not say aggression is inheriently normal for European men?

Honestly, I have yet to hear much utility for gender theories.

If it's to make people accept "the other", wouldn't it be far more efficient to "train" the "other" to follow the mainstream?

Problem solved, right?

Of course, no one wants to be manipulated in that way. So why do we assume the majority can be "trained" to behave differently, for the benefit of a vocal minority?

Why is that even right?

Sure, you don't want bullying, or ostracizing, fighting that is a noble cause.

Trying to change an entire group on a fundamental level, isn't.

Originally posted by cdtm
This is true.

But does that prove against social norms?

If, say, 1-4% of European men are passive, while the rest are aggressive, and this holds true across multiple societies in the present, and in the past, can we not say aggression is inheriently normal for European men?

The 1-4% figure was made up for this hypothetical example though. Without something specific to the issue, it's hard to comment on this.
Originally posted by cdtm
Honestly, I have yet to hear much utility for gender theories.

If it's to make people accept "the other", wouldn't it be far more efficient to "train" the "other" to follow the mainstream?

Problem solved, right?

Of course, no one wants to be manipulated in that way. So why do we assume the majority can be "trained" to behave differently, for the benefit of a vocal minority?

Why is that even right?

Sure, you don't want bullying, or ostracizing, fighting that is a noble cause.

Trying to change an entire group on a fundamental level, isn't.
You were going in an interesting direction for a moment, but it ultimately sounds like "Tolerate our intolerance. " That was a faulty argument back during the gay marriage debate, and remains so now.

You're essentially saying "it's easier to let bigots remain bigots, so force the marginalized group to change instead." You aren't trying to "change a group on a fundamental level" by telling them to quit ostracizing a marginalized group. You are, however, changing a group on a fundamental level by telling gender queer people to change who they are despite imposing on no one. Additionally, if discrimination is fundamental to your identity, then you should change.

Cisgendered folks don't have to become trans to acknowledge their existence. I don't see how we're being forced to "change on a fundamental level" here. We still get to go about our day exactly as before, but now we're calling Michael, Michelle. It's like...the most minor, boring thing in the universe.

I literally yawned and dozed off just thinking about it.

Gender is absolutley a social construct. No man can tell me what my role in society is. I didn't choose to be born a female.

Originally posted by Anna D
Gender is absolutley a social construct. No man can tell me what my role in society is. I didn't choose to be born a female.

Gender and gender roles are two different things.

Originally posted by StyleTime
The 1-4% figure was made up for this hypothetical example though. Without something specific to the issue, it's hard to comment on this.

You were going in an interesting direction for a moment, but it ultimately sounds like "Tolerate our intolerance. " That was a faulty argument back during the gay marriage debate, and remains so now.

You're essentially saying "it's easier to let bigots remain bigots, so force the marginalized group to change instead." You aren't trying to "change a group on a fundamental level" by telling them to quit ostracizing a marginalized group. You are, however, changing a group on a fundamental level by telling gender queer people to change who they are despite imposing on no one. Additionally, if discrimination is fundamental to your identity, then you should change.

Cisgendered folks don't have to become trans to acknowledge their existence. I don't see how we're being forced to "change on a fundamental level" here. We still get to go about our day exactly as before, but now we're calling Michael, Michelle. It's like...the most minor, boring thing in the universe.

I literally yawned and dozed off just thinking about it.

There's a fine line between:

1. I accept and tolerate your weirdness. It's your life, however you want to live it, and that is what I accept, if not your world view wholesale.

2. I affirm your beliefs. I accept your world view.



I can refuse to accept a post op transsexual is a woman, and refuse to bully/allow bullying.


The current tactics seem to demand across the border affirmation, which simply puts people on the defensive.


Shame is NOT a good tactic for social change. All it does is force people to choose between defensively digging in, or admitting defeat.

That may not be an answer you want to hear, but people have their pride. Asking someone to give up on tradition, and accept a "new normal" will only promote hostility:

Originally posted by cdtm
There's a fine line between:

1. I accept and tolerate your weirdness. It's your life, however you want to live it, and that is what I accept, if not your world view wholesale.

2. I affirm your beliefs. I accept your world view.



I can refuse to accept a post op transsexual is a woman, and refuse to bully/allow bullying.


The current tactics seem to demand across the border affirmation, which simply puts people on the defensive.


Shame is NOT a good tactic for social change. All it does is force people to choose between defensively digging in, or admitting defeat.

That may not be an answer you want to hear, but people have their pride. Asking someone to give up on tradition, and accept a "new normal" will only promote hostility:
"I am not denying your humanity, I just do not believe you are the gender to which you claim to be"

Originally posted by Emperordmb
"I am not denying your humanity, I just do not believe you are the gender to which you claim to be"

"I am not denying your right to protest, I am just defending the honor of the flag I believe in."

"But it's not about the flag."

"When you do it in front of the flag, it's about the flag to us."

Originally posted by cdtm
"I am not denying your right to protest, I am just defending the honor of the flag I believe in."

"But it's not about the flag."

"When you do it in front of the flag, it's about the flag to us."

Originally posted by Silent Master
Gender and gender roles are two different things.
Gender roles are under the gender umbrella though. Sex is a more useful way to describe what you're talking about.
Originally posted by cdtm
I can refuse to accept a post op transsexual is a woman, and refuse to bully/allow bullying.
Again, that seems to be a rare occurrence.
Originally posted by cdtm
There's a fine line between:

1. I accept and tolerate your weirdness. It's your life, however you want to live it, and that is what I accept, if not your world view wholesale.

2. I affirm your beliefs. I accept your world view.

The current tactics seem to demand across the border affirmation, which simply puts people on the defensive.

Shame is NOT a good tactic for social change. All it does is force people to choose between defensively digging in, or admitting defeat.

That may not be an answer you want to hear, but people have their pride. Asking someone to give up on tradition, and accept a "new normal" will only promote hostility:
See, I disagree. What I see is people getting defensive because a legitimate opposing point is raised that may force them to reconsider their long held stance. No one has been rude in this thread for example, but you're still talking about being shamed.

If you're just talking about the discussion nationally/worldwide, then in some instances I'd agree. Reasoned discourse is the best way, assuming people are willing to change.

Originally posted by StyleTime
No one has been rude in this thread for example, but you're still talking about being shamed.
You mean aside from Beni calling those who disagrees with him analogous to flat-earthers?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
You mean aside from Beni calling those who disagrees with him analogous to flat-earthers? They are.

Anyways nope, it's not a social construct.

Originally posted by cdtm
"I am not denying your right to protest, I am just defending the honor of the flag I believe in."

"But it's not about the flag."

"When you do it in front of the flag, it's about the flag to us."
That logic doesn't work though. When your opposition says "it's not about the flag", the proper response is "Oh, well then what is it about? Maybe we can solve this?"

Instead, that last line says, essentially "well, we're going to pretend it's about the flag anyway, so hah."
Originally posted by Emperordmb
You mean aside from Beni calling those who disagrees with him analogous to flat-earthers?
Fair point. There was someone.
Originally posted by Surtur
Anyways nope, it's not a social construct.
Cuz the Rhesus monkeys?

I'm not a fan of using animals to predict human behavior. We try too hard to read ourselves into the behaviors we like and ignore the ones we dislike. We can find a study supporting practically any viewpoint with animals.

Socialization affects the behavior of rhesus monkeys too.

Rhesus monkeys eat mostly plants with ocassional insects thrown in. Would you be willing to go vegetarian because they do it? Living in a polyamorous communal society with a bunch of other folks sharing your girlfriend and raising your kids? I'm being colorful, and I'm not saying any of these are bad, but I doubt most people would be up for them.

Animal behavior doesn't translate 1:1 to humans. We cherry pick animal behavior and say "see! We do that! We're just animals!" all while disregarding the shit we don't like. I'm not a fan of that. Posting on an internet forum would be like rocket science to a dumbass rhesus monkey.

Bro I'm about to chow down on an awesome plant/insect burger right now. Coincidence or...fate?

Well, insects are supposedly the path to ending world hunger, even according to the UN, so maybe it's fate. You're ahead of the curve.

Touche sir. Touche.

Originally posted by cdtm
"I am not denying your right to protest, I am just defending the honor of the flag I believe in."

"But it's not about the flag."

"When you do it in front of the flag, it's about the flag to us."


It doesn't matter what its about to you. If you don't want them doing it in front of the flag, then don't bring out the flag in the first place.

And for the record, this whole, "standing in front of the flag is key to keep american society together" nonsense is horseshit. The tradition was only introduced in 2009 when the department of defense started paying the nfl to start this tradition:
http://dailysnark.com/nfl-teams-didnt-stand-national-anthem-2009/

When you defend the "honor of the flag" you defend the honor of government propaganda.

It's not patriotism, it's paid propaganda, and by telling football players they can't publicly protest the government on the field, the NFL has confirmed their status as the government's puppet.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang


It doesn't matter what its about to you. If you don't want them doing it in front of the flag, then don't bring out the flag in the first place.

And for the record, this whole, "standing in front of the flag is key to keep american society together" nonsense is horseshit. The tradition was only introduced in 2009 when the department of defense started paying the nfl to start this tradition:
http://dailysnark.com/nfl-teams-didnt-stand-national-anthem-2009/

When you defend the "honor of the flag" you defend the honor of government propaganda.

It's not patriotism, it's paid propaganda, and by telling football players they can't publicly protest the government on the field, the NFL has confirmed their status as the government's puppet.

The flag's history with the NFL isn't the point, though. The flag is a symbol to many.

Isn't a key argument of social justice, that one's individual experiences matter?

Why shouldn't we respect the feelings of those who claim, for them, it's about the flag?

Originally posted by Surtur
Anyways nope, it's not a social construct.

HYG: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/

Except that you've ****ed the analogy.

"I do not accept your world view" is not equivalent to "i do not accept you protesting in a manner that happens to offend my world view"

If anything those who are shutting down protests are akin to those who shut down the people who say " I just do not believe you are the gender to which you claim to be"".

If you support people saying what they think about gender, then you shouldn't take issue with people kneeling in front of the flag.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang


It doesn't matter what its about to you. If you don't want them doing it in front of the flag, then don't bring out the flag in the first place.

And for the record, this whole, "standing in front of the flag is key to keep american society together" nonsense is horseshit. The tradition was only introduced in 2009 when the department of defense started paying the nfl to start this tradition:
http://dailysnark.com/nfl-teams-didnt-stand-national-anthem-2009/

When you defend the "honor of the flag" you defend the honor of government propaganda.

It's not patriotism, it's paid propaganda, and by telling football players they can't publicly protest the government on the field, the NFL has confirmed their status as the government's puppet.

Personally, I've never felt my patriotism being attacked by someone else not standing for the National Anthem. Even people who burn the US flag do not affect my patriotism; I think they're stupid as I think flag burning is stupid, but I don't feel insulted or less American because of it. Maybe I'm just that patriotic where another can't make me question my own patriotism or maybe I'm just not a little b***h looking for something irrelevant to me to whine over while covering it up as patriotism.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Except that you've ****ed the analogy.

"I do not accept your world view" is not equivalent to "i do not accept you protesting in a manner that happens to offend my world view"

If anything those who are shutting down protests are akin to those who shut down the people who say " I just do not believe you are the gender to which you claim to be"".

If you support people saying what they think about gender, then you shouldn't take issue with people kneeling in front of the flag.

Accept abortion is wrong.

Accept marriage is between men and women.

Accept kneeling in front of the flag, isn't disrespecting the flag.


That's how they're similar. The people feel how they feel, and are being asked to feel differently.


Of course, it's equally valid to say:

Accept I don't accept you're a woman.


And they may be deeply offended. At that point, not much to be done except agree to disagree, or agree to limit/end the relationship.



My main issue with the flag protests, is that they're clearly intending to provoke a reaction, while pretending "Nah."

Of COURSE they want to offend. Or they wouldn't do it in front of the flag at all. Flag protests, in all cases, are INTENDED to provoke a reaction from others.


Call it a pet peeve, but I don't believe in intentionally trying to provoke others. For any reason. It simply isn't necessary.

Sometimes, you can't help to, either way, but generally attempting to respect boundries is the ideal.

Originally posted by Robtard
Personally, I've never felt my patriotism being attacked by someone else not standing for the National Anthem. Even people who burn the US flag do not affect my patriotism; I think they're stupid as I think flag burning is stupid, but I don't feel insulted or less American because of it. Maybe I'm just that patriotic where another can't make me question my own patriotism or maybe I'm just not a little b***h looking for something irrelevant to me to whine over while covering it up as patriotism. You see I'm not patriotic at all. I admire what my culture did in the past. It created the basis for almost everything. From discovering how to induce current to the basic mechanical model of the universe and theory of evolution. It gave the world real Football, Boxing etc and the dominant language. Modern democracy and legal systems... but that was then, a few of us bravely still walk the world like Titans, with education from Universities as old as the US... most watch YouTube and strictly come dancing. We have become Babylon.

Originally posted by cdtm
Call it a pet peeve, but I don't believe in intentionally trying to provoke others. For any reason. It simply isn't necessary.

So you think taunting in boxing is against the spirit of the sport?

Originally posted by Bentley
So you think taunting in boxing is against the spirit of the sport?

In politics.

But since you brought it up, I never liked how Ali ran people down. I get that's part of his charm, and a big part of the reason crowds loved him, but.. it's not professional wrestling. I can laugh at The Rock, but doing so irl, to me, a guys just being a jerk.

Originally posted by Robtard
Personally, I've never felt my patriotism being attacked by someone else not standing for the National Anthem. Even people who burn the US flag do not affect my patriotism; I think they're stupid as I think flag burning is stupid, but I don't feel insulted or less American because of it. Maybe I'm just that patriotic where another can't make me question my own patriotism or maybe I'm just not a little b***h looking for something irrelevant to me to whine over while covering it up as patriotism.

DTfWdljzeNw

Originally posted by cdtm
Accept abortion is wrong.

Accept marriage is between men and women.

Accept kneeling in front of the flag, isn't disrespecting the flag.


That's how they're similar. The people feel how they feel, and are being asked to feel differently.


Of course, it's equally valid to say:

Accept I don't accept you're a woman.


And they may be deeply offended. At that point, not much to be done except agree to disagree, or agree to limit/end the relationship.



My main issue with the flag protests, is that they're clearly intending to provoke a reaction, while pretending "Nah."

Of COURSE they want to offend. Or they wouldn't do it in front of the flag at all. Flag protests, in all cases, are INTENDED to provoke a reaction from others.


Call it a pet peeve, but I don't believe in intentionally trying to provoke others. For any reason. It simply isn't necessary.

Sometimes, you can't help to, either way, but generally attempting to respect boundries is the ideal.

I just call bullshit on this entire thing because next to none of these players did anything during the off season to take advantage of all the attention they received over this. All they seemed to do is whine like spoiled millionaires at the thought they might not be able to kneel at their jobs.

If it truly wasn't about the flag they would have stopped kneeling during the anthem and would have found another time to do it. They continue to do it merely to piss off Trump and other people who find it disrespectful.

They have the right to protest, but I've yet to see a valid explanation given for why they still need to kneel specifically during the anthem.

It is not up to you to prove the validity of their expression.

The expression is no longer valid.

Originally posted by Surtur
The expression is no longer valid. Says who?

I just said it. Your opinion has been noted, as has mine.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just said it. Your opinion has been noted, as has mine. Ok opinions vary. No one cares what you think and it is their right to feel differently, dummy.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Ok opinions vary. No one cares what you think and it is their right to feel differently, dummy.

Yes opinions vary, that is the nature of opinions and of course they can feel differently.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes opinions vary, that is the nature of opinions and of course they can feel differently. So you agree they do not have to prove anything to you. Progress. I win.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So you agree they do not have to prove anything to you. Progress. I win.

Enjoy your pretend win since I never said they had to do anything

Originally posted by Surtur
Enjoy your pretend win since I never said they had to do anything You concede. Perfect. Good beta.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You concede. Perfect. Good beta.

Lol too funny, so much projection here.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol too funny, so much projection here. Your opinion is silly and rather stupid tbh.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Your opinion is silly and rather stupid tbh.

http://votersopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Extreme-Irony.gif

Originally posted by Surtur
http://votersopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Extreme-Irony.gif So you do not even deny it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So you do not even deny it.

Of course I don't believe that stuff about my own opinions it's just funny seeing you call the opinions of others silly and stupid.

Originally posted by Surtur
Of course I don't believe that stuff about my own opinions it's just funny seeing you call the opinions of others silly and stupid. Yours are. You know I am right too.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
DTfWdljzeNw
Heh

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yours are. You know I am right too.

Nah.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nah. Yeah, but rage more about dems and kneeling at an nfl game.

Originally posted by cdtm
Of COURSE they want to offend. Or they wouldn't do it in front of the flag at all. Flag protests, in all cases, are INTENDED to provoke a reaction from others.

They want to get eyes on their cause. The alternative is be ignored...
Originally posted by cdtm
Accept abortion is wrong.

Accept marriage is between men and women.

Accept kneeling in front of the flag, isn't disrespecting the flag.

That's how they're similar. The people feel how they feel, and are being asked to feel differently.

Of course, it's equally valid to say:

Accept I don't accept you're a woman.

Not sure these follow. Again, no one is making you "disrespect" the flag yourself. They're saying you can't stop them from doing it. You can feel it's wrong all you want though.

Legal gay marriage doesn't mean you have to enter a homosexual marriage yourself. Your feelings are your own, but you don't get to ban it for others.

Marriage should go die in a fire though, at least the industry around it.

Right but instead of just identifying as a certain gender demanding that other people identify you that way as well is a bit different from "you can do whatever you want and I can do whatever I want"

Is it? If your name is Michael you have a right to be identified as Michael and not Zack within every legal context. So if you can legally change your name and expect that to be legally acknowledged why exactly is it wrong to identify as a toaster and expect that to be legally acknowledged?

If your name is Michael and random people on the street call you Zack, what law are they breaking?

No one is advocating that you should go to jail for calling a man a woman or vice versa, so what does that have to do with my post.

Maybe not on this forum, but I've heard people say that calling someone the wrong pronoun was a violent act.

And?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Right but instead of just identifying as a certain gender demanding that other people identify you that way as well is a bit different from "you can do whatever you want and I can do whatever I want"
On the surface, I can maybe see it. If we dig deeper, there's definitely nuance to this though.

They technically are just identifying as certain gender and informing you of their preferred pronoun. What you do afterwards is your call.

A problem with the "don't insult the flag" stance, especially in the form discussed here, is that it ignores the opposition's argument and raises some separate issue as if it's a counterpoint. Essentially, group A says "Hey, I need to say something. None of you were listening before so I figured I could get your attention by standing in front of this thing you always stare at(the flag)."

Instead of going, "Okay. We hear ya. What's wrong?" Group B says, "Don't make this about the flag." The discussion then morphs into this third issue about patriotism. In reality, listening to what they're saying and helping them out if necessary would end the flag protesting.

Additonally, equating these two issues ignores levels of severity quite frankly. At the end of the day, protesting the flag does **** all harm to anyone. While disregarding the socially constructed aspects of gender exists on a continuum of violence and marginalization against a group of humans.

I just don't think these are the same things, except in the broadest of ways.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
And?


Look at the post above mine.

Originally posted by StyleTime
On the surface, I can maybe see it. If we dig deeper, there's definitely nuance to this though.

They technically are just identifying as certain gender and informing you of their preferred pronoun. What you do afterwards is your call.

A problem with the "don't insult the flag" stance, especially in the form discussed here, is that it ignores the opposition's argument and raises some separate issue as if it's a counterpoint. Essentially, group A says "Hey, I need to say something. None of you were listening before so I figured I could get your attention by standing in front of this thing you always stare at(the flag)."

Instead of going, "Okay. We hear ya. What's wrong?" Group B says, "Don't make this about the flag." The discussion then morphs into this third issue about patriotism. In reality, listening to what they're saying and helping them out if necessary would end the flag protesting.

Additonally, equating these two issues ignores levels of severity quite frankly. At the end of the day, protesting the flag does **** all harm to anyone. While disregarding the socially constructed aspects of gender exists on a continuum of violence and marginalization against a group of humans.

I just don't think these are the same things, except in the broadest of ways.
Oh I wasn't comparing the two things. Nothing I said there was meant to be related to the anthem kneeling shit. I was kinda drunk when I made that post.

Oh, my fault.

Followup: Is gender a Green Lantern construct?

What if SOCIETY is a Construct of Gender?


https://cdn01.vulcanpost.com/wp-uploads/2014/07/jackie-chan-mind-blown.jpg