Let's talk about gender

gender is a spook but a spook that affects everyone
like yeah it's a social construct but social constructs exist and affect humans

acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

you're free to create a thread discussing class consciousness

All well and good, but your despooking drifts into denial of reality when you start spazzing about "assigned at birth". Boys are boys, girls are girls, this is simple sex. Now, to the extent that there are gender roles that are not linked to biology, despook all you want, but don't drive your wrecking ball into the sex binary, which is very real.

well, yeah, class divides everyone more than gender but gender is still a thing unfortunately, not to imply that it's oppressive.
i think it's funny that the same people often freaking out saying "gender isn't real! fuck gender!" are the same people claiming to be genderqueer, agender, demigirl, non-binary trans guy, etc., reinforcing what they claim to hate.
also,
everything's just an oppression contest now for liberals

yeah, this is important. i've seen people [on tumblr and "leftbook"] claim that even sex isn't real. i guess they think sex implies a correlation between gender ("male" and "female") and genitalia so they interpret labeling people based on genitalia as gender.
which is, without a doubt, absolutely idiotic. like, come on. come on. come off it. take a biology course.

It's a pedantic thing where they imply that, as you said, any mention of sex is unconsciously an instant poor relating of sex to the same function of gender, which is social. But even if they have a point: that many biological truisms are indeed sometimes raised to not be able to be overcome by society's dominant ideological preconceptions (e.g. "sex is just for reproduction!" coming from the fact that sex is at its most elementary only for reproduction). Even if they have a basic point, this is one of the few cases where their entire mentioning of it is completely based on what contrarians call "virtue signaling" today: being edgy for your clique and its progressive(tm) social studies findings.

I disagree, can't be bothered to argue, only 2 genders.

just voicing so people will know the opinion on the matter is not monolithic.

300 replies guaranteed

Literally could not give two shits what you do. Doesn't effect me if your a demi hemi pan fuck sexual

I hate the gender role, but feel forced into it. Not that I want to change my gender, I just don't want to be a macho.

Gender is a spook, we are raised and taught what is male and female, the only real differences are the higher strength due to testosterone and genitals which again could be affected socially and thus not let women want to be stronger physically.

Though obviously as a vagentleman(I like being male, hate my dick) non binary individual I won't be taken seriously ;^)

Honestly at the end of the days people should be allowed to be themselves and do whatever makes them feel better unless it harms someone else physically.

People need to learn to be flexible instead of form a norm and follow it and hate anything outside of it, human nature needs to be cucked if humans want to advance

Ideally I'd like to be a 6 year old girl, but that's really just a fetish. Gender is a pretty spooky concept.

gender is a total spook. Having to explain the difference between sex and gender lately has become tiresome. Diving into the realm of intersex even more so. It's not surprising how many people don't even know about it in the bible belt.

My whole life mantra has kind of been 'if it's not bothering anyone, it's cool with me even before I understood the problems of idpol.

HEY MODS
I was just wondering if maybe you could tell me how many gender threads are the shills allowed to create per day?
Thanks.

Also I was wondering why you don't just ban their entire company network?
Or if they are using the botnet IPs of their Persona Management Software then why don't you email the ISPs of those emails and inform them that the user has a malware infection so the ISP tells the users to clean their machines or their connection will be blocked?

So how do anti-gender cucks explain the Dr Money case?

i mean "email the ISPs of those IPs"

What am I shilling for with this thread?

Daily reminder that the gender question has been relevant to the Left for a century and a half.

...

you are a shill because you get paid for forum sliding
if you honestly think the 20th thread today is gonna solve the question of gender then i honestly tell you without trying to insult you:
seek psychological help asap. also go to a hospital and have them do a brain scan.

Don't bother. They can't un-rape you.

...

police needs more evidence before they can act.
this only works the other way round, you can use terms of services on your website to make it illegal for shills to enter your website but unless the shills take you to court and in the process admit they were shills you have a hard time.

we can also see that you are a shill because you are tripfagging for no reason

apparently OP is new to this website and has missed the previous 99 idpol threads created today.
i suggest we temp ban him for 2 months so he can lurk moar.

This hits the nail on the end tbh, but I'm not going to elevate the gender/sex-struggle to the class struggle. Rather the contradictions surrounding the class struggle should be addressed towards these issues while resolving itself.

Not really, no.
Outside of the economic realm there's nothing really relevant to the left.

Do you think every thread you don't like is forum sliding? Or just the ones about gender?

Being an attention whore doesn't make me a shill. If I were shilling wouldn't I stay anonymous so my shillposts couldn't be filtered?

Bakunin was also expelled from the First International. Should anarchism be banned from Holla Forums?

Precisely why more people should become post-left tbh

shut the fuck up teenager

even a nazi knows you are full of shit

Non Binary Nazi ! Slay Queen!

fam the sex binary isn't as real as you'd think. She's idpol on steroids but read Judith Butler

Even propaganda movies like Mad Max Feels Road had the guy absolutely WASTING the entire female opposition.

What? since when does Holla Forums filter shills?

lol XD epic

this is a good post, btw.

Yet another attempt by "lefty"Holla Forums to erase oppressed identities while claiming to be progressive.

This shit is why we should abandon Marx in favor of someone who actually gave a fuck about all the working class.

Holla Forums btfo

That's a classic Holla Forums crop tho. Completely in line with anti-identitarian working class activity.

I don't like strict gender roles. I don't feel compelled to adhere to them. In some regards I feel masculine (e.g. I like sport, physical work, guns etc) but in others I don't (e.g. I hate drinking, am very shy and quiet, hate arrogance). So idk really.

But tbh, masculine women make me feel uneasy. I have no desire to learn a billion different pronouns.

Gender is a retarded concept that I wont waste my time on.

I'll read her one day I'm sure. But, sex is quite binary, in our species. Intersex is a very small amount of people.

Now, the extent to which biology dictates social roles along that binary, that's a thing we haven't quite figured out entirely - which are purely constructed, which aren't? Even in biological roles you will have a distribution of people falling within the role and outside them by inborn inclination.

But these roles dictated by biology must exist I think. Looking at other (social) animals we can see they have these kind of social roles, even though they are unencumbered by constructed culture. It's become a joke now, but when I first learned of the biology and social structures of spotted hyenas for example, it really made me think, jogged my noggin, cooked my noodles.

It seems arrogant to think we are exempt from it just because we happen to be great at making tools.

Sage

Sex = Biology
Gender = What society deems men and women do

Its all spooky.

Gender is not real its as real as stereotypes.

It's not just about intersex people, but also about our understanding and definition of sex being not sufficient to describe reality: we imagine it to be factual and detached from the ideological, to be a biological term which describes clear concepts – when in reality our definition of sex is deeply tied to our definition of gender, the binary we created in our usage of the term sex is the result of what humans observed culturally and was not questioned. If we were to examine the biological basis for our claims however, we will find that not only do intersex people exist as you say, which necessarily break up the binary, but we will also find that we group certain traits which each other that are not as set in stone as we generally think. The XY sex-determination system is what's taught in school, but it's not as simple as we'd like to think, I quote for example from Wikipedia:

This line of critique can be extended to physical features that we usually group with one sex or the other and here it becomes also obvious how there is no clear distinction between the term "sex" and the term "gender" in how we use them: Strong facial hair, broad shoulders, narrow hips, all sorts of features would be associated with the male sex, but you can easily find a member of the "female" group that represents those features more clearly than an average member of the "male" group.

Biology is a spook. Gender is more real than """"sex"""""

What I mean by this, is that there is a sort of muddy general understanding where the distinction lies, but both sex and gender cannot be narrowed down to a sort of essential definition that clearly separates them from each other in terminology.

There are no fish you see, because they are often described as having fins, but dolphins have fins too and they aren't fish.

Come to think, there isn't anything at all, it's all clusters of atoms, which are ultimately pure information, that we arbitrarily label. To escape this oppression we must be silent, and even better, deaf and blind as well.

Gender isn't separate from sex. The idea that it is is a laughably recent idea.

Yeah, probably only came up during the past two million years.

On the other hand, many or all animals are naturally bisexual so they have no reason to invent different genders.

Once you show me a dolphin that looks like a fish, behaves like a fish and so on, but has been born to dolphin parents and is generally understood to be a dolphin by scientific and general definition, your argument will have merit. I'm not arguing that defining anything at all is fruitless, I'm arguing that our definition of sex is fundamentally flawed in the assumptions it makes and not entirely in the realm of the scientific, rational, but inherently tied to the ideological

Like, I get it. I think gender and sexuality are more of a spectrum, and absolutes of "man" or "woman" don't exist except as stereotypes and people can definitely take actions and behaviors that totally exist outside of that binary spectrum that we've had for a long, long time.

But I mean, capitalism exists. And it will keep pushing gender because splitting people up creates niche markets. So, how about see what happens after capitalism is defeated and then think about this question. Because until you do, you'll never be able to address this in any real arena without the superstructure getting in your way. Keep it real son, how the fuck can anyone really address these issues with capitalism's influence in the fucking room.

Doing exactly what Marx critiqued the german philosophers for, discussing shit that really will never have any materialization in society. Not only that, falling straight into idpol's trap of trying to discuss solutions to these problems when the first domino (capitalism) stands.

Since you position a characteristic being present in another concept as invalidating the concept it characterizes, that isn't necessary for my point to hold.

Everything definition has it's exception, it's lacking. One cannot define a dolphin without begging the question, such as the biological definition of "can produce viable offspring with other dolphins" does.

The scientific and rational are ideological, dolphins used to be seen as fish, until the 19th century when biology became a discipline with it's systematization, being part of the shift from holistic thinking to analytical thinking. "It's ideological" in this sense, means that it relies on a mode of cognition, an empty truism.

to expand on this some further, if we take this new understanding into consideration, of traits and features of one gender not being inherently tied to that gender/sex, we might also ask the question why our focus on the genitalia is so great:

not only can we find intersex people that completely disrupt our understanding of sex by focusing on the genitalia, people that have ovaries but look male and identify as male for example, we also have to ask ourselves why we focus on this feature and not one of the many other features that are understood to be part of one sex – the answer here seems immediately obvious to us: "well, you can find women with a beard and men without" "you can find women without breasts and men with breasts" and so on, and if take this line of thinking to its ultimate conclusion we should realize the nonsensicality of it all by ultimately arriving at "you can find women with a penis and men without" or "you can find men with a vagina and women without"

Something on trans people.
It seems like edgy kiddies always replay to them being mentioned by saying that they are mentally ill, but that is exactly the point.
Dysphoria is a real mental condition, trans people exhibit highly self destructive tendencies from puberty onwards because they feel incompatible with their own bodies. This is a real mental illness but mental illness does not mean that people are evil should be killed or stupid shit like that. Ill people need to be cured and there are only 2 possible way in which gender dysphoria could be cured.
You have a brain incompatible with the body, so in the case of a MtF, you'd have to either somehow make the brain male or the body female. We can't change brains very well with our current level of technology and even if we could, personality changing surgeries would probably be considered a human rights violation, you'd destroy the previous personality and replace it with a new after all. Since changing the brain is both currently impossible and unethical, the only way we have to cure these people is to give them hormones and do a surgery later down the line, which makes them as close as to what they want to be that their mental state stabilizes.

I'm not sure what the argument of anti trans people even is, we don't have some magic trick to make the illness go away without this complicated method, we would be using that instead if it existed.

That is not what I am doing though – first of all these two concepts differ from the example you provided in that we arrive at them from different points, dolphins are considered mammals and the offspring of other dolphins, while fish are fish and so on. We are talking about the understanding of sex and gender here however and any human is the product of human parents, modeled at the point of conception and able to transform into any combination of features depending on how the structure sets itself together: what I am pointing at is precisely this process, how the characteristics making up one concept are not distinct to this concept (say, male) but easily can move between the two concepts and be found in the female concept as well – and if we attempt to define these concepts by one single characteristic (commonly genitalia or the chromosomal setup), but find examples of one human falling under the concept by this definition, however carrying traits traditionally associated with the other concept, we should realize the contradiction that is presented to us.

The exact same logic can be applied to the differences between dolphins and fish, in that they aren't absolute and ultimately ideological.

What you demonstrate, is not that there aren't men and women, but that things can not be defined by their parts. A dolphin might be defined by it's flippers, diet, breeding habits and genealogy, but is ultimately it's dolphiness that makes it a dolphin, when we see one, we do not fall into an endless linguistic spiral to determine if what we saw was actually a dolphin, we do not need to check if it can breed with other dolphins to recognize it, the same is true for men and women.

You start from the premise that in order for there to be men and women, there must be a part, or sum of parts that is ultimate and without exception. This is a false discussion, since our cognition, that what makes the difference, does not rely on such an ultimate.

If a man feels himself to be a woman, through a body/brain missmatch, I will not insist on his chromosomes not matching that to prevent him from being one, not out of a SJW post-gender stuff, but precisely because I recognize the drive of gender, it's necessity. There is men and women, and because it is there, not merely as bondage of patriarchy or such, we must able to at times let people transgress it.

lol…

Kind of hard to answer to this since your post is so stock full of assumptions and misunderstandings that all have to be unraveled.

What I demonstrate is that there exists a common understanding of what is male and female both as sex and gender in our society and that both of these understandings are flawed.

And you would be deceived by your cognition the moment an assumption about what you observe does not hold true – this is the basis for critical thinking, rational thought, empiricism and so on, which I am making use of right now. If we were to define reality and accept this definition based on our initial cognition when confronted with reality alone, we would have never advanced as a species and did away with ignorance that naturally is part of all cognition. This reeks of circular reasoning: "This man is a man, because it is a man" – the only reason you are able to recognize a man as a man is because of ideas of a man that have been taught to you or that you have perhaps discerned for yourself.

The moment we observe a dolphin breeding with something else than another dolphin and producing viable offspring is in fact when we should rethink our definition of the dolphin – and this very same process of contradiction in our assumptions about man and woman is what I am trying to present.

First off, I am not starting from a premise, I am responding to the premise that is presented by society: That there are parts to being male and female that are inherent to them and justify the distinction between the two. This is what I would reject. I think you can construct a concept that is male and one that is female, and define both by an accumulation of traits, but those two concepts would not be useful to describe reality because of the contradictions it presents. It is why as a response to Butler's work a movement originated which attempted to break the binary and fill the gap between the ideological spaces of male and female with that of being genderfluid, trans, queer and so on… a response that I would reject as well, but that's perhaps another point.

There is nothing inherently necessary about gender and if you're trying to argue for a societal function of it, and that we must recognize the binary of male and female for some purpose even if it was nonsensical, that would be another topic entirely.

Unacceptable. Chop your balls off, make fake boobs or let the testosterone do its magic for you.

feels good man

...

So i am trying to make an excel for autists that shows what percent male you are and what percent female. Need more categories

What else?

Sexual attitude(submissive, vers, dominant)
Sexual position(takes dick, vers, gives dick)

Body- hairy, hairless
Face- facial hair, shaved
Hair- Short hair, long hair

height, muscular, fat distribution, self-confidence, shyness, occupation (job or education), relationship status, sexual orientation, relationship dynamic (both current and desired), family dynamic (both current and desired) – for example better relationship with mother or father, single parents, relationship with siblings and so on, amount of friends and friends dynamic, religious, grades in school, grades in university, career driven or not…

preference: Dicks, both, ass, vags

How many fucking threads are we going to have about this, most of us:
-Don't care what you were born as
-how you identify
-Or the roles you fill in regards to the above

Leftcoms once again proving they're the best posters. Any recs on where to start with reading Verhaeghe?

Well until the board dies of course.
Why do you think the shills are spamming Holla Forums? Why do you think they installed a self-admitted government shill as board owner?
(he admitted it by accident talking about tor)

good post

You don't, you demonstrate that words don't gain their meaning from other words and that there are therefor no absolute definitions. This can be used to claim the non-existence of virtually everything.

Since the ability to discern between man and woman, male and female, exists in other species, it is at base a pre-human concept, which is why it matters so deeply to us. Cognition is a pre-requisite for science, we have to accept a reality before making a scientific evaluation of it, and this reality can therefor not be science alone. The mistake you make in applying the scientific method, is assuming that a concept needs to have an absolute definition to have an existence that can be scientifically proven, no concept has, as is inherent to language. This is vulgar scientism.

To define a dolphin as being able to breed with another dolphin is begging the question, we also don't need to observe a dolphin breeding and producing viable offspring to know it is a dolphin, that would be absurdist.

Criticizing a premise with your own premise, that there needs to be an absolute signifier for something to exist, to be real, doesn't make it any less of a premise. If we are to judge gender by use, we can either say it is extremely useful, as it is one of the most universal, most used concepts there is, or that it is not useful because you don't find it such, in which case you are only arguing with yourself. There being hermaphrodites doesn't make it any more of a contradiction than the description of man as bipedal because there are people born without legs, handicaps aren't a gender, nor does it change the concept of gender. Using them as such is opportunism that would be seen as ridiculous if involved any other deficiency.

Which only brings the discussion down to an "I don't find it necessary", a statement that can not be contested and is a false discussion, it only states your view and makes it the standard at which has to be argued against, to which you can endlessly reply "nuh uh". I could just as well say that any gender relativism is unnecessary and the argument will repeat itself in the same manner.

Gender is a base desire, which is why transgenders feel so horrible about their own bodies, why they talk in a feminine manner, why they act as such and why they wish to be seen as such. It is why women choose more typically feminine studies in countries with greater gender equality, not because the patriarchy get's even more sinister, as in the feminist conspiracy, in which absence of evidence is used of evidence, but because greater security gives them the ability to choose based on their desires instead of security.

I think you are wrong, entirely wrong. You hold a belief based on a fallacious understanding of what constitutes a binary in empirical reality. Lets call it the continuum fallacy.

To be specific, you ignore the existence of normalcy. Regarding biological sex in humans, you can clearly define normal traits for men and females based on the brute amount of people who share the traits. Not all men will share all male traits, but an overwhelming majority do, and those that deviate from the norm in only a few characteristics can still be said to be men with only a slight qualification.

To say that "the binary isn't real because we can't reduce it purely to XX/XY genetics", is sophistry. Whatever genetic and hormonal interplay causes it, the fact remains that on our macro scale, we can plainly observe male and female normalcy.

Why? Why is it unethical to alter a personality trait that is clearly causing suffering, but not unethical to change a physical trait causing suffering?

Is it unethical to treat depression with medication, because it changes the personality of the depressed person? Because it really does, it makes them into a new person - and if the treatment works, they feel happier for it!

Just as bad as Holla Forums tbh

The problem is you, not them.

Futile, as you would have to assign a weight to each category. Seems to me that genitals should be weighed more than, say, a single behavioral trait. And the weight you give each category is cardinally important.

You say there's only male and female, yet society has place male/female tags on all those things including genitals.

What if a man has a bottom surgery to get a vagina and remains a man yet doesnt have full ultra masculine traits.

You cant enforce your closed mind on the world and you will never manage to do so

Are you retarded? How would you decide who to have sex with then?

I'm not entirely sure what a spook is to be clear, but it sounds like a spook.

How about a person you like? OH GOD NO THAT IS EVIL, WE CANT LET PEOPLE HAVE SEX WITH PEOPLE THEY LIKE!!!
WE SHOULD FORCE THEM TO ONLY HAVE SEX WITH WHAT DADDY DRUMPF TELLS THEM TO!!!

Are you trolling? How could you get that from my post? I want to end suffering, and for choosing the method of doing that, I don't pribelidge either physical or mental modification.

I'm starting to see a pattern in your thinking, I think I've encountered you before on other days. You seem to have a pathological fear of categorization, I wonder why that is. Freudposter is better placed to judge though.

Anyway, in your example, that "man" would be putting himself in an ambiguous state to be sure, but that doesn't invalidate the binary. Just the fact that he would have to go through this violent forcing to get there, that he would need to conduct a very invasive surgery, is telling. Breaking out of the binary requires a lot of work, illustrating just how strong the natural binary is.

But you only like people of a certain gender. The concept obviously exists for a reason.

...

The dude you were responding to is not the one you initially responded to (me).

I know, this analysis was based on posts in other threads at other times. This nonperson I responded to treats any attempt to understand the world through abstraction as some kind of perverse attempt to CONTROL, FORCE, be CLOSE MINDED.

Which is patently silly.

What you attempted to do is fine, but I think it won't work until you first rank the various traits, and distinguish "real" ones from the socially constructed ones, which will never be perfectly possible (though that shouldn't stop you).

lol

The moment you create a norm, it is the moment retards will use it as a way to feel stable and in control and as a result will discriminate and push anything outside that norm and thus idpol is back

Unless you stop this shit, idpol will forever ruin shit

I think there are exceptions that prove the rule, and gender identity debate goes like this:

1: All swans are white.
2: I saw a black swan.
1: Most swans are white.
2: Bigot.

I think you are confused, here's how it usually goes

1: All swans are white
2: I saw a black swan
1: All swans are white, black swans are mentally ill, wrong, anti christians "insert other idiotic excuse to avoid admitting you were wrong"
2: bigot

I don't agree at all.

The value categorization as an analytical tool to understand the world and improve our material and social conditions outweighs the risk of dumb people using it to oppress others. Your argument amounts to an intellectual version of being a Luddite.

Beyond that, the fact that existing categories can be used to make people who transgress boundaries - outliers, marginals, statistical anomalies - lives worse, does not mean the categories do not exist. It might make the categories potentially harmful to those people, but they are no less real for it.

This is what is and has been happening since forever, people are being discriminated against because they don't belong to the norm.

And unless the norm becomes flexible this will forever keep going

You can't not agree with this, ti is happening and it has always been happening

Your solution is worse than the problem you are trying to fix.

I think more weirdos should enjoy the perks of obscurity. What's so amazing about being "mainstream" anyway? It sure fucked up the Internet.

1. If you see more than one in the catalog, report the one with less posts.

I recently had an argument with my gf where I said radical feminism was too manhating and too uninclusive for men and many men that could be open to radical feminism are turned away by the hostile attitudes.

So I would like to hijack this thread a bit to ask you guys: Why do you reject radical feminism and some of its issues (banning prostitution for the exploitation and human trafficking it causes, being anti-porn for objectification reasons, criticizing BDSM…)

If you don't know that much about radical feminism, this site is a good start:

So again, what made you turn way or turn sceptical towards it?

Just be earnest and honest, you may help my argument or not, that's not important.

The truth is I don't trust women. I think they are biologically narcissistic and will always throw men under the bus. I'm not a racist, but I am a sexist.

feministcurrent.com/

what site?

hey abdul

Because it's idpol that is completely divorced from class analysis. Or rather it has it's own class analysis where every problem stems from man's oppression of women which makes it fundamentally incompatible with Marxism and most other forms leftism.

just look at issues like the duluth model, discrimination in family courts, policies of colleges towards rape reports, and the feminist call for the closing of female prisons. The truth is, feminism is about an inversion in values, specifically patriarchal values. If one truly wants equality, one must reject the values in such a way that the new values formed are positive ones, formed for their own purposes and not in reaction.

As for the issues you brought up, feminists are not even in agreement with. I've met many feminists who are pro-porn, against kink shaming and for the legalization of prostitution. Hell I was on a panel of representatives of all 4 political orgs on my campus (the republicans, democrats, libertarians and socialists) and the one thing we all agreed on was that we should legalize prostitution to give sex workers legal protections. All the other panelists were white women and feminists, btw.

Because they, being idealists, are incapable of properly identifying the roots of these problems as the socioeconomic conditions brought upon by capitalism. Rather, they assume it to originate in inadequate moral agency.

Ban prostitution or porn, and you just make it go underground — subsequently making it worse for sex workers who go undocumented. As for BDSM and other personal matters, this concerns the consenting individuals involved only and no one else.

Genuine feminist concerns exist (reproductive justice, safety from sexual violence, recognition of domestic labor, etc) and they need to be embedded into socialist theory and practice. Bossing women around and telling them what they ought to do isn't one of them.

Most here (that are not Holla Forums false flags) only reject feminism that is identity politics (that is, either apathetic towards or even endorse the capitalist system). Personally I don't have a problem with feminism that bases itself in Marxist thought or anti-capitalist critique in general, which would be Marxist feminism.

I'll also add that the hypocrisies and blindspots of feminism are so elementary that they made me lose faith in women as equal humans. Since we're talking about radical feminism, can we talk about radical masculism? Probably not.

But I'm convinced we live in a bizarro world where we got gender discrimination exactly backwards–women were spared from the coal mines, not confined to the home–and the reason we can live in this bizarro world is that women are remorseless, vicious evopsychological war machines whose weapons have remained completely intact while we have been defanged. They insist upon their false reality.

Women have evolved alongside male brutality and evolved a toolset of manipulation to grapple with it. I fear them.

...

Those are libfems not radfems

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_feminism

well, that's hardly an argument in favor of radfems. people should be allowed their private moments of pleasure when they aren't hurting anyone, and objectification is a meme anyway, a distraction from real issues.

IT'S ONE OF THEM

Remember, men are the proletariat. Historically, 60% to 85% of men never reproduced. That means she was fucking porky and leaving you to die in the fields.

...

That's true that in many cases it literally is that (for example Andrea Dworkin's writings) but more radical feminists are simultanously marxist or anit-capitalist. However, the truth is that patriarchy and capitalism support one another and both of them are the result of the same material conditions (for example, capitalism needs the nuclear family to function). Thus, while it is wrong to make men-women the new class analysis, feminist issues are part of leftism because patriarchy and the nuclear family is a part of capitalism, hence their specific issues are still worth listening to and important in the grand scheme of "the movement" that is communism.

So you think that radical feminists want to create a matriarchy and you cite those things they demand as proof of that?

I've never met a feminist that defended the discrimnation in family court, in fact its discrimination based on sexist reasons, because society expects the woman to care about the child no matter what happens.

Never heard about that.

It'd be useful if you were to cite your claims.

Those aren't radical feminists as the other person has said. Legalizing prostitution is a terrible idea and its obvious when one looks at Europe btw, the hard evidence is strong.

Look, this is an important test for you. This is it. You have to be strong.

Germany legalized prostitution. What happened is that thousands of Eastern European women are trafficked into Germany, put into brothels and made prostitutes. Prostitution no doubtly has increased massively. Even with the legalization these women are still slaves to their pimps, cannot live on their own and have little protection. Legalizing prostitution is objectively bad for women and for the prostitutes. I'm writing a huge post right now and I don't feel like giving you the links, but you can google as well as I do right? "Germany prostitution human trafficking" and "sweden model success" (they persecute johns but not prostitutes) for comparision.

Meh, I'm not a regular poster here. But feminism really rubs me the wrong way. Women already do better than men by every measure in the west. Now it seems like they just want to see us suffer.

Uhh I'm just going to ignore you.

Well the idea is if women are objectified and turned submissive in their bedrooms and at home, i.e. everywhere it maintains the status quo (which is patriarchal, with massive sexual assault against women, women being taken less seriously, women being less in positions of leadership or responsibility (partly because they dont want to but thats ALSO because of patriarchy))

I don't understand why you're placing such a strong emphasis on the nuclear family. I disagree that capitalism needs the nuclear family or the "patriarchy" to function and as far as I'm aware radfems don't take issue with the nuclear family arrangement specifically but patriarchy as a whole, which, according to them, has always existed.

Empirically, women do better than men by every measure imaginable. Better life outcomes, better jobs, higher incomes, better health, longer life expectancies, special treatment, special programs. I've got problems of my own and as far as I'm concerned, women can fend for themselves, especially when men have so many real problems that women don't give a shit about, and will never ever give a shit about.

That's all you can do, because I'm right.

What I'm mean is that any anti-capitalist sentiment you might perceive in feminism is entirely incidental and never their main concern

The nuclear family is the safety net for people and institution that capitalism creates for reproduction, of course it needs that. It's the capitalistic reincarnation of patriarchy (it existed in other forms before), but the fact that capitalism *needs* it to function and to provide reproduction makes patriarchy "naturally" existing and in some ways unavoidable. Engels and Marx have spoken about it themselves in the German Ideology.

That is true but that doesn't mean feminist concerns aren't communist concerns.

Trying for Communism+? Fuck right off.

This is why all cunts need to be sent to the gulag.

I wonder why.

It's not communism+ because communism itself is about the liberation of all, lol. By definition you aren't a communist for hating on women.

Yes, though they'd deny that if you asked.

And yet, it used to be the exact opposite. Men used to be the one's who got preference, that's no longer true.

well now you have
washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/?utm_term=.5f0d245f2c8b

they legalized it, but criminalized the customer, which creates a whole new set of problems. As for Germany's sex trafficking problem, part of that is wrapped up in the free movement problem of the european union anyway.

which problems? it reduces prostitution which is a good thing.

human trafficking increased because of prostitution. this is a simple fact. Yes, free movement makes it easier, but it's the institution that is prostitution that enslaves women. It's simply truth. There are women trafficked into the US for the sex industry, central american women trafficked into the USA to get fucked and give pimps money. With legalization that would become much, much worse, more slavery, more exploitation.

I can see that but I believe with technological progress capitalism can move beyond the nuclear family and the patriarchy. It already has in many ways.

Yes, it does precisely mean that. You ally with feminists and they will use your time and energy to get what they want and then abandon you. I don't buy into the tired humanist argument that everybody's pet issue must be my issue as well.

What feminists want is to eat their cake and have it too: they desire the resources of low caste males without their icky sexual advances. But if feminists admitted that, then the game would be up and the false hope as an incentive for low castes would disappear.

Therefore feminism must always appeal to the state to simply take the resources from the low caste males at gunpoint and reallocate them.

Feminists are often more submissive in the bedroom than non-feminist women. By placing themselves in opposition to patriarchy, the biggest taboo becomes being what the patriarchy wants you to be.

which is often overblown by university studies

we're having the exact opposite problem. women like hillary clinton, who was almost only taken seriously in 2016 because she was a woman, are not what we should be encouraging.

mandating women into positions of power is hardly a solution, and its further impossible to determine how much of the problem is caused by biology and how much is caused by socialization. educating women and revealing that gender is a spook is all well and good, but forcing women to meet your expectations of what women should be is just as spooky as anything patriarchy might do.

What problems?! it still forced prostitution underground because that was the only way for them to get customers. it meant they didn't get any of the legal and institutional protections.

no more slavery than regular wage slavery.

No, it precedes it, girls with daddy issues are drawn to feminism and submissiveness, which isn't as paradoxical as it seems, both are masters.

You say that, yet nothing is more destructive to the nucfam than unrestrained capitalism.

Why? What is bad about it intrinsically? Say you had prostitution without pimps, what would be the objection beyond muhrality?

What did you think was gonna happen OP

You cant hide forever, there is this thing called "outed" which means you were revealed by someone else without your approval.

And guess what, if you dont have a tolerant flexible society then you are fucked

There are 2 genders
Simple biology

...

there are 0 (zero) genders

Why do you assert that claim?
Two biological sexes. XY, XX.
Unless your definition of gender is roles in a society, then your definition of gender is somewhat warped.
Male societal roles (hunting, gathering, defense) and female societal roles (housekeeping, offspring tending, cooking), and any variance of the two, are literal social constructs. This doesn't devalue the meaning in the two, in retrospect, it's the opposite, considering humans thrive as social beings.
Remember, humans are still animals in the physical sense, and still have things like instinct.

Yes I adhere rater strictly to my gender roles, I'm a man. I'm assertive and forward with people, I like lifting weights and beautiful female bodies. This won't change as long as I'm alive. The other lame shit that's expected of me is unnecessary toxic masculinity. I can discern between necessary male behaviors and unnecessary warrior caste behaviors that are designed to make me a tool of the ruling classes. I think transgender people are stupid and confused, a-gendered people are mentally ill. I hope they figure it out.

We should abolish the use of the words "we, us, them, they, our and society or group" which are also spooks

What the fuck was the point of this?

...

Nobody cares.

It has nothing to do with me and I have no right to tell others how to live their lives.

Nobody cares.

You don't have any right to tell people how to live their lives.

...

I think this whole conversation is retarded, including that guy.

This is why we reject identity politics, including both SJWs and MRAs!
youtube.com/watch?v=861f18VN6zI

this guy gets it

denk you very much.

Specifically on the topic of our late, neoliberal capitalism and identity (not just gender, but virtually every identity category), I recommend PDF related of which the the book cover's illustration was featured in the video I posted.

wew. The smugness I ordinarily appear to communicate towardsh people hasn't made me very popular around these parts and I'm also a fascism-enabling armchair critic according to current persuasions, so it's good to hear this for once.

It's difficult to clearly determine necessary and unnecessary male behaviors. I believe these behaviors are dependent on sex, but may also be heavily influenced by the environment in which the individual is brought up.
It's important to realize that male & female behaviors need to have a sort of balance in society. Constructing a paradigm that directly, or indirectly influences gender roles & behaviors has much potential to be detrimental and cause much confusion in a mass-media consuming population, which we have today.

No its not. Women behaving like whores and men behaving like barbarians is damaging to our survivability as a species and the biosphere. They are both clearly toxic manifestations of gender dependent behavior
yeah its about 40-40 (plus the individual's own predisposition)
Agreed
yes i tentatively agree
you're wrong because instinct doesn't exist, its just a biological response that correlates more strongly with the subconscious mind than the conscious mind, there is no instinct center or instinct gene. there are no direct 1:1 correlations between any brain function and actual behavior, neuroplasticity and the interconnectedness of the brain do not allow for this kind of idiot thinking to be true.
You're using language that has credibilty because people with Science degrees say it does, it has no substantive credibility outside of appealing to "other people said it"
No you can't, nice side step though. Clever girl
You can't properly define the line between organism and machine, organic and inorganic, animal and non-animal life. We're not animals. No other creature has introspection or art, or creativity or imagination or complex philosophy or religion. We're sapient, animals are just sentient. I'm rejecting what you say because its plainly idiotic and contrary to common sense, like most scientific language it attempts to pre-justify itself by giving off the veneer of being highly refined technical thinking "we're biologically animals" which means nothing (we're living material, category that is sentient). What a non-statement and poor definitions
your agreeable, practical normie sensibilities are deranged and have no place in the domain of philosophy or higher thinking. you can take your need for usability and fuck right off

...

Surely human sex dimorphism (both physically and chemically) would lead to differences in behavior that society would pick up on and broadly call gender? I don't think anyone is arguing that "pink is for girls" or "pants are for boys" aren't social constructs, but the idea of men being soldiers coming from their greater strength and height (on average) over women wouldn't be a societal construct but simply an observation? Wouldn't differences between the sexes cause individuals occupying a sex to have different experiences throughout their life, altering their behavior? If I have a penis I will sit differently then if I don't. If I've given birth that will result in a different view on bodily pain then if I haven't or incapable of. Would these behaviors and mindsets not lead to broad generalizations of people who are one sex over the other that we aggregately call gender?

The arguments in this thread seem really one sided, with those in favor of (2) genders providing evidence and those not simply shooting it down without any counter-evidence. Sometimes I can't tell if this is an ironic shitposting topic or people are serious.

I was referring to more subtle behaviors. Things such as chivalry may be argued to be either instinctual, or instilled in a person's psyche by other people/ideas.
What a simplistic way of trying to refute the fact that thousands of genes contribute to how an organism instinctively behaves.
You say instinct doesn't exist, but you also claim it's a biological response that correlates with the subconscious mind. As if our sapience just easily cancels out our subconsciousness.
Why does my language have no credibility? It's just the diction I used to be more thorough in the point I'm trying to convey.
I bet your professor told you to call any acknowledgement of your fallacies a side step.
See how I do that?
The aspect of sapience does not nullify all other animal-like aspects of humans. This is beyond fucking evident, looking at how humans conduct themselves in the world, despite being sapient.
Saying we're nothing but living material that happens to be sapient is just ignoring the fact that we are still fucking animals. Do you even into evolution?
My reason for arguing the question of gender identity is to determine which course of action would be best in the grand scheme of things.
Saying practicality nullifies an argument is beyond the most retarded thought I've ever heard. Why even have arguments, then, if ideas shouldn't even be implemented in real life?

oh ffs fucking Holla Forums not letting me delete a shit formatted post and reposting

unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/Breathing.html

An organism is a naturally evolved reproducing entity. A machine is an object made by man to perform work.

Organic molecules contain chains of carbon atoms. If it doesn't have carbon, it's not organic.

Animals are multicellular eukaryotes that belong to the kingdom Animalia.

We are multicellular eukaryotes that belong to the kingdom Animalia.

Common sense isn't scientific criteria.

It means we are multicellular eukaryotes that belong to the kingdom Animalia.

Kek, the most simple facts tumble a wannabe philosopher's arguments into the ground.
It's not materialism if it's hard fucking proof that clearly dictates whether or not ideas can work in society.

Pic related is what I feel

I think with all the independent people reporting gender dysphoria, we can assume that it is very likely a real phenomenon. But it is very odd that there really isn't much of the other side, that is identification with your societally determined gender. There's nothing in my being that feels "male", and I don't really see much of myself in the archetypal male.

So in that case, what separates me from being gender neutral or nonbinary or whatever? My hypothesis is that dysphoria is likely due to some biological factor which is largely independent of societal expectations. So while we might on a social level both not see ourselves equally in societies image of a male, they have an additional biological stimulus that tells them something about their being is "off."

But most importantly, we should just call people whatever they want to be called so they don't kill themselves. Depression is serious business.

is it fine to identify as a specific gender so long as you don't let preconceived norms and expectations for that gender rule your personal identity?