When you say that gender is a spook are you being ironic or do you actually think that "male" and "female" are social...

Male and female are sexes. With an actual basis in biology.

"Gender" is just a social construct.

Gender is not a biological trait but how you are supposed to behave based on biological traits.

The replies to this thread are why people are pushing center and right.

Kill yourself faggot

He is pointing out that even in your provided definition gender is a social relation instead of the biological reality of male and female. When people say "gender" they are not usually talking about a biological reality. "Sex" is used to denote the biological reality.

this thread existing is why humanity deserves to get purged.

Gender become a spook the moment one put virility/feminity above him or herself, when it become a fixed idea.
Ironically some of the most spooked people about gender are often trannies…

Like what the rest of the Left has become, a bunch of rainbow flag wielding faggots?

There's plenty of humanity who don't follow this crap.

care to say what does this have to do with Holla Forums?

...

They still talk about it, which is my objection. It's not a topic capable of any fruitful left-wing discussion whatsoever. It's pure political theatre on both sides.

...

Twinks are shit though.

there's just two sexes: male and female
gender is a spook

Gender is a spook when you start caring more about a fixed notion of what men or women are supposed to be like that you care about doing what pleases you.

A lot of leftists on this board say it, I don't understand what they mean or why gender has to be broken down and destroyed in order to achieve FALC.

Yeah keep doing that as everyone else gets galvanized. The religious Right is a laughing stock now, after decades of everyone believing religion is the backbone of society. The same will come to the social justice fearing Left.

There is hope for the future. I'm still holding out for it. I don't talk about my sexuality or who I am because it doesn't matter to getting shit done, and one day people will realize this.

This doesn't mean anything. Every word is a social construct.

'disease' and 'health' are technically social constructs, arbitrary classifications defined by humans, that doesn't mean cancer won't kill you though. Few things are as deeply ingrained in human culture as 'gender', and you can't really separate culture from the brain, as human cognition evolved in a social context. a 'post gender' world wouldn't be inherently utopian, as people still care way too much about having kids, family sexuality and all that stuff. You can't offer them something that seems like a complete void and expect them to accept it, in fact they are probably going to be violently upset.

"Sex" denotes whether you have a penis or a vagina and is a basic biological reality. "Gender" denotes what specific societal roles are associated with people on the basis of their sex and is entirely bullshit. Does that clear things up?

...

David Dimbleby: You couldn't - you couldn't set our minds at rest on the vexed question of what the Sunday Times did actually pay you for the book?
Harold Wilson: No, I don't think it's a matter of interest to the BBC or to anybody else.
Dimbleby: But why ..
Wilson: If you're interested in these things, you'd better find out how people buy yachts. Do you ask that question? Did you ask him how he was able to pay for a yacht?
Dimbleby: I haven't interviewed …
Wilson: Have you asked him that question?
Dimbleby: I haven't interviewed him.
Wilson: Well, has the BBC ever asked that question?
Dimbleby: I don't know …
Wilson: Well, what's it got to do with you, then?
Dimbleby: I imagine they have ..
Wilson: Why you ask these question, I mean why, if people can afford to buy £25,000 yachts, do the BBC not regard that as a matter for public interest? Why do you insult me with these questions here?
Dimbleby: It's only that it's been a matter of ..
Wilson: All I'm saying, all I'm saying ..
Dimbleby: … public speculation, and I was giving you an opportunity if you wanted to, to say something about it.
Wilson: It was not a matter of speculation, it was just repeating press gossip. You will not put this question to Mr. Heath. When you have got an answer to him, come and put the question to me. And this last question and answer are not to be recorded. Is this question being recorded?
Dimbleby: Well it is, because we're running film.
Wilson: Well, will you cut it out or not? All right, we stop now. No, I'm sorry, I'm really not having this. I'm really not having this. The press may take this view, that they wouldn't put this question to Heath but they put it to me; if the BBC put this question to me, without putting it to Heath, the interview is off, and the whole programme is off. I think it's a ridiculous question to put. Yes, and I mean it cut off, I don't want to read in the Times Diary or miscellany that I asked for it to be cut out. [pause]
Dimbleby: All right, are we still running? Can I ask you this, then, which I mean, I .. let me put this question, I mean if you find this question offensive then ..
Wilson: Coming to ask if your curiosity can be satisfied, I think it's disgraceful. Never had such a question in an interview in my life before.
Dimbleby: I .. [gasps]
Joe Haines (Wilson's Press Secretary): Well, let's stop now, and we can talk about it, shall we?
Dimbleby: No, let's .. well, I mean, we'll keep going, I think, don't you?
Wilson: No, I think we'll have a new piece of film in and start all over again. But if this film is used, or this is leaked, then there's going to be a hell of a row. And this must be ..
Dimbleby: Well, I certainly wouldn't leak it ..
Wilson: You may not leak it but these things do leak. I've never been to Lime Grove without it leaking.

The way most people view it gender is pretty spooked. For one, few people know the difference between gender as such, gender identity, and gender roles. Now, at the very least, most gender roles and gender expressions are pure spooks; women wearing skirts is an obvious one. Women dominating certain jobs also qualifies (though not in all instances; material biological differences do dictate certain disparities, and it can be hard to tell which, to what extent, and so on).

When people talk about gender, they typically don't make that distinction. Worse, it can even be a cover for gender essentialism on these purely socially constructed gender roles; women belong in the kitchen, men can't cry, etc. Or it can be a cover for irrational hatred and obsession concerning the small minority of people who have a medical condition relating to gender (right deviation). Or it is used to smuggle narcissistic or pomo nonsense into what should be a short discussion (left deviation).

It's easier to just shout people down with "spook" than go digging for their actual opinion, or to educate them into the current orthodoxy. That's why gender is a spook.

Saged for idpol.

That doesn't answer anything, what a worthless post. Explain what you mean, inbred.

Tumblr and their ilk along with this 72 genders crap has successfully converted more people to conservatism than conservatism ever could on their own. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people there who are false flags and poes trying to speed up the process.

Do you actually believe that?

Actually I've seen a massive rise in the popularity of the most fundamentalist schools of Christianity as the middle of the road ones die out. I see a lot of people my age have joined Westboro Baptist type churches as a direct response to being fed up with liberals. Social justice liberals managed to turn the religious right back into a relevant group just five years after they became a laughingstock.

You mean gender ROLE. Gender roles have nothing to do with you, their a social construct (e.g. women can wear dresses). Gender as a parallel concept to sex, does not exist, and was made up by mad scientist/pedophile John Money to trick retards.

I think what he's trying to say is that no one is 100% masculine. All men have some feminine tendencies, and all women have masculine tendencies.

The second part is a joke. The first though yes I do believe. I teach in schools as a substitute. I see kids making WALL jokes and spouting Trump memes, and many of these kids are hispanic or black. I've seen kids joke about pretending to change their gender just to fuck with teachers who have to abide by it. The pendulum is swinging for the next gen and it will swing hard, the same way it swung hard by the 80s and 90s.

I'd say 15 years after and not 5, but yes this did happen and I agree with you.

OK, you really are retarded

t. Alabama hick whose grandfather is also his dad
Well, should a woman do the dishes because she's a woman? Should men be the breadwinner of the family because they're men? Etc. Not that hard to understand.
No one here actually cares about culture wars btw. IDK why you're so obsessed with that. Go argue with fat blue-haired liberals on Tumblr if you care so much.

This is a contradiction.

To be honest I don't disagree. Tumblr people are incredibly annoying and likely turned many overly sensitive soft-anti feminist gamergaters into overly sensitive fascists.

But they're still, at the root of their ideals, right. Gender is totally socialized and irrelevant, it makes no difference if there's no genders, two genders or ten billion genders. And the best way to neutralize this is to just respect their decision to identify as whatever the fuck they want and say no more about it.

Going in the complete opposite direction and insisting that there's only two genders will accomplish dick. Clearly these people have problems and invalidating things that are important to them when we already know those things are irrelevant to begin with isn't going to do anything but reinforce the persecution complex in their own minds.

Here on Holla Forums we understand that idpol is useless. Ergo the best course of action is to acknowledge and respect whatever decisions people make about self-identification without stroking the flames of the identity politics that are consuming leftist young people.

The fact that "gender" is used to express at least three different concepts is confusing the fuck out of most people. It would behoove one to be specific, to properly communicate your ideas.

What I mean is that any person of any sex can adopt any mannerism. Gender roles are simply stereotypes, even if they are based on biology, as not every person adheres to the stereotype.

Gender roles are archaic and you can do anything you want by your gender but you can change it to better conform to archaic gender roles. Just try to wrap your head around that one.

Then how do you know if they are feminine or masculine tendencies?

Most words are like that you can blame English for that or learn Esperanto or Lojban or something.

Because this entire thing is full of contradictions.

OR, because language is dictated by usage, we can just start using different words to express different concepts instead of making "gender" the cloaca of words

You mean due to overriding economic circumstances and a well laid intellectual false-flag operation of the right? (Or in short form "material conditions")

Culture wars are a meme, pure theatre for children. Trump is spectacle for the disaffected victims of globalisation. A servant of capital without a care in the world.

The "conservative revival" will in time prove to have been laughable, just as in the 1980s where Margaret Thatcher legalized homosexuality in Scotland, did nothing to roll back restrictions on divorce or promiscuity, oversaw a further collapse in church attendance, etc, etc, etc. Then gave us Blair to finish the project. And the pendulum, culturally, swung """"""""""""""""""left"""""""""""""""""" just as under Bush and Obama. spectacular.

Capital will always betray you

By that logic human itself is a stereotype. I bet you're a person who also like to throw around the word "arbitrary".

I think the intent of queer-ideology is to spew so much word soup bullshit that eventually they start believing themselves that because nothing makes sense, everything they say does.

OR you could infer the meaning from context like everyone does when they are actually trying to understand things instead of playing semantics games

Yes, this exactly. Orwellian really.

I mean, you could technically create a world with no concept of 'gender' 'sexuality of 'family' through arduous social engineering, but that doesn't mean such world would be better or freer than ours, or anything other than an atomised consumer capitalist hellscape with more gender options, same festering tribalism and alienation. In fact, I feel this is the world we have been moving towards since the sexual revolution of the 60s.

More correctly, gender roles are behavior sets stratified by sex.

The "gender role" of a 1950s woman is different than a Swahili woman in 1990.

I don't know wtf you're arguing

This isn't always easy or even possible, and you know that. I guess if you like having to establish "what version of gender" the speaker is using, you can do that, but most people don't as it is less efficient than being fucking clear in the first place.

...

Imagine being so fucking stupid that you think women are born with a biological need to have long hair, wear dresses, and be homemakers. Imagine being so fucking stupid that you think men have a biological need to keep their hair short, acted "rugged" and emotionless, and be the sole provider for their families.

Imagine being so incomprehensibly stupid that you unironically believe in these things while being a twenty-something male who spends his free time on an anime imageboard arguing over whether or not traps are gay.

I agree, I'm not saying idpol is the end all be all. I'm pointing out that defence of gender, sexuality and the family as it stands is still idpol just the same since they're both as socially constructed as each other.

Especially the family, and I do think the evolution of the nuclear family into something more communal is important in building a freer and happier society.

*1950s American woman

It so maddeningly obvious how the transition from living as the extended family into the nuclear family came about to serve the porky's interest in isolating the worker as much as possible. We are even transitioning into a more isolated state of family life with the tendency of marriages to fail, where families are split custody or single parent homes, and the parent has to work twice as hard.

That calling gender a conspiracy against the pure and pristine pure self is contradictory bs.

I feel the same way. A lot of spooked polacks and MRAs are worried right now about the supposed feminization of society but what's really happening imo is capitalism taking advantage of gender idpol to sell more shit.
Combine that with how hard labor jobs in the west are being increasingly replaced with the service sector economy and what you have is a bunch of dissatisfied poor people looking for an identity to buy into. Feminists and sjws are going to double down on their gender idpol while the reactionaries are turning to anti-feminism/anti-sjw circle jerk because they feel threatened and idolize a made up concept of masculinity they think will make them feel better. Both sides are just getting mad at each other and reinforcing their own spooks while porky runs off with all the money.

Supporting LGBTQ shit was a mistake. Stalin was right in this case

We all have my roles and expectations from the society that we live in based on numerous data points and stereotypes. Your sex is one of them. Age is another. Skin-color yet another.

Some people fit the stereotype, match your expectations better than others. That's all I'm saying.

Real Example: Are you generally nicer to women? Not as crass? Don't "bust their balls"? That's you using a stereotype that (presumably) American women prefer to not have the same sort of bantz that men do.

This is precisely why "men who treat women the same as men" are seen as "sexist".

Doesn't have to be that way though.

It's the other way around. The theories gender idpol comes from weren't invented by marketing agencies, in fact, those companies live in fear of an SJW outrage targeting them, forcing to hire SJW rent-seekers for diversity points.

never said that capitalism invented gender theory, jsut that they're taking advantage of it right now.

which actually helps porky in the long run because it makes the capitalist look benevolent and inclusive rather than exploitative.
I know that "read X" is a meme on here but Zizek talks about this idea a lot. Compassionate Capitalism is effective propaganda for the ruling class.

people can't just exist in the void as free floating individualistic hedonist atoms. all identities are social, part of a collective process, in which the freedom of the self and the limitations of the self both play a crucial role. Even rebellion needs an other, something it can define itself against. It's funny how the naive stirnerism on here is driven mostly by memes, probably one of the most social forms of communication. Extreme individualism can easily loop back into totalitarian absolutism, where everyone who is unwilling or uncapable of embracing the role of the muh free nihilist egoist (probably becoming a stereotype itself) is considered unworthy.

i'm not advocating for 50s gender roles, I just think social constructionism is vague enough as to be meaningless. Concepts can never reach reality, they can only approach it, but that doesn't mean they are completely useless

My point is that "gender role" has nothing to do with YOU, but rather the expectations of everyone around you.

Alphabet Soup and SJWs basically mean "personality traits" when they use "gender", which is why the retards think there are "infinite genders", because there, in practicality, "infinite personalities". It's a non-concept for shitheads who want to feel special because they couldn't catch the gay.

I think this is the number one thing that pisses me off about these threads. Humans are sexually dimorophic, and "gender roles" are manifestations of that dimorphisism. Do you not think that males, who are are on average taller and stronger than females, would not naturally take on roles that utilized those natural advantages? Do you think humans evolved in a vaccuum and that "gender roles" don't exist for other species, or suddenly appeared at the dawn of civilzation? Male and female humans are different right down to the chemical level, I don't understand how anyone could think that differences in behavior and lifestyle wouldn't arise from that. I'm not arguing that anyone should be forced into a role that they don't want, but it's pretty fucking aparent that gender exists.

Except it isn't, because if you incorporate it into sexual dimorphism then it's just the manifestation of a sexual trait.

As Scotsmen can attest, there's literally no reason for skirts to be female exclusive.

No one brings it up because it is a stupid fucking point.

brainlet detected

Not all gender roles are expressions of biological difference. Talking of biology will not save you.

your confusing sexual dimorphism with the socially agreed upon definitions of what makes someone male or female.
if your biologically male then yes, your going to be taller on average and have more facial hair but that doesn't mean that being tall and having a is a male trait.
Hundreds of years ago in the middle ages/Renaissance period expressing your emotions through poetry and art was thought to be a masculine virtue, now being emotional is considered feminine.

I can't fucking type today wtf

Of course it arose from that. Only an idiot would argue against that, but once you have a society with million of independent actors, a lot of other non-genetic factors come into play

Different in sexes != difference in gender. The differences between males and females don't map to our ideas of "maleness" and "femaleness".

Neural sexual dimorphisms in humans exist only as averages, with overlapping variabilities, and that it is unknown to what extent each is influenced by genetics or environment, even in adulthood

sure. but it's also easy to see why creating a bunch of new gender labels is stupid, right?

Not often, it's practically a prerequisite for transgenderism.

they all aren't but most are. e.g. why aren't there more female miners? sure, some big, large women could make OK "firepeople" but men would generally dominate the trade. that makes 100% logical sense

But if there are still inherent traits then those are the defaults traits by gender. I'm not arguing that some attributes to gender aren't arbitrary (they are), but there's a reason why they're always assined to those two genders. Even the rare societies that had more than 2 "genders" always had a male vs female. Men and women will always exhibit general differences, we evolved to be different, just because an induvdiaul may buck a trend or two doesn't mean they don't conform to the general notions of male or female.

Isn't this basically what trannies do.

evolution has no purpose
just like this thread.

creating new labels is retarded because there's no end to it. We don't need a label for the personality of every single fucking person.

male = xx. female = xy. it's not supposed to be 'interesting'. The only reason people are obsessing over it is because "sexuality" is the "in thing" and 95% of people are just straight, and that's "not cool", so they need to make up labels to gain "subversive" cred.

Gender doesnt mean sex it means gender roles.

all identities are cancer

Damn, I guess you're right. That's why all gender traits and gender roles are observably the same across societies. I guess the entire field of anthropology, which studies the differences in how gender and family roles are defined wildly different all throughout the world and across time, is invalid now because you learned one (1) little trick from your anatomy 101 textbook. Where can we mail you your reward?

where you lost me. women bear children, thus have to upkeep a home for them. you could try and argue that men should, but they don't HAVE to like females.

In five years, at least 20% of all digital communication will be arguing about gender.

what type of autistic anthropology course did you take? i have 2 close friends who are anthropologists who study/teach nothing of the sort. can you provide some reference literature?

Yeah, I'm not arguing otherwise. Transgender people kind of prove the arbitrary nature of gender roles because they are alienated by them, so they end up reinforcing gender roles by taking on the expected traits that they feel more comfortable with.

So you guys think gender is real, but gender roles aren't?

What?

is
ought
nigga

Wow, your made up anthropologist friends must be really fucking stupid if they haven't read anything about matriarchal and communal family structures.

I'm sure they really do exist. Positive of it.

but we all know 'gender' is about more than just wearing skirts. there are variations among people, driven by deep rooted and often little understood factors, the social isn't really separable from culture, psychology etc. 'gender' is part of human existence and we are going to deal with it somehow, simply proclaiming its a spook, pretending it doesn't exist and retreating into know nothing individualism is not going to work. Being a muh enlightened unspooked egoist is a role, much like any other role.

Sex is real because it can be physically proven to exist.

Gender roles are a nebulous concept that don't exist in material reality.

redpill me on these

Gender =/= sex. Gender and gender roles are a spook, sex is not.

Prove it. Don't just talk shit and not back it up. Anthropologists are not, as a field, largely concerned with matriarchal and communal family structures. That's humanities, gender studies, etc. Fields without a strong faculty core.

wew

gender started as a construct based on your sex roles, and is changing to be something more aesthetic. we just need to be careful not to change to quickly since it is a large part of the foundation for our entire civilization.

literally just ignoring it and seeing where that leads would work. There's no point defending the status quo on the basis that "it's the status quo"

judging every little nuance of a person based on their accent used to be much more prevalent in the UK, now that's started to be ignored more and more. mostly because the wider spread of television has started to quietly genocide regional diversity, but hey.

How is that wrong? Biological sex isn't the same as gender identity according to social theory.

Talking about your made up anthropologist friends that I'm 100% positive really do exist and are very real.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_matrilineal_or_matrilocal_societies

I took a few anthropology courses in college and we talked nonstop about different family structures and matriarchal societies. All of the anthropology texts i've read outside of college have talked about this stuff too.

ah, so you haven't read anything about them

Sorry, I don't memorize every single society I read about, especially on such an easy to understand concept. Not everyone has autism like you.

Bait thread that has nothing to do with economics. I don't know why the mods keep this up while other less shitty threads are anchored.

this is where the discussion should've ended

Hey guys, uhhh did you not that fucking uhhh men are typically physically stronger and uhh bigger than women? I'm sure this explains away everything about why men are expected to be emotionless husks and why women need to have long hair because ummm

im very smart

You mixed the chromosomes up, it's the other way around. Then again I just got here and didn't read the rest of your post so maybe you were talking about some tumblr current year gender ideology.

of course you haven't memorized anything about them, you haven't read anything about them after all. read a fucking book, maybe then you would be less hostile and useless

Read my taint bitch

The idea of "male" and "female" are stupid categories that noone fits into and just broadly correlate with the sexes. Believing these catagories are truth is an idea that harms your own ability to be who you want to be.
That is the definition of a spook. A belief in a non-real thing that works against you. The idea haunts you, it possess you and makes you unable to think outside of the confines of "male" and "female".

Thats why its a spook.

Females fit into the female category
Males fit into the male category
In 99.9% of the case at least.

...

Oooh! oooohhh!! I'm an anthropologist, I can help here!

My fursona is a mauve Lynx named Blake with two yellow splodges on his ears and a radiation symbol emanating from around his bellybutton but offset to the left, he has red eyes that glow lasers in the dark and he wears a blue leather jacket that says "Kickin'" on the back in red text and he wears sunglasses even indoors to stop the lasers from inadvertently changing the channel on television sets in the office where he works with his friend/boyfriend/boss named Daniel who is a phthalo folf and does BUSINESS things for a living! He is also bi.

I can answer any and all questions about anthros!!! :3

==RED TEXT== pls

i'm a gigalo and they're my customers. I call them friends casually.

matrilineal/ matrilocal doesn't mean matriarchal. those cultures have gender roles of their own, only different ones, still identifiable as male and female plus sometimes a third gender, more or less comparable to our concept of 'trans'. There aren't really any examples of clearly matriarchal much less 'genderless' societies.

Egoism relies on a very reductive concept of being, it sees only the ego and denies the existence of an 'outside' lying beyond the ego's control. I guess it can be a really empowering/reassuring worldview for some people, but its a worldview like any other, shaped by outside circumstances, and it shouldn't be prescriptive. Even hardcore nihilist edgelords can't avoid those spooky human proclivities all the time.

For the people who consider themselves trans, queer, whatever, I'm sure it applies as true to them. But they are less than 0.4 or something of us, so there's bigger fish to fry here and the MSM just pushes it because it distracts people from dealing with real issues that affect 80% of everyone.

Sage.

this thread actually had some decent replies. It's nice to explain WHY something is a spook rather than just post memes all the time.

I think the best proof of Holla Forums discussion being better than Holla Forums is right here.

Here people can actually argue like adults in a reasoned manner. On Holla Forums people would be austistically screeching because they can't analyze "SJW" topics.

Women wear skirts because showing off their bodies attracts men.
Men don't wear skirts because people take you more seriously when you cover more of your body with clothes.
Not all things are like this, but usually anything people do without being shamed or forced into is due to their hormones.

Sounds pretty spooky to me.

Some people don't fit into the ideas of male or female, but they're such a small percentage that they're not worth bothering with.
Not everyone man is the epitome of strength, stoicism, bravery, willpower, intelligence, or heroism, but a vast majority of men WANT to be, they either just have shit genetics or a poor environment and no support system,
A tree can't grow tall and strong without sunlight, water, and good soil, just think of a mans "soul" like a tree.

retarded

Gender=/=biological sex
As someone who`s first language was not English I get it that this can be harder concept to understand.

Occam's razor, least assumptions.
Why would they wear skirts? What do skirts do? Show off legs. Why not wear something more comfortable like sweat pants? Because they want to look good? For who? Men. Men are visual animals. They have triggers in the brain that set off alarms when they see attractive women. Women want to be liked by men they are attracted to.
It's a lure I think.

Why do they want to be that? Why wouldn't women want to be that?
Why are those "man" things?

It's just a metaphor.
Are you saying the meaning is retarded or the metaphor is retarded?
And please explain why?

shouting people down with 'spook' can also be used as a cover for ideology, though

I'm saying you're retarded.

Are you a girl

Litterally the only reason we don't wear "skirts" in the modern west is because horseriding was something only men were allowed to do and its cold as balls in the winter in northern europe, which is the dominant cultural force.
All the great civilisations before us has men wearing "skirts".

Your flag accurately reflects what you are. Cancer.

Because they want to be able to support women and their children, and be valued.
Why don't women want this? I'd say hormones.
This is just conjecture, I don't really know, I'm just guessing based on what I've observed.
It makes sense to me anyway.
But yeah, Platonic method of asking a million questions and trolling people is cool though, I appreciate

I want to wear skirts they look so comfy and nice

Look at this Roman trying to attract men. Just look at him!

Sure, but as points out, it at least allows us to ignore the whole idpol mess. People being "correct" on issues of gender is not worth the effort. Even if insincere, shouting spook is more valuable than actual engagement.

Oh okay, I just say stuff until someone proves me wrong when I don't know stuff.
thanks.
t. Snibbedi snap

I'm really jealous of the wide variety of women's fashion.

retarded

Fashion is bourgeois bullshit though

They are and you can go commando if your skirt is long enough or if you're gutsy enough

Socratic method, you idiot. And it's dumb when you could read a well-researched book.

I'm mainly really tired and can't think well enough to engage with anything serious,
That's why I'm here posting dumb shit.
Also, stop being so tsundere

swiggity swooty I'm coming for that boi pussy booty

...

Oh, and
Speak English.

Oh no, I am basically a dog in a humans body, I ain't smart.
And I'll start speaking in English once you stop being so tsundere.

yeah sure, not a fan of idpol either, but the spook argument can also be used in to imply people with gender identity issues are somehow reactionary or morally flawed, so careful there

Why the double standard?

Shitposting flag?

They can imply it to hell and high water. As long as it isn't translated into specific concrete policies that would affect these people - say excluding reassignment surgery from socialized health care - this is just pointless feels>reals.

what double standard? it goes both ways. if a woman wants to be a housewife and dedicate herself to her family we shouldn't judge her or subject her to mandatory reeducation or anything. Just because you see yourself as an 'unspooked' hedonistic egoist doesn't mean that's what everyone else wants.

This level of strawman is amazing, I specifically said that not all gender associated traits are biological and yet you can't seem to wrap your mind around a world where some things are nurture and some are nature.

Find me a single civilization or tribe where the men weren't the primary soliders and hunters and the females weren't the primary caretakers for children.

So you admit it exists?
But no one fucking is. We keep going around in circles because you never directly attack anyone's argument, you just ignore and strawman. No one is defining gender as "wearing skirts", no one is saying anyone MUST do anything.

Ultimately, gender is basically something that we made up, and we have an insistent urge to put everything into neat categories, even though biology in the strict sense doesn't obey those said categories, especially when there gets to be so many differences that grouping people becomes meaningless, to the point where we should embrace individuality in this regard, as well as even the chaos of it all.

Also, Contrapoints is pretty entertaining TBH.

How the fuck is gender something else then biological?

There are only two genders

People who get my dick hard and those who don't.

It's irrelevant whether it does or doesn't.
Stop being a faggot and shut up about it. It doesn't matter either way.

The amazonian snu-snu chicks from Futurama. NEXT.

Could be applied to anything and everything because no word has a complete definition.

Contrapoints shows the irony of this ideology: gender is oppressive, everything is oppressive, we should all be unique individuals in infinite diversity, yet the SJW-individuals who espouse are all exactly the same in thought, appearance, behaviour and mores, much more so than the people who they hate for their conformity are. It's a lot like ayn rand cult.

LESPOOPMAN.JPEG

...

Welp I claim victory. Can't wait till the next thread, spurpised it didn't end in a "what_about_me.pdf" post. Here's some free science for (you).

If gender and sexuality weren't social constructs then traps would be gay and that's just stupid.

...

why would I read science on a topic i don't care about in a thread that exists only for posting ex-prime ministers who were given ill-thought-out TV hosting positions while in the early stages of alzheimers?

...

Can you tell me the difference between gender and gender roles?

Male and female gender are social constructs that stem from male and female as biological sexes.
The idea of more than 2 genders isn't some kind of loony nonsense - it's just unpractical. There are only 2 sexes, end of story, and gender as a social construct directly relates to this.

If gender is = sex then gender isn't a spook. If gender isn't = sex then gender is a spook.
Obfuscating the subject with your dumb reactionary semantics game gets no one nowhere.

Male and female are lists of attributes. They include very quantifiable things such as chromosomes, as well as more fuzzy attributes such as physical appearance and psychological parameters.

Most people have attributes which are very close to the standard for their gender. A small minority of people are quite dissimilar to both. Imagine a high dimensional graph with two dense clusters of points surrounded by a very sparse nebula of outliers.

Those two clusters and the distribution around them are real. Even the statistical description of them is real. What isn't real is the idea that the two categories, male and female, are more than just a statistical trend and are precise descriptions of individuals. Gender isn't exactly a spook, but it is a trend. The trend is not the same as the points which make it up.

If you want to seriously discuss biological gender, define it in terms of a single, specific, quantifiable attribute such as the presence of XX or XY chromosomes. Don't just talk about some fuzzy notion of "gender" and dismiss all nuance.

… in other words you can't.

5 star post.

t. Stirner

daddy give me the dicc

WEW

Read it again maybe?