Abolishing Gender

I keep seeing this on here.

When the subject of genders comes up a lot of people take up the opinion that the ultimate best solution to all this transsexual madness is just to abolish gender altogether.

But don't they realise that doing this would just inevitably result in society reversing back to the simplistic male and female forms of identification by sex?

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/library/gender-nihilism-anti-manifesto
transphilosopher.com/2016/12/04/the-promise-and-failure-of-gender-nihilism/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris'_syndrome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
strawpoll.me/13735038

AFAIC "gender" has nothing whatsoever to do socialism. Seize the means of production and the culture will follow.

Sounds utopian

...

believing the opposite would be utopian

The biological characteristics of human beings are material conditions

We just make them so broad that they completely overlap and loose all meaning.

traps will still be gay though.

Why would it reverse to sex? Why not their primary hand? Each person is an individual and their sex or the hand they use are just small parts of it.

The best solution solution to all this transsexual madness is to just shoot the lot of them.

Gender is a psychoanalytical model proposed in the 1950's by a very mentally deranged "sexologist" whose theories on sexual identity are largely discredited (after a few of his patients committed suicide). In other words, gender isn't real. It's a concept invented about 60 years ago.

Human beings are a sexually dimorphic mammal. There are males and females and these states are determined genetically. No need for "feelings". I don't need to ask you anything to determine your sex, just a quick DNA swab.

I think it's highly likely that many occupations would continue to be distributed differently than a 50/50 sex ratio, which would mean some notion of "gender norms" would continue to exist. That's fine, just don't enforce them.

Gender is belief. Clothes, bathrooms, toys don't give a fuck about who use them other people do, they(you) get triggered by these individuals doing what they want.

Why? It's a dumb meme. We look at the gender of people in certain occupation because our culture pays attention to shit like that. Just like race it's just a division tactic.

Gender abolitionism is focused on abolishing the genders as essential categories. There's a difference between identifying with your physical sex as just another physical trait and identifying with your sex as an essentially defining trait.

Unless history is entirely lost, no, it wouldn't. It would be informed by the evolution of "gender" historically (and why it was rejected as incoherent). That is, even as it might appear as what it once was in appearance, this would only be semblance.

"Gender" is an umbrella term for a whole lot of different concepts
These are all separate but related concepts, and no conversation about them can be had if people insist on lumping them together and virtue signaling over whether the lump is real or not or whether it's good or bad. You have to break down the concept to the different things it means before you can productively discuss anything. Unless of course your idea of productive is to have people perpetually in a shitfight over ideas they can't even articulate properly.

This whole argument is where Holla Forums confirms to the world that they're indeed Rightwing SJWs.
They're unable to ignore this non-issue.

libcom.org/library/gender-nihilism-anti-manifesto

How would you even abolish something that doesn't exist to begin with?

Hell yes. That manifesto has allowed me to convert several idpol heavy friends into anti-essentialist, anti-humanist Marxists. I really wish RevFems were more represented here tbh.

Great read. Thanks.

Culture is all about paying attention to stuff that's of no real importance. The idea of a scientific, objective approach to culture is probably destined to failure but even if it isn't it would probably be really fucking boring. It's important to not reify culture and have it step in individual's way to self-actualization, but having a backbone of pseudo-facts from thousands of years of culture to weave into instances of art is pretty crucial.

Are we doing idpol now? Fuck it, I'm doing idpol.


That's not a side effect, it's the point. Gender abolitionism, and the tabula rasa ideology that goes with it, exist for the purpose of permanently preventing people from crossing the lines. People who try to claim otherwise are simply useful idiots. There are inbuilt gender conformity systems in the brain, this simply isn't something that can be avoided and has been confirmed by examining the brains of transfolk, who have the unfortunate condition of having the wrong enforcement structure in their brain. This can't be cured (trying just causes suicide and substance abuse), so the only reasonable course of action is to give in and transition (despite significant social and medical risks in doing so).
By suppressing all acknowledgement that biology is a thing that actually exists inside the brain feminists seek to undermine the legitimacy of transition, since people can't possibly be suffering from an inborn trait they don't actually need to transition. This can be used either to prevent transition 'for their own good', or (more often) it's used to treat transition as an elective rather than medically necessary treatment, preventing anybody who doesn't have private means from transitioning.

Yes they do. They stand for XX or XY chromosomes.

Holla Forumstards have beliefs, they're religious to ideology. We don't, we just see reality.

It's always Sacred "Gender", Sacred "Masculinity", Sacred "Nature", Sacred "Culture". With them don't expect intelligence from hillbilly inbred retards.

Fuck right off. Most trans people spend years dealing with symptoms they don't understand until one day it finally clicks what's going on. Transgenderism exists prior to socialized identity. For most of them, transitioning is immensely helpful, whether it involves merely presenting as the other gender, getting full surgery, or somewhere in between. Just because the issue involves identity doesn't give anyone license to dismiss ignore its other aspects. Maybe try familiarizing yourself with the subject - the science and the real people involved before you start spreading this kind of ignorant head-up-the-ass bullshit.

How about examining this fucking assumption, which is totally contradicted by our current understanding of psychology? For all the hype this article gives anti-humanism, it sure does fucking reek of humanism. Humans are not magical blank slates who exist independently of our biology and evolutionary history.

...

...

the concept of gender does not refer solely to biological sex.

I ran across this article not long ago as a response to it. I disagree with the article, but it's worth posting since it's at least a considered one from the opposing side that tries to grapple with the problem:
transphilosopher.com/2016/12/04/the-promise-and-failure-of-gender-nihilism/

I find a few of its core assertions tendentious. For example, certainly difference may never go away, but what we take difference to mean and what difference we imbue with social significance (as opposed to mere difference without any social significance) can very well change.

Many born-again Christians describe the same experience. Do you suppose God exists?

Do you have a citation for this? Because this is a pretty massive claim to be making about a complex set of behaviors that have changed dramatically throughout history. Gender abolitionism doesn't deny that there are physical differences between the sexes btw, it just denies that they're essential categories that define the beings that fall into those categories.

This manifesto was written by a trans woman, so your point about them not understanding transgenderism as a socialized identity is a load of shit.
They never claimed otherwise.

That's right, because gender is a fabricated concept from the 50's and sex is not.

you're criticizing something that agrees with what you say lmao

...

...

"transsexual madness" is a fabricated issue created by the Right to keep themselves in power by appealing to their base of reactionaries; nobody cares about gay marriage now since society has corrected for the dialectic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris'_syndrome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
Nature always find a way to weasel away from petty human categories…

literally you

So people eight hundred years ago thought "XX chromosomes" and "XY chromosomes" was what "woman" and "man" referred to?

imagine if ancoms learned to read

No, 800 years ago, people just looked at your genitals when you were born.

My language doesn't even have a word for gender, only sex, so they just stole the English word after the LGBT cancer spread by you US shitniggers to conform.

I'm utterly confused at what 'gender' is really supposed to be, on the one hand you have people saying each sex should be able to do anything without it reflecting on their 'gender' (the whole "girls playing with blocks / boys playing with dolls" thing) and then in the next moment you got males/girls thinking they are the opposite sex and conforming to the stereotypes of that sex is suddenly relevant again?

It'll be a bit, have to go wagecuck.

because it isn't a real thing

No, where is there evidence for God? Gender has a lot of work done on it.


You can believe bullshit about your own conditions. See: ex-homosexuals.

both of those SYNDROMES result in sterile people. birth defects are not classified as a third sex, because they're not reproductively viable.

Then your point isn't correct. The meanings of "man" and "woman" are historically contingent.

Using genetic disorders to argue that gender categories aren't valid misses the point entirely. Sure sex resists categorization to a degree, but it's still a fairly useful abstraction that allows valid conclusions to be made in most cases. The real issue with gender is the huge significance that society places on it it as a category.

But Sex is putty in our hands. Male and female are but ends on the spectrum and entirely custom areas not on the spectrum at all are soon to be upon us.

From another flag maybe i'd expect an argument as to why, but…

People with XX chromosomes are born with a vagina. People with XY chromosomes are born with a penis and testes. You don't need genetics 800 years ago. These correlations are 100%. Now and days, we can talk about it with respect to genotype, rather than phenotype, but we've been making the same point and categorizing along the same lines for hundreds of years.

There hasn't been any lack of work in theology either over the millennia. Gender and God both exist in the same place: in the mind of believers.

you seem to be talking about sex, which there are two of, but this discussion is about gender, which is primarily social and not genetic

This isn't an argument as to why her understanding of transgenderism is bad.
You obviously don't understand social constructivism or gender abolitionism. Learn more before arguing.

bingo

I am talking about sex because gender isn't a real thing and I'm making the point that "male" and "female" are not arbitrary labels that fluctuate with social conditions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

People's brains vary wildly. For any given trait, the possible variations tend to cluster around one sex or the other though. For most people the vast majority of sex-associated traits will have a variation associated with their sex. Some people are more androgynous, having a more even mix. Some people have a majority of their traits match up with the opposite sex. Some people match up well enough with the opposite sex that they feel like their body is wrong for them.
tl;dr people should be free to do what they prefer without society demanding they fit a particular standard.
however most people will conform to a stereotype more or less because those stereotypes are based on anecdotal observation of people's real behavior. With the people whose gender (secondary sex characteristics re: behavior) is a strong enough mismatch with their body to cause them psychological discomfort, they are much more likely to conform to the stereotype than "cisgender" people of that sex. There's no minimum maleness or femaleness for a "cis" person to feel their gender matches their sex, but there is a minimum for someone to feel that their gender mismatches their sex.

We'll abolish gender, capitalism, bad weather, bullying, the patriarchy, race, whiteness, racism, wage labour and firms.

In Communism your farts will smell like rose.

Transindividuals are trans by choice.
Now their physicality they change it up with hormones, they make their bodies work more like that of the opposite sex.
You're confusing gender with sex like a retard. They're not the same thing. One is belief, the other is chemistry, organs & other physical things. Science is making these things more & more accessible to trans individuals as technology progresses.

You could have just said, fam.

Perfectly feasible, specially given how a lot of it comes from capitalism and bastardizations of it.

People with genetic SYNDROMES don't count as a third sex or some counter example. Those people even still develop male or female sex organs, but the males have shrunken and under developed sexual organs.

Capital know how to use it, but it predates it.

The only way for this statement to be true is if society's understanding of sex/gender has remained static throughout all of history, which just isn't true.

Positivism is trash and so are all of your opinions.

Where is the problem here?

Postmoderndiscourse.doc

gender is a 60 year old concept, invented by some psychotic "sexologist" to test a now very discredited theory about sexual identity.
Sex is static because it's the cornerstone of reproduction. Genetic males and genetic females are the only ones that can reproduce. It has never been much of a mystery that there are two types of humans.

There is no problem. Makes perfect sense.

Only if your model of sex pathologizes deviations from the norm, which inherently makes it a flawed model. Just because something is a syndrome doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or invalid.


Sometimes it's both sex organs, not exclusively one or the other.

you can't just impose your subjective image of liberated humanity on the rest of the world. Things have to be dissolved dialectically in practice, they cannot be resolved theoretically by technocrats. Butler was an Althusserian after all. The post capitalist world is probably going to be heterogenous and populated by widely different cultures. some of them with genders and family units. The capitalist fetishisation of sovereign individual choice ignores that trans people have existed and been accepted in many cultures, such as Samoa and southern italy.

nobody said shit about Technocrats. Wtf. Nothing in your post even makes sense to what is being talked about.

a practical definition of gender: the subjective experience of the sexual dimorphism of one's brain.

Why are there so many TERFs here?

My model of sex includes only sexes that are capable of reproduction. Genetic variations on XX/XY result in sterile humans. If you can't reproduce, you don't count as a sexual group. It's called sexual dimorphism for a reason.
Again, if that's the case, you're sterile. You're a genetic mistake, not a third sex.

Where did I write that?

It was to the "100% correlation" claim. It's clear that the two aren't 100% correlated as someone with "full female habitus" would have appeared as fully female to anyone eight hundred years ago. I'm only saying that what "man" and "woman" mean has changed over time.

Just to treat this separately, what counts as a "syndrome" (or "disease") and what counts as "normal" are also determined by society and historically. That isn't to say the label of one or the other is necessarily incorrect, but that these two are socially and historically determined labels which wouldn't rightly be understood outside of this and similar historical contexts (i.e. ones in which genes are understood).

Gender means roughly the same thing as "sex", except it's mostly applied to the social aspects of sexual categories. And regardless society's understanding of sex has only recently taken a biological connotation, reproductive science is a relatively recent field of study tbh.

how is that "practical"? how do you classify "subjective experience of sex" into discrete categories?

who is going to ensure 'gender' is 'abolished', then?

I've laid this out in these repeated threads already. Humans are not special. We are shaped just as much by evolution as are other animals. This includes behavior. Social constructivists draw a hard line between biology and socialization, which is completely unjustified. Social conditions impact evolution and shape future generations. This includes division of the species according to sex - some species are more sexually dimorphic than others. Humans are more sexually dimorphic than average. NO it's not a simple binary category. Most of our sex-associated traits are not sex-linked, i.e. tied to the X/Y chromosomes. They are in a tug-of-war between the fittest values for each sex and the roles assumed by that sex. Thus gender "identity" - the behavioral component - is shaped largely by biology and describing it as a social construct is complete bunk. Elements of it are socially constructed, sure. You see this in "tertiary" sex characteristics like clothing. But just because something has socially constructed elements (which just about everything does), does not erase the biological components.


So the best you can do is to draw false equivalence between science and theology.


No, it's an argument why her status as trans doesn't make her arguments good, i.e. a refutation of your claims, you disingenuous fuck.
I've seen constructivists repeat right-wing talking points enough to see you for what you are.

What exactly did you mean by this as a response to my post? I'm not sure why exactly the high importance reactionaries give to subjective, aesthetic matters that they decree must be decided according to their tastes matters to my point that we can't and shouldn't do anything about subjective, aesthetic matters.

see

True Utopia is clearly Stirner's idea of collective fuckall and egoism, anyone else is obviously a reactionary is probably spooked as well.

If I don't like the gender binary, nobody should.


Blame Lacan.
t. not a TERF, even with my previous comment.
If a trans person identifies as man, he's a man. A trans person identifies as a woman, she's a girl.
Only two genders are sufficient to describe most of mankind.

biology doesn't make mistakes. It's not conscious, It just operates.

Biology only cares about reproduction. If you can't reproduce, you're a biological dead end.

Literally kill yourself if you can't tell the difference between TERFs and people who are gender critical.

Biology doesn't give a shit.

Please demonstrate the mechanism by which evolution itself experiences consciousness, emotive drive, and as such the ability to care about anything.

are you implying shit without knowing science?

Where the fuck did I say I'm a positivist? If anything, you're the one falling into the trap you decry positivism for, by believing your speculative theory is capable of revealing Truths about the world. The best knowledge we have is incomplete negativistic models constructed through rigorous testing. No that's not Truth, but it's good enough. Can the process be improved? Absolutely, that's the point. But it won't be improved and Truth won't be attained by tossing it out and relying on speculative discourse whose only peer review amounts to further speculative discourse without regard to falsification.

society's understanding of sex has always come from reproduction. only biological males and bilogical females can reproduce. there has never been confusion about sexual dimorphism until psychoanalists in the 50's invented some.

Stirnerites and social constructionist semantic wankers were btfo by Marx in the German Ideology. it isn't 'categories' that oppress people but material conditions.

In most countries trans persons are sterilised as they transition to avoid stuff like that.
For a goddamn reason. Do you imagine that poor kid's life ?

Can you into reading, m8? I'm not talking about trannies at all. I'm talking about people with XXY or other genetic syndromes.

meant for>>1991294

That's real spooky dude.

You're retarded. You're literally agreeing with the points you're arguing against along with a couple appeals to nature and non-arguments.

Biology OPERATES through reproduction. If you can't reproduce, you're a genetic dead end and don't constitute a third sex (which is determined by R E P R O D U C T I V E F I T N E S S.

see

That kid is likely going to be exposed to a lot of hormones he shouldn't be being exposed to.

meant for

It's normal stop being so religious.
Your parents don't make you an individual, you make yourself. If his life is poor then it's because of outside hatred towards his father who give him life, hatred from his friends not him. Which is that whole problem, society, triggered individuals are to blame not the ones who did what they wanted to do with their bodies.

no, that's his mother with a breast reduction and lots of hormones her body doesn't produce endogenously

I made a really long post and it got eaten. I'll line out the points real quick.
Males and females are sexually dimorphic categories
They fit for the vast majority of people, and individual changes do not change a species as a whole
If you believe individual changes do make species different, than explain to me how dogs are actually a 0-5+ legged species, based on some individual dogs.
Trans people should be called their preferred name, except in need of identification, if someone looks like a man, you should describe them as such if necessary.
Trans people are "real" men/women for the triggered fags, the words are used to refer to how someone looks/functions/their genitalia, and until you start testing people for fertility to find if they're they're "real" men/women, you should stop saying they aren't men/women just because their genitals don't work 100%.

You were the one implying the amount of work with regards to a concept made it true. "Plenty of work" does not make something true, whether the work is in science or theology.

"Gender" is a social identity, something taken from others and presented to others. Scientific understanding can explain why this or that identity might exist here and now, but that isn't to say that it must exist or that it "truly" exists as the underlying facts of the matter, merely that the underlying facts present themselves in such a way as to form this particular social identity at this historical juncture.

I never claimed to reveal truths about the world, the theory I'm advocating in favor of is a strictly negative one. You're the one appealing to observed natural "truths" to support your ideas about the role gender plays in society. I'd say that's pretty positivist fam.

You just created a new game, Porky or Anarchist
You "making" yourself is a big damned bourgeois lie.

Your material conditions, your parents, your family, your friends, your education makes you and you have little choice on that matter.
The child is going to see his father (because I'm not transphobic unlike ) undergo trans death. If pictures go out, oh God, can you even imagine ?

Not to mention the rumours… if it's not open about it but people have heard of it, it will follow him like a trail.

Where I'm religious is that even in a perfectly tolerant society I'd not stand by that. Progress needs to be set limits. You can't just tolerate everything, I'm sorry.

There has been more than one ftm father and the children are born just fine. Instead of assuming why don't you see for yourself? This is confirmed science & "sacred mommy Nature" didn't gave a fuck.
In this physical universe, all that you can do physically is reality. Period.

...

Bullshit. This "you actually agree with me" line is extremely tired. You see it everywhere in liberal identitarian discourse. I've laid out my disagreement, speaking of which…
When the argument rests upon classifying gender as social, it is not an appeal to nature to counter-argue and point out that the subject is influence by biology and does not only exist within social constructs.

That "mommy" has a 40% chance of committing suicide.

SocDem flag once again proving that SocDems are the worst posters on this board. Pls stop posting forever.

most people identify as a certain gender because categories are useful tools for navigating the world. As a materialist, I have doubts about the utility of changing the world by manipulating language/ forbidding people from using certain words or concepts. The purely abstract atomised freedom stirnerites and social constructionists are after is pure consumer fantasy that has nothing to do with actual freedom as practiced in the material world.

Your brand of narcissism is what ruins anarchism.

So sterile people are neither men nor women? That isn't how "man" or "woman" has been historically defined either. Women considered barren were still considered women in medieval times.

And how would they know that a woman who appears as a woman is a genetic mistake without any conception of genes?

I'm still not sure where you're getting this "third sex" stuff from. Perhaps it's from your own model since you've effectively created a third sex from sterile people.

Gee whiz, maybe problems that afflict different subgroups in society have social causes!? Nah you're right, it probably has a neurological cause, trannies just kill themselves because they're fucked in the head.

Their effect is extremely limited and narrowed by their material conditions.

If your dad is a relatively well-off, petit-bourg, who gifts you books and talks history and so on with you, you have the choice to seize that opportunity or not.
If your dad is too busy working off his ass off every day and can't buy fancy books for you, your choices are limited.
If you have no dad, you are limited even more.


Compelled by the argument. If you believe I'm transphobic, I'm not. I just think the cult of progress, tolerance, abolishing muh gender, muh whiteness, muh traditions is a cult like any other.

I make myself as long as I hold no spook I have learned about as sacred, I discard everything and only my own remains. You let yourself be made by others a bitch made nigga but that doesn't means everyone else has to respect these authorities, nobody wants to be you anyway.

Nah.

This is why you don't have friends lol
be as authoritarian as you want, oppress as you want but if someone comes back oppressing you don't cry like a bitch. Accept that it was because you did it first.

It's not wrong in this case tho. It's not invalid just because shitty liberal identitarians use it .
If you're going to talk about the social aspects of gender/sex then it is an appeal to nature to use biology to back your positions up.

...

It depends on why someone is sterile. If you're sterile because your sex chomosomes are fucked up, you're not a biological male/female.
I'm getting it from my education in biology, where people talk about intersex and how to classify people who have no reproductive fitness.
I should also note that I'm talking purely biological, not cultural. If someone looks like a woman, obvously you'll be fooled. There's less confusion in biology, which is why i advocate a biologically rational model, rather than a constantly fluctuating, infinitely flexible concept like "gender".

I never said you were transphobic (but you likely are tbh), I said that your post was shitty, which is true.

it is
they are

there are men and women. that is all

I never said anything about it being "true" or not, the mention of which looks a lot like an attempt at setting a bullshit semantic trap, just like what you're doing here. The point that matters is the body of scientific work on the subject as opposed to conjectural theory and analysis. And as it turns out, yes, in the context of science the amount of work done in a field does bolster the legitimacy of the research. The soundness of a scientific theory can be judged according to how well it stands up to rigorous scrutiny. Your concept of science seems to be stuck in the 19th century.

Do you have anything to back up this claim other than how you define the term? Because if that's all you've got you're skirting the issue I'm raising here. My point is that the transgender phenomenon highlights the biological dimensions of "gender" which is actually, again, an umbrella term for many different factors including behavioral secondary sex characteristics. My argument, which you generously support here again, is that your constructivist side consistently erases the biological dimension and contributes to the misunderstanding of the subject, most egregiously with regard to the marginalized transgender minority.


Oh, is that why it makes positive claims about the nature of gender?
No, I'm appealing to decades of research designed to construct an accurate model of nature.
Again, not my argument. Sure, this is what constructivists drive at, but I'm not dealing with the conclusions; I'm interrogating the assumption that the constructivist argument rests on.
Yeah, you're intent on misrepresenting my position because you have nothing else to stand on. I get it.

you think people are enslaved by words rather than by material conditions and that by changing language you will somehow 'set them free'.


endless 'progress' is a capitalist rather than a communist ideal. communism is the end of linear time.

But your materials conditions and a thousand parameters outside your control led you to read The Ego and Its Own, for example, you knowing English, having an internet connection to look it up, having heard of it…
There are no self-made men, neither in business nor in character.

If believing that makes you sleep better at night.

You're free to believe that. Good luck convincing most of the population.
You can transition as much as you want, I'm okay with that, I support your right to do so.

It will not change the fact that reproduction (not sex) is between a man and a woman.


So is this one, and a waste of dubs by the way.

...

You need to entirely rule out social causes first if you're going to claim that high transgender suicide rates result entirely from neurological issues. Do you have any arguments that support this?

Biology makes fucktons of mistakes at every level, and has evolved ways to attempt to repair them, but isn't always successful. Cancers are often the results of mistakes. The very reason you die of "natural causes" is the result of genetic mistakes. And you know what happens to the vast majority of people with those unrepaired mistakes when they occur before you're even born? They either die or don't reproduce.


Yes it does. Dead ends do not continue biology.


If they're actual trans and not just crossdressing to the extreme, their genitals don't work at all.


Pretty much this.

No I don't retard, here's an earlier post of mine. But, material conditions aren't some magic catch all, "people are like production lmao", it's a strong explanation for many events, and has an effect on people's lives, it's nothing more than that.

Earlier post of mine

let's start with
- transitioning doesn't reduce the chance of suicide
- you have a diagnosable mental disorder that's literally centered on you not being happy in your body
- almost all trans people have other mental illness such as depression or bipolar

Is your image related to your own post ?
I was answering a very specific point made by that poster, which was : "I made myself". No, you don't.

And so parents have an influence about it, which is why I'm skepitical of trans people birthing like in pic linked.

They aren't. Dysphoria is a very serious medical condition that kills too much people, especially youth. Better treatments for it (transition) and a less transphobic society would be necessary to reduce this mortality.

Not abolishing le gendeur.

I'm comparing you to shitlibs for color. You present your argument without substantiation so I dismiss it with the word "bullshit."

What you are saying here is effectively "I can draw the boundaries around a subject wherever I want, and if you disagree with where I draw the boundaries you are guilty of this fallacy." Do you think "appeal to nature" is a buzzword to me that just ends an argument and leaves me dumbfounded? I'll say it again. I'm not entertaining the proposed solution here - I'm questioning the premise upon which it's based.

It doesn't tho. What positive claims does it make?
Then cite sources, faggot.
Wew, love how you deny that you're making any claims right after a reply to someone that has sentences like
in it. Christ you're disingenuous.

Trans men can do everything other than produce semen afaik.
Trans women can do everything except get periods and pregnancies afaik. That's a pretty functional genital in a lot of ways.

What do you think the function of genitals are, user?

TERFs did nothing wrong, gender deserves worse
But memes aside dysphoria is a real medical condition that should be treated (and, in those cases where transition is the best treatment, I'm all for it).


That's not functional at all lmao (and neither of those is a problem with the "genital" but with the lack of a uterus.

I do agree with trans rights and all. but i think the cause would be better served by building an integrated material community rather than by insisting everyone accepts stirnerism and hyperindividualism. The reduction of everything to a consumer choice is pretty alienating for most people.

At this point I'm not sure which succdem you are.

Biology. Just. Is.
It doesn't have any scheme to keep on living.
Things that reproduce keep going, things that don't reproduce dissapear.
Saying Biology cares about this is just you and other people attributing value to perpetuation of life, not life attributing value to its own perpetuation.

There's only one rose here.

Tbh we don't know in which neighborhood he lives but I don't think he has a shitty life since he is still alive and well.
But if he was disliked and edged to that 40% suicide, the reason for that is you, people like you who condemn his existence due to Sacred "Nature". But if that father surrounded himself with the right friends aka me, my friends, un-spooked intelligent individuals he would get enjoyment from life, not pain.


It isn't either of those things, it's just Science.


Hahahah! Never mentioned justice once.


Nah

Functionnal as in getting hard or wet i guess.

I post under a rose most of the time but not in this thread, and I've only barely posted in this thread to begin with (>>1991094, , , )

See: DNA, reproduction
>muh cares nitpick
wow, it's almost as if people are using hyperbole when talking about biology "caring" about things.

what function do erections and vaginal fluids have?

The succdem is a spooked retard

muh bigots make me kill myself
see:

By that metric I can do the same thing to this argument. Bullshit.
Nope, I don't. It's a term that refers to using arguments about nature outside of a biological context to support points that don't themselves have a biological basis.
So what's your argument here then? Stop being slippery and just take a stable position that you'll actually stick to please.

re-enchanting the world should be one of the primary tasks of the left. and don't stirnerites believe in the 'sacred' ego?

Sorry, I forgot where I am. See, a man takes his penis, and puts it inside of a vagina. This is very pleasurable to both parties, and is a significant function of the penis. If you drop your personality, you may find someone willing to engage in a similar activity with you. Scurry along now scamps.

...

Okay then, I was generalizing your arguments throughout the post then, not any specific one, and you might as well not respond to me because you're not getting much out of me.

...

To clarify, I posted this.
>>1991254 >>1991273 >>1991350 >>1991390

Neurological conditions, especially psychiatric disorders often don't have a clear physiological cause. This means that social conditions very often play a large role in social phenomena among people with psychiatric disorders. Either rule our social causes wrt transgenderism entirely or shut the fuck up.

You're halfway there. Penises get erect and women secrete vaginal fluid to aid in sexual intercourse. The function of sexual intercourse is secretion of semen to impregnate the woman. REPRODUCTION is the function. The function of pleasure is to get you to do this a lot.

Do you into science?

No, it is *a* function, not *the* function.

What function does semen or the uterus serve, other than reproduction?

How can you make concrete claims about gender if gender exists outside the realm of discourse? You're contradicting yourself.
Cite actual studies and contextualize them to the discussion at hand or shut the fuck up.
My claims about nature are entirely negative. You're fucking retarded.

...

At this point it's like you are trying to make me do some detective work to argue with you, and make it very unappealing in the process. You might as well have never posted for the likelihood I'll go back and stitch these posts together to respond to you.

Not going to respond to you over this, penis/vagina have been used as recreational and productive tools for a while, I'm not going to argue with you repeatedly specifying this.

Couldve just left this guy here as an argument to 61.

Do you into psychiatry?

No I don't, because psychiatry is horse shit.

But you have had a post right there explaining my thought process, and your last three posts have not been answering to me.

But no, just pointing out where I've posted because your poor brain was confused.

Blame 8ch, not me.

So should I have assumed that the work being done on gender wasn't what provided evidence for its existence? If so, your second sentence was a complete non-sequitur.

That very much depends on the quality of the work done and the correctness of its theoretical framing. If either or both are lacking, then legitimacy hardly matters. We're arguing about the framing of the issue; the question of fact would only appear if I accepted the frame. Much work on psychology also has problems in its replicability, but I'll leave that problem aside.

There isn't any way of knowing what "gender" means without language. The meaning of "gender" must be taken from society and presented by you as having meaning for you and for others within the particular society.

The "biological dimensions" are not necessarily gender per se, and that the presentation as "gender" is one that comes to be as a social function.of the biological. There isn't any erasure of the biology but a point about its relation to a specific presentation socially right now.

There's a difference between the function and functionality. I could use my penis to seal stamps, but that's not the function of it. You know what the function of sex is, drop the opaque hand waiving.

Erections and lubrification are functions.

>Bullshit. This "you actually agree with me" line is extremely tired.
I'm comparing you to shitlibs for color. You present your argument without substantiation so I dismiss it with the word "bullshit."
No you can't, because if you follow this particular line, it begins with you asserting that I'm agreeing with the points I'm disagreeing with, while providing zero support. It's not even clear what you claim I'm agreeing/disagreeing with here. It's just a general statement. This is the kind of shit people pull when they're trying to obscure what's actually being discussed.

Do you think "appeal to nature" is a buzzword to me that just ends an argument and leaves me dumbfounded?
The notion that there is no biological basis to the behavior of biological creatures is an assertion that I disagree with, and the entire point of the discussion here. See the last paragraph in this post.

I'm not entertaining the proposed solution here - I'm questioning the premise upon which it's based.
My position hasn't changed at all. See the paragraphs above and below this on in this post. Again, calling names and applying labels doesn't change what's happening, just how people (who buy into the rhetoric) view what is happening. You're not going to successfully gaslight me. I really hope people who aren't sure where they stand read these posts and see the kind of shit you're trying to pull to defend such a groundless position.

It just tickles me how you ignore my main point here:
>When the argument rests upon classifying gender as social, it is not an appeal to nature to counter-argue and point out that the subject is influence by biology and does not only exist within social constructs.

Gender dysphoria is literally a psychiatric condition, so if psychiatry is horseshit then your claim that trannies have high suicide rates because they're fucked in the head is also horseshit.

can anyone give me one (1) reason why abolishing the concept of gender, making it into a non word is a goal worth pursuing?

how are we supposed to achieve this?

wouldn't it be better to just be more accepting of trans people?

The same is it to them whether thou admonish them or thou do not admonish them: they will not believe.

Psychiatric conditions are neurological conditions. Neurology is the domain of the neuroscientist, not the sociologist LARPing as a psychologist. Medication has been vastly more beneficial to the treatment of neurological disorders than psychiatry.

kys

...

because it's a recent invention that has proven to not be useful. most languages don't even have a word for gender. it's a poisonous, divisive, anti-scientific, and misleading concept to begin with.
Just don't use the term and reject people who use the term gender. Just ask to specify their sex.
It's a question of do you "accept" a mental illness or not. If someone is schizophenic and hears voices, do you encourage them and pretend to hear them too, or do you tell them it's only in their head? that's the real debate about trans here.

Stop formatting you posts like this, parsing them is hard as fuck.
Literally nobody is saying that biology is entirely irrelevant to gender you fucking imbecile. Your attempt here to pretend that you haven't been making positive claims about how biology relates to gender is utterly disingenuous.
Lmaoooooooooooooooo, idpolers always pull this shit. I'm just disagreeing with you dipshit. The fact that you're reading that as some kind of nefarious manipulation says a lot about you fam.

Do you like to hurt other people ?

...

actually yes in fact the bigots are what make trans individuals kts

I'm not hurting anyone. "Transgender" is the meme name for a very real mental disorder called Gender Dysphoria (previously Gender Identity Disorder). When people talk about "transgender" people, they're describing a group with a mental illness. That's not mean, that's the scientific reality.

The neurological cause for a massive number of psychiatric conditions is unknown, as is the mechanism of action for a massive number of medications. Cite a source that says the high rates of suicide for transgender individuals is a result of neurology.

...

Trans activists are much more aggressive to TERFs than the other way around

no they're not

every anarchist that reads wants to abolish gender stupidity. It's a part of abolishing hierarchies.

...

yes they are

Proudhon doesn't

but they're neurological. you know it's in their brains somewhere. psychiatrists don't know what causes these problems at all so that's not a point for anyone.
this is a meme. we don't know fully but there are pretty solid theories for each medication, but that just BTFO of psychiatry even more tbh.
What do you think the brain is, user? Everything is neurology.

good debate

Okay, I have no clue why you want my (you)s so badly, but have another one. Sorry for being mean to you succ-dem chan.

Sex for reproduction is not the only function of genitalia, I'm sorry you can't accept this. You're playing word games, yes a penis isn't a stamp maker, that doesn't suddenly mean Trans dicks/vaginas dont function for some activities a normal pension is used for. *In* *fact* one of the only functions it doesn't do is sex for reproduction. Accept this or stop posting.

Shit I thought I might be saging a few good posts but nope.

...

This is a discussion chan. I'm here to discuss.
I don't want your (you), I want to see why you believe the capitalist lie that you "make yourself".

Or was it another poster ?

I'm pretty sure receiving dirty looks, being called a freak and getting bullied regularly are not good for mental health.

And that & many more reasons are why he gets raped by Stirner in his book. Proudhon isn't as anarch as Stirner is.

Testing…testing…

...

oh for fucks sake. go back to reddit, we don't want you. we're full.

simple solution, user

Not banned! When I saw my straw poll thread on transgenderism got shoah'd I assumed the worst.

This poll?
strawpoll.me/13735038

kek. I saw that and a few other tranny threads get shoah'd. mods are sleeping letting this one up i think. facts can be… inconvenient lets say.

Sure, in a very reductive sense you're right, deciding to kill yourself is a choice that is made in the brain. But that's a retarded stance to take because then "neurology" is expanded to the point where it consolidates social causes as being neurological in origin.
You're the one making a claim, so not having a point is a pretty big issue for you.
WEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWlad

Gender threads should be sunk, they are useless, divisive, and far too popular. idpol entryism.

what?
its biological
you can`t abolish REALITY
you can do some fucked up book burning type of removal of words from the usage, thats never going to work
and here we are today

both are dumb idpolers and idealists

We kind of allow this by allowing meme-spouting Stirnerites. Actual anarchists are nicer than that.

...

Polish, P.olish, Poland, P.oland
I can't believe this is filtered

You're misunderstanding the argument being made. Read this: libcom.org/library/gender-nihilism-anti-manifesto

I've already said you don't make yourself a certain amount of money, and the advantages of the rich over the poor are incredibly vast. That doesn't make you determined to be a certain person, I don't think the world is determined to be a certain way. Rich people lead far easier lives and it's easier to get richer the more money you have. Believe what you want, the science isn't clear yet. you could probably be rich if you really, really wanted to. You'd just have to be a really bad person in a lot of cases, which is unrealistic for most people. Even still, you'd just be a rich person profiting off the the poor, and not everyone can be rich

*accept this or provide an argument that would change my mind, which I doubt exists
Are you happy now? That wasn't even the argument part, just a statement. Someone sure was itching to turn my image against me. Little tired of people responding to my post with trivial shit like penis-stamp man.

Yeah, that's the one. Luckily the mods ain't got no power on Strawpoll!

*Rolls eyes*

...

Gender nihilists are confirmed bourgs in disguise.

Sure is a real socialist take on that, for sure! Me saying that you have to do corrupt thing to be rich? Recognizing that luck is inherent to getting rich and that it can happen to proles? Very Bourg indeed.
wtf is a gender nihilist people keep slinging that around
Honestly don't know why I'm still feeding you all my (you)s.

You're retarded. One of the defining features of capitalism is the potential exists for people from every stratum of society to rise to the top. This is why there aren't castes in capitalism, there's classes. In actuality though it's nearly impossible for most people to actually rise to the top.
SocDems are confirmed retards in disguise

Whats the difference between having a penis and being a man, I see people talking about gender as if it is an abstraction. However for me and many others, gender is merely your sex, your material condition is your genitals and thus your gender is built upon it and it is your sex. I'd say anything besides this is simply mental illiness or some sort of deviance that needs psychological correction.

You are an edgy narcissistic retard that deserves only the gulag. Words do not suffice to express just how ignorant that statement is nor how much of an imbecile you would have to be to make it. Only the very luckiest of poor people are ever in any position to become rich, no generalized "you" fits that description.
Do you seriously think that the only reason you are not rich is that you are too nice to your fellow man?
You overestimate xirself.

The idea of what it means to "be a man" has a fuckton of social baggage that comes along with it. Much of society believes that you need to be strong to be a man, or that you need to be self-sufficient or any number of other things. This by itself isn't that bad, but when people try to actually fill these roles many end up feeling shitty for not living up to those standards that they identify with. The idea isn't to abolish the "being a man" part, but rather to abolish the social expectations associated with being a man and instead treat "maleness" just like any other normal quality.

Maybe I do, or maybe my standards of rich are low. If you wanted, you could give up most of the things you like and (again, probably) be rich, you could act as an inhuman machine and become rich, with a large helping of luck. This isn't bourgeois, it's facts. Money isn't some kind of magical thing. What *is* impossible is for the workers as a class to become rich. I'm trying to make it clear to you (you) hungry motherfuckers that I do not like the rich, and to me they are a class who only exists through exploitation and greed, and that a prole would have to give up what makes people good to be rich. Also, I'm talking about having a lot of money, not owning a huge fuck off corporation. You need to relax a bit.

This post is exactly what I was thinking put into words, practically erotic.

Here 626, read this post and come back to mine, I agree with 620.

If gender it is solely social and psychological in that regard how come people aren't taking on more of the masculine and feminine traits but rather getting costly surgery to become a pale imitation of the opposing gender?
On that, what the fuck is wrong with Tumblr, they keep coming out with genders like they are being created on a factory line.

You could not. Don't flatter yourself.
Aha, the magic sauce that makes you never have to admit you are the product of your social and material circumstances.

"Gender exists outside us in the realm of discourse, as opposed to alternative possibilities like having social and biological elements both."
The same way you can make claims about anything that exists outside discourse - by creating discourse about it and bringing it into the realm of discourse. Which, incidentally is exactly what I'm doing by talking about the biological component of gender that you are trying to erase.

I didn't deny that I'm making claims. I pointed out that my claims are based on rigorous research
I just linked to a list of recent research that finds evidence for biological components to transgenderism. You can find copious studies to this effect with simple searches. That's the most I can contextualize research to this discussion, since you reject the biological component on such general terms. You're moving the goalposts.

I'm not the one claiming to be purely negativistic while putting forth claims about nature.
No they are not. You are claiming that gender is something that exists only as a social construct, despite evidence to the contrary. "X is not real" is no longer a negative claim when making it requires you to ignore evidence.

I think you meant to say "Stop providing the full context, it makes it hard for me to misrepresent you by omission"
When you make explicit claims about what someone says that are contrary to what they actually said, and remove the context that demonstrates you are wrong, what other conclusion is there, except very convenient incompetence?

Could as in it is possible you immense retard. *NOT* that Id necessarily do it. I think you might be feeling a bit dumb sense I'm not the idiot you're acting like I am. If you disagree with this, argue what makes manipulating a system to be rich an impossible feat, I'll wait, I'm sure the next guy that wants to critique my word choice will come soon.
I'm sorry the word luck triggers you, how about "intervening factors that are not necessarily forseeable", does that soothe your rage at my word choice?

(1/2)

>>>>No, where is there evidence for God? Gender has a lot of work done on it.
>>So the best you can do is to draw false equivalence between science and theology.
I never said anything about it being "true" or not, the mention of which looks a lot like an attempt at setting a bullshit semantic trap, just like what you're doing here. The point that matters is the body of scientific work on the subject as opposed to conjectural theory and analysis.
No, you should have considered the possibility that I was taking science as being more sound than theology for granted, and also putting forth the size of the field as support for its accuracy. Two points of support, not just one. Why even argue over semantics like this?

And as it turns out, yes, in the context of science the amount of work done in a field does bolster the legitimacy of the research.
Like I said before, the process can be improved upon because that's part of the point. With a scientific approach there is at least the possibility of falsification. Contrast with your argument, which is unfalsifiable by design. The claim is that the argument is negativistic and therefore beyond criticism, while also creating a positive definition of terms which precludes consideration of a contradicting body of evidence.

(2/2)

Do you have anything to back up this claim other than how you define the term?
This assumes that gender only exists in the realm of language. Some words only represent constructs and some represent constructs that model an aspect of material reality. You are presupposing that gender is the former. If you wish to define a word that way for the sake of argument, that's one thing. But we're talking about a word in common usage. What I'm putting forth is that the notion of abolitionism assumes that the word in common usage represents a pure construction rather than something with a material, biological component. The central disagreement is the constructivist claim that we're dealing only with ideas vs. my claim that there's a material basis for those ideas. What would be the point of addressing an argument based on an incorrect assumption? If the assumption is wrong, the argument is unsound.

My argument, which you generously support here again, is that your constructivist side consistently erases the biological dimension and contributes to the misunderstanding of the subject
Biological components of gender are not gender per se, no. What do you think I meant by "components"? The issue I take is that social function shapes biology, but that is ignored. Social function - especially with regard to anything related to sex - will shape biology. The notion that the discourse on gender should consider the current social function/presentation as social but not biological requires a denial of evidence. I won't even get into what I think a genuinely emancipatory approach would be. I'll just say if a problem has a material component, that needs to be accounted for. In this case you can see why: constructivists see "stereotypical" trans people as adhering to "social convention," - which isn't wrong - but ignores the reason for this which is the mark that social convention has left on biology and the behavioral preferences that result. Yes, stereotypical gendered behavior can be traced back to social convention, but that backward tracing takes us through behavioral preference within biology. And regardless of what selective pressures shaped that biology, it's still a part of the person in question. So while ultimately the "first cause" could be said to be socialization, a person who was affected by evolution (any person) will still inherently behave certain ways regardless of the socialization they experience.

Your formatting sucks if you ask me, I didn't read any of your posts and I've been responding to the same two faggot for about 30 minutes plus.

Your socio-economic starting position.
No. Material conditions or bust.
The willed self is a spook.

They do it because it's something that will help them feel less dysphoric for not being able to fill the role associated with the gender they identify with. If transitioning really fixed the problem then most transgender people wouldn't be dysphoric after the surgery, which isn't the case.
Tumblr takes the opposite approach compared to the one gender abolitionists take. Where gender abolitionists want to destroy the social expectations associated with gender the Tumblrites want to expand them so everyone can have an identity that they uniquely identify with. They believe that if only they could construct the perfect identity for themselves then they'd be free from the antagonisms that arise from not live up to the identity they they've constructed for themselves.

You are a good troll poster, if you made longer posts I wouldn't be sure, but I am. this, I'm getting a nap now, greetings from germany.

imagine having this creature as your father/mother/whatever

I would if you or the topic were worth it. Any discussion that hinges on individuals or individual identity is always a waste of time.

Maximum "only social constructs are real" autism. Here's the sample they keep posting.
libcom.org/library/gender-nihilism-anti-manifesto

How do you identify with a trait, if you are conscious of your situation enough you can simply move from one trait to another.
Our identities as we know them are fabrications of our own mind, the abolishment or embrassing of gender or social traits is ridiculous when you can because aware of your own ability to choose your identity or to simply recognize you aren't your ego.

You can't destroy gender you tards. If you NEET's would actually go outside you'd see these weird alien creatures with saggy bags of flesh protruding from their chests. These are called women and so far we haven't been able to get rid of them no matter how hard we try.

If you're relying on assumptions about what you should have meant to me, then it wasn't very good to use to begin with. Frankly, I was most opposed to your first argument that what someone feels subjectively to be true as if by epiphany is actually true.

You're aware that this is a very specific framing of science, aren't you? It was Popper's framing which wasn't dialectical at all because he was an anti-Marxist empiricist. Whether it's true or not, you're not arguing from a left perspective here which was what this thread was originally about.

Regardless, is your point about falsification falsifiable?

The organization of specific components of biological tendencies toward behaviors and actions under the category "gender" very much is a function of language. Whether it "only exists" in the realm of language depends on how you interpret what I'm saying. "Gender" per se, I would agree, but not necessarily the genetic predispositions that may lead in this society toward certain expressions which we categorize as expressions of "gender" based on current uses of language, social norms and values.

This isn't exactly what I was arguing.

I wasn't arguing that they were mutually exclusive but that the underlying facts of biology only come to mean something within society and these facts present themselves right now as "gender." In the past they have presented themselves differently subjectively and within society.

This would be extending far beyond your own conception of science then, into the "unfalsifiable."

Unless this point is Lamarckist, then my point is the same except I think you're treating whatever "science" says as holy writ rather than taking into account historical, social, and linguistic limitations of current scientific understanding as well. That isn't to say any of it is absolutely wrong, but that we should account for how scientific understanding is currently expressed.

Genetic fallacy is irrelevant. There's nothing inherently undialectical about continuously updating theory to make it more accurate. Dialectics in the broader sense is close to synonymous with the scientific process, if you want to get pedantic about specificity. And there's nothing inherently anti-Marxist about empiricism, unless by Marxist you're talking about a specific version of Marxism. Popper being anti-Marxist doesn't make anyone who agrees with him on anything else an anti-Marxist.
You're not the arbiter of what is or is not a left perspective.

If another method of creating models can be shown to yield more effectively predictive models, then yes it would be falsified.

So while ultimately the "first cause" could be said to be socialization, a person who was affected by evolution (any person) will still inherently behave certain ways regardless of the socialization they experience.
Any system with prominent power relations will reinforce certain behaviors in the sense of biological selection. If deviants are killed or treated worse than "normal" people, their traits are put at evolutionary disadvantage. The result is that a society that normalizes certain traits is artificially selecting for those traits. Eugenics doesn't just happen in grand gestures. What I have said follows logically from the conclusions of evolutionary theory. The issue this raises is how to navigate around social constructions and biological traits. You can't solve that issue by pretending biological traits aren't relevant, especially when social constructions shape biology and biology reinforces and justifies the social constructions. I'm not arguing for maintaining the status quo. I'm arguing for understanding it more completely to be in a better position to change it.

Recent advances in biology have found something like Lamarckian evolution to occur through epigenetics, but that's beside the point.
I don't disagree that we should be critical of science. I disagree that we should ignore it.

fuck the author is such a pretentious twat
this writing is night unbearable no matter how much I may agree with it's point

just because you two got owned. lol pussies

the fuck am i reading

Certainly its objective development can be identified with the process of scientific development, but not with any specific empirical claim made within science.

It depends on how you treat empiricism. If you treat empirical claims as absolute claims, it would be anti-dialectical. Whether it's "inherently" so, however, depends on whether you're an empiricist. Viewing falsifiability as the major criterion for scientific development does seem empiricist, though.

No, but one would think Popper himself would be about his own views which you're repeating.

It does occur semi-frequently that the model is shown to be "wrong" by an experiment, but, if the experiment is strongly at odds with major aspects of the model regarded as true beforehand, it's usually regarded as an error in measurement or an experimental design flaw unless the result is replicated (and continuously so). It isn't merely that the model has been falsified but is demonstrated continuously to be false as it begins to lack in predictive power for the experiments that are continuously demonstrating it to be false.

Some scientific results are also not truly subject to being falsified by people on the outside (i.e. those who weren't party to those results testing with different instruments than the original experiment) because of the time, money, and expertise required to run such experiments (experiments at the LHC can and have been run many times at the LHC, but there is no comparable facility for many of their experiments that would be able to demonstrate absolutely that it isn't some aspect of the LHC's particular design itself creating the results).

This doesn't demonstrate that a given person is behaving in certain definite ways regardless of socialization. You're describing a social process that partly acts upon and is partly a function of the biological.

I never said they were irrelevant. I was stating something rather different: that the biological facts are only made into "gender" as a result of how these facts are seen by society. It isn't that this societal view of the facts has absolutely nothing to do with the biology (there is definitely a relationship between the two), but, instead, the constructions place the biological facts within society by attributing those biological tendencies toward certain behaviors, attitudes, etc. within society to "gender" which gives all of those meanings adhering in the term that are only vaguely related to what underlies "gender" biologically (which isn't itself "gender" and may have little to do with "gender").

I wasn't unaware, although the infamous "giraffe extending its neck because it wants to eat leaves" example is more what I was thinking with regards to the phrasing before.

I wasn't ignoring science but attempting to place science as limited by the expressions it must make as being determinate and empirical. Again, that isn't to say that science should necessarily be something else, although it should probably acknowledge these limitations better in certain cases, particularly when pertaining to cases like the interactions of our subjective notions of selfhood and personality and identifying our human notions of those completely with certain biological traits and the brain.

a fool

Trans isn't [totally] about filling a role in society
That the current technology doesn't solve their body dysphoria doesn't indicate that it doesn't exist intrinsically

The thing is, whether you "believe in gender" or any of these dumb discussions, is completely irrelevant to whether people with gender dysphoria should be treated the best way we know how, which is transitioning. Gender dysphoria is a medical condition with pretty serious issues and after knowing several trans people I wouldn't wish it on anyone. If you want to be super buttblasted about the sex/gender dystinction, whatever, but it's always these kinds of assholes who completely reject scientific evidence and real problems for trans people. I guess dysphoria will just disappear in socialism lmao.

(1/2)
And there's nothing inherently anti-Marxist about empiricism
I've said multiple times that this isn't my position. Popper's main point was that you cannot reach absolute conclusions other than by thoroughly showing something to be false, so I don't see what issue you're trying to raise here. The whole point is that the best you can do is construct theories with the provision that they're imperfect and subject to change if you find a way to improve or discount them. The purpose of falsifiability is to allow this to happen. If an idea is unfalsifiable then it can't be tested and verified with this method. That doesn't make it wrong per se, in the same way that just because something is supported empirically doesn't make it right. What about this is in conflict with dialectics exactly?

You're not the arbiter of what is or is not a left perspective.
I don't care what Popper would have said. I take the good ideas and leave the bad ideas. That's much more in the spirit of this concept (not that that's where I got it) than the man's political opinions. Even the most brilliant minds' politics are usually heavily colored by personal experience and emotion and can distort their views. Hell, I'm not a fan of Popper. You brought him up. His view of science is my reference point because he is influential on science as it is.

If another method of creating models can be shown to yield more effectively predictive models, then yes it would be falsified.
This is a limitation of the model in its real-world context. People fuck up, and errors that yield strange results are a lot more common than radical discoveries. Sometimes new ideas have more work to cover than would be ideal, but the system would be a lot less useful if models got overturned every time someone miscalibrated. That's not to say this is absolutist, it's an issue that very much deals with balance. Where the balance currently lies in the system though is a matter of potential improvement. I never claimed this was a perfect system. None of this is news to me. The political angle is a problem too, but these problems manifest in specific ways in specific fields. If you have an example of that happening within this subject, that would be highly relevant.

(2/2)
Any system with prominent power relations will reinforce certain behaviors in the sense of biological selection. If deviants are killed or treated worse than "normal" people, their traits are put at evolutionary disadvantage. The result is that a society that normalizes certain traits is artificially selecting for those traits.
There would rarely be an example where it's so black and white. Consider transgender people though. They're generally raised as one gender but at a certain point adopt behavior of the other gender. Frequently they report preferences or drives toward this behavior prior to transition. What reason would this occur (and why would it happen in a portion of the population characteristic of a mutation) if this behavior is the product of socialization? Cisgender people don't spontaneously adopt the behavior of the other gender. A cisgender female and a trans-male are both socialized into being female, but only the trans-male will begin acting male in spite of socialization. This is an obvious question to ask when presented with the socialization hypothesis, and there is a growing body of research into biological differences between trans an cis people. We seem to just be going in circles here.

You can't solve that issue by pretending biological traits aren't relevant
I just explained why I disagree with this. Restating it doesn't change the point. Biology and our social understanding of it are in a mutually self-reinforcing relationship. You say the common notion of gender has little to do with the biology, but I say (said) that it shapes it. Society enacts selective pressures. The violence of normativity is the violence of selection pressure. They are one and the same. Thus, to normatively define gender we impose gender on our biology. Since you agree with the other side of the "cycle" I guess this is what I should be emphasizing. The two are linked together. My actual beef with the gender-abolition (aside from this disagreement over the facts) is that in arguing for the dissolution of gender as a social construct they are by definition arguing for erasing the "identity" of people who have gender. I have no problem with the species becoming less dimorphic, but these issues are bound up in real world problems that people have to deal with, and I do have a problem with sacrificing real people for the sake of some abstract that's supposed to help them.

It's that demonstrating something to be false isn't by itself sufficient but it requires a process of development: not only of falsification but of validation and revalidation of a theory, in addition to being tethered to its social bases and limitations (as in the case of the LHC experiments). Falsifiability isn't enough to account for development alone.

Because it was his criterion for science. If we're discussing ideas politically, we should at least talk about where ideas in the conversation originated politically.

The model must resemble the reality assuming it's a model of reality as it exists rather than as it exists ideally.

The object wasn't to demonstrate that science is imperfect (simply stating it to be "imperfect" would be somewhat misleading, I think, as one needs a rule or standard prior that one adopted to judge it) but that its development is not wholly a function of falsifiability. It was to show falsifiability to be a deficient model of scientific development. That isn't to say falsifiability is irrelevant to science. It just doesn't by itself result in scientific development. That seeming imperfection when judging science by the falsifiability criterion must also be accounted for in a true model of scientific development, otherwise we simply have an ideal model, one we wish and strive for but not one that models science as it actually exists.

We could point to historical examples of how gender has been understood scientifically (for example, the simple separation of "man" and "woman" as "XY" and "XX" which does today take into account deviations from these typical cases and a partial separation of sex chromosomes from subjective identity), but that also requires acknowledging that the separation between gender and sex is of relatively recent provenance. The separation of the two as sexes was regarded simultaneously as a separation of inherent identity, and deviation from a masculine and feminine identity for each would be explained as deficiency in being a man or woman.

Then why do you seem to think I'm saying biology is irrelevant? Because that isn't at all what I said.
Again:

What does that mean? Why would gender identification exist if gender is gone? Be more specific.

Also I've never seen anti-gender as a position on leftypol before, but I believe in it. I believe that the genders are different, you know hormones and stuff, but society values/roles/culture can brainwash people to behave in almost any way, including an abolishment of gender if you want.

Is this meant to be Marxist? MOP creates gender.