Gender theorists absolutely btfo

it's rebelioius to be anti dude weed lmao in canada tho

Is this the thread where Holla Forums talks about gender/queer theory like Holla Forums talks about communism and Marxism?

i.e. with no fucking knowledge on the topic beyond hearsay?

is a cleft lip and palate just a different kind of face or is it a developmental abnormality?
Can a man (XY) give birth?

Trannies are less than 1% of the population and their choice to get fake tits or whatever doesn't affect anyone but themselves. What they want to be called is a non-issue, don't act like a rebel because you called an effeminate male a he and liberals think you're a prick.

Unfortunately, yes. Basically 'gender theory is whatever SJWs say lol'.

Defaulting to naturalistic arguments isn't really refuting anything, it's like saying that putting a roof over one's head is bad because gravity exists.

Don't pretend you don't know.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_schema_theory

Based Pope is right.

Daily reminder that Communism is when the state owns the means of production, and everyone is poor.

having been a moderate, slightly left of center person in a previous life and then swinging to the right in the last few years, I can give some perspective on this.
I tried to get through socialist literature that someone gave me. Once you read enough to see that it is based on assumptions that you think are completely unrealistic, it's really hard to get through and learn all the lingo and all the concepts bc you feel like you are only learning it so you can argue with its proponents.
If the underlying assumptions are unrealistic, it doesn't matter if you can argue the technical aspects accurately

...

I didn't quite understand your roof/gravity argument. Can you explain it a different way? I will answer based on what I think i understood from your statement.
There is a reality to natural phenomenon. Matter has organized itself in certain ways, there are certain predictable physical laws of the universe. It's not like anything goes. There is normal development based on frequency in the population and adaptiveness (any phenotype where the baseline suicide rate is so high because of internal cognitive dissonance is abnormal)

ok let's hear the right answer then from someone with more imagination

I can't give you your "answer" when I don't know your question. What was so "completely unrealistic" that you simply couldn't bare to learn basic concepts?

M8 you've not read a single fucking work on any of these topics, stop bullshitting and at least read the fucking wiki article.

...

I know the basics

I think the economic system doesn't matter as much as the fact that there will always be people who will want more, who will be more greedy and unethical. So communism on anything larger than a tiny scale will always result in some people using deception to get more for themselves and wanting to take power. There are psychopaths, people who are just more talented who want to be rewarded with status or material goods, people who simply don't want to be forced into a collective, people who want a choice to have private property. Just bc you have a system where the workers own the means of production doesn't mitigate differential human desires for comfort, wealth, what incentives people respond to.
Also just look at which sytems overall have succeeded. Capitalist economies by far have produced the highest amounts of prosperity for the average worker, while socialist economies have languished. When communist countries introduce capitalist reforms, like China, their productivity soars as does their standard of living.

well let me rephrase that - given that there will be people who seek power, the system that allows for the most personal individual freedom to make economic choices will allow people to minimize the tyranny of the inevitable oligarchy

But you and yours are saying that because you can put a roof over your head and it doesn't fall that means there is no gravity.

You wrote all that just to say "MUH HOOMEN NAYYCHUR"?

Pure scientism.

How come genderfags are given a blank check of institutional and media support and empowerment but roll they're eyes and inch away nervously from me like a delusional freak for being a spirit dragoncat unicorn hermaphrodite??

Hurts, man. Really bad.

well if you are just going to answer with memes then I'm wasting my time. I actually wanted to debate.
Prove to me that human beings are all the same, don't have different needs, talents, desires for advancement and recognition. You deny that there are psychopaths who don't care about your utopian ideals.

So what you are saying is that humans are so borderline psychopathic that capitalism the only way to to avoid a society from simply falling apart into some kind of Hobbesian nightmare? Do you really think that the current structure has been the only way humans have organized?

How much freedom do you really have? In a practical sense are people's choices not predetermined by preexisting access to capital? A there any tyranny less despotic than the one that determines whether you eat or die?

gender is false category

because like so many leftist movements there are 2 categories of people - the idealists who actually believe in the theory and the elites who dont believe it but realize it is a useful tool of subversion for tearing apart society so they can weaken the majority and take over.

No there are multiple ways of organizing but the most adaptive way changes iwht the conditions people live in - population density, social and organizational complexity, technology, etc…
It's a tradeoff. Communism might work really well in a small village but I doubt it would work in a highly complex city where people and relationships are more transient.
People starve under socialist regimes. Look at Venezuela. Price controls have caused shortages. When you let a million individual actors 'do their thing' and pursue their own self-interest (which involves fulfilling the needs of others) you get a system that works. It has many flaws but you have to ask 'compared to what?'
There are many ways to access capital. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and abolishing private property, just enable people to start their own enterprise, or to have labour unions to gve workers some protections. To think that collectivizing everything will abolish tyranny - on the contrary, it gets much worse.

Not the person you're replying to, for me the real issue isn't that gender can be different than sex, the problem is that gender doesn't exist. It's a made up concept, what exactly does it usefully describe?

There's biological sex (XX XY) and then there's assumpions that societies make on those biological traits. Those assumpions from my understanding define gender.

The problem is, if your goal is to free people from these assumpions why are you obsessing over gender so much? Do you want to destroy it or to give it more power?

It baffles me that so many so called gender actibvists don't realise that labels such as "genderqueer" or "genderfluid" CAN HAVE A MEANING ONLY IN OPPOSITION TO THE SAME GENDER NORMS YOU'RE SUPPOSEDLY TRYING TO DISMANTLE.

If I didn't have an idea of what society expects from a male or a female I wouldn't know what a genderqueer is. I amy myself a rather effemminate male in some occasion? Does that make me genderfluid? Would other people call me genderfluid for my behaviour?

More importantly, why should I care? All I know is that science says i have XY chromosomes, and that i act according to my thought and emotions, The way I act is related to me being "genderfluid" as much as it is to me being of a certain ethnic or national group. There's no voice in my head telling me "you're cis therefore you do this" or "you're genderfluid therefore you do that".

Gender doesn't exist, but I exist and my decisions do.

good post tbh
i wholeheartedly agree

Wow great analysis Lauren

GOOD POINT

What basis do you have for that?

Oil capital distribution and price controls are not socialism. The problems in Venezuela are mostly due to the drop in oil price.

2008 should be all the empirical proof you need that the neo-classical theory of market equilibrium is fundamentally flawed. And I encourage you too actually look up the context in which Smith spoke about the 'invisible hand' - trust me it will be enlightening.

Which is why direct democratic control over by the public over collectively owned material is considered by many as of vital importance. I could do into the specifics of how that would work if you like.

Because people can think whatever they want of themselves, just say he for a biological male, regardless of identity and she for a biological female.
Gender theorists claim that he and she applied to behavior all along but it didn't. I don't know if it was intentional or not but saying that he applies to some concept of feeling male (and then denying that such a concept exists) just unsticks language from any kind of mooring

The pronoun thing is a non-issue inside a non-issue. I'll address an XY person with "she" if she asks me to. Wether I think or not she's a "real woman" is irrelevant, I'd do it out of politeness, it's such a tiny effort to make a person feel at ease. Also, I don't know what a "real woman" is.

Fair enough
I think most people will overcome ideology when dealing with an actual human being unless that person is an aggressive douche. But regardless, should there be a special category of protection in the canadian charter of rights for this kind of subjectivity? People can be charged with hate crimes. In NYC, companies can be fined up to $250,000 for refusing to go along with this theory. If you aren't a person who sees (what I see as a) grand sconspiracy then you will think it isnt such a big deal. But put into the context of identity politics being used to overthrow Western society a la Frankfurt school then you see it as an important line in the sand to be drawn. It is the slippery slope of tyranny masquerading as muh rights.

Is "she" a real woman? Words have definitions.

His butt.

Do you mean someone that was born biologically female or one that personifies cultural norms regarding femininity

yes within capitalism there is all sorts of room for govt to overstep its reach, multinationals getting too big, protectionism vs globalization, private central banks lending us our own money at interest, etc…
you have central banks setting interest rates instead of the free market, govts dictating who banks have to lend to (bulldozing over the whole risk analysis of underwriters), bail-outs bc too big to fail (then should be too big to exist), etc…I don't agree that these things are the sine qua non of capitalism. It is cronyism. Economically I’m more libertarian simply bc I don’t trust the small proportion of assholes who own the planet. But cronyism and greed are rampant in collectivized societies too bc (I think) criminality, psychopathy is just baked into the cake. I think most people are good and cooperative but therefore not hungry for power and willing to be led by those who are. At least private property allows you to have a little bit of wealth to sustain yourself instead of being a cog in the collective. And you can always form a collective in capitalism in the form of a partnership or company with suitable structure. You can buy shares in the company you work for and collect a pension from them.

Independent communes will eventually be organized at a higher level, which means you will have hierarchy.

well you kind of have this when we elect a govt to spend our tax money the way we want them to. Despite this, there are scandals, wasteful spending, departments spending too much just to justify next yer's budget, power differentials in who gets to decide. Some people are great workers and lousy managers and budgeters. Milton Friedman says people spend their own money more wisely than someone else's.

You need to compare apples to apples IOW theoretical capitalism with theoretical communism not actual capitalism with theoretical communism. Actual communism relies on people all having the same basic worldview and if they don't , what are their options? What if they don't want collectivization?

I agree that our capitalist system has been hijacked but the underlying freedom and choice and (I think) accordance with human incentives
of the capitalist system makes it superior (even if it is currently a baby bathing in very dirty bathwater).
Any system can be perverted (and will unfortunately ;( bc of greedy assholes) I want nothing more than a peaceful society and I'm not looking to accumulate so much more than I need.

The more complex something gets, the more difficult it is to control centrally. If you can explain how complete socialization of property works and can persist sure go ahead. I'm too tired to think out of my libertarian box.

Have you read/listened to Rothbard, Sowell, or Schiff? There's a good documentary 'Freedom to choose' by Friedman. It's pretty eye-opening.

...

...

...

Tell you what, I'll watch 'Freedom to choose if you watch youtube.com/watch?v=LtlZys7QOO4

It's not a bad introduction and represents one way of handling some of what I'm talking about, particularly direct democracy and the collective management of complex systems. All the concepts and mathematical models dealt with are in a book you can find here: ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf.

ok
freedom to choose is in 10 1-hour parts though!
anyway, thx for the debate
will watch
cheers

Would you address a schizophrenic who believes they're Jesus as "Lord"? Or would you perhaps try to get the real help instead of playing into their false delusions?

American libertarian thinking there is not enough paperwork and government regulation, not even funny.
Then takes it even further implying that gender fluidity is the primary enemy of "scientific reasoning and objective truth", and that society is at a cross roads where feelings are becoming more important than truth. A sentiment obviously based on feelings rather than any sort of scientific reasoning.
Think what you will of gender roles, but this chick is satire.

One last thing. Here's Alan Greenspan speaking before congress on market deregulation and equilibrium.

youtube.com/watch?v=R5lZPWNFizQ

change that to a person who believes in jesus despite having no evidence for it, and then answer your own question.

No, that's an entirely different conversation. We're talking about self-identity, not beliefs in the supernatural.

Someone who believes in Jesus usually experienced him. It's not their fault if you don't want to have that experience.

And schizophrenia is also a different conversation.

and people who are gender binary have some internal experience causing their believes.

No, but neither can infertile women. Although science is working on lab grown uteri, and it's quite possible that you will see trans women give birth in the future.
You also can't assume for certain that an XY individual is a man - tranny shit aside, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome. Explain how having that is different to being a trans woman.

No it's not. They're both delusions. They're both beliefs in something that is demonstrably false. Supernatural beliefs can't be disproven by science; false beliefs in your own identity absolutely can.

Yeah, and look at the fruits of their believes. lol

Well I'm not a qualified therapist so probably yes. If the person who's in care of said schizophrenic says me it's part of the therapy to have their believes challenged I'll do so. Otherwise I wouldn't fuck with the believes of a schizophrenic because I really don't know what the consequences might be.

Are you telling me that you would? If i brought you to a mental ward you'd start pointing fingers at mentally il lpeople and go "YOU'RE ACTUALLY MENTALLY ILL, STOP BEING MENTALLY ILL!!"? Do you think mentall illnes is cured purely by "challenging delusions"?

Also the whole example is worth shit because it's almost impossible to integrate a hard schizophrenic in society. it's relatively easy to integrate a trans person in society as long as you're not a dick about it.

And biological males who want to be female "experience" being a female in a male body, this is the point when you realise "experience" means jack shit.

Explain to me how you want to experience it when there's no way to be a woman in a mans body.

I wouldn't be talking to random mentally ill people to begin with. I'm talking about people you know personally. And no, I would never address someone I know as "Lord" unless it was part of their therapy.

And that's the important part here. People who are delusional need professional help; those professionals should be the ones to decide how to treat them. Indulging in delusions can be extremely harmful, as it may further reinforce the belief, and make it much more difficult to treat.

I have talked to many people who say they went through phases during childhood where they acted like the opposite gender, and the it only lasted a few months. Now who's to say that it wouldn't have been a permanent transformation if their parents started playing into it, as so many do today?

schizophrenia is much more complex than that, your reducing to the absurd, which is what i tried to demonstrate to you.
yes they can, evolution, the flood, the shroud of Turin, all christian believes that are demonstrably false, but still believed by a large portion of Christians.

indeed, and look at the fruits of religious believes, not all good ey?
And I'm saying that as a person who believes in God.

Gender is a function of a billion different, largely independent variables. We use the categories of "male" and "female" because writing out someone's entire biochemical structure and psychological profile would take too long.

Yeah but we were talking about Jesus here, didn't we? So, how are the fruits of true followers of Jesus? Correct me if I'm wrong when I say they're pretty good, ey?

Those are like 3 cherry-picked things, what about the metric fuckton of supernatural events written down that wouldn't have even left a trace? Science can only disprove theory if it has conflicting evidence.

Yes, schizophrenia is a very complicated illness, but the consequences are not. Schizophrenics are delusional (among other things). Their reality does not match up with the physical world, and this can easily be demonstrated and observed by third parties. In this respect alone, it's the exact same thing with gender dysphoria. You cannot compare this to beliefs in the supernatural experiences, which cannot be disproved by third parties or observed retroactively.

I changed it to 'religion' as to not be unnecessary offensive towards Christians. The answer to your question depends on your definition of true scotsmen followers of Jesus.

When claiming all swans are white, it's enough to observe one black swan in order to falsify it, even if it's cherry picked. I was not, and am not going to try to disprove religion as a whole.

If a person claims to feel like another gender, you would have to look at their emotions to prove them wrong. If a person claims to have no tits and a dick, but you can see the persons has tits and a vagina, then we can assume one of you are delusional.

It's s function of having a penis or a vagina.

ITT: Holla Forums pretends to know stuff it doesn't actually know again

There is no need to define anything. Jesus, the word of god, revealed himself to the world, his words are in the bible, follow them and you're a true follower. Period.

Gender has nothing to do with emotions. It is merely the psychological component of sex. If someone claims their gender does not match their sex, they are wrong, but mentally ill. Just like a schizophrenic who believes they're Jesus.

Citation needed.

Humans are the only creature on Earth for which gender and sex supposedly do not have a one to one relationship (and for which there's any distinction at all for that matter). There is no biological explanation for this. The explanation lies in ideology, which makes it unscientific.

...

What you're describing is gender role - this is how the whole fucking problem started in the first place. Gender was a synonym for sex, Gender role are behavior sets stratified by sex - says nothing about a person or their biology. Retards conflated the two and now we have CURRENT YEAR

Well.. Yes, I agree. Gender is a social construct, and gender roles are the result of ideology more than biology.
But the statement that needed substantiation was
I don't see how those views are reconcilable. Unless you are saying that male/female is only a biological description, but thats observably wrong, gender roles obviously exist.

Booooooooooooooooooring. This is shit even for social constructionists.

You seem to be a very silly and emotional person.

Gender roles are the result of biology, and can be observed in most other mammals, and even insects. The degree to which a society enforces said roles is the only thing constructed by society.

I refuse to watch more than 2 seconds.

...

but infertility is failure of organs designed for this purpose, whereas a man's repro system was never able to do this in the first place
How does that work exactly?

If you define sex by chromosomes, then it is non-binary due to the existence of mutations such as YY, XXY, etc.

If you define sex by sexual organs, then it is non-binary due to the existence of various mutations and growth anomalies.

Some people are complete fucking morons who deny reality and insist that it must conform to their particular preconceptions, and those people aren't the trannies. If you insist on placing particular words on a pedastal and declaring a fucking holy war on anyone who "misuses" those words, at least have the decency to come up with definitions which are based on quantifiable physical parameters rather than fucking feels. If you want a word to mean "has a penis", you better fucking stick to that definition rather than chopping and changing whenever it's convenient. If you want to claim that there are precisely two words which encompass all humans, you better fucking check that those definitions adhere to that assertion.

Everyone in these threads are fucking word-thinkers, and you should all hang yourselves, especially the feminists.

Sex is defined in the confines of normalcy. Mutations are irrelevant. We say that people with YY or XXY are abnormal-males or abnormal-females. we don't invent a new sex for them.

Yes, gender roles don't just pop out of nothing, and are certainly influenced by biology, but reducing it to pure biology is also not true. When Scottish men wear a kilt it's not a result of biology, nor when an American woman wears blue jeans. Societal enforcement or expectations are certainly a big part of this. Given the complexity of human biology we should not be surprised that some people feel alienated in their assigned roles.

Missing out. Ten minutes of a blond 'libertarian' talking to clerks about having her driver license altered, then complaining it wasn't difficult enough and needs more bureaucracy.

this.

Well it's rare but it does exist, the Wife of Iran's Shah was in this case. Basically your Y chromosome lack the gene responsible for initiating masculinization of the embryo trough large gene exchange between chromosomes (wish i remember the word). So the caryotype is XY but the phenotype is female.

Gulag yourself

I always wondered how some species had their x and y changed around.

I read turkeys have it that males are XX and females are XY, and unfertilized eggs turn 66% female and 33% male or something.

They conflated the two because it was too troublesome for their half baked ideology to actually come up with a clear delineation between the concepts instead of falling back on rhetorical power of victimhood and low and behold we are left with a half baked ideology, supported by sloganeering, contradictory assertions and clumsy, contrived metaphors as the only politically correct one to hold.

Extremely rare sexual malformation that is 100% of the time the result of a genetic abnormality. Yes, abnormality.

I completely agree, problem is that Holla Forums commonly seems to presume this to be the beginning and the end of gender theory.

ok so what more is there to it?

Can't I just go "ok gender was a thing of the past now you're all free to act the way you feel" and surpass the entire field of gender studies?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY
If there are curious people ITT.

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Études_de_genre
The French article is less shit tbh

...

...

Because gender is an abstract-real and actually influence the world? We'll likely never be "rid" of the societal roles that genders entail, they will most likely change dramatically under communism, but they'd still be there in more subtle forms.

Your question does not even make sense, just because most here would support freedom of religion, if not state atheism, that doesn't mean we won't have to study why people are religious.

...

Why shouldn't we? Or couldn't we? Once we define gender as everything that's disconnected from biology it seems very obvious to me that in the state of freedom that communism provides gender will be an obsolete construct, as everyone will act the way they like.

The religion example kind of proves my point, atheists say "God doesn't exist" and likewise we should say "gender doesn't exist", instead gender theorists say "we'll make our NEW genders and they will be WAY BETTER this time, you could only choose between two, ,now you can choose between 4 (5? 7? Infinite?)"

I'm all for studying gender in the same way an atheist studies religion, I'm against creating a new religion to replace the old one.

Drop that flag.