• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

BBC makes education films for small kids that claim there's over 100 genders. Imagine being forced to pay the government to make this shit.

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
5,087
4,527
740

This is indoctrination of the highest order and psychological torture of children in my book. Britons of course have to pay a TV license if they own a TV and the money goes to fund public broadcasting such as the BBC. I could never live in a place that forced me to pay so they could destroy civilized society. There seems to be some push-back but they'll of course brush it off as "nazis being nazis".
 

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
1,884
2,096
375
We only have to pay a TV license if; 1) we watch BBC and 2) we're too honest.

I've only paid for one years' worth of TV license when I lived in a house and I would watch BBC news with Charlie Stayt, Bill Turnbull and Suzanna Reid. Click was also a brilliant watch and so was the film review with Mark Komode.

Outside of that I never have and never will pay for a tv license. I don't know anyone who pays for the TV license nowadays. Mainly because the BBC has become a corporate propaganda machine that loves EU, the South and Non-Brits and hates the British, The North and Criticism of the EU
 

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,949
1,679
395
Imagine being forced to pay the government to make this shit.

Not hard to imagine, it's called taxes in the US. We pay politicians to say the shit that they say. Remember when Obama brought up the much debunked wage gap?
 
Last edited:

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
5,087
4,527
740
those programs are great for people like OP who still don't understand the difference b/t sex and gender =]
There's lots of weird and mentally ill people, but there's only two genders. Transgender people are proof of that, since you only hear about people transitioning to either become male or female and not to one of the 100 other made up genders.
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,275
1,939
530
those programs are great for people like OP who still don't understand the difference b/t sex and gender =]
the word gender has been used as a replacement for sex for about as long as the word has been used. People have only been trying to change it in the last 100 years.

c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)).

The "male-or-female sex" sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
 
Last edited:

ROMhack

Gold Member
Jul 14, 2018
1,982
1,820
590
I still don't understand why the BBC gets so much shit when it's contemporaries don't.

Sky News is like a clickbait website, all outrage and hot air.
Al Jazeera and RT have better 'debates' but are much more biased towards their respective nation states.

What's a better source of journalism in the UK? Reuters (web) and the FT (newspaper) are the only ones that seem so to me.

I do agree this is kinda weird though. We're putting a lot of pressure on children in the modern age and I expect mental health problems to increase because of it.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
People have only been trying to change it in the last 100 years.
Why say that like it's a bad thing, though?

Changing language to be more accurate to the actual meanings is the shit.
Understanding gender is cool. It's the hot thing right now.
Don't be gay about it, homie.

(Joking with the insult, obviously)



Teaching people there's more than two genders, and the differences between 'gender' and 'sex' is basically the same thing as telling kids to ignore the haters and be comfortable with themselves. There's no harm in it. It's just another form of letting people express themselves.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
Why say that like it's a bad thing, though?

Changing language to be more accurate to the actual meanings is the shit.
SNIP
Teaching people there's more than two genders, and the differences between 'gender' and 'sex' is basically the same thing as telling kids to ignore the haters and be comfortable with themselves. There's no harm in it. It's just another form of letting people express themselves.
Except it isn't. This one has far more legal implications than sexuality, tatoos, clothing, etc.

-can men enter female 'safe spaces' like rape crisis centers by saying they are a women? See the Canada case.

-wax my balls

-bathrooms

-sports. How soon til every female world record is washed away by a male and left so far in the stratosphere no female can reclaim it? How many scholorships meant for woman need to go to males?

-medicine. Some emergency treatments are different for men and women. What does ER do if someone clearly looks male but is listed as female? Will they get sued for properly treating them as male? or sued if they treat him as a her because of the ID and they die?

-time. Can someone switch daily and claim anyone a day behind is committing a hate crime?

-crime. Can a convicted sex molester movr to a new area, change their name and gender, and claim any warning system that points them out is 'dead naming' them and therefore simply escape their history

-child hormones. Is a parent committing abuse if they let them take hormones... or refuse them hormones?

That was off the top of my head, pre-coffee.

This is not just 'let people express themselves'. There are massive cultural and legal ramifications to this issue the left are actively ignoring and pretending it's just about people being themselves.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
Except it isn't. This one has far more legal implications than sexuality, tatoos, clothing, etc.

-can men enter female 'safe spaces' like rape crisis centers by saying they are a women? See the Canada case.

-wax my balls

-bathrooms

-sports. How soon til every female world record is washed away by a male and left so far in the stratosphere no female can reclaim it? How many scholorships meant for woman need to go to males?

-medicine. Some emergency treatments are different for men and women. What does ER do if someone clearly looks male but is listed as female? Will they get sued for properly treating them as male? or sued if they treat him as a her because of the ID and they die?

-time. Can someone switch daily and claim anyone a day behind is committing a hate crime?

-crime. Can a convicted sex molester movr to a new area, change their name and gender, and claim any warning system that points them out is 'dead naming' them and therefore simply escape their history

-child hormones. Is a parent committing abuse if they let them take hormones... or refuse them hormones?

That was off the top of my head, pre-coffee.

This is not just 'let people express themselves'. There are massive cultural and legal ramifications to this issue the left are actively ignoring and pretending it's just about people being themselves.
That's all solved by distinguishing the difference between gender and sex.
The culture is currently taking things too far by allowing biological men/women to be the opposite sex. That is definitely a problem.

Understanding that gender and sex are separate entities will solve all of those things you've listed. Letting people identify with a gender isn't the root cause of those issues.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: V4skunk
Mar 14, 2018
180
216
230
That's all solved by distinguishing the difference between gender and sex.
The culture is currently taking things too far by allowing biological men/women to be the opposite sex. That is definitely a problem.

Understanding that gender and sex are separate entities will solve all of those things you've listed. Letting people identify with a gender isn't the root cause of those issues.
Ideological nonsense. If gender isn't sex then it's vague magical thinking, 'whatever you believe is real'
 
Mar 14, 2018
180
216
230
I still don't understand why the BBC gets so much shit when it's contemporaries don't.

Sky News is like a clickbait website, all outrage and hot air.
Al Jazeera and RT have better 'debates' but are much more biased towards their respective nation states.
it's not one or the other? it's sensible to treat all sources with skepticism. State and coporate news outlets don't exist to give you accurate, unbiased information
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
Ideological nonsense. If gender isn't sex then it's vague magical thinking, 'whatever you believe is real'
You are incorrect.

Regardless of what it used to mean, the word "gender" has changed definitions in the past few years.

Nowadays, it refers to cultural norms and expectations, and nothing more. It's not the same thing as sex.
 
Last edited:
Mar 14, 2018
180
216
230
You're simply incorrect.

Regardless of what it used to mean, the word "gender" has changed definitions in the past few years.

Nowadays, it refers to cultural norms and expectations, and nothing more. It's not the same thing as sex.
It refers to that among a subset of the population that buys into the (absurd) theory. Most ordinary people don't.
 

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
3,291
1,599
475
Finland
those programs are great for people like OP who still don't understand the difference b/t sex and gender =]
It's odd though that if they are different then why people are using gender to change things that are based on sex?

Understanding that gender and sex are separate entities will solve all of those things you've listed. Letting people identify with a gender isn't the root cause of those issues.
The problem is that the people who say gender and sex are different are themselves using gender to change things that are about sex. People generally seem to even want to refer their sex as what they feel their gender is. If someone identifies as a female but was born male I would have to refer that person's sex as female too.

The words him and her are now seemingly completely connected to gender instead of sex. If a person's sex is male, it would be wrong to use that as the base of which word I'm going to use. To me it's very clear people are not trying to claim sex and gender are different things, but they are trying to change sex to be about person's identity too, essentially making gender be the same as sex. So whenever people are calling out others for not understanding sex and gender are different, they aren't doing that in good faith but are more trying to avoid the issue others are trying to discuss.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
That's all solved by distinguishing the difference between gender and sex.
The culture is currently taking things too far by allowing biological men/women to be the opposite sex. That is definitely a problem.

Understanding that gender and sex are separate entities will solve all of those things you've listed. Letting people identify with a gender isn't the root cause of those issues.
That doesn't solve anything. If a waxing salon puts up a sign:

"No males allowed."

Are they discriminating? Does it depend on whether they are using the 'sex: male' or the 'gender: male'?

In Canada, if someone gets accused of misgendering someone, can the accused simply say 'how could i be misgendering if i was talking about sex, not gender'?

Like i said, these are real issues and pretending they aren't with mental and linguistic acrobatics doesn't actually help anyone, you only make the problem worse.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
You are incorrect.

Regardless of what it used to mean, the word "gender" has changed definitions in the past few years.

Nowadays, it refers to cultural norms and expectations, and nothing more. It's not the same thing as sex.
No. Only those who have bought into wokeness have changed the definitions. It's a cult.

They've also changed the meaning of: fascism, racism, sexism, power, systemic, white supremacy, hate speech, free speech, British, illegal immigrant, nationalism, populism, patriotism, etc.

Control of language has always been a means of population control. Changing terms to form fit your own political ideology is linguistic tyranny. yes, terms can change naturally over time, like slang. This is not that.
 
Last edited:

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,275
1,939
530
Why say that like it's a bad thing, though?

Changing language to be more accurate to the actual meanings is the shit.
Understanding gender is cool. It's the hot thing right now.
Don't be gay about it, homie.

(Joking with the insult, obviously)



Teaching people there's more than two genders, and the differences between 'gender' and 'sex' is basically the same thing as telling kids to ignore the haters and be comfortable with themselves. There's no harm in it. It's just another form of letting people express themselves.
How is it making it more accurate? Gender means kind. So its describing the kind of human. We have used it to describe the kind of sex of a human for over 500 years. How is it more accurate to say that it is now the kind of human that they describe themselves to be, with an unlimited amount of genders? It is making he word useless. The people trying to change it are trying to confuse others on pronoun usage. Which have always been to describe sex and gender, since both have been interchangeable.

Lets take she, which is defined as a female not the speaker or hearer, used first in 1100s. First notice, it states female, as in the sex, not feminine as associated today with gender. The pronouns are associated with the sex of the individual as well as the gender, since they have the same meaning. The same goes for he as well. So forcing otheers to change pronoun usage is about sex, and not the incorrect definition of gender that is thrown around by Gender Theory followers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KojimaLovesMiyazaki
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
It refers to that among a subset of the population that buys into the (absurd) theory. Most ordinary people don't.
Gender has traditionally had nothing to do with sex. That only started up in the 1950s. Tons of people conflate the terms and it can create lots of confusion and issues; I'm not disagreeing there.
The recent movement to separate the two terms is more in line with achieving accuracy, and it's also the traditional use of the terms anyway. Mixing the two together is the new fad, and is also the incorrect one.

The problem is that the people who say gender and sex are different are themselves using gender to change things that are about sex. People generally seem to even want to refer their sex as what they feel their gender is. If someone identifies as a female but was born male I would have to refer that person's sex as female too.

The words him and her are now seemingly completely connected to gender instead of sex. If a person's sex is male, it would be wrong to use that as the base of which word I'm going to use. To me it's very clear people are not trying to claim sex and gender are different things, but they are trying to change sex to be about person's identity too, essentially making gender be the same as sex. So whenever people are calling out others for not understanding sex and gender are different, they aren't doing that in good faith but are more trying to avoid the issue others are trying to discuss.
I don't disagree with any of that. The confusing of the terms has created all kinds of issues, and probably will continue to do so until a balance is hopefully found.
A large part of the problem is that the people using the terms are also ignorant of their meanings. Regardless of a person's identity, that person either has XX or XY chromosomes (or XXY, XXX, etc. with birth defects; but those are outliers). They're either male or female, biologically. However they feel has nothing to do with it, which is why gender and sex should not be considered the same thing.

That doesn't solve anything. If a waxing salon puts up a sign:

"No males allowed."

Are they discriminating? Does it depend on whether they are using the 'sex: male' or the 'gender: male'?

In Canada, if someone gets accused of misgendering someone, can the accused simply say 'how could i be misgendering if i was talking about sex, not gender'?

Like i said, these are real issues and pretending they aren't with mental and linguistic acrobatics doesn't actually help anyone, you only make the problem worse.
Not allowing a certain part of the population is the epitome of discrimination, so yeah. I presume you're question is more in line with whether the salon has the right to do such a thing.
It's still an easily solvable problem though. Just change the wording around a bit: "No male genitalia allowed," and now there's no cause for concern (aside from losing a bunch of money, but that's up to the salon).

I'm not super familiar with Canada's laws, but what I've heard of does seem to be overly Draconian. "Misgendering" still implies confusing of the terms, though. Looking at a vagina and calling it a penis is mis-sexing, not mis-gendering. If people properly understood the differences between the terms, there would only be one way to misgender a person, and it wouldn't have anything to do with genitals.

That being said, punishing a person for using the wrong pronoun is a profoundly stupid idea.

There's no acrobatics involved. These are very easily fixable problems. It just takes a bit of education on the differences of the terms. Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing is part of why we're having these problems in the first place.

Control of language has always been a means of population control. Changing terms to form fit your own political ideology is linguistic tyranny. yes, terms can change naturally over time, like slang. This is not that.
Exactly. Which is why it's important to know that using "gender" to mean "sex" is a very new phenomenon. Almost all of history has understood they're clearly different things, and gender has nothing to do with genitals at all.

How is it making it more accurate? Gender means kind. So its describing the kind of human. We have used it to describe the kind of sex of a human for over 500 years. How is it more accurate to say that it is now the kind of human that they describe themselves to be, with an unlimited amount of genders? It is making he word useless. The people trying to change it are trying to confuse others on pronoun usage. Which have always been to describe sex and gender, since both have been interchangeable.

Lets take she, which is defined as a female not the speaker or hearer, used first in 1100s. First notice, it states female, as in the sex, not feminine as associated today with gender. The pronouns are associated with the sex of the individual as well as the gender, since they have the same meaning. The same goes for he as well. So forcing otheers to change pronoun usage is about sex, and not the incorrect definition of gender that is thrown around by Gender Theory followers.
Yes and no. Gender does mean "kind," but it doesn't mean "kind of person." It means "kind of behavior," which is a key difference. Gendered words exist for the sole purpose of identifying sex; but those differences are based upon observable behaviors and traits, not the actual genitals (outside of personal pronouns, which exist solely based on sex). But those behaviors and traits can easily shift to the other sex, depending on the culture; which is why gender is a term referring to cultural norms, rather than biology.

But even that isn't quite accurate, because it's only referring to living things. Gendered words can take on a whole different element when referring to non-living things. It's not all that prevalent in English, but other languages have tons of gendered words that have nothing to do with sexes. "El teatro" has absolutely no more relevance than "la teatra," other than the masculine form has been traditionally used. It could have easily been the other way around. And it does exist in English as well, which is why most people still assume a "nurse" is a woman, among many other examples. This type of gendering holds true for all sorts of things.

The color pink is considered 'for girls,' but it could easily have been 'for boys' if somebody changed their mind whenever the color started being used. Men used to wear tights, whereas now it's usually a girl thing. Men used to wear lots of jewelry and makeup and wigs, but that's usually used by girls now. Gender expectations can change on a dime, which is why they are not the same thing as sex, which is stable.

And how is queer a "gender"? so your gender is your gay? There is already a Q in the LGTBQ alphabet soup, why is being gay a gender now? Its a sexual orientation and separate from gender.
And this is a prime example of why more-specific language is needed.
"Queer" means odd or confusing. It doesn't mean gay. A gender-queer person is a person who is different from the other genders, which makes them the odd-person-out.





So to be clear, I'm not saying no problems exist. It's pretty obvious this whole gender-identity fad has gotten well beyond out of control. Things like the schooling mentioned in the OP, however, are a proper step to solving the problem. The more people who understand the differences between biological sex (which is only male/female, with birth-defects being the only exceptions) and gender (which can be essentially anything, depending on what words cultures use) the more easily these problems will be solved.

As I said originally, this type of lesson is aimed toward letting people just be themselves. Let boys wear dresses if they want do. Let girls get big and buff if they want to. Let boys have tassels on their bikes if they want to. Let girls play with GI Joe if they want to. It's just another way to eliminate some of these artificial barriers cultures have placed upon boys and girls, which have the intent of forcing people to think in certain ways. It shouldn't have anything to do with sex at all, which hopefully people will come to realize once such education becomes more commonplace.

That's not to say such a thing won't be misunderstood and abused, though. We've already seen how people confuse the terms and attempt to twist them into meanings that are inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
  • Triggered
Reactions: V4skunk

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
6,528
7,183
880
BBC wanting to out do the CBC. We were part of the commonwealth and the Queen is still our Queen so it makes sense.

also

These six are male, female, gender-neutral, non-binary, gender-fluid and gender-queer.

This is just trying to be special for special sake. What is the difference between Gender neutral, non-binary and gender fluid? They all pretty much say you are not male/female. And how is queer a "gender"? so your gender is your gay? There is already a Q in the LGTBQ alphabet soup, why is being gay a gender now? Its a sexual orientation and separate from gender.

There aren't 100 genders, there are 2 and then 98 ways of saying the same thing but trying to make people feel special and unique and like little snowflakes. Everyone has to have their own gender because we don't want to trigger anyone.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
bro your nuts. there's two genders/sexes cause 99.9% of humans fall neatly into one of the two thanks to chromosomes. social roles evolved with the biology

no amount of pseudoscience is gonna make it not so
It's not pseudoscience, bro. Two sexes = true. Two genders = false.

Across the world, all throughout history, social roles have evolved and changed, and sometimes even reversed. It's simple.
What's feminine/masculine in one country isn't even true across the world today. Insisting otherwise is just incorrect.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: V4skunk

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
6,528
7,183
880
It's not pseudoscience, bro. Two sexes = true. Two genders = false.

Across the world, all throughout history, social roles have evolved and changed, and sometimes even reversed. It's simple.
What's feminine/masculine in one country isn't even true across the world today. Insisting otherwise is just incorrect.
Does this not go against your two gender argument though?

Look if we all of a sudden decided that pink is for boys and spent the next 100 years reinforcing that, it still doesn't change pink=Male gender. I can buy that society can change what is traditionally feminine/masculine gender roles (all though I think that there is a biological component that operates outside of society), but switching pink to boys or trucks to girls doesn't add more genders, you are still operating on the 2 gender plane.

So if for some odd reason in Africa its a gender norm for I don't know girls to wear blue that doesn't all of a sudden create some 3rd gender or 75th gender. Its still male/female, just reversing the normal roles that we are used to.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
Does this not go against your two gender argument though?

Look if we all of a sudden decided that pink is for boys and spent the next 100 years reinforcing that, it still doesn't change pink=Male gender. I can buy that society can change what is traditionally feminine/masculine gender roles (all though I think that there is a biological component that operates outside of society), but switching pink to boys or trucks to girls doesn't add more genders, you are still operating on the 2 gender plane.

So if for some odd reason in Africa its a gender norm for I don't know girls to wear blue that doesn't all of a sudden create some 3rd gender or 75th gender. Its still male/female, just reversing the normal roles that we are used to.
But then you have people who wear pink and blue, so the binary breaks down. That's where the other genders come into play.

Ideally, there wouldn't be any genders at all, and people would just be people. The need for society to place labels upon things is essentially a limitation, rather than actually accurate.

I don't think adding more and more and more labels to the equation is necessarily the solution, but it's at least better than insisting only two genders exist.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: V4skunk
Mar 14, 2018
180
216
230
But then you have people who wear pink and blue, so the binary breaks down. That's where the other genders come into play.

Ideally, there wouldn't be any genders at all, and people would just be people. The need for society to place labels upon things is essentially a limitation, rather than actually accurate.

I don't think adding more and more and more labels to the equation is necessarily the solution, but it's at least better than insisting only two genders exist.
yeesh.

It would entertain me if you could give a definition of what a "gender" actually is in your mind? If not peepee v vageegee, XX v XY?

just a random, arbitrary, ever-expanding collection of social roles? or... wha?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
6,528
7,183
880
But then you have people who wear pink and blue, so the binary breaks down. That's where the other genders come into play.

Ideally, there wouldn't be any genders at all, and people would just be people. The need for society to place labels upon things is essentially a limitation, rather than actually accurate.

I don't think adding more and more and more labels to the equation is necessarily the solution, but it's at least better than insisting only two genders exist.
Or we can just have Sex, Male/Female, and you can wear pink/blue/green clean the house or work at a bank at it doesn't change if you are a male or female.

If someone identifies their gender as a women does that mean all of a sudden they can't like cars, wear blue, and have to become stay at home "moms"? Thats stupid. Women can work, enjoy cars, wear any color they want.

And if you don't like the color blue that doesn't mean you are non-binary, it just means you don't like a certain color.

Creating labels is just a way to try and create more protected classes and shoe horn people into those classes so they can be victims now. Oh I never liked wearing the color blue I must be a pansexual non binary gender fluid two spirit asexual.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
Or we can just have Sex, Male/Female, and you can wear pink/blue/green clean the house or work at a bank at it doesn't change if you are a male or female.

If someone identifies their gender as a women does that mean all of a sudden they can't like cars, wear blue, and have to become stay at home "moms"? Thats stupid. Women can work, enjoy cars, wear any color they want.

And if you don't like the color blue that doesn't mean you are non-binary, it just means you don't like a certain color.

Creating labels is just a way to try and create more protected classes and shoe horn people into those classes so they can be victims now. Oh I never liked wearing the color blue I must be a pansexual non binary gender fluid two spirit asexual.
Yeah, I agree with all of that. Getting rids of labels entirely would be ideal.

But if we're going to have labels, they should at least be more accurate than the basic binary boy/girl.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
6,528
7,183
880
Yeah, I agree with all of that. Getting rids of labels entirely would be ideal.

But if we're going to have labels, they should at least be more accurate than the basic binary boy/girl.
Ok so you have boy/girl, and then if you feel like neither non-binary.

What else is there though? If you aren't a boy or a girl or none then what other gender's are there? A term like gender fluid I figure means you can be a boy one day and a girl the next day, but in the end you are still falling into the boy/girl label.

Just wondering what other labels are needed outside of boy, girl, nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
Ok so you have boy/girl, and then if you feel like neither non-binary.

What else is there though? If you aren't a boy or a girl or none then what other gender's are there? A term like gender fluid I figure means you can be a boy one day and a girl the next day, but in the end you are still falling into the boy/girl label.

Just wondering what other labels are needed outside of boy, girl, nothing.
None. We don't need any of them at all. Gender fluid is just an attempt for people to justify why they like both "boy stuff" and "girl stuff," which is should just be "stuff." As I said, a lot of the people who use the terms are ignorant of the meanings themselves. They're stuck trying to fit into a label, when there shouldn't be a label in the first place.

So the "solution" is the create tons and tons of labels, so there's something that fits every possible permutation. That's how we end up with the 100+ genders mentioned in the OP. It's a combination of all kinds of factors, all attempting to be correct and accurate, when the real solution is to simply get rid of the labels entirely. Conflating gender with sex is just another variable into the mix, which causes even more confusion.
 

eot

Member
Apr 13, 2012
9,993
344
605
Yeah, I agree with all of that. Getting rids of labels entirely would be ideal.

But if we're going to have labels, they should at least be more accurate than the basic binary boy/girl.
Those labels are used because that's how we identify people, how we see other people. How you personally identify isn't how other people see you, and therefore not how other people label you. You can't force someone to think of you the way you think of yourself.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
6,528
7,183
880
None. We don't need any of them at all. Gender fluid is just an attempt for people to justify why they like both "boy stuff" and "girl stuff," which is should just be "stuff." As I said, a lot of the people who use the terms are ignorant of the meanings themselves. They're stuck trying to fit into a label, when there shouldn't be a label in the first place.

So the "solution" is the create tons and tons of labels, so there's something that fits every possible permutation. That's how we end up with the 100+ genders mentioned in the OP. It's a combination of all kinds of factors, all attempting to be correct and accurate, when the real solution is to simply get rid of the labels entirely. Conflating gender with sex is just another variable into the mix, which causes even more confusion.
Well I think we agree. You are either biological male or biological female. What you wear/like/do for a job has nothing to do with your sex. You can be a girl who loves blue, working on cars, fixing the plumbing while your husband stays at home and changes diapers all day.
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,275
1,939
530
Yes and no. Gender does mean "kind," but it doesn't mean "kind of person." It means "kind of behavior," which is a key difference. Gendered words exist for the sole purpose of identifying sex; but those differences are based upon observable behaviors and traits, not the actual genitals (outside of personal pronouns, which exist solely based on sex). But those behaviors and traits can easily shift to the other sex, depending on the culture; which is why gender is a term referring to cultural norms, rather than biology.

But even that isn't quite accurate, because it's only referring to living things. Gendered words can take on a whole different element when referring to non-living things. It's not all that prevalent in English, but other languages have tons of gendered words that have nothing to do with sexes. "El teatro" has absolutely no more relevance than "la teatra," other than the masculine form has been traditionally used. It could have easily been the other way around. And it does exist in English as well, which is why most people still assume a "nurse" is a woman, among many other examples. This type of gendering holds true for all sorts of things.
You are confusing "natural gender", which most people think of when the word is used, with "grammatical gender". The word she denotes "natural gender", it doesn't have a grammatical gender, since English does not use grammatical gender.


Grammatical gender is found in many Indo-European languages (including Spanish, French, Russian, and German — but not Persian or English, for example), Afroasiatic languages (which includes the Semitic and Berber languages, etc.), and in other language families such as Dravidian and Northeast Caucasian, as well as several Australian Aboriginal languages such as Dyirbal, and Kalaw Lagaw Ya. Most Niger–Congo languages also have extensive systems of noun classes, which can be grouped into several grammatical genders. Conversely, grammatical gender is usually absent from the Koreanic, Japonic, Tungusic, Turkic, Mongolic, Austronesian, Sino-Tibetan, Uralic and most Native American language families.[8] Modern English makes use of gender in pronouns, which are generally marked for natural gender, but lacks a system of gender concord within the noun phrase which is one of the central elements of grammatical gender in most other Indo-European languages.[9]
Gender has traditionally had nothing to do with sex. That only started up in the 1950s.
I already showed you that the word has traditionally been interchangeable with sex.
the word gender has been used as a replacement for sex for about as long as the word has been used. People have only been trying to change it in the last 100 years.


c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)).

The "male-or-female sex" sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr
Mar 14, 2018
180
216
230
Well I think we agree. You are either biological male or biological female. What you wear/like/do for a job has nothing to do with your sex. You can be a girl who loves blue, working on cars, fixing the plumbing while your husband stays at home and changes diapers all day.
yeah until CHAD shows up
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
Not allowing a certain part of the population is the epitome of discrimination, so yeah. I presume you're question is more in line with whether the salon has the right to do such a thing.
Discrimination is not bad in and of itself.

It's still an easily solvable problem though. Just change the wording around a bit: "No male genitalia allowed," and now there's no cause for concern (aside from losing a bunch of money, but that's up to the salon).
No, you still have not solved anything, and claiming it's "easily solvable" by changing the wording is incorrect.

Easy example: the rape crisis center in Canada that does not want anyone born male inside. Those trans may not have "male genetalia" anymore because they cut it off, but they are still male, and still prohibited.

No matter how many times you claim this is easy to solve, you are wrong.

Furthermore, when your "easy solution" requires the entire population to bow to your definitions, word usage, and ideology, you are a tyrant. No, i will not use your words, not because i choose to be phobic, or discriminatory, but because you tell me I must. No. Fuck off with these new definitions, i will not kneel to intersectionalism.

There's no acrobatics involved. These are very easily fixable problems. It just takes a bit of education on the differences of the terms. Insisting that gender and sex are the same thing is part of why we're having these problems in the first place.
If your solution begins and ends with reeducation camps, you are hilariously authoritarian. Even if you gussy them up as 'diversity training'.


Exactly. Which is why it's important to know that using "gender" to mean "sex" is a very new phenomenon. Almost all of history has understood they're clearly different things, and gender has nothing to do with genitals at all.
You are in too deep. This is what happens when we play fast and loose with history.
 
Last edited:

Durask

Member
Feb 6, 2012
1,516
290
595
You are incorrect.

Regardless of what it used to mean, the word "gender" has changed definitions in the past few years.

Nowadays, it refers to cultural norms and expectations, and nothing more. It's not the same thing as sex.
If it is cultural norms and expectations then why do some people take hormones and other drugs to change these norms and expectations?
 
Last edited:

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,166
1,199
375
That's all solved by distinguishing the difference between gender and sex.
The culture is currently taking things too far by allowing biological men/women to be the opposite sex. That is definitely a problem.

Understanding that gender and sex are separate entities will solve all of those things you've listed. Letting people identify with a gender isn't the root cause of those issues.
Genuine question. If gender is different from sex, what does unisex mean, e.g. unisex fashion?
 

KojimaLovesMiyazaki

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
14,458
23,232
1,400
Australia
When the gender bending nonsense first kicked off in the David Bowie / Annie Lennox era, it was called androgyny. Then they changed it to gender expression. Now they’ve dropped the expression qualifier, likely because it implies that it’s a choice. It’s self-evident that the end goal was always to dismantle societal structures altogether and the incremental linguistic encroachment was purposeful. Imagine trying to jump straight to convincing people that gender and sex are different things when the Vietnam War is going on. You’d be laughed at and put in a dunce cap. Unfortunately, the ideologues have been allowed to spend the last 40-50 years locked away in universities sharpening their tools, so they’re prepared. They’re not stupid, they’re just ideological and in many cases bitter about being at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Combined with the external conditions being the softest they’ve ever been, it’s the perfect storm to convince the smoothbrains that gender and sex are interchangeable. Then from there we see the unravelling of society as autoduelist autoduelist described above.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
Those labels are used because that's how we identify people, how we see other people. How you personally identify isn't how other people see you, and therefore not how other people label you. You can't force someone to think of you the way you think of yourself.
Currently, that's true.
In a hundred years, after schools are flooded with teachings about multiple genders, I have doubts whether that will still be the case.

You are confusing "natural gender", which most people think of when the word is used, with "grammatical gender". The word she denotes "natural gender", it doesn't have a grammatical gender, since English does not use grammatical gender.


I already showed you that the word has traditionally been interchangeable with sex.
I'm not confusing them. I specifically mentioned how English uses gendered personal pronouns to identify sex. Then I gave examples of how other languages take the gendered words further.

And then I showed how the word has NOT been traditionally interchangeable, and it started back in the 1950s. Surely you've heard heard the stupid joke of "Yes please!" when a legal document asks for your sex? Switching that word to "gender" across all documents is a very new thing. I already posted it, but here you go.
"Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories."
It has not been interchangeable for much time at all. I didn't confuse anything at all.

Yes, gender has been used to describe sex-based norms. Occasionally, the two can coincidentally be used interchangeably, but they are not inherently the same thing.


No, you still have not solved anything, and claiming it's "easily solvable" by changing the wording is incorrect.

Easy example: the rape crisis center in Canada that does not want anyone born male inside. Those trans may not have "male genetalia" anymore because they cut it off, but they are still male, and still prohibited.

No matter how many times you claim this is easy to solve, you are wrong.

Furthermore, when your "easy solution" requires the entire population to bow to your definitions, word usage, and ideology, you are a tyrant. No, i will not use your words, not because i choose to be phobic, or discriminatory, but because you tell me I must. No. Fuck off with these new definitions, i will not bow to intersectionalism.

If your solution begins and ends with reeducation camps, you are hilariously authoritarian. Even if you gussy them up as 'diversity training'.

You are in too deep. This is what happens when we play fast and loose with history.
You certainly love your hyperbole.

Fine. Change my original "genitalia" to whichever chromosomes you want to discriminate against. Problem solved. It's still just a wording issue, which is easy to solve.

I'm not soft enough to be bothered by referring to a person by whatever word they want to be called. If you want me to refer to you as an Apache helicopter, I'll go ahead and call you that. If you're so stubborn you refuse to call a person by whatever random word they prefer, then I'll just tell you to settle down, young lady, and we can move on.

Educating people to let go of their expectations and just go with the flow is not tyrannical, it's liberating. It's just information; you can choose to use it at your own discretion.


If it is cultural norms and expectations then why do some people take hormones and other drugs to change these norms and expectations?
Because they're trying to change their sex, or at least the appearance of their sex, to better fit in with whichever label they identify with. The labels are problematic in that regard as well.


Genuine question. If gender is different from sex, what does unisex mean, e.g. unisex fashion?
It means fashion that looks good on men and women (though usually neither, honestly). If I'm gathering what you're hinting at, then yes, "unigender" would be a more accurate term, most of the time.





I feel like I need to reiterate here, because I'm trying to keep up with like 10 people:
Two sexes = true
Two genders = false
Gender ≠ Sex

Adding a massive list of genders to the lexicon is only sliiiiiiightly better than limiting it to two.
The ideal scenario is to eliminate gender expectations entirely, and to just let people do their own thing.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: V4skunk

eot

Member
Apr 13, 2012
9,993
344
605
When the gender bending nonsense first kicked off in the David Bowie / Annie Lennox era, it was called androgyny. Then they changed it to gender expression. Now they’ve dropped the expression qualifier, likely because it implies that it’s a choice. It’s self-evident that the end goal was always to dismantle societal structures altogether and the incremental linguistic encroachment was purposeful. Imagine trying to jump straight to convincing people that gender and sex are different things when the Vietnam War is going on. You’d be laughed at and put in a dunce cap. Unfortunately, the ideologues have been allowed to spend the last 40-50 years locked away in universities sharpening their tools, so they’re prepared. They’re not stupid, they’re just ideological and in many cases bitter about being at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Combined with the external conditions being the softest they’ve ever been, it’s the perfect storm to convince the smoothbrains that gender and sex are interchangeable. Then from there we see the unravelling of society as autoduelist autoduelist described above.
How do you hotlink a user like that without manually typing in their user id?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KojimaLovesMiyazaki

KojimaLovesMiyazaki

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
14,458
23,232
1,400
Australia
It's still an easily solvable problem though. Just change the wording around a bit: "No male genitalia allowed," and now there's no cause for concern (aside from losing a bunch of money, but that's up to the salon).
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read here in a long time. You’re the one trying to argue that gender and sex are different things with sex referring to biology. By your own logic, including the word genitalia is redundant. You’re creating a problem then trying to solve it and failing.