• 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.

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,275
1,939
530
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.
Funny how the Wikipedia page doesn't mention that the first use of gender to mean biological sex was in the 1500s. Probably because it destroys their narrative that it was only recently used that way.

Also a weird way to phrase this section:

The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history.[14] The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades.[14] The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[15]
Of course the concept of separating gender from sex is recent. People like Money, who's studies were highly damaging to the individuals involved, were trying to change the connotation. The wiki even states that sex has been a definition of gender since at least 1900, at least going by the OED.

The Oxford Etymological Dictionary of the English Language of 1882 defined gender as kind, breed, sex, derived from the Latin ablative case of genus, like genere natus, which refers to birth.[13] The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED1, Volume 4, 1900) notes the original meaning of gender as "kind" had already become obsolete.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
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.
I was wondering when you'd pop in with your insults and lack of substance.
Thanks for trying Matthew, but the adults are talking now.

In b4 cunt.


Funny how the Wikipedia page doesn't mention that the first use of gender to mean biological sex was in the 1500s. Probably because it destroys their narrative that it was only recently used that way.

Also a weird way to phrase this section:

Of course the concept of separating gender from sex is recent. People like Money, who's studies were highly damaging to the individuals involved, were trying to change the connotation. The wiki even states that sex has been a definition of gender since at least 1900, at least going by the OED.
The 1500s is still pretty recent, relatively speaking. I'll admit I got sidetracked with the etymology of the word, because linguistic studies is fascinating to me, but the word's history is still beside the point. Regardless of what it used to mean, or when the meaning changed, the point is that it's undergoing a change. Gender and sex no longer mean the same thing, regardless of whether they actually ever did in the first place.

The simple fact is that binary relationships are not an accurate way to describe humanity. Not all men like women, and not all women like men. Not all men like to do manly things, and not all women like to do womanly things. And even what's considered manly or womanly is bound to change at nearly any moment. Adding a million labels doesn't really help the issue either, but it's at least better than trying to insist that only two labels exist. Again, the ideal scenario is to avoid gender expectations entirely. At least aiming for a ton of genders allows people to feel a bit more comfortable with breaking the expectations; even though the extra labels aren't a very good solution.
 

Derekloffin

Member
Jun 17, 2013
523
144
465
Honestly, if there are 100 'genders', then 'gender' as a concept is useless outside of academy, and of only trivial use even there. More likely it is just a completely arbitrary categorization then is trying to gain importance by tying itself to sex by cooping the term gender when it has no real importance itself and doesn't really conform to the traditional meaning of gender.
 

KojimaLovesMiyazaki

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
14,458
23,232
1,400
Australia
I was wondering when you'd pop in with your insults and lack of substance.
Thanks for trying Matthew, but the adults are talking now.

In b4 cunt.




The 1500s is still pretty recent, relatively speaking. I'll admit I got sidetracked with the etymology of the word, because linguistic studies is fascinating to me, but the word's history is still beside the point. Regardless of what it used to mean, or when the meaning changed, the point is that it's undergoing a change. Gender and sex no longer mean the same thing, regardless of whether they actually ever did in the first place.

The simple fact is that binary relationships are not an accurate way to describe humanity. Not all men like women, and not all women like men. Not all men like to do manly things, and not all women like to do womanly things. And even what's considered manly or womanly is bound to change at nearly any moment. Adding a million labels doesn't really help the issue either, but it's at least better than trying to insist that only two labels exist. Again, the ideal scenario is to avoid gender expectations entirely. At least aiming for a ton of genders allows people to feel a bit more comfortable with breaking the expectations; even though the extra labels aren't a very good solution.
I give about as much credence to your arguments as a WBC member picketing on a street corner. You're not arguing from science; you're arguing from ideology. You're simply not worth the effort.
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,275
1,939
530
The 1500s is still pretty recent, relatively speaking. I'll admit I got sidetracked with the etymology of the word, because linguistic studies is fascinating to me, but the word's history is still beside the point. Regardless of what it used to mean, or when the meaning changed, the point is that it's undergoing a change. Gender and sex no longer mean the same thing, regardless of whether they actually ever did in the first place.

It's not recent relatively speaking when you consider the first use of the word in English was in the 1200s.

The simple fact is that binary relationships are not an accurate way to describe humanity. Not all men like women, and not all women like men. Not all men like to do manly things, and not all women like to do womanly things.
But 99% of humans are men or women.

And even what's considered manly or womanly is bound to change at nearly any moment. Adding a million labels doesn't really help the issue either, but it's at least better than trying to insist that only two labels exist. Again, the ideal scenario is to avoid gender expectations entirely. At least aiming for a ton of genders allows people to feel a bit more comfortable with breaking the expectations; even though the extra labels aren't a very good solution.
Thats why we have phrases like gender norms, gender roles, or the one you used gender expectations. Gender is being used as an adjective describing the role or norm. Gender still means manly or womanly in that usage. It doesn't mean xirly.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
It's not recent relatively speaking when you consider the first use of the word in English was in the 1200s.

But 99% of humans are men or women.

Thats why we have phrases like gender norms, gender roles, or the one you used gender expectations. Gender is being used as an adjective describing the role or norm. Gender still means manly or womanly in that usage. It doesn't mean xirly.
I keep finding myself agreeing with you. I'm just taking it a small step further.

Binary labels fit almost everybody. The people that those labels don't fit, though, don't deserve to be excluded for being different. The extra labels are just a way to attempt to keep with the labeling mechanism. It's not an ideal solution, but it's better than insisting those people don't exist, or are wrong, or anything else.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
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.
My word, you are disingenuous. You keep saying this is "easy to solve", yet every time i or someone else points out the problem with your wording, you just change wording and tell us it's easy to solve again.

Here's a hint: if it was easy to solve you would have got it right the first time. or the second time.

The fact is, it's impossible to solve with words. There is no verbiage for that sign outside the Rape Crisis Center that would satisfy trans activists. No amount of word play can solve the issue that this crisis center does not want biologically born men within its walls. No talking about chromosomes, genitalia, gender, or sex will solve it, because it is an ideological difference.

You are so deeply embedded in your own ideology that you cannot see why a simple word change can't solve it.

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.
And again, you show that you are not equipped to partake in this conversation. I don't care if Joe wants to be called Jane, and I have no issue calling Joe Jane. This is about the cultural and legal ramifications of enacting gender Theory into law.

Note that I listed a slew of issues off the top of my head early in this thread and rather than discuss any head on, you tell us how easy it is to solve without solving any of them. This is the failure of your ideology. This is exactly what I said would happen in that post listing issues;

My quote:
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.
Back to you:
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.
As long as it's your flow. Intersectionalism is a tyrannical memetic virus, always demanding the knee. Accept, and it will be easy. Defy and be cast out.

You are at peace with cognitive dissonance, don't see the lies in your own words, don't hear the authoritarian commands in your requirements that anyone who disagrees with you must simply be reeducated to go with the flow.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
Just start typing @ and then the username, it'll autocomplete.
I have found that when i do this, i need to click a random place on the text then back to where i was or else part pof it gets replaced.

For example, if i try to autocomplete 'evilore is evilore.' i will get

@evilois @Evievilo.

Odd, right? It replaces part of your name with 'is', then the second time with 'evilo.' It looks fine til i tap the next letter. I am using brave on a samsung tablet, though iirc i had the same issue with chrome. If i autocomplete then tap away and back it works.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
23,075
21,487
2,145
I have found that when i do this, i need to click a random place on the text then back to where i was or else part pof it gets replaced.

For example, if i try to autocomplete 'evilore is evilore.' i will get

@evilois @Evievilo.

Odd, right? It replaces part of your name with 'is', then the second time with 'evilo.' I am using brave on a samsung tablet, though iirc i had the same issue with chrome. If i autocomplete then tap away and back it works.
Yeah, that's strange. Every browser behaves a little differently though.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,120
378
1,015
There is no verbiage for that sign outside the Rape Crisis Center that would satisfy trans activists. No amount of word play can solve the issue that this crisis center does not want biologically born men within its walls. No talking about chromosomes, genitalia, gender, or sex will solve it, because it is an ideological difference.

You are so deeply embedded in your own ideology that you cannot see why a simple word change can't solve it.
You act like I'm agreeing with the trans activists. I'm not. You're projecting against an argument that isn't there.
I'm not in the business of making signs which discriminate against people. Coming up with the proper way to tell certain people to fuck off isn't my forte, so sorry for getting it wrong a few times.
If a person in a salon doesn't want to wax somebody's balls, putting up a sign that says "no balls," or "no genitals" or "no XY" or whatever it happens to be, is an easy solution. It's just a few different letters. It is the spitting definition of an easily solvable issue.

If my ideology is "let people be themselves," then yeah, I'm deeply embedded. If it's something else, which you seem to think it is, then I'm not embedded.


And again, you show that you are not equipped to partake in this conversation. I don't care if Joe wants to be called Jane, and I have no issue calling Joe Jane. This is about the cultural and legal ramifications of enacting gender Theory into law.

Note that I listed a slew of issues off the top of my head early in this thread and rather than discuss any head on, you tell us how easy it is to solve without solving any of them. This is the failure of your ideology. This is exactly what I said would happen in that post listing issues;
Yeah, we're saying the same thing. The only difference is that you're confusing sex with gender, which are not the same thing.
Creating laws based on sex, or chromosomes, is the way to go. Whatever gender a person identifies will be rendered completely void if the law targets sex instead.

Legal wording is always a bit tricky by default, but it's still an easy issue, relatively speaking. We're not currently seeing proper laws, because all of the online bitching and name-calling which pressures senators, but it's not an inherently difficult problem.


As long as it's your flow. Intersectionalism is a tyrannical memetic virus, always demanding the knee. Accept, and it will be easy. Defy and be cast out.

You are at peace with cognitive dissonance, don't see the lies in your own words, don't hear the authoritarian commands in your requirements that anyone who disagrees with you must simply be reeducated to go with the flow.
The only thing authoritarian about my words is insisting that men and women have biological differences (which is true). It also appears to be what you're arguing, so welcome to the authority team.
The rest of "argument" is that people are mentally different, and letting people express themselves however they want doesn't hurt anybody, provided we maintain that sexes are measurable and different. It's the precise opposite of authority. Hell, it's practically anarchy.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
If my ideology is "let people be themselves," then yeah, I'm deeply embedded. If it's something else, which you seem to think it is, then I'm not embedded.
I don't think anyone is telling people not to be themselves. That isn't the conversation or the debate. We are talking about the legal ramifications of what you are saying, which you refuse to meet head on.
 

KojimaLovesMiyazaki

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
14,458
23,232
1,400
Australia
You act like I'm agreeing with the trans activists. I'm not. You're projecting against an argument that isn't there.
I'm not in the business of making signs which discriminate against people. Coming up with the proper way to tell certain people to fuck off isn't my forte, so sorry for getting it wrong a few times.
If a person in a salon doesn't want to wax somebody's balls, putting up a sign that says "no balls," or "no genitals" or "no XY" or whatever it happens to be, is an easy solution. It's just a few different letters. It is the spitting definition of an easily solvable issue.

If my ideology is "let people be themselves," then yeah, I'm deeply embedded. If it's something else, which you seem to think it is, then I'm not embedded.



Yeah, we're saying the same thing. The only difference is that you're confusing sex with gender, which are not the same thing.
Creating laws based on sex, or chromosomes, is the way to go. Whatever gender a person identifies will be rendered completely void if the law targets sex instead.

Legal wording is always a bit tricky by default, but it's still an easy issue, relatively speaking. We're not currently seeing proper laws, because all of the online bitching and name-calling which pressures senators, but it's not an inherently difficult problem.



The only thing authoritarian about my words is insisting that men and women have biological differences (which is true). It also appears to be what you're arguing, so welcome to the authority team.
The rest of "argument" is that people are mentally different, and letting people express themselves however they want doesn't hurt anybody, provided we maintain that sexes are measurable and different. It's the precise opposite of authority. Hell, it's practically anarchy.
You’re not agreeing with the trans activists, you’re just parroting all of their ideological beliefs. Sure.
 

Durask

Member
Feb 6, 2012
1,516
290
595
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.
What is the point of multiple genders?

If I meet someone and they say "I am gender m54womanx" - it will not give me any useful information.
Once again I say the reason for that is power - if you indentify as some made up gender and force other people to acknowledge you and address you a certain way, then this is simply an exercise in petty power, backed by coercive power of the state.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
4,572
3,841
440
They forgot some..... People Who Only Feel Sexual When............

MWFSu: it's Mondays, Weds, Fri and Sun

TThSa: it's Tuesdays, Thur, and Sat

Holisexual: it's a holiday

Moonies: there's a full moon

Self-Mono-Nakies: they are naked

At-Mono-Nakies: their partner is naked

Poly Plural-Nakies: both people are naked

Self-Mono-Textilers: they are fully clothed

At-Mono-Textilers: their partner is fully clothed

Poly Plural-Textilers: both are fully clothed

Light Lovers: the lights are on

Demon Lovers: it's pitch black

Dimmers: the lights are half on using dimmer switches

Photosynthesizers: the lights are on and it comes from sunlight

AC-DC: the lights are on and it comes from an electrical current

Bloaties: they just finished a buffet

Twitter-exsual: they find a unique sexual variation in hopes their situation is the only one in the world, so they can go on Twitter and say "look at me!"

Clicker: they find a unique sexual variation in hopes their situation is the only one in the world, so they can go on Twitter and say "look at me!".... and ask people to Like, Upvote or Share their announcement on social media for extra attention
 
Last edited:

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
3,291
1,599
475
Finland
But then you have people who wear pink and blue, so the binary breaks down. That's where the other genders come into play.
So gender is essentially what you wear and what your hobbies are?

Technically with the same logic if, say, loving heavy metal and being a "metalhead" would be societally more a male "role", then if someone wears black and listens a lot of heavy metal, one's gender must be metalhead.

This is the logic we see a lot today. People look at their hobbies and the colors they like and the feelings they feel and look at others and think, "hey, what I like seems to be what my gender traditionally doesn't most often like, so that must mean my gender is something else." And that is just stupid, especially when people start to cut off their genitalia and men demanding to compete with women and vice versa in sports because of it.

Hobbies, habits and fashion have become the base of gender and that is stupid.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,068
3,292
720
I don't have a problem of giving this sort of perspective on genders.
What I find totally unacceptable, though, is when it is presented as an indisputable fact.
 

crowbrow

Gold Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,325
1,775
545
This is why people can't take these proposals seriously. 100 genders sounds so arbitrarily absurd. Why not 200 or 1000? This obssesion with categorizing everyone is so stupid and just makes everything appear to be a joke. I agree gender is a fluid trait that relies on cultural inputs to manifest its different aspects but from that to get to "there are 100 genders" makes something that should be easy to explain and understand seem convoluted and easy to make fun of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #Phonepunk#
Dec 15, 2011
4,548
10,208
980
The whole gender != sex is garbage tier obfuscation.

It ignores biology, science, genetics and all of the entire animal kingdom throughout recorded history.

It's used as smokescreen to suggest something incredibly straightforward and direct is extremely complex and difficult to understand. When it is put against myriad real-world challenges the obfuscator merely doubles-down, adding more and more layers of smoke-screen. Eventually eschewing all reason whatsoever and falling back on emotional projection.

People want to feel special. For good or for bad. The idea that they aren't some unique being, facing unique challenges and triumphs that society needs to recognise on their behalf is a notion that is unbearable to them. Hence the descent into reason-free histrionics we increasingly see.

When life is so comfy, you put all your energy into creating problems. Get over yourself.
 

DocONally

Member
Oct 21, 2014
1,613
1,201
500
So gender is essentially what you wear and what your hobbies are?

Technically with the same logic if, say, loving heavy metal and being a "metalhead" would be societally more a male "role", then if someone wears black and listens a lot of heavy metal, one's gender must be metalhead.

This is the logic we see a lot today. People look at their hobbies and the colors they like and the feelings they feel and look at others and think, "hey, what I like seems to be what my gender traditionally doesn't most often like, so that must mean my gender is something else." And that is just stupid, especially when people start to cut off their genitalia and men demanding to compete with women and vice versa in sports because of it.

Hobbies, habits and fashion have become the base of gender and that is stupid.
Great post. Thumbs up. I would call myself a metalhead. But I hate group think no matter what. You live with the dissonance, man, you find your own way.

It's just a fashion, a trend, a fad. Growing up before identity politics and the Internet, you figured all this stuff out in your head and got on with your life. You didn't change your gender.

But for this reason I've given up attacking the issue. I see the generational difference setting in. When the Alphabet People/Soy Millennials have kids, those kids will rebel against it all anyway and change it all again.

I disagree strongly with linguistic policing though. You want to be LGBTQ on Facebook? You go for it, er, girl! I'll support that. But I also desire to call you what I want without fear of persecution and/or prosecution.

Semantically, gender and sex can mean the same thing. Male or female.
 
Last edited:

KojimaLovesMiyazaki

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
14,458
23,232
1,400
Australia
Great post. Thumbs up. I would call myself a metalhead. But I hate group think no matter what. You live with the dissonance, man, you find your own way.

It's just a fashion, a trend, a fad. Growing up before identity politics and the Internet, you figured all this stuff out in your head and got on with your life. You didn't change your gender.

But for this reason I've given up attacking the issue. I see the generational difference setting in. When the Alphabet People/Soy Millennials have kids, those kids will rebel against it all anyway and change it all again.

I disagree strongly with linguistic policing though. You want to be LGBTQ on Facebook? You go for it, er, girl! I'll support that. But I also desire to call you what I want without fear of persecution and/or prosecution.

Semantically gender and sex can mean the same thing. Male or female.
Well the great thing about the Alphabet People problem is it’s self-solving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocONally

slugbahr

Gold Member
Jan 4, 2019
1,304
1,759
510
The edge of a circle
They forgot some..... People Who Only Feel Sexual When............

MWFSu: it's Mondays, Weds, Fri and Sun

TThSa: it's Tuesdays, Thur, and Sat

Holisexual: it's a holiday

Moonies: there's a full moon

Self-Mono-Nakies: they are naked

At-Mono-Nakies: their partner is naked

Poly Plural-Nakies: both people are naked

Self-Mono-Textilers: they are fully clothed

At-Mono-Textilers: their partner is fully clothed

Poly Plural-Textilers: both are fully clothed

Light Lovers: the lights are on

Demon Lovers: it's pitch black

Dimmers: the lights are half on using dimmer switches

Photosynthesizers: the lights are on and it comes from sunlight

AC-DC: the lights are on and it comes from an electrical current

Bloaties: they just finished a buffet

Twitter-exsual: they find a unique sexual variation in hopes their situation is the only one in the world, so they can go on Twitter and say "look at me!"

Clicker: they find a unique sexual variation in hopes their situation is the only one in the world, so they can go on Twitter and say "look at me!".... and ask people to Like, Upvote or Share their announcement on social media for extra attention
Blinded Lovers: when the blinds are drawn.

Blinded by green Lovers: when the drawn blinds are green.

Blinded by the forest Lovers: when the drawn blinds are a forest green.

....

...
 

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
6,190
7,902
625
the gender nonsense is ridiculous. not only is it silly, it inflicts weird ideology onto kids. the real world does not work like this. you cannot decide your social identity merely by yourself. identity is created by you AND society working together. your roles are accepted and agreed upon by others, by your family, friends, strangers, co workers, random people you see during the day, etc. if you just decided to change jobs and now you are your boss's boss, maybe that would be true in your own head, but nobody else's.

binary gender has been the easy reference go-to for thousands of years. if we had to stop and ask everyone their preferred pronoun before starting a conversation, it would be a massive waste of time, mostly because for a vast number of cases it would be redundant, cos 99% of people identify as normal. the fact that people fly off the fucking handle if you say the wrong pronoun and call you a Nazi makes the whole experience unpleasant to begin with.

the fact it, you can't tell people you are rich and have it be true. you can't tell people you are a difference race than you are and have it be true. you can't decide you are taller than you really are. you can't decide your are younger or older than you really are. there is objective reality and there is your own inner life. people do not confuse the former with the latter. this gender nonsense is only infantilizing people who don't want to surrender personal fantasy. true entitlement.
 
Last edited:

hariseldon

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
3,198
5,087
655
I don't think anyone is telling people not to be themselves. That isn't the conversation or the debate. We are talking about the legal ramifications of what you are saying, which you refuse to meet head on.
Indeed - I think most of us are saying EXACTLY let people be themselves. Don't compel them under force of law to not be themselves, which includes compelling speech against their beliefs.
 

V4skunk

Member
Nov 20, 2018
701
540
310
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.
You are the idiots creating the labels. Just lol.
Talk about indoctrination lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
6,190
7,902
625
"let's get rid of labels entirely!"
"on second thought you have to use this label under penalty of law!"

feels like ppl just jump back and forth from these points constantly. the gender warriors aren't even internally consistent.

Washington DC has the highest percentage of trans people in the country, I think this is why it is over represented in politics these days, our politicians literally live in a post gender bubble.
 
Last edited:

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,272
2,283
1,500
The whole gender != sex is garbage tier obfuscation.

It ignores biology, science, genetics and all of the entire animal kingdom throughout recorded history.

It's used as smokescreen to suggest something incredibly straightforward and direct is extremely complex and difficult to understand. When it is put against myriad real-world challenges the obfuscator merely doubles-down, adding more and more layers of smoke-screen. Eventually eschewing all reason whatsoever and falling back on emotional projection.

People want to feel special. For good or for bad. The idea that they aren't some unique being, facing unique challenges and triumphs that society needs to recognise on their behalf is a notion that is unbearable to them. Hence the descent into reason-free histrionics we increasingly see.

When life is so comfy, you put all your energy into creating problems. Get over yourself.
Bingo. Which is exactly why my question early on in this thread went unanswered.

I will absolutely not indulge the fantasy of others.

This is a simple science. My fellow human beings are complex, and feeling creatures. I take no umbrage with how anyone wants to live until it draws me into their lives. This has done that. Changing obvious terminology to suit their fantasies is not something I will take lightly.

Again, I honestly don't care what anyone does, but when this type of ignorance and stupidity begins to muddy the waters and create wholly unnecessary divisions, and people fearful of saying obvious things I take notice.
 

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
167
183
515
You can set a "No Male Genitalia allowed," rule and you'll still have problems. I'll have you know my penis identifies as a vagina. I happen to have a very feminine penis.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is going to end with straight guys eventually adopting these tactics and dominating. It will be straight men wearing dresses, making up more absurd genders, and getting gays and lesbians and women in general fired for being intolerant. If it becomes clear that it's advantageous enough for a job search to wear a dress you'll see lots of men doing it, and when there are almost as many men as women in the ladies room wearing dresses a lot of women are going to feel really uncomfortable in the work environment. I expect this to start sometime after or during our next big recession, people are going to get really desperate and try to find inventive ways to get hired in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr
Jan 9, 2018
892
1,344
405
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.
You're mixing up a few different things here.

First off, grammatical gender is not the same as today's ideological belief in a "gender" of persons. It's an extension in language that carries over the very familiar and concrete matter of sexual difference into a web of symbolism that connects our language of things in the world; so perhaps "dog" takes on a masculine gender grammatically and "cat" takes on a feminine one (thinking of German here). What does that mean? It's not much different than the other kinds of hidden connections in all our words. Take "diminutive endings" for instance; even in English, which isn't gendered grammatically, certain word endings imply small or feminine, for example "-elle", "-ette" or "-ty". So "panties" has an implicit connection with "nighty", and "majorette" connects with "coquette" since both adopt familiar feminine patterns in their construction. This kind of patterning--which connects certain word forms and sounds to indicate meaning connections and comparisons--is the very lifeblood of language, and the symbolism of sex is all over it in all languages, along with other kinds of patterns that build off of familiar realities.

But that is not at all the same as saying "gender = sex expectations / norms." Sure, you can define it that way now and start using "gender" to mean social norms, but now you're still not making it at all coherent for a person to "have a gender." Does that mean, eg., that a man with a "female" gender identity simply lives more comfortably within the group of symbols and actions that are currently labeled "feminine," by performing certain highly charged elements like passivity, coquettishness, frills, etc? Okay, that's simply a performance, and describes the reality of autogynphelic and transvestite men, but in those cases it is very clearly a kind of fetish that is driven by their real sex in every way.

In other words, a woman putting on a lace bra and a man doing so are qualitatively different kinds of actions all the way down: the former is an act following from her distinct sexual characteristics, and then secondarily mediated through the current cultural pattern for adornment; the latter, in contrast, is explicitly an act of adopting something that refers to another body--the missing breast being at the center of what defines that article and, as we all know but don't admit, is the center of why the MtF desires it in the first place, as a symbol of what he does not have. The latter can never eliminate the element of fetish and performance. It follows that these are also ethically different actions, and it is reasonable to forbid displays that carry this kind of performative exhibitionism.

"That only applies to edge cases like bras, but surely a man using feminine makeup is more ambiguous and is simply a matter of being beyond categories. After all, there were kinds of makeup for men in certain times!" But no, and we all implicitly know the truth here: a man in 2019 putting on lipstick and rouge is participating in a certain way in the language of sex that is around him, and is directly mimicking the pattern of elements that are connected to the female sex. The makeup doesn't float in the sky above sexes as some kind of third layer--it refers to it directly. He may be a female impersonator--a kind of performance that mocks or heightens sexual difference for an audience--or he may be using makeup to signal some concept of "nonbinary," but even the latter says publicly "I borrow from elements of women," and sex is again the only source of its content.

This is to say that "gender and sex are different!" breaks down into incoherence rapidly and is little more than sophomoric babbling. All it amounts to is a statement like "there are patterns and behaviors connected with the sexes, and members of one sex can adopt some of those from the other" -- but this statement doesn't justify any of the ideology around 'gender identity" that is being pushed today, which tries to locate "gender" as some other layer inside a person that is separate from sex or can somehow be almost a second body concealed by the first ("I'm a man but inside I'm a woman"). This breaks down quickly under examination.

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.
But it's not. Look at the pipeline here going from "gender identity" to disfiguring surgeries, damaging and unhealthy rejections of the body like "chest binding" among young confused females, and other paths into a lifetime of chemically or surgically destroyed body and permanent medical care. The ideology here isn't about letting men do things outside their usual norms, or vice versa with women; it's about taking the sexual element of ourselves and playing at it within fantasies of being able to traverse the line between sexes, which leads to impossible notions, confused identities, and--crucially--to nonfunctional, sterilized medical cases because the kids were made to believe that their sex isn't really defined by their body.
 
Last edited:

slugbahr

Gold Member
Jan 4, 2019
1,304
1,759
510
The edge of a circle
Confirming the Earth orbits the Sun, rather than the opposite.
The Industrial Revolution
Newton explaining gravity
Darwin's theory of evolution
Special and General Relativity
Splitting the atom
Discovery of penicillin
A shitload of other time periods defined by discoveries.

This generation's contribution??
We've been wrong about gender and sex all along.
🤡🌏
 
Oct 26, 2018
4,572
3,841
440
Confirming the Earth orbits the Sun, rather than the opposite.
The Industrial Revolution
Newton explaining gravity
Darwin's theory of evolution
Special and General Relativity
Splitting the atom
Discovery of penicillin
A shitload of other time periods defined by discoveries.

This generation's contribution??
We've been wrong about gender and sex all along.
🤡🌏
To be fair, name one past generation that can hammer out Snapchat filtered pics with one hand and dox people with swat teams or getting them fired with pinpoint efficiency?
 

DocONally

Member
Oct 21, 2014
1,613
1,201
500
Confirming the Earth orbits the Sun, rather than the opposite.
The Industrial Revolution
Newton explaining gravity
Darwin's theory of evolution
Special and General Relativity
Splitting the atom
Discovery of penicillin
A shitload of other time periods defined by discoveries.

This generation's contribution??
We've been wrong about gender and sex all along.
🤡🌏
Don't forget the electric guitar. Truly a great invention. Also similar to genders in that while there may be hundreds of makers, there are only two that matter: Fender and Gibson. Hang one of them between your legs and you'll find the answers.

On topic though, this is a good thing. The BBC spend loads of money, but no teacher actually needs to play such BS in front of the classroom.

Kids these days. I remember my sex-ed classes in '96. They were aaawkwaaard. Basically all the P.E. teachers bundled us into a back room and laughed about growth hormones for 1 lesson. I learnt shit.

But I was listening, hoping to understand something about my/human sexuality. If I'd been told "the secret" that there are a million genders out there, I'd a been sold, man. Thank God it was the 90s.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon
Nov 13, 2016
1,577
1,445
395
Excluded from the labels regarding gender (not sex, which is different). If you're going to label people, it makes sense to include all of the people, yes?
I don't know that labels really work that way. It's more that people are programmed to judge people quickly, in a split second to determine if they're dealing with someone dangerous or attractive or whatever. You can't force people to label people certain ways or even accurately. In terms of this whole gender stuff, I think the most you can expect is for people to use the labels "male, female and other." The "other" category suffices because most people just don't give a shit about any of that and the group is so small at about a percent of the entire population, that it's just not practical to have 100 different genders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon