Support NeoGAF

[crowbrow]

Because the words sex and gender have different etymology. Gender comes from French and was incorporated into English as have many other words as cultures have integrated. Gender and gender role mean different things. Gender and sex do not. Gender role refers to the societal role associated with the gender. Gender refers to the gender itself, i.e. sex.

There was no point in the history of the word gender in the english language where it meant the same as biological sex. So I don't know why adopt it now. On the other hand it has meant cultural differences between the sexes for quite a while now.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

If you've heard or used the terms "gender role" or "gender expression" or "gender norms", you're implicitly demonstrating that the word "gender" alone does not mean what WHO and other word-manipulators are telling you it means.

Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men, such as norms, roles, and relationships of and between groups of women and men​

Socially-constructed characteristics role. Socially-constructed characteristics expression. Socially-constructed characteristics norms.

We could just call those social norms, social roles, social expressions.

However, that would imply that gender informs social roles, not the other way around, which is a huge stick in the craw of those who would like to promote the idea that "gender is a social construct".

 

[Papa]

There was no point in the history of the word gender in the english language where it meant the same as biological sex. So I don't know why adopt it now. On the other hand it has meant cultural differences between the sexes for quite a while now.

I repeat, gender always was synonymous with sex until John Money started playing god. You’ve swallowed the blue pill. Wake up, break the conditioning.

 

[crowbrow]

We could just call those social norms, social roles, social expressions.

I disagree, there can be social norms and roles that are not related to sexual differences but gender roles and norms do so the distinction can be useful. That doesn't mean that they are also not affected in a cultural way.

 

[crowbrow]

I repeat, gender always was synonymous with sex

Can you prove this? Because I'm reading on the history of the term and I can't find this anywhere...

Also accepting a definition doesn't mean I agree with whatever SJWs do but I think it will be wise to choose your fights and don't just go against anything they say just because.

 

[Papa]

I disagree, there can be social norms and roles that are not related to sexual differences but gender roles and norms do so the distinction can be useful. That doesn't mean that they are also not affected in a cultural way.

I don’t think you understood what he said at all. If gender always referred to social role as you are asserting, why did the terms “gender role”, “gender expression”, etc. precede the current_year version that has no qualifier?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Population control

 

[Papa]

Can you prove this? Because I'm reading on the history of the term and I can't find this anywhere...

Also accepting a definition doesn't mean I agree with whatever SJWs do but I think it will be wise to choose your fights and don't just go against anything they say just because.

I’m not going against them “just because”. I’m rejecting that 2 + 2 = 5 because I remember a time not long ago when it was accepted that it was equal to 4. And I’ve already given you the answer: John Money.

 

[crowbrow]

If gender always referred to social role as you are asserting, why did the terms “gender role”, “gender expression”, etc. precede the current_year version that has no qualifier?

Maybe because it was useful to have all those terms under one general term when talking about all of them? That happens quite often with concepts because it is a way to simplify language and communication.

 

[Papa]

Maybe because it was useful to have all those terms under one general term when talking about all of them? That happens quite often with concepts because it is a way to simplify language and communication.

Go and read about John Money and stop just trying to deflect from admitting you were wrong.

 

[crowbrow]

I’m not going against them “just because”. I’m rejecting that 2 + 2 = 5 because I remember a time not long ago when it was accepted that it was equal to 4. And I’ve already given you the answer: John Money.

No, I'm asking you a source that demonstrates that before Money the term "gender" meant the same as sex (in biological terms). I can't find it, I only find that gender before Money was used to denote grammatical categories but that's not the same as biological sex. Sorry I don't accept your word for it but if you're asserting that the word meant that before Money and I can't find the source myself, it is normal that I ask for it. I prefer to rely on evidence.

 

[crowbrow]

Go and read about John Money and stop just trying to deflect from admitting you were wrong.

I have read a lot about Money, what does this have to do with the current definition of gender?

 

[Papa]

No, I'm asking you a source that demonstrates that before Money the term "gender" meant the same as sex (in biological terms). I can't find it, I only find that gender before Money was used to denote grammatical categories but that's not the same as biological sex. Sorry I don't accept your word for it but if you're asserting that the word meant that before Money and I can't find the source myself, it is normal that I ask for it. I prefer to rely on evidence.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? Are you expecting there to be an officially certified document handed down from a higher power saying that sex = gender? Sometimes you need to open your own eyes that I presume are connected to your brain. Perhaps in the past it was considered so obvious that no one thought to document that sex and gender are the same thing. I’ve already pointed out the different origins of the words and that they weren’t simultaneously invented in English to mean different things. I’ve directed you to John Money to understand the origin of the term gender role and its preceding of gender as a standalone term (your < 1 min responses demonstrate that you haven’t even looked him up and are likely just here to spar). I’ve pointed out that the term has been changed recently to drop the qualifiers. Combine this with the mountain of other “coincidental” identity politics and the picture should be quite clear to anyone paying attention.

The topic has become so corrupted and mired in dogma that I cannot give you that officially certified document laying it out in black and white for you. It doesn’t exist, and even if it did, it would’ve been memoryholed by now. Sorry, you’re going to have to reject the conditioning and think for yourself. The WHO redefining the term last year shouldn’t cause you to change your reality to fit the updated gospel; it should cause you to question the integrity and legitimacy of the WHO.

 

[Papa]

I have read a lot about Money, what does this have to do with the current definition of gender?

I don’t believe you. The guy is the grandfather of modern gender theory. He has everything to do with the current false definition of gender. If you have indeed read about him, you clearly didn’t understand what you were reading if you are still asking a question like this.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I disagree, there can be social norms and roles that are not related to sexual differences but gender roles and norms do so the distinction can be useful. That doesn't mean that they are also not affected in a cultural way.

Sure, gender-based social norms would be what you are referring to. Maybe we need a word for "gender-based social norms", but that word certainly is not "gender". The word "gender" itself does not mean "a collection of socially-constructed norms that can be changed", which is the modern take. I think "gender role" could be a fine term, as in, "a social role partially or fully determined by a person's biological sex". If gender simply means "socially-determined role for an individual that can be changed", then "gender role" is nonsensical and redundant.

The crux is that biological sex informs the social norms, not the other way around. Altering the word "gender" to infer that society is imposing arbitrary rules upon males and females is a recent lie. It's all language play. Language play is fun in poetry and in music, but it has no place in something as important as a person's psyche. Ego formation is difficult enough as it is.

Gender -- and it's root, genus -- refers to classification based on rigid observable forms. In the context of language, it refers to word conjugation and it is fixed. "du" in French is masculine and "de la" is feminine, easily distinguished by the form.

In the context of biology, genus is a specific classification for a creature. Gender is narrower, referring to that creatures role in the reproductive process.

Neither of those are fluid. Heck, doesn't the term "genderfluid" itself imply there is a fixed quality to "gender" that is less-solid for the so-called genderfluid person? If gender itself is fluid, then the term genderfluid is redundant, just like "gender role".

You can blame puritanical normies for this one. "Gender" really only gained use as a term for "sex" when "sex" was narrowed to its definition as copulation. Since "sex" could refer to fucking or to whether the creature was male or female, "gender" entered the mix to eliminate blushed cheeks and confusion.

"Gender dysphoria" is another interesting piece of this discussion, aside from the fact that a lot of people appear to be suffering from it. The DSM defines it as:

Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity. It's sometimes known as gender incongruence. Biological sex is assigned at birth, depending on the appearance of the genitals.​

This is interesting to me for two reasons. The first is the phrase "Biological sex is assigned at birth, depending on the appearance of the genitals". Please show me other scientific determinations done in such a wishy-washy way. If a biological male is born in the woods and no one is around to observe his genitals and assign him a sex (note how this nonsense is even infecting the term "sex"?), is he a male? The notion is absurd but that is how far the conversation has devolved.

The second interesting part is the acknowledgement of a disorder characterized by an incongruence between someone's sex and their gender identity. Yet, if gender is socially-imposed, this is not a medical condition but a social one. Otherwise, this indicates there really is a natural connection between "sex" and "gender" (using the modern definitions) that cannot be changed.

None of this information is hidden. Etymology is one of the most well-documented fields of study in the Western hemisphere.

What's most remarkable to me is we condemn the phenomenon of language corruption and language replacement when it comes to colonialism, don't we? Bastardizing the local populace's language for the purpose of absorption and subjugation has occurred throughout history. We condemn the phenomenon of language appropriation when it comes to race relations, don't we? White folks still can't say the n-word in polite company, for instance.

Yet, academia is engaged in the same bastardization and appropriation when it comes to biological terms. I can only assume ignorance or duplicitousness.

 

[crowbrow]

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

There's a whole field of study called etymology that is about studying word meaning and how they change through time. If what you're saying is true it should be documented somewhere. Otherwise what is the point of believing you or anyone else when they claim "this word means this or that" as a factual statement? Why are you an authority on the definition of gender? In the end it is your word against others. I prefer to have actual proof.

I understand the current definition of gender comes from Money's work but your claim was that the definition before Money was the same as biological sex and that is not verifiable anywhere I can find regardless of whatever Money said or did. Also I already said that I have read about Money, I have even quoted studies of his here in this forum in other discussions, Money is not new to me.

Sorry, you’re going to have to reject the conditioning and think for yourself.

Does that mean that I have to believe you and accept what you say blindly? lol ok pal but that's hardly "thinking for myself". I'm sorry but I condemn the SJWs for avoiding evidence to spread their nonsense and I will speak against the same done by the other side. In this case you're basically asking me to believe you regardless of the evidence but I'm not going to do that, sorry.

 

[Hudo]

At this point, in a mother's womb, a fetus should get a pop-up in metaphysical space, stating "Gender: [Yes] [No]".

Edit: I vividly remember a voice saying "Welcome back, commander.", when I popped out of my mother's uterus.

 

[MetalAlien]

You can be born as a social construct.

 

[crowbrow]

I don’t believe you. The guy is the grandfather of modern gender theory. He has everything to do with the current false definition of gender. If you have indeed read about him, you clearly didn’t understand what you were reading if you are still asking a question like this.

Look it up in this same forum. I have spoken critically of him before. I don't understand why you are you finding so hard to separate a simple definition of a term from whatever atrocities Money committed. It's not like the word gender itself committed those atrocities.

 

[-Minsc-]

Currently my understanding is the term "gender role" is like saying PIN number, a redundancy. I can accept gender to mean roles and social norms which can go along with a persons sex. To follow this through, when I use words like male, female, boy, girl, he, she, man and woman I'm referring to sex and not gender. Simple.

It basically comes from the idea that there is no absolute truth or objective reality in our world. There is only power and those with it define everything or construct "truth" in a way that helps them retain and gain more power, and oppress others. It's a really ugly way of viewing the world, but it's becoming quite popular it seems.

A very back asswards way of viewing the world. Truth is truth. We have our interpretation, view, opinions, etc. of the truth. Life is black and white, we just don't know very much so we see things in shades of grey.

He and she, him and her, man and woman. They are just descriptors and nothing more. No different than using dog and cat to describe something.

And no, I won't call a trans what they want me to call them. Why is it my responsibility to satisfy their self image? You can pull the stem off an apple and paint it orange but it won't be an orange. There aren't enough hormones or surgeries in the world to change the gender you had before you even slid out of your mother. You cant change your genetics and change what you are. I'm not going to go through trying to make sure I refer to everyone to they sex they want to be because I dont care. If you're a man you're a man. You can think and present yourself however you want, and that's cool but I'm not going to put any effort into helping you play out your fantasy game. I mean I understand it also, I'm just not going to participate.

Younger people can go through the work of calling people all the colours of the rainbow. I'm too old to do that. It seems short sighted to expect the world to validate ones self.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

You can be born as a social construct.

Exiting the womb is a social construct.

Today is a good day so here goes. I’ve decided I am changing my birth type to "immaculate" after a lifetime of being at war with my parents and my medical records. I’ve decided to embrace myself for who I am, inside and out...

MY CONCEPTION AND MY BIRTH ARE
IMMACULATE ​

 

[Papa]

crowbrow you are a time waster. I’m going to lay it out as simply and concisely as I possibly can, and then I’m done with you:

If gender and sex were always distinct terms as you assert, with gender referring to societal expectations/roles, there would have been no need for John Money, the grandfather of sexual identity “science”, to invent the term gender role. He would’ve just referred to gender.

I’m growing quite tired of this new tactic of jumping up and down and crying for very specific types of hard documented evidence. That is not the only form of evidence and it doesn’t have to exist for something to be true. Sometimes you simply need to lay out a timeline with a couple of logical comparisons to check whether something is true or not as I just did. Sometimes things are just self-evident (i.e. water is wet). This tactic of demanding very specific types of evidence is a brainlet tactic that makes you feel smart without having to actually do any thinking.

 

[crowbrow]

Sure, gender-based social norms would be what you are referring to.

Ok but that's a semantic distinction. What is the problem about calling it gender instead of having to write "gender-based social norms". It is much more economical that way.

The word "gender" itself does not mean "a collection of socially-constructed norms that can be changed", which is the modern take.

So what does it mean? and where are you getting this definition from? And why it is so important to have that specific definition? I mean if we already have the word sex to pinpoint the biological distinctions between sexes, why not have gender to denote cultural aspects of differences between sexes?

Altering the word "gender" to infer that society is imposing arbitrary rules upon males and females is a recent lie.

So if cultural differences between sexes exist and that is a fact what is it so problematic about having a concept that denotes that. Is not like the concept is creating the differences, they actually exist. The concept is just a way to name them.

The crux is that biological sex informs the social norms, not the other way around.

It is a chicken-egg problem like anything with biology and evolution. External pressures influence genetic changes and genetic changes influence behavior which also affects the environment. The same in social contexts. You can't separate one from the other or create a hierarchy so easily.

Gender -- and it's root, genus -- refers to classification based on rigid observable forms.

Which rigid forms exactly? Even in nature there are creatures that are not easily identifiable as female or males, or asexual species or species that transform their sex to reproduce. SO the concept is very varied in biology.

The rest I won't comment because I'm not referring here to those specific concepts. My main beef is why people has so much trouble accepting the definition of gender as being cultural traits related to sexual differences. It seems to me a simple enough definition.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Ok but that's a semantic distinction. What is the problem about calling it gender instead of having to write "gender-based social norms". It is much more economical that way.


So what does it mean? and where are you getting this definition from? And why it is so important to have that specific definition? I mean if we already have the word sex to pinpoint the biological distinctions between sexes, why not have gender to denote cultural aspects of differences between sexes?


So if cultural differences between sexes exist and that is a fact what is it so problematic about having a concept that denotes that. Is not like the concept is creating the differences, they actually exist. The concept is just a way to name them.


It is a chicken-egg problem like anything with biology and evolution. External pressures influence genetic changes and genetic changes influence behavior which also affects the environment. The same in social contexts. You can't separate one from the other or create a hierarchy so easily.


Which rigid forms exactly? Even in nature there are creatures that are not easily identifiable as female or males, or asexual species or species that transform their sex to reproduce. SO the concept is very varied in biology.

The rest I won't comment because I'm not referring here to those specific concepts. My main beef is why people has so much trouble accepting the definition of gender as being cultural traits related to sexual differences. It seems to me a simple enough definition.

Just moments after I posted this, you threw out the 'etymology' line.

Seems like you'd rather stick to your dogma instead of converse. I've laid out the facts. You can either learn from them or continue the pedantry. I've provided more than enough -- by your requested standards -- for you to chew on.

 

[crowbrow]

Just moments after I posted this, you threw out the 'etymology' line.

Seems like you'd rather stick to your dogma instead of converse. I've laid out the facts. You can either learn from them or continue the pedantry. I've provided more than enough -- by your requested standards -- for you to chew on.

Yeah the etymology because Matt was telling me that the word gender meant the same as sex before Money. You actually havent shown that. You showed the word genus but not the definition of the English word gender before Money.

But irregardless of the definition back then, i still don't see the problem of accepting the word gender as meaning sex-based cultural differences like it is used today. To get triggered by a words definition smells to me like snowflake SJWs getting triggered because of pronouns.

 

[crowbrow]

If gender and sex were always distinct terms as you assert, with gender referring to societal expectations/roles

I never said that was the definition of gender before. I sad gender before Money was used for grammatical categories. So if your argument starts with a strawman characterization of what i said it isnt of use reading the rest cause you are being the time waster then. Better work in your reading comprehension next time.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yeah the etymology because Matt was telling me that the word gender meant the same as sex before Money. You actually havent shown that. You showed the word genus but not the definition of the English word gender before Money.

But irregardless of the definition back then, i still don't see the problem of accepting the word gender as meaning sex-based cultural differences like it is used today. To get triggered by a words definition smells to me like snowflake SJWs getting triggered because of pronouns.

Gender comes from genus, which I already explained. The usage of "gender" up until recently was confined to language conjugation, which I already explained. And even when "gender" did enter normal use recently it was a colloquial substitute for "sex" since "sex" can mean copulation or reproductive role, which I already explained.

If you don't value the congruency of words, then you're not worth taking seriously. Why waste time with you when your trump card is "well lol I don't really care about words anyway and the people who care about word definitions smell like snowflakes"? C'mon, show some integrity or at least admit when you're trolling. This is silly.

 

[crowbrow]

Gender comes from genus, which I already explained.

Yeah but they're not the same Word. Lots of words comes from other words that mean different things. But Matt was talking specifically about the term gender.

The usage of "gender" up until recently was confined to language conjugation, which I already explained

I actually explained that first in this thread. That still is not what Matt said.

If you don't value the congruency of words, then you're not worth taking seriously.

Lol this is really ironic

 

[xandaca]

As they are generally defined*, sex is what biologically makes you a man or a woman, while gender is how it is outwardly expressed. There is of course a social component to gender expression: the culture you live in has certain traditions for how men and women distinguish themselves, which most people will choose to do to fit in**. However, sex and gender are irrevocably interlinked: 99+% of people match their gender to their sex and culture/environment has nowhere near the level of influence to achieve that kind of synchronicity. If it did, everyone living in similar areas would basically be the same person. Like any good deception, the woke line on sex/gender separation has its roots in something true, but twisted into gross misrepresentation. As with almost everything related to humans, it's fair to say the outcome is a mishmash of basic human biology, inherited genetics and social influences. I don't know if it's ever been studied or proven, but I'd anecdotally say the social influence is strongest on children but for all but the most tragically weak-minded, its effect recedes as people grow older until biology and growing individuality overwhelm it.

*I'd argue that the commonly accepted definition of 'gender' is misleading, however. Gender originates in noun categorisation, which has nothing to do with sex even in languages where some words are assigned male or female (many also have a neutral gender, for instance, among many others). While it might be useful to have a concise term to discuss the social aspects of sex representation, in practice it misrepresents how gender works as a function of language AND suggests that sex and gender are separate, which they overwhelmingly are not.

**Operative word 'choose'. Contrary to what almost every aspect of woke dogma preaches, the vast majority of people make the choices they want to make, for better and for worse.

 

[UltimaKilo]

OP I’m cracking up! “That one with a penis over there”

 

[Horsemama1956]

Has anyone tried replacing gender/sex on signs with the word genetilia? I'm a little shocked Trump hasn't suggested this yet.

If you have a dick, you go in the bathroom marked dick and so on. Seems like it would clear things up.

 

[jonnyp]

What happens if I follow?

Don't do it! It's a trap!

 

[Shifty]

I mean, part of it is.

What the argument fails to account for is the social construct part being derived from inarguable biological fact.

Has anyone tried replacing gender/sex on signs with the word genetilia? I'm a little shocked Trump hasn't suggested this yet.

If you have a dick, you go in the bathroom marked dick and so on. Seems like it would clear things up.

The crazies would find new and innovative ways around it. "I identify as having a penis", for instance.

 

[Roufianos]

What I really don't understand is why you're a woman if your "gender" is on the feminine side?

Like, ok, not all men have the same degree of masculinity. Some men might even behave more like women than a man. But why does that make you a she? Surely you're just a feminine man? Why do you need to change your appearance and sex organs if gender is just a social construct which is completely detached from biology.

Load of horse shit.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

What I really don't understand is why you're a woman if your "gender" is on the feminine side?

Like, ok, not all men have the same degree of masculinity. Some men might even behave more like women than a man. But why does that make you a she? Surely you're just a feminine man? Why do you need to change your appearance and sex organs if gender is just a social construct which is completely detached from biology.

Load of horse shit.

Asking the real questions.

Wonder why are in favor of programs for the oppressed "women" class, yet if "woman" is an arbitrary designation, then...

 

[O-N-E]

By the way, my bank account identifies as Jeff Bezos' bank account.

 

[oagboghi2]

So how do you propose we name the cultural differences between men and women? In the end, what difference does it make if you call them gender roles or gender? Making gender mean exactly the same as sex is confusing, why have two words for the exact same thing and then have gender roles for the cultural part (also gender roles is too specific and leaves out norms and relationships which the word gender in general covers)? specially when gender had never in the history of the term meant the same as sex. Even before Money, gender was used for grammatical pronouns --feminine, masculine, neutral-- but not for biological differences, the definition that says that gender means the same as sex is actually the new one.

Confusing to who? Everyone on the planet has understood men !== women until recently.

Fuck off with this bullshit. It isn't about making things easier to understand.

 

[WhiskeyDiver]

"Gender is a social construct" is one of those answers on a quiz that's so wrong it brings the grade into the negative.

The two gender thing using genitalia as a gender identifer is simple and effective.

Edit: Good thing the pro-noun brigade and the army of 1000 different types of gender identity aren't here to yell at me, kidnap me, and throw me into a giant cooking pot to be boiled alive and devored by chonkers after im done...fuck it. Who am I kidding? They'll eat me before I even make it to the pot. Agonizing.

 

[IntentionalPun]

You should smile more gurl.

 

[ValiantTraveler]

Sometimes I think to myself that being born in the third world isn't so bad, we don't have to deal with that nonsense (...yet).

 

[Xaero Gravity]

What happens if I follow?

Do it, he swallows.

 

[T-Square]

as long as it's cool to say "you" or "that person" you can probably manage.

 

[Ailynn]

If a person wants to call themselves a man or a woman or whatever new gender identity they've come up with, then fine. It's their fucking life and I've no say in how they live it.

It's when they assert their so-called rights and privileges is when I have a problem. From harassing people for misgendering them to trying to find a place in sports despite the protests (especially from women). I don't want to generalize and say all trans people are like this, but the extreme ones are real nutters and should be ignored.

Thankfully, the vast majority of trans people don't go into a rage when someone misgenders them. Usually it just causes them to feel incredibly self conscious and depressed for a while...and they may become more afraid to go out in public. Eventually, many become numb to unintentional misgendering out of survival.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Certainly I'm not well-read on this topic, but on face value, "he" and "she" just seems like a polite way to distinguish between two biological categories, which is useful. So you're not saying "that one with a penis over there".

For Trans people, I understand the want to be referred to as the opposite of their sex since that's what they'd like to be (despite reality). I mean, if they were able to wish their preferred sexual organs and hormones replace their birth ones, they would, right?

What I truly am baffled by are the Ze's Zir's....and Theys. I mean...they? Really? What are you, royalty? Why isn't she and he good enough?

Not sure why others use they and can't speak for them. For myself it's a way of maintaining a center of awareness outside the physical image, as an aggregate consciousness, from which to observe the self and its behaviors, remove gender imprinted biases, develop conscientiousness and self-awareness to assist with self-actualization.
I don't immediately tell or insist others call me they. I'll mention it if it comes up in a conversation someone else starts. I'm not into pushing it onto others.
I'm physically male and behave and dress conformatively that way. It's not rooted in and I've developed no gender dysphoria from the practice.

 

[crowbrow]

What I really don't understand is why you're a woman if your "gender" is on the feminine side?

Like, ok, not all men have the same degree of masculinity. Some men might even behave more like women than a man. But why does that make you a she? Surely you're just a feminine man? Why do you need to change your appearance and sex organs if gender is just a social construct which is completely detached from biology.

Load of horse shit.

Yep, and this is the part that SJWs are most confused and contradict themselves all the time IMO. I think they also confuse gender with Sex even though they don't admit it. I mean, there are legitimate people with dismorphia but the current trend on wanting to jump on the trans bandwagon is fueled, I think, by conflating gender expressions with sexual identity. If they truly believed gender is cultural then they could rationalize that feeling feminine because you like culturally feminine things doesn't mean you're a woman.

 

[crowbrow]

Confusing to who? Everyone on the planet has understood men !== women until recently.

Fuck off with this bullshit. It isn't about making things easier to understand.

It is confusing because having two words for the same thing is confusing when trying to communicate. It doesn't have to do anything with men =/= women. It is just two different concepts which refer to two different things.

 

[oagboghi2]

It is confusing because having two words for the same thing is confusing when trying to communicate. It doesn't have to do anything with men =/= women. It is just two different concepts which refer to two different things.

No one is confused. Stop using that nonsense as an excuse

 

[cryptoadam]

Has anyone tried replacing gender/sex on signs with the word genetilia? I'm a little shocked Trump hasn't suggested this yet.

If you have a dick, you go in the bathroom marked dick and so on. Seems like it would clear things up.

Nope goal post would be moved and language changed. Penis never actually meant male genitalia, its just a socially constructed word and can also be a vagina. Or I identify as having a hegina not a penis etc...

 

[crowbrow]

No one is confused. Stop using that nonsense as an excuse

In the meantime let's make car and train mean the same thing. If we are going to make up synonyms out of thin air might as well go crazy.

Is ironic how those critizising the meaning of gender use as argument that this meaning is recent (1960s). But since gender has never meant biological sexes their so called "old" meaning is actually the recent made-up one...

 

[partime]

I've heard of pan pizza, but pan sexual? WTF terminology is getting out of wack.

Everyone under 30 is super sensitive and everyone wants their voice heard.