T O P

We should bring the term "sex" back (referring to biology to the activity)

We should bring the term "sex" back (referring to biology to the activity)

SlouchingToElysium

It's not like the modern version of term was created by a pedophile that drove two boys to suicide after mutilating one and being a predator to both...


pistasojka

Sounds sciency enough for "the left" to build their world view on


SlouchingToElysium

You're telling me they'd base an entire part of their ideology on the ideas of one man named John Money? Impossible, they're too skeptical for that!


GeneraleArmando

I need sauce because I need to explain this to a bunch of people


SlouchingToElysium

John Money, David Reimer


CapNKirkland

They never like that little truth nugget.


CriticalThaumaturgy

I’ve read about John money but what does he have to do with the utility of the term gender? Not trying to be argumentative, I just don’t see the actual connection there


SlouchingToElysium

Everything. If not for him, there would be no discussion of gender outside of words (e.g. -o and -a endings in Spanish, which gender used to mainly refer to).


CriticalThaumaturgy

But the term gender has a legitimate use, even if the guy who coined the term was a piece of trash. Like if a word is used frequently in academia and has an entirely different definition from biological sex, it is a potentially useful word. In the real world we can use it to refer to social things like gender roles, gender presentation (long hair v short hair, etc) and stuff like that


SlouchingToElysium

The legitimate use was in philology. Its "entirely different definition" is his nonsense.


CriticalThaumaturgy

Idk the entirely different definition has utility so I don’t rlly think it makes sense to call a useful word nonsense tbh. (Again I’m not defending Money, just the use of gender as a separate concept.) For example I can open a bio textbook and read about biological sex, but I can then open a psychology textbook and read about psychological gender, which will be defined quite differently given the fact that bio and psych are fundamentally different fields of study. Bc of that it doesn’t rlly make sense to entirely disregard gender as a concept even if you’re not personally a fan of studying it


SlouchingToElysium

It only has utility to people that believe in his ridiculous gender ideology. Psychology can easily become pseudoscience, especially when its research is stifled when it goes against the establishment, such as with transitioning.


CriticalThaumaturgy

Describing a concept as a ridiculous ideology seems pretty reductive to me if it can be applied to a bunch of real world things—for example I don’t think many people would argue that the gender-based clothing we wear is based in biological sex. Gendered hairstyles are another example, like I mentioned earlier, since neither long or short hair are tied to biology. Both have their uses (short hair is utilitarian, long hair is decorative etc) but the fact that they are gendered is based in sociology, not biology. So it makes sense to use a different term to describe this that is not biological sex


SlouchingToElysium

Roles for the sexes aren't the same as the use of the word gender you're defending. You're defending ideas based on acts of pedophilia that didn't even constitute a full study nor support your ideology. Give up.


CriticalThaumaturgy

Roles for the sexes (one might even say *gender* roles) are a psychological and sociological phenomenon, which is why I’m defending gender as a psychological and sociological concept. Just to clarify, what is the gender you think I’m referring to?


hercmavzeb

I love when right wingers bring up John Money thinking it debunks gender theory or whatever when it only confirms the fact that gender identity isn’t something you can change.


SlouchingToElysium

How the hell do you get that? Your entire ideology being based on a stupid pedo doesn't confirm it in the slightest.


hercmavzeb

That’s like saying if you use calculus you believe in alchemy because Newton believed in alchemy. It’s a dumb argument, now let me explain how you inadvertently proved my point. John Money transitioned David Reimer (a cis boy) as a child due to a botched circumcision and raised him as a woman. Despite being both socially conditioned as a woman and looking like a woman, Reimer experienced gender dysphoria because his gender identity was that of a man. He ended up killing himself specifically because of his gender dysphoria, the exact same reason trans people kill themselves. I’m not expecting a counter argument to this so I’ll just end by saying seethevotes to the right.


unpopopinx

The biggest problem is their attempt to attach man/woman to gender instead of sex. They are both directly attached to sex. If they want their new version of gender to be “whatever you identify as” then they need to make new terms. The problem is that they won’t because they are purposely trying to conflate them.


pistasojka

That's my biggest issue with it....and then they turn around and say LoOkS lIKe YoU dONt UnDeRsTaNd ThE dIfFeReNcE bEtWeeN sEx AnD gender... YOU did that YOU conflate the terms we are just running with it


RandomJew567

The concepts of a male and female are both related to sex, yes, but not exclusively so. Wearing a dress or purse is considered feminine and womanlike, but it's not as though that's something biologically determined, it's just a social value we assign to the different sexes. And get this: there's quite a few of these social values entirely unrelated to sex, enough of them that we've actually assigned a word to them, that word being gender.


unpopopinx

And I’m fine with that, just don’t expect everyone to care about gender. That’s where we are having a problem. I care about sex and so does most of the world. There’s a percentage of people who care more about gender and can’t accept that others disagree. You are free to care about gender just as I’m free to not care.


hercmavzeb

You’re lying, most people care about gender because you can’t see sex.


unpopopinx

Yes you can see sex. You can almost already tell whose male and whose female. The exceptions are rare and don’t change anything.


hercmavzeb

You can see secondary sex characteristics, which can be altered and are not even necessarily indicative of their actual biological makeup. Unless you wanna tell me you think [this person](https://images.app.goo.gl/q2oeLto4SrtTqNWs6) is a man.


unpopopinx

Sure they can be altered, but successfully tricking people doesn’t prove your point. You can tell a male vs female by body shape and bone structure almost every time.


hercmavzeb

Do I trick people into thinking I have good teeth because I got braces? Also do you think that person I just showed is biologically female?


unpopopinx

No because good teeth in this concept just means straight. You can actually make your teeth straight. A male getting surgery and drugs to look like a female is tricking people.


hercmavzeb

So you do delusionally think the person I just showed you is a man? You’d instantly notice and treat them like a man if you just saw them on the street? Or does that just not count for no reason.


Sure-Counter6344

From different angles you can see that's a male because of the jawline. Yes the person looks like a male. You cannot alter DNA


hercmavzeb

There are cis women with sharp and broad jawlines. This is what I meant by the delusional cope.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hercmavzeb

Lmao the cope


pistasojka

Trans people are valid and I'd hope nobody disagrees but if anything they prove the sex binary with their need to transition from one sex to the other (Also she has a very obvious Adam's apple if you ask me)


Confident_Ad6435

That would defeat the entire purpose of the transgender movement I'm here before this gets removed


Bob84332267994

How?


Confident_Ad6435

Because the transgender movement replaced sex with gender. In this context we’d just not use sex and not respect transgender people


Bob84332267994

Lol what? Why would we do that? Even if we got rid of the word, those people would still exist and the majority wouldn’t suddenly stop respecting them because we decided to give up the ability to accurately describe them. But that’s not even what he’s arguing. Gender would still be used when referring to transgender people, even if we stopped using it as a synonym for sex. I feel like you ignored every point made here because you saw some buzzwords and had the opportunity to declare trans = bad. It’s so desperate.


pistasojka

Just to make that clear I'd prefer if we refer to them as transsexuals cause they transition from one sex to the other


[deleted]

[удалено]


unpopopinx

Because that’s what most people mean. When someone says “that woman over there”, they mean “that adult human female over there”. They DONT mean “that person who identifies as a woman”.


CheckYourCorners

How do they identify that she is a woman in the first place?


Kindly-Town

The same way you identify air and water.


CheckYourCorners

By relative viscosity and transparency?


Kindly-Town

And how do you distinguish between a lion and a lioness?


pistasojka

Isn't it ridiculous that you can tell if a lion is female or male just by looking at them but you can't do the same with humans?


CheckYourCorners

In a completely different way to how we do so with people.


Kindly-Town

That's your choice and mandating this choice for other people is what that is wrong.


CheckYourCorners

What are you talking about I literally just asked how do you tell she is a woman?


Kindly-Town

The way I can tell he is a lion and she is a lioness.


unpopopinx

It’s obvious like 99% of the time.


CheckYourCorners

Based on clothes? Long hair? Makeup? All things that are related to gender not sex.


unpopopinx

Physical characteristics. A woman is almost always obviously a woman. Most people can tell if it’s a man with makeup and long hair.


CheckYourCorners

I've seen plenty of transphobes start insulting cis women who they think are trans because of her masculine features. People are much worse than they think they are because they don't even notice passing trans people.


hercmavzeb

They’re referring to someone who ascribes to the gender expression of a woman. Which is a part of gender.


unpopopinx

No they aren’t. Most people don’t care what you identify as. They care what you are.


hercmavzeb

I just said gender expression, not gender identity. Do you know what the difference is


unpopopinx

It’s irrelevant. It’s obvious what sex someone is 99% of the time. If I see a male that’s “expressing his gender as a woman” or whatever, I’m not going to say “that woman over there”.


hercmavzeb

It’s not irrelevant, you literally don’t know what gender expression is. You can’t see people’s chromosomes, you make assumptions based on how they present themselves. You realize androgynous people exist?


[deleted]

[удалено]


hercmavzeb

Intersex people exist so this is just incorrect


pistasojka

There's also people who are born with six fingers...that's exceptions they happen nobody cares we are not gonna teach kids about the "finger amount spectrum" or protest glove companies for not making the same amount of gloves for everyone on this "spectrum" Nobody says intersex people don't exist but we are not gonna use them as the rule And we are not gonna use intersex people as an excuse when a not intersex person tries to identify with some weird gender


howardhuge69

Intersex people are males with a defective Y chromosome or overactive X chromosome. They’re still male


AzasalTheDev

\>heavy lefitst ​ ​ \>willingly starts arguments ​ ​ \>100k karma ​ ​ ​ Yes officer, this creature right here