I lied, almost done here.
Sorry gender dysphoria, despite your apparent obsession with it, is only tangentially relevant here.
I lied, almost done here.
Sorry gender dysphoria, despite your apparent obsession with it, is only tangentially relevant here.
Facts be damned...
Nope, just the etymological fallacy. When you wrote "LGBT" did the 'G' mean 'happy?'
You're quoting a political entity rather than a factual entity.
I'm quoting one of the most widely accepted definitions of the distinction. What's more, you understand full well that this is how the term is being employed
3 b. Psychol. and Sociol. (orig. U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones
For which a 1945 example is given as an early usage:
Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 58 228 In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.
What in the ever loving hell are you on? It's a cultural fashion, skirts are detached from Gender.
No, the cultural fashion is gender, it's as detached form sex.
Gender is not a social construct, it's the X or Y that you were born with.
No, X and Y are not, to use the OED defn: "social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones. " X and Y are not, to use the WHO defn, socially constructed roles &c. X and Y are very clearly biological.
What in the ever loving hell are you on?
One might ask the same of you. You know stuff. You know: 1. that wearing skirts is not universally considered feminine, but that this is a cultural given. You know: 2. that sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, feminists, public health specialists and countless other -ists use the word 'gender' to describe situation 1 above. How can you keep arguing that gender, in the particular sense of the word in which it describes that which is cultural and socially constructed in distinction to biological sex, is not socially constructed.
Your position is untenable.
You're not doing the LGBT / Feminist movement any justice.
Neither are you.
There is no distinction between sex and gender. Sex and gender are two words to describe the same thing.
They can be used to mean the same thing but generally are not. The etymology notwithstanding, a check of almost any contemporary dictionary will qualify that 'gender' is "typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones."
But more to the point, it is the very usage of gender as social construct in distinction to biological sex, not some other less formal use, to which you are objecting. This one:
"Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.
"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.
Roman Armor Skirts; Scottish Kilts; Arabic Thawb;
What?! You mean the propensity of skirts to be worn by women but not men, in our culture, is not universal? You mean construing skirt-wearing being feminine is a
Ok, so let's say that I'm holding a black pen in my hand
Silly attempt at an analogy
Having a penis but wanting to have a vagina makes you a man that wants to be a woman, nothing more, nothing less.
Stop the obsession about wanting to have dick chopped off already. Jeebus
Sex and gender are both nouns referring to the same thing, the physical configuration of an organisms body.
'Blue' and 'sad' are both adjectives referring to the same thing, a negative emotional state.
When, OTOH, 'blue' is being used to indicate colour, or 'gender' is being used to indicate the social constructs which surround biological 'sex' the words no longer refer to the same thing. And when 'gender' is being used specifically to distinguish that which is biologically given from what is culturally supplied then insisting that "gender is not a social construct" is just like insisting that "blue is not a colour."
So once again
You are not seriously insisting that skirt-wearing is a biologically encoded physical characteristic of women (and not of men) are you?
Thank you for the wonderful analogy to help highlight my point.
Analogy to what? It certainly doesn't analogise the distinction between 'sex' and 'gender.'
What do you call the propensity of female humans in our culture to wear skirts and the propensity of of male humans not to? Because that is what is being referred to by the concept of 'gender.' Do you believe that this propensity is a physical property (inasmuch as 'black' or 'blue' are physical properties)? Do you believe the propensity for women to wear skirts is biologically determined? Do you think we will soon be able to point to a specific gene that encodes for skirt-wearing behaviour?
Male and female yes, but those are not genders. They are sexes.
The very point of the modern construct of 'gender' was to isolate that which is social construct (masculine/feminine) from physiological sex (male/female). This really is not a difficult concept to grasp. Why is this such a challenge for you? [Rhetorical question: I realise you are not too stupid to understand the distinction, you are motivated to misunderstand].
Gender is not a social construct.
Doublethink! Gender, at least in the usage you to which are objecting (not grammatical gender etc), is a social construct by definition . Of course you might object to the usefulness of the concept, or its impact on the object of study (i.e. society), perhaps even its theoretical coherence, but just stamping your feet and insisting "black is white" is simply unintelligent.
It is noteworthy that the first link you supply does not make the error of your second link of conflating 'gender' with 'sex.' The anthropologists understand they are determining sex (which is, of course, highly correlated with gender, particularly in traditional societies*, but thankfully** also in ours). The ignorant error in the second link, if it is not ideologically motivated ignorance (but merely sloppy English), is probably due to a lack of relevant education: that anthropologists would not make this error, but forensic scientists might is telling.
While social constructs such as gender are not directly to be determined by looking at bones --one cannot examine the pelvis of a body from the 1950s and tell that being a nurse was considered a normal form of employment for women but not men --if you have a knowledge of 1950s society, in addition to the bones, you might reasonably infer questions of gender. Eg. you may be able to exclude the probability that the male (and presumably also masculine) skeleton you are examining was not a nurse by occupation
[*But not all traditional societies, note the Polynesian and Indian traditions of tripartite genders.]
[**If tranny sex is your thing you may not be as thankful as I am.]
You're very clever Nutria, but it's simulations all the way down.
Cognito ergo sum
Don't you mean incongnito.:p
Seriously though, the Cogito does go to the heart of the matter, and in fact Descartes derives it by considering whether he is in a simulation (that conducted by the infinitely deceitful demon).
This all comes down to the Big Question in AI. Personally I tend towards that side which would answer Musk's question --"Tell me what's wrong with that argument" --by observing that there is no good reason to believe the dot in Pong was a self-aware reflective consciousness.
Well I got it
In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.
"In fact" you are mistaken. The very opposite is the case. At common law rape involved the penetration of a woman's vagina by a penis, forcibly and without the consent to the woman. Since sodomy was an offence per se, questions of consent were simply immaterial. The law has been "warped" (not necessarily in a bad way) where it is possible for men to be the victims of 'rape' (at least in the CL world).
In NSW, the jurisdiction in which I'm admitted to practise (which in the event I don't), the crime of rape was abolished and replaced by the sex/gender-neutral offence of sexual assault, which can be committed by inserting any body part (or object) into either a vagina or an anus, or when oral sex if forcibly engaged in. Different methods have been used in various jurisdictions to "warp" rape law to such an extent as to allow men to be raped. In England the law has been warped only to the extent that the penis might be placed in mouth or anus in addition to the vagina (i.e. while either sex* can be the victim only a man* can be a rapist). The English law, however, does envisage other sexual offences which cover situations in which women might be the perpetrator.
[* I speak here of 'sex' rather than 'gender' to avoid any ambiguities of terminology that might surround a person who has a penis.]
gender is also binary (with rare exceptions)
I disagree, for two reasons. 1) Wheras sex is bounded by physical reality, gender is bounded only by human imagination. and 2) Empirically, sex clusters strongly around two poles while gender lies on a continuum. But first let me repeat the WHO definition, (just as a working definition, which we might in turn dispute) I quoted elsewhere:
Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.
Now if, either by examing either chromosomes, morphology, or some combination thereof, we will, as I wrote above, find sex highly clustered very tightly around two poles. On the other hand results to gender identification surveys, ("What would you rather do on Sunday m) watch sports, f) read a fashion magazine; Waht movie would you rather watch m)action b)romcom; Which colour do you prefer m)blue, f) pink; Do you prefer
As should be clear too, the above defintion of gender makes it possible that "gender criminals" (those who refuse culturally pre-assigned roles) might possibly exist. Thus, perhaps not any more in modern western societies, but certainly in the 1950s, a stay-at-home house husband could not accurately have been descrived as a "man" (and wouldn't have been thought of as a proper man). Stepping away from the notion of a continuum for a moment, 'tomboy' and 'sissy' are arguably genders.
Now sometimes I wonder if this (imho mistaken) binary thinking about gender may influence the certainty of transpeople that they are 'women' or 'men' as opposed to their biological sex (as if feeling more comfortable with some aspects of a 'woman's role' in a society is a good reason to have your dick chopped off). But then I remind myself that I'm not in their heads, and my conjecture about why they are so convinced is somewhat impertinent.
The meaning of that sentence (with the intervening clause left out to foreground the problem of its construction) is difficult to ascertain. Taking you literally I never said variability is wrong, nor that intersex implies so (whatever that might mean).
In case you meant to say that I'm claiming it is "wrong" to be Intersex, I claimed no such thing. What I wrote is that in complex systems things can go wrong. An example of things going wrong might be the effects of Thalidomide on normal limb development. To say of a person who has been affected by Thalidomide that they are wrong not to have arms, would be unconscionable. Or maybe you meant something else again?
What do you mean by mental, in relation to what?
The very next words of the sentence you quoted --"in contradistinction to sex which is matter" --ought to make that clear. As I wrote in my first post in this thread "[g]ender is defined by words (mind), sex by chromosomes (matter)."
Yes, yes, you think you're funny...
Not at all. I'm simply holding you to the point (the distinction between sex and gender) and ignoring the impertinent nonsense and impotent ad homimens
The point, of course
... was to correct your misunderstanding, as expressed in the statement: "[G]ender is defined based on the sex you had at birth. Do you have boy bits or girl bits." The rest was either fluff (talk about your "real world"), or irrelevant (who might go to which bathroom, what these people who identify as 'liberals' might believe, why reading or logical thinking is bad, etc.).
So once again: Do you now understand the distinction between sex and gender or does it go "right over your head?"
When you feel like looking up from a book and joining the real world
So you now do get the distinction between sex and gender? Or are you still lost there? I hope not.
If sex were defined by chromosomes, then most of the time we wouldn't know what sex anyone was because most of the time we don't know anything about what anyone's chromosomes
OK, sorry I see what you mean. Yes it would create problematic queues at public toilets
I don't entirely agree with your point about definition though. It is quite as difficult to define this anatomically (which is not immune from individual differences) as it is to overcome the problem of XY "women." Whether you call and XY with female morphology, "technically male," literally is a matter of definition (and for the avoidance of doubt I was never advocating a definition of sex by chromosomes as opposed to morphology (or any definition at all), that was your "nitpicking" which came close to grammar nazism in that context
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.