>disagree with scientists when they're the ones doing actual research

top lel

I'm completely indifferent to the idea. Why should I care what people call themselves?

>>9498
The nazis used biology as an excuse to go on a rampage, so some people are cautious about that.
>>9572
It's not really about what people call themselves.
It's about the notion that if we assume that humans are born gender neutral (like a blank canvas) then we can claim that we can mould humans to society's liking by the time they grow up.

>>9771

>then we can claim that we can mould humans to society's liking by the time they grow up.

I'm pretty sure you could if you wanted.

>>9771
You're mentally impaired if someone else exploiting science toward ill ends affects your readiness to actually understand reality.

Gender has a biological basis, but the expression of it is influenced heavily by society.

>>9771
>The nazis used biology as an excuse to go on a rampage

>implying the even
Jesus the JIDF is already here

>>9874
Well that's the thing though, you can't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ko-K6HxLx8
Watch this. (around 14:00)

It's basically about a young baby who was a hermaphrodite.

Doctors cut off his dick basically (or something lke that)
Everyone treated the baby like a girl but he always felt like a boy "inside".

So the idea that we can take humans and mould them into anything basically destroys lives.

>>10037

you're talking about anecdotal evidence, though.

which isn't very compelling. anomalies in general can create pretty miserable circumstances

>>10119
Alright.
How about studies that show babies of 1 day of age show preference in "male" things and "female" things?

Obviously the influence of society at that point is zero.

>>9771

>The Nazis did science so we shouldn't do science because they did bad things.

That is completely stupid.

>>9471 (OP)
First question yes, second question no.
Most social constructs have biological causes.

>>10259
It's not just about the nazis, it's the general notion that if you prove for example that blacks are inherently dumber that whites, then blacks will be treated like second class citizens

>>10257

that sounds interesting. potentially broscience, but interesting. i'd have to/want to take a look at the study because it seems like a tricky thing to explore

>>10354
To elaborate: females being conditioned to be 'feminine' is conducive to reproduction of the species, since that entails being submissive, and dominant males can therefore impregnate them more readily.
It doesn't work the other way around, because even a dominant female only gets impregnated once and then has to wait, whereas males are a nonstop sex machine in terms of organ function.

But does that entail innate differences in cognitive function? Not really.

>>10375

you could only prove it if it were true, right?

it would have to be with some kind of explanation, too, like blacks typically don't have the kind of resources whites do available to them

ps blacks (and non-whites in general) are already treated like second rate citizens

File: 1363602075359.png-(181 KB, 499x606, 347h3t5554.png)

181 KB PNG

>Do you think gender is a social construct.
I'm Educated, so no.

Do you think Hair color is a social construct?

>>10502
>lol evo psych

>>10480
>i'd have to/want to take a look at the study because it seems like a tricky thing to explore

It's not just one study, it's the widely accepted belief in western medicine, that's why infants born in the US with hermaphroditic qualities are assigned gender based on what's easier to snip off. Infants actually undergo a series of psychological tests to determine their gender now.

>>10646
Sorry, I'm from /vp/.

>>10652
Not only psychological tests.

Doctors take a sample of some parts of the brain to determine if the baby is a male or female.

>>10502
>But does that entail innate differences in cognitive function? Not really.

Not trying to troll you, but yes, it actually does.

Compare an all man work group situation to an all female situation.

Immediately things begin to pop up that differentiate the two.

>>10821
I don't really think it's possible to do so without them already being socialised into having a gender of either sort.
Have there been any case studies where a bunch of male or female infants have been raised by some sort of gender-neutral entity, completely sequestered from the rest of the species' culture?

>>11002
>gender neutral entity

there's no such human

> have a whole different type of chromosome specifically tailored towards whatever roles you should have been good at over millions of years determined by sex
> somehow believe this doesn't affect our minds despite evidence, such as brain scans of infants, to the contrary
Such is the world we live in.

By the way, people should be able to do what they want and I accept that transgenderism is a thing i.e "I don't fit into my societal roles" but I think it's just a perversion of the mind like homosexuality cause by who-knows-what. I don't think it means they're some enlightened race who have rejected old ideas of gender. Sex determines what kind of mind you have.

>>11068
I used the vague term 'entity' because it'd probably need to be an advanced robot or something.

>>11208
We're a social species, so why's it difficult to believe there are aspects of our being that must be socialised and taught?
Look at speech. It's an inherent part of being human, but if a child isn't exposed to it at all during their developmental period, they ain't learning it.

Yes gender (man/woman) is a social construct. Gender roles have been around forever however.

Sex (male/female) is down to a biological and anatomical level.

>>11364
>Yes gender (man/woman) is a social construct.
How do you explain
>>10816
and
>>10257

>a social construct
Gender rolls are, but gender isn't.
Fucking idiots. Men are men and women are women, it's what we do that is contructed by our social order.

>>11445
But gender roles are influenced by gender which is influenced by sex.

>>11490
Which is also influenced by culture, social norms and practices and other variables.

>>10257
Those studies have always been inconclusive, dipshit

>>11490
No.
Not at all.
For example, with most lizards and spiders the female is dominant.

Gender roles aren't related to gender itself.

>>11604
ok, let's talk about humans now

>>11640
How is human gender any different to the gender of a spider?
You're an idiot.

>>11440
Brain has to do with biology. So that one is explained.

As for the 2nd one, they are one year old, they don't know the difference. :\

>>11663
>How is a human gender any different to the gender of a spider

Jesus loves you op

>>11663
lord save us

>>11690
Are you seriously retarded?
Spiders are male and female
Humans are male and female
Where is the difference?

I don't think it should be an issue that is even raised with somebody unless you're about to have sex.

>I HAVE A PENIS BUT FEEL LIKE A WOMAN INSIDE

Okay so? Give me a pronoun and a proper noun with which to address you. Everything else isn't relevant!

What is even the definition of gender? Is it the "social role" of somebody, like, is it just a psychological or social thing? Can you be male and have a female gender?..

>>11717
in the fucking species you dumbfuck

>>11725
If my boyfriend were trans I'd call him by the PROPER pronouns, not his stupid shit.
If he has a problem then he can fuck off.

>>11730
And that's relevant how?
I'm talking gender, not gender rolls. Gender between two species is (usually) the same.
Gender rolls may be different.
A male is a male is a male.

This is getting fucking stupid.

>>11728
>can you be male

A "male" who thinks is a woman has a slightly different brain.

>>11356
Sigh, guess I'm going to have to write this out to you then. Your body is an environmental factor in your brain developing. Women and men have an entirely different set of hormones and shit going on in their bodies that change how they perceive the world and react to things.

Women generally have bigger eyes, making them endearing as they look neotenous; have shorter tear ducts and wider openings, meaning less tears building up makes them cry compared to men; they don't build muscle naturally as they go through puberty due to different hormones in play, making them generally weaker than men and pushing them into submissive roles; babies have been shown to naturally show the overtly aggressive with comradery communal behaviours for boys and the co-operative but subversively aggressive communal behaviours for girls. Women are also far more likely to have under-active thyroid glands (seriously ask your female friends how many of them take thyroxine if they're passed 25, it will be a lot), this makes them feel colder (in evolutionary terms this could be because it was men who needed to brave outdoors more).

Women have a bunch of shit stacked against them genetically and all of this compounds into making them act in certain ways. There's a reason there's never been a female-dominated society in history. Men and women both had important gender roles, but women can now move into the male gender role too now, which is great (except that it's a double standard as men can't do the same for their role) but there is a ton of shit that's going make a woman be woman in gender too that is biologically dictated.

Sure some slip through the net, but for most they stay a certain way.

>>11717
Completely different reproductive habits facilitating completely different 'gender' roles, for one.
For two, you can't just go around acting like arthropod brains and mammal brains are the same. That just ain't how it goes.

>>11811
Fucking read my posts, retard.
GENDER, NOT GENDER ROLES.
FUCK. Gender is a physiological thing, gender rolls are a social thing.

>>11863
the word you're looking for is "sex" not gender.

>>11877
>arguing semantics
Then define gender for me. Do you mean gender ROLES when you say gender? How is gender different to sex?

>>11793
Not entirely true. There have been a couple of Matrilocal/Matrilineal societies throughout history. These were native/aboriginal in origin. However, they were stomped out by the white man several hundred years ago.

>>11877
What exactly is the difference? I'm honestly curious, since my native language doesn't even have different words for "gender" and "sex"

>>11877
Sex is on a biological level. Gender is on a societal level.

>>11965
Stupid tumblrfags making a distinction that isn't there.
People say gender is the mind and sex is the body, but that's just stupid.
Gender and sex are synonymous.

File: 1363604290564.jpg-(186 KB, 600x604, 1362848440569.jpg)

186 KB JPG

>>11921
Gender is a grammatical term.

>>11987
So by gender you mean gender role.

gen·der
/ˈjendər/
Noun

(in languages such as Latin, Greek, Russian, and German) Each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns...
The property (in nouns and related words) of belonging to such a class: "adjectives usually agree with the noun in gender and number".

if you accept gender is a social construct then you'd have to also accept that gender identity disorder is something that can be conditioned out.

I dont accept either btw

>>11944
There have been societies with queens and such, but never where the women are hunters while the men do passive shit like taking care of children and the like, as far as I'm aware. If you know differently please source me.

It would go completely against our biology for it to be that way as women are built to take care of kids and protect the family while men source food and the like and compete for a woman to choose them to be a mate. People just automatically think that women being in the womanly role was bad nowadays when it wasn't. It worked for fucking ages and it's only now that we've tamed nature somewhat that we can let shit equal out. Hell women didn't even want the vote until post industrial revolution. They weren't repressed.

>>11765
Spiders and lizards don't have a gender. They have a sex.

Spiders and lizards don't think "I'm a man and will express myself as such" or "I'm a woman and will express myself as such"

They don't really have minds. They're just biological machines.

A spider is literally dumber than your iPhone.

>>12021
That's right, disagree with what the social scientists say - they don't know the difference between sex and gender at all.

To a man who thinks he is a woman - his sex is the same, his gender is not since it is a social aspect.

>>9471 (OP)
>Do you think that gender is a social construct?
Yes.

>Are you in disagreement with scientists trying to find biological causes in gender roles and sexuality?
No; no matter one's ideas, in the end nature is what it is, and examining scientifically is an unquestionable priority for the common good.

>>12090
>A spider is literally dumber than your iPhone.
Neuroscience student here, also doing a course on artificial intelligence.
Please tell me you don't actually believe this.

>>12082

I would love to source you but I would have to dig through all of my textbooks to find it and I have to keep studying.

As for patrilineal societies. They have been successful for a reason and you're right.

>>11921
>>11965
sex is only about the biological difference

For example the penis, difference in the amount of testosterone, difference in the brain etc.

Gender is tied to both biology and sociology.

For example, girls liking pink things and boys blue things, is due to gender.

You may wonder "so I get how gender is about nurture but where is it tied to biology?"

You know how there are more female nurses and more male engineers, right?

So, is it just because society "tells" females to be nurses and males to be engineers, or are there innate characteristics which subconsciously, on a genetic level, guides a male to do different things and a female to do different things?

The answer is both nature AND nature define our gender, while our sex is only defined by nature.
That's the difference between sex and gender.

>>12264
You're talking about gender role.
Gender is a synonym for sex.

gender is organic.

if you think you have a different gender, there is something wrong.

this is not reason to kill yourself.

pronouns describe physical sex, not self-decided gender, get over it.

Why can't you faggots just be normal?

>>12287
no

>>12183
I believe it, nigger, what now?

>>11793
I was trying to formulate an argument, but realised I was just trying to justify my own gender identification (which is to say, none at all because "it's all just personalities and the gender binary is just culture").
But your argument's compelling and now I probably just gotta come to terms with the prospect of being trans. Consarnit anon.

>>12287

Not anymore in technical/academic language.

>>12287
gender contains both a natural aspect/notion and a nurtural aspect/notion.

Sex is only about the natural aspect

>>12264
Ah, I think I get it now. So if your sex is male and your gender is female, you don't necessarily want to get rid of your dick and have a vagina instead, but you just want to have the place a female would usually have in society, right?

>>12183
CS here, also doing a course on neuroscience.

We have made machines that can negotiate rough terrain 2 AUs away from Earth; those aren't using special processors.

We have made algorithms that can suggest you movies and shit.

We have trivialized pathfinding, image and sound recognition, and routing.

Do you really think a spider's processing power, which is mostly 'eat shit, stay out the way' is anywhere near modern software/hardware?

Well, maybe not iPhone, because it's Apple shit. But they're certainly dumber than Galaxy S2s

>>12432
kinda, but without a vagina you cannot have the place a female has in society.

Thus, if your sex is male but you identify as something besides male, there's a problem there.

What a bunch of queers.

>>12455
Cognitive science student here. Don't confuse processing power with intelligence.

>>12455
>machines that can negotiate rough terrain 2 AUs away from Earth
what does that mean?

>>12525
>implying spiders have intelligence.

lolno

>>12490
>without a vagina you cannot have the place a female has in society.
But why? Is there something you can do with a vagina that you can't do with a penis? Or does the social role include having sex in a certain way?

Gender isn't a social construct.
Race isn't a social construct.

Give me some others because i'm pretty sure 90% of what most retards think social constructs are, are in fact not.

>>12365
Wait no false alarm
Paradigm adjusted but not lost
Whilst I am effectively a 'female' cognitively speaking, I am still content with being biologically male because accepting the existence of 'male-minded females' and 'female-minded males' is just a thing modern society should do, and sex changes would only be counterproductive to achieving that

Unprovoked bouts of introspection on 4chan feel weird

>>12455
Hey, my iPhone can do most of that shit.

>>12601
have birth

>>12525
A posteriori physicalist here. They are virtually the same.

>>12647
*give birth

>>12580
I never implied this.

>gender as a social construct

There are lots of reasons people would want to believe this, but the important question is, where is the evidence? Not a hypothesis--there are lots of hypotheses about gender, but EVIDENCE. So far as we can gather, our genes dictate our phenotype, which also includes our behavior.

The male lion doesn't hunt, the lionesses do. Is this behavior a social construct? Or is it that, in a lion's pride, the females are genetically "programmed" to do the hunting?

Why should humans not be subject to the same forces? We have witnessed, across chasms of geography and time, human cultures which are very similar to each other in many ways. Women will typically do the child-rearing and the stay-at-home stuff, men go off and do the dangerous things.

What is even meant by the question, "Is gender a social construct"? The male weaver bird makes an ornate nest, the female weaver bird doesn't. What social construct is this? There are differences between the genders and they are very real. That's what we observe.

>>12674
That depends entirely on the definition of intelligence you use.

>>12613

>race

If you're talking about the color of your skin and the shape of your face, that can very easily be explained by natural selection and geography.

As our ancestors moved out of Africa about 60,000 years ago, in small, tight-knit groups, we were exposed to less and less sunlight. In the middle of sun-soaked Africa, we had very dark skin; this is for the simple fact that too much sunlight can kill us. All the same we NEED sunlight, because it helps us to process vitamin D.

The farther away we moved from the equator, the paler we became, to absorb more of what little sunshine there was. As for the morphology of our faces--remember that we moved out of Africa in small groups. Many of these people would have been very closely related, and therefore share the same genes. The recessive traits that have come to characterize the various races of humanity, then, would have been highly expressed and exaggerated.

So.

That's race.

>>11208
>I think it's just a perversion of the mind like homosexuality cause by who-knows-what.
Actually, homosexuality is quite normal and advantageous caused in part by genes that conveyed a fitness advantage to the related females of said homosexuals. I'd suggest you actually study it before coping out like an intellectual coward because you seem fairly coherent here:
>>11793

>>12891

Whats the name of that documentary by the way?

The Norwegian one where everything you just said was part 6/7.

>>12931

I'm very sorry, I don't know. I wasn't aware there was a documentary. This is just basic biology and anthropology. Anyone with an interest in the subjects would learn it eventually.

>>12931
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jUxpMBl7RBY

>>13017

Thanks.

>>13009

Watch the documentary and get scared how you just parroted some Norwegian dude from a few years ago.

>>13127

Well, the point stands.

I'm also going to suppose, if he was thorough, the evidence in mitochondrial DNA for our recent African origin? It's really quite interesting, actually, all humans get mitochondria from their mother, and their mother only. So when we see extremely similar mitochondrial DNA in people of non-African origin, and a lot more diversity in Africa, INCLUDING the mitochondrial DNA OUTSIDE Africa...

It means we started there and moved out. It's the history written in our blood and it's so, so mind-blowing to consider the distances humans have covered in so short a time we've been here.

>>12891
The notion that race is a social construct is something that just about every single geneticist knows is only 1/4th a truth.
It is mainly pushed by humanities students and sociologists, not actual scientists.
Steven Pinker and Razib Khan are fond of schooling those who proclaim that bullshit.

>>13215
yeah but a good portion of people who say otherwise tend to go the other extreme .

>>13272
that really is not an excuse to muffle and guilt the people who are only set to find out the truth about how human beings function

>>13215

I tend to think of races of humanity like breeds of dogs. Still a single species, but different from one another. The differences, however, aren't all that exaggerated.

>>13272
That's because it's a career killer to admit to, aside from a few intellectually honest people such as Pinker, so only people who work in places where it doesn't matter or have no self-preservation instinct will admit to such views. Hence the echo-chamber extremism.

You can't really compare lion and bird "societies" to human society; we're on an entirely different level.

There's no activity or behavior that only human males or only human females do with the same universal regularity of the male weaver bird making an ornate nest or the female lionesses being the hunters. Not even close.

Sure, there are some behaviors that are going to be influenced (not dictated) by our phenotype, but they don't run along rigid "gender" lines.

Gender is a social construct because our conception of "man" and "woman" references society, not, say, biology. The things we consider "of men" and "of women" have nothing to do with penises and vaginas, and our gendered behavior is far more influenced by societal pressures than phenotypes.

>>13354

>societal pressures

But many of those pressures are due specifically to our genes. Women can have children--therefore, in most of human societies, you wouldn't have women doing dangerous shit. You know why?

Ten women plus one man equals ten kids.

Ten men plus one woman equals one kid and nine very, very frustrated men.

>>13354
>because our conception of "man" and "woman" references society, not, say, biology.
Maternal instincts.
Protective instincts.
Get fucked gender studies waste of space.

>>13354
Here's an interesting fact for you to consider though.

You'd think that in countries with more equality, the interests of men and women would blend and virtually most work places, hobbies, interests would be consisted of 50% of either gender.

It's proven that in countries where people are free to choose to work wherever the fuck they want to, the deviation from the 50-50 percentage increases.

No matter how much the government tried to change it, 90% of females remained nurses and 90% of engineers remained males.

So yes, there's (even if not an absolute) a big and solid difference in how males and females behave.

Females prefer social proffessions/hobbies/etc
Males prefer mechanical proffessions/hobbies/etc

What we consider a man and woman references society yes.

But the way men and women behave in that society is DEEPLY related to biology.

>>13536
>90% of females remained nurses

lol, I meant 90% of nurses remained females, sorry

>>10257

Define what a "male" thing is and what a "female" thing is.

HARDMODE: Make it society independent.

>>13588
A male is the one who gives the sperm.
A female is the one who accepts the sperm and gives birth.

>>13403
Those are still all dependent on society. You're just describing a specific kind of society. You have to ask yourself what does the society value? What doesn't it value, etc. Does this woman even want to have children or does she want to do dangerous shit?

It doesn't seem like a very good society you're describing either, nor does it even describe most of human societies. 10 women plus one man equals 10 kids? When has that ever been the societal ideal? We went through hundreds of years of societal chastity just to avoid such horrific child-rearing situations.

The society is constructing gender even in your example.

>>13624
So a sterile male or female is not a male or female?
Apply yourself, anon!

>>13536
I agree with this view, there's aspects of both sides of the arguments at play. If you have a deeply rigid male/female structure in, say a kinship-based society, you're still gonna see deviation in the form of females wanting to hunt or males wanting to help raise children. And the same is true for your example of very free societies as well. Both biology and social status are affecting the definitions of gender roles, really.

>>12455

Computers always have and always will be dumb until we develop self-aware AI that can teach itself. You're just giving a dumb machine a set of instructions and its following them to the letter.

>>13690
I knew you'd come to that conclusion.

A sterile male is a problematic male.
A car which is broken is still a car, it doesn't deserve a new vehicle name.

>>13536
Just because they're free to work wherever they want in reference to the law doesn't mean there aren't still societal pressures and influences. Even if there is a big and solid difference in how men and women behave now, it's still a giant leap to think that it's because of their biological sex and it would be a mistake to say it's "deeply" related to biology. It has more to do with how society treats their biological sex.

A man could just look at nursing, or a woman engineering, and think "it's 90% the other gender; I guess this profession isn't for me". That has nothing to do with their actual biology.They're just making decisions in reference to the way society is already configured.

>>13624

>i can't answer the question
>so i'm just gonna dodge it with a troll response

1/10 because I replied, but that's the best I can do.

>>13690
no, they are just a failure by nature. same as faggots and lesbians, they don't serve any purpose. seriously, that's not like nature works.

>>13946
He's not saying that isn't a factor, he's saying both biology and society create these definitions. There's evidence on both sides for each view, but they don't really have to be mutually exclusive, do they?

>>13814
You've no idea what you're talking about; that AI has existed for decades. And the instructions its following is the 'how to teach yourself' algorithm, which is nowhere near the bulk of spider intelligence. It is a primary factor in human cognition, and that's why I never claimed AI is more intelligent than humans, because it's not.

>>13814
A spider is no different, except that the set of instructions come from biochemicals. A spider is no more self-aware than my 3DS.

>>13946
That's a very plausible theory, but since you cannot prove the choice is exclusively about nurture and since, if you look at the whole spectrum of ACTUAL science, the choices we make as males or females begin from day 1 when society has yet to influence us, it's unfortunately NOT true, it doesn't stand its ground, it's also complete ignorant bullshit and hurtful to our society.

If you think that people are born gender neutral and you can mould them into whatever the fuck you want to just by "convincing" them, you just have no fucking idea how human beings work.

Check the case of Viktor, 14 minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ko-K6HxLx8

People like you who refuse the biological impact on our behavior in order to advance an ideological agenta, destroy lives.

>>14017
I did answer the question.

A sterile man is a man.

A man's brain is vastly different from a woman's.

Scientists are able to know what you are by picking a sample of your brain cells.

A sterile man for example shares the brain and general body structure like a normal man.

>>14048
>There's evidence on both sides for each view, but they don't really have to be mutually exclusive, do they?

No, and I do agree that biology and phenotype are going to influence our behavior.

But where it becomes problematic is when you actually start saying "THIS is MAN-LIKE behavior" and "THAT is WOMAN-LIKE behavior".

Because those things do not exist outside of what the society is influencing. There are going to be so many exceptions to the "rule" of what biological sex may be influencing in behavior that it hardly can be considered a "rule" at all. The slack is picked-up by the society and people follow suit because they mistakenly believe that there are "mannish" things and "womanish" things.

Not reading this gay ass thread. Did anyone cite there ridiculously spurious claims
> scientists trying to find biological causes in gender roles
like this with descriptive trustworthy sources?

No? Didn't think so.

>>13946
Not who you're replying to.

Frankly I'm inclined to believe that certain behavioural patterns on the societal plane are probably based on biological drives. However I must say that saying that because biology (obviously) influnces us it does so in all aspects of our behaviour is a fallacious leap of faith and it indicates that a person presupposes that to be the case.

My point being that proving that biology is influential to our behaviour doesn't prove exactly what it influences, to what degree and how.

From that point of view the idea that 90% of women do job A, biology in general influences our behaviour, therefore them choosing that job is due to their inherent biological roles they have to comply to is nothing sort of a gigantic leap of faith.

The premise that biology influences our behaviour doesn't necessarilly entail that it influences it in that specific regard. This is still a subject to be proven and in that case -and for the moment- the theory that it's societal factors that determine her actions is actually supported by more proof.

That's a lot of words to say that I agree for the moment. But well.

>>14266
No.

Women on average across every civilisation on the planet, were more social.

Men on average across every fucking civilisation that ever existed, were more violent.

We, as men and women have certain characteristics.

Society can only empower or moderate them.

Human beings aren't born as blank canvasses.

You can't take a boy, give it a pink dress and expect it to accept being called a boy.

>>14408
>
From that point of view the idea that 90% of women do job A, biology in general influences our behaviour, therefore them choosing that job is due to their inherent biological roles they have to comply to is nothing sort of a gigantic leap of faith.

If you only look at that, then yes.

If you study the whole spectrum of actual science in how genders work, it's not only plausible, it's proven.

File: 1363608916286.gif-(863 KB, 245x163, cry.gif)

863 KB GIF

>>14144
You're like those people who say the theory of evolution leads to eugenics and the holocaust. Calm down, nigger.

>>9471 (OP)
GO TO SLEEP JUDITH

>>14412
>You can't take a boy, give it a pink dress and expect it to accept being called a boy.


Yeah, because society tells him pink dresses are for girls. If society told him pink dresses are for boys he probably wouldn't give two shits.

http://www.turtlebayandbeyond.org/2012/homosexuality/nordic-countries-defund-gender-ideology/

Just going to leave this here, The article could be written better and you don't need to bother reading it, but I highly recommend the documentary at the bottom of the page.

>>14617
Ever heard of that experiment where a family tried raising their son as a girl?

Didn't work.

File: 1363609204945.jpg-(6 KB, 251x251, 1290929250635.jpg)

6 KB JPG

>>14617
Except then he sees other boys not in pink dresses.

And sees throughout history who dresses were for.

Jesus fuck.

>>14617
This exact example is awful though, because pink used to be the color for baby boys.

>>14497
>If you study the whole spectrum of actual science in how genders work, it's not only plausible, it's proven.

That's an appeal to a blank citation. You act as if you are citing trustworthy and not debatable sources, but you're not actually doing so. It's close to a reverse personal incredulty fallacy.

What exactly do you argue is proven? That the primary motivating factor for what behaviour is biological? You can't just jump to conclusions. On the side of the sociologists we already have internally consistent theories for every behaviour. You can't counter these with vague appeals to primary instincts. Neither can you say, this behaviour is not caused by a societal factor therefore none are. These are all fallacies.

At some point we need to begin looking at things from the beginning rather than from the end. Science doesn't work like you are trying to use it. You don't begin from the conclusion.

When biologists prove that a certain behaviour is due to some biological mechanism whose influence can't be reduced (or can) by society, then and only then can we say that the sociologists were wrong. At the point we're just grasping at straws.

>>14686
I think you guys are confusing "gender is a social construct" with "parents can control their child's personality". They're not the same thing.

>>14696
>Except then he sees other boys not in pink dresses.
>And sees throughout history who dresses were for.

These are all societal. What are you even arguing?

>>9471 (OP)
>Do you think that gender is a social construct?
Nope. It's decided at birth. You have a vagina? You are a woman. Got a dick? You are a dude.

Sure you could muddy the water with the XXX and XXY people, but for the most part this works.
>Are you in disagreement with scientists trying to find biological causes in gender roles and sexuality?
I find they aren't really scientists, but people looking to complete a "research" paper so they don't get kicked from their college professor jobs.

>>14696
>Except then he sees other boys not in pink dresses.

Reread his post. If all other boys are wearing blue dresses, then that's a pretty important societal pressure to not wear a pink dress if you're a boy.

The primary way society affects idnividuals is not through direct coercion, it's through socialisation. People being memetic and all.

Everyone does what everyone else does, because they do it.

>>10119
This isn't anecdotal, he was followed around by a team of scientists since the accident. He also had gender reassignment surgery to try and become a man again later in life, was still incredibly unhappy and killed himself.

The fact of the matter if that male brains and female brains are distinct enough to tell apart by looking at them. So there's obviously an underlying structural preference one way or the other. I think that brains can be put in the wrong bodies, so to speak. But I think it's a lot rarer than the actual amount of trans-people that exist.

>>14800
>Science doesn't work like you are trying to use it.
sociologist dont use the scientific method...

>>9471 (OP)
Gender ROLES are primarily a social construct, though likely also have some biological impetus driving them.

Gender identity is a matter of neurology and philosophy of mind (i.e. what the fuck does 'identity' in and of itself entail).

Physiological gender, aka sex, is entirely biological, and binary.

Please clarify your subject matter in future.

>>9471 (OP)
>>9771
holy fuck im not even gay or anything just checking this board out

but fuck OP is a huge faggot

yeah the jews invented gender to oppress you man thats totally it

holy balls i can tolerate a lot, scat fetish, guys that want to be girls, pedos, armpit fucking, gays or lesbians

but being so retarded and saying "NOPE GENDER IS A CONSTRUCT ITS NOT REAL U GUISE"

just makes me facepalm
im out.

>>14933
Sociologists follow critical theory at the moment, which isn't an anti-positivist method. It is a science, albeit not one where the convenience of an experiment is present to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the theoretical observation. For sociologists themselves there are "experiments" of sorts that are possible but the most important part is the internal consistency of their theory.

However I was referring to biologists that are a positivist science (Which is the reason I said that a proven biological theory inconsistent with the respective sociological theory would discredit it). There the internal rational consistency of a theory can be proven via experimentation. Still, you don't start from the conclusion. You reach it. otherwise you're doing biased science and thus not science.

>>14800
>When biologists prove that a certain behaviour is due to some biological mechanism whose influence can't be reduced (or can) by society,
they already have more or less
and this system of constantly moving goal posts is no different from what creationist use.

>>14986
Gender roles =/= gender identity =/= gender

Gender roles are a social construct

Gender identity is neurology and philosophy of mind

And gender is still a social construct.

>>15120
>they already have more or less

They have proven that what behaviour is proven to be strictly biological? You're not even telling what your thesis is, let alone indicate the proof you are claiming exists.

Unless you are saying that biologists have proven that all human behaviour is exclusively or primarilly influenced by biological drives. Which isn't the case, and even actual biologists would laugh at your face.

>and this system of constantly moving goal posts

I didn't move any goal-post. I still stand by my initial assesment that any and all theses have to be backed with data or arguments or they are not valid.

Gender was invented to subjugate females, it's irrelevant

>>15121
'Gender' in this context can mean any of those things. Unless you're saying gender as a concept in and of itself is a social construct, in which case we're getting into fucking metaphysics about the nature of abstract properties and conceptual entities, which really isn't an LGBT matter so much as a lot of bullshit about semantics and individual perception.

Unless you're using it for some fourth category I'm unaware of, outside of mental, physical, or action/concept/expectation categories. In which case, sorry and please elaborate, cause I dunno what you mean by that shit.

Kind of, but it's not like I'm going to become a neurologist and join the research team just to find a way to disprove their recent findings.

>>12580
Please go and look up the family salticidae, and cleanse yourself of your ignorance.

>"social construct" means it's bad or not real
I hate this mentality.

>>15114
>critical theory at the moment
>It is a science
It is most certainly not.
It outright denies the scientific method.

>Do you think that gender is a social construct?
what in the actual fuck??
fuck this world
and all you faggots in it

>>15489
how are we even supposed to know why you're mad

>>15438
It doesn't "deny" the positivist method. Where did you come up with that?

It just doesn't apply there. It's impossible to actually perform an experiment in the same sense as you would perform it in a "hard" science. That doesn't mean it's not a science. It just means it's not a positivist science.

The experiment is a convenience but it most certainly isn't the only way to check the rational consistency of a theory, and sociology isn't free of the constraints of rational inquiry. Its concepts are faulsifiable.

A sex difference is a distinction of biological and/or physiological characteristics associated with either males or females of a species. These can be of several types, including direct and indirect. Direct being the direct result of differences prescribed by the Y-chromosome, and indirect being a characteristic influenced indirectly (e.g. hormonally) by the Y-chromosome. Sexual dimorphism is a term for the phenotypic difference between males and females of the same species. Sex differences are also increased or decreased according to societal situations.[1]

Direct sex differences follow a bimodal distribution. Through the process of meiosis and fertilization (with rare exceptions), each individual is created with zero or one Y-chromosome. The complementary result for the X-chromosome follows, either a double or a single X. Therefore, direct sex differences are usually binary in expression (although the deviations in complex biological processes produce a menagerie of exceptions). These include, most conspicuously, male (vs female) gonads.

Indirect sex differences are general differences as quantified by empirical data and statistical analysis. Most differing characteristics will conform to a bell-curve (i.e. normal) distribution which can be broadly described by the mean (peak distribution) and standard deviation (indicator of size of range). Often only the mean or mean difference between sexes is given. This may or may not preclude overlap in distributions.

The most obvious differences between males and females include all the features related to reproductive role, notably the endocrine (hormonal) systems and their physiological and behavioural effects, including gonadal differentiation, internal and external genital and breast differentiation, and differentiation of muscle mass, height, and hair distribution.

>>15599
How exactly is this relevant?

>>15582
>That doesn't mean it's not a science.
Actually it does.
No one but sociologists consider sociology to be a science, and Derrida's critical theory claptrap has been ushered off into the anti-scientific corners since the mid-70s.

i think gender is a social construct built over strong biological directions.
it's also one of the fondation of our culture and society.

gender =/= gender identity
two completely real things that are similar, but are not the same

>>15629
He's talking about physiological gender. Which is why I bugged the OP earlier to clarify if they meant physical, mental, or stereotypical expectation 'gender'. Since they're all fucking different things, and just saying 'gender' leads to a huge clusterfuck of people arguing at a cross-purpose over entirely different subjects because language. Just like in this thread.

Funny, that.

>>10257
>How about studies that show babies of 1 day of age show preference in "male" things and "female" things?
150 years ago children were not treated as boys or girls until they were 5 or 6 years old.
Pink wasn't a colour exclusively for girls, nor was blue for boys.

>>15281
I'm saying something like this:

In most societies the big societal narrative is that there are two genders: "man" and "woman" (though not all societies say this).

And society assigns to "man" and "woman" certain characteristics: mental, physical, personal. There are "manly" characteristics and "womanly" characteristics.

But these characteristics never hold true for ALL of the people that the society designates as "men" and "women", they usually only hold true in some kind of average, and even then the disparity between the averages is not so great.

So these categories of "man" and "woman" really aren't even that great at grouping together all of the people that society wants to consider "men" and "women".

The society could have alternatively, if history had gone differently, assigned people into 40 different genders with narrower characteristic assignments, and then people would think of themselves as one of these 40 genders based on how they felt their characteristics aligned with them.

Gender is more like the signs of the zodiac (assuming you don't believe in astrology) than some kind of essentialism. Except that we take it far more seriously and we shit on people when they're not acting like they should, like when a Sagittarius goes out dressed like an Aries or a Cancer takes an interest in something we associate with Pisces.

A person's gender identity is different, though. That's how they actually feel inside. Sometimes it aligns with society's gender categories, but sometimes it doesn't.

People ITT are confusing the idea of "gender is a social construct" with "your gender identity is a blank slate".

Which is pretty much like if someone said "the signs of the zodiac are bullshit" and someone responded incredulously with "you're so dumb, you're saying that we don't have personalities?!?!?"

>>10528
>it would have to be with some kind of explanation, too, like blacks typically don't have the kind of resources whites do available to them
And what if it wasn't resources?

What you fags fail to realize is that when you try to apply the whole notion that gender doesn't equal sex, then you sound like those guys who don't believe in evolution because "HURR DURR IT IS ONLY A THEORY!"

>>15656
> Derrida's critical theory
Derrida isn't a critical theorist. Critical theory is horkheimer's school of thought standing between antipositivists (those that actually don't follow the scientific method) and positivists.

>ushered off into the anti-scientific corners since the mid-70s.

Now, I know you don't know what you're talking about considering you just said critical theory is relevant with Derrida, but for your information what is science itself, and whether the scientific method is important or not, is something determined by philosophy not science. You don't apply a method to a branch of philosophy (namely science) before you actually evaluate its relevance to it. The idea that an experiment is necessary to determine -without a doubt- the accuracy of a theory as well as the idea that any scientific theory needs to first and foremost be faulsifiable are both philosophical ideas subject to evaluation.

In other words, what is or isn't a science is decided based on how you define science, and that is done a step before science exists by philosophers. You can't take a definition for granted and use it to justify a self-referential understanding of science without reaching a circular reasoning.

This is one of the very few issues where I say "I don't know and I don't care". I think everyone should be able to act how they want within common socially acceptable norms, regardless of gender, sex, or other such roles and characteristics.

>>15878
That, uhh. That is literally gender roles as I understand them to be. The stereotypes and social expectations placed on behaviour, underlying our interactions with each other.

So yeah. Gender roles (see: stereotypes of what counts as 'male' or 'female' behaviour, as well as the backlash accompanying deviancy from these expectations) are primarily a social construct. I won't [can't] rule out biological impetus driving their original development and enforcing, because it's entirely probably that the physical differences between men and women used to necessitate wholly different behavioural patterns, and that deviancy in those times could put family and friends at risk for their lives.

That said, they aren't exactly necessary, and the kneejerk reactions to their contravening by anyone is quite likely a sign of instinctual behaviour that we just post-rationalize to justify behaving irrationally.

>>15998
'Gender' as a term is just a category, man. It includes sex, but also includes identity (self-perception) and stereotypes regarding behaviour and such.

>>16094
Right you are using a clinical term outside of a clinical setting and perverting its meaning from what we accept the non-clinical term to mean.

So these social justice warriors who are armchair-sociologists shouldn't be all butthurt from people saying "Don't say gender when you mean gender" because it is the same to a lot of people.

If literally can mean the opposite of literally, then you gotta go with the popular definition.

Just like how gay used to mean happy. Then it meant homosexual. Now it means retarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOFXLl7eh4

>>16068
>Derrida isn't a critical theorist.
Derrida is a post-structuralist that popularized critical theorist wanking in the social sciences. Marcuse, Horkheimer et al only held court in extremist politics prior to that.
>is something determined by philosophy not science.
According to "philosophers of science". Actual scientists couldn't give a fuck what you and your anti-intellectual kindred get up to.

>>16094
>That, uhh. That is literally gender roles as I understand them to be.

The difference between "gender roles" and "gender" is admittedly hard to extract, but there is a difference, even though both are social constructs.

Consider: Someone can break, bend or outright defy a "gender role" and yet still consider themselves to be a part of the gender that the roles are supposedly set for. For example, a person could easily consider themselves "all woman" and yet despise women's gender roles and say that they really don't like most "womanish" things.

So you have to ask: why, then, does she consider herself to be a "woman" at all? There's no reason to outside of society's demand that she adhere to one of these binaries. But those are, of course, great demands. Probably, she considers herself a "woman" because even though she rejects most personal or mental womanly gender roles, she still has to adhere to one gender assignment characteristic (or face society's wrath): the physical, e.g. she has a vagina and feminine features, which society associates with "woman". Otherwise, she would be doing something pretty taboo in society.

Alright from what i've gandered this argument basically boils down to.

Biology affects Gender.
Gender affects Society.
Society affects Gender to a lesser degree.

Therefore Gender is a Social Construct.

Right?

>>16198
Then I'm honestly incredibly curious what the fuck you'd use 'gender roles' to refer to. The idea that the term 'gender' in itself refers specifically to the stereotypes and expectations (oh hey, which happen to be ROLES that people fill) leads to horrific goddamn confusion as to what you actually mean when 'gender' can also be taken to mean 'sex' or 'gender identitiy'.

>>16340
And that's where gender identity comes in. That's the neurological and self-perceptive side of things. A woman breaking gender roles for women considers herself one because of some mix of how neurology affects chemical disposition, and the concept of the self and self-identification that she has.

>>16431
In reality Biology affects Sex and Gender, as they are synonyms, and society combined with biology affects people's ordering/roles.

>>16465

So why do people completely strike out Biology and proclaim that Gender(Sex) is entirely societal?

Please tell me its because they are idiots.

I think Gender in terms of "female" and "male" is pretty unhelpful in understanding anything.

You are male or female. This is set in stone when you are born - nothing, not even medical procedures, will change this. Hermaphrodites are obviously the exception, but they're hardly a common occurence in human biology.

But for "masculine" and "feminine"? They're a bit better - be a feminine man, be a masculine woman. If that's your choice so be it, providing you feel comfortable with it. But it's not a scientific idea, it's just application of social constructs, and try not to present it as anything more meaningful than a helpful specification.

I generally feel contempt for the idea of Sex Change operations because it conforms to an outdated and frankly barbaric idea that your sex, and only your sex, confirms your identity - it says that Masculine and Feminine don't matter, only the Xs and Ys do.
And don't even get me started on the idiots who "identify" with the opposite sex to the point of asking to be called that; under no circumstance will I call you a woman if you are quite clearly a man. There are plenty of domesticated dogs that identify as humans, but they are quite clearly dogs. Nothing wrong with having those thoughts, just confine them to the realm of fiction where humans place all of their other unrealistic ideals (and are healthier for it)

Many people envision a future of equality, where sex and other factors don't influence judgement of character. It's extremely hard to reach that when some people are spurning one sex in the desire to be another, being the first to remind everyone that the two things are separate. Many hypocrites are made this way.

So yeah, Gender's cool, it's helpful, it's a better descriptor than sex. Providing people don't start favouring its analysis over regular science, then it's good stuff.

>>16494
Those people are fucking retarded and don't know what they're talking about. That's as clearly as I can word it.

>>16287
Derrida is an althusserian post-modernist. His philosophy is relevant with post-modernist deconstruction. You can't say critical theory is his creation. Its understanding through a post-structuralist lense is his idea.

>According to "philosophers of science"

No, according to leibnitz. It may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of scientists had to tackle philosophical issues to go on with their research. Wittgenstein for example.

That's why? Because before you start following a specific method to reach a verifiable conclusion you have to choose what method is best, and you can't do that while also following the method you haven't yet chosen.

Id est, the positivist method, wasn't elected based on the positivist method, neither is that possible. Get it? Good.

Before you start going around screaming about faulsifiability or the scientific method you have to create their concepts.

Sociologists follow the scientific method (stricto sensu) by the way. They aren't positivists but they aren't anti-positivists either.

Good luck realising the distinction.

>you and your anti-intellectual kindred get up to
That's you, not me. I'm not the one trying to discredit a science because I don't like its findings.

>>16535

Thank god.

Gender roles, are social constructs.
But both sex and gender are stem from biology.

Sex can determined physically, and it's quite absolute.
Beyond this the sex directly affects the gender through hormones and whatever else. It's life, accept it. Take medicine to fight it if you want, but it's still biology and biochemistry.

And then you can fight wahtever gender roles tyou want, or even cast aside your gender identity. But both sex and gender are biology, not social constructs.
The very idea that they would be social constructs is actually deterrent to people with odd and unusual biological predicaments that affects their gender and or sex.

Claiming it's nothing but a social construct isn't fair as it pretty much straight out ignores or shifts the focus from what are practically facts of life.
The idea that gender is nothing but a social construct is an idea commonly thrown around with some kind of idea of it being empowering somehow, that everyone are free to be what they want etc etc. No persecution.
The problem is just that it gives the idea that people have more power over it than they actually have, and it hides the biology which is the core element if the gender, identity and roles are to be fought or embraced.

To give the idea that gender is nothing but a social construct to people that on a biological level are conflicted, when they are trying to come to terms with their gender and grasp a gender identity for themselves. Only to come to the conclusion that it never quite works out as they had expected and that the struggle is harder than first assumed because of biology, is not something that's empowering.
The shift the focus from biology to social constructs, just because people have power over social constructs whereas biology is hard to fight, is not empowering. It's misleading or even a problem when it scuffs over facts.

Acceptance is cool, but acceptance has no power over your gender, only your social role.

>tfw we in Germany don't differentiate the words "gender" and "sex".

Maybe language is to blame for this illness?

>>16494
Watch this, ignore the title though.
>>16209
They are plain and simple ignorant.

>>16494
They're idiots who want to abuse the truth in order to re-define society in their own, genderless and familyless, image.

File: 1363612931754.gif-(1.11 MB, 111x195, Anthony_Swagtano.gif)

1.11 MB GIF

> mfw /lgbt/ is actually having reasonable discussion on topics that pertain to /lgbt/ in a well thought out and logical manner.

Well shit on my knees and call my Sgt. Gumbo.

>>16550
>discredit a science
>sociology
Not that guy but you realize some of the most science happy nations in the north slashed sociology funds to pieces after they realized they weren't even remotely practicing anything science-based, right?
That Brainwash documentary that gets tossed around spurred on an inquiry which led to that and their international institute getting shut down as well.

>>16431
>Biology affects Gender.
>Gender affects Society.
>Society affects Gender to a lesser degree.
>Therefore Gender is a Social Construct.

No.

Biology affects behavior, personality and physical characteristics, but not along all-encompassing, easily-separable lines by any means.

Gender is some really inefficient shit categories that society totally made-up to group people into based on behavior, personality and physical characteristics.

But gender can never encompass everyone because it's a binary, which is just dumb as shit, and people are far more different than two categories. So, the binary just tries to go by averages, but even this is pretty shit.

Society and the genders that it made-up put a lot of pressure on people because there are very real consequences for not adhering to these gender categories. So, this also affects behavior and personality, and it's problematic because it essentially puts restraints on people's agency.

>>16458
Why bother using the word roles at all? People are either men or women. Done.

>>16715
>and people are far more different than two categories.

But I thought people are just XX or XY, period.

>>9471 (OP)

I always tought it was something like personality. You have natural tendencies due to your genetics, but the social enviroment can play a big part in shaping it.

They can look for biological causes, but I don't think they will find a "gay gene" or something that DIRECTLY picks our sexual orientation biologically.

File: 1363613304607.jpg-(49 KB, 500x491, 1313214600155.jpg)

49 KB JPG

>>16636
>Fantano with hair

>>16806
>"gay gene"
They won't find one because the determining fuckups happen while pregnancy.

>>16717
To differentiate between biology, self-perception, and behavioural expectations and stereotypes.

>>16778
Well, there are biological deviations, though they're something like 0.001% or somesuch tremendously small outlier, and they're invariably sterile and so can't reproduce.

But outside of the biology matter, there's also neurochemicals and perceptive issues that affect self-image, as well as a bunch of behavioural stereotypes regarding traditional masculinity and femininity, and all of those can be vastly different between any two people

>>16709
So your point is that some nation limited the funding of sociological research and that's proof that it isn't a science. Ok. I maintain that the subject is not that simple however.

There are a variety of reasons to slash sociology funds, including the limited to inexistent capacity of social sciences to produce growth like some of the "hard" sciences. Their limited reciprocity is a very good reason to stop funding them.

That's not to say there aren't biased sociologists around, but that's hardly relevant with our epistemological debate.

File: 1363613421039.jpg-(35 KB, 500x333, Anthony_looks_gay_with_hair.jpg)

35 KB JPG

>>16843

Just this one more.

>>16893
Watch how this works.

>I am born a man. I see myself as a woman. People want me to act like man. But I'm too girly for that.

Boom.

None of that superfluous bullshit.

>>16458
>A woman breaking gender roles for women considers herself one because of some mix of how neurology affects chemical disposition, and the concept of the self and self-identification that she has.

The neurology affects her personality and how she sees herself (her gender identity), but it doesn't somehow cause her to be a "woman" or even cause her to think of herself as a "woman" outside of society. The concept of the self and self-identification that she has is heavily intertwined with her existence in a society with a gender binary.

If the society had a third or fourth or fifth gender she might not consider herself a "woman" anymore. "Woman" is the social construct. It's just a category.

Or if she rejects the gender binary, she might start to see herself as gender-queer or genderless. The gender doesn't exist outside of societal guidelines, but her personality and identity does. Her "gender identity" doesn't have to be "woman", nor can we even say it should be or would be if she wasn't being influenced by society.

It wouldn't matter other than that other people will still try to assign her as a woman.

File: 1363613571484.png-(436 KB, 461x459, 1360722870598.png)

436 KB PNG

Watch this too. If you seriously still believe gender is entirely a social construct after watching this then please leave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ

>>16894
They got their funds slashed precisely because they didn't care for the science and pushed politics instead. Watch the documentary and you'll see why.

As a sciencefag there's one dirty little secret of all the social sciences that leads to most of us disrespecting them: No one checks anyone else's findings.
Not even the neuroscience people.

>>16778
>But I thought people are just XX or XY, period.

1. They're not. Even on a genetic level there is not an "XX" and "XY" binary. Something like 1 in every 1000 people are not going to fit into that binary, and that really adds up when you consider the population.

2. Even if people were just XX and XY, that's a shit system for dividing them along lines of personality, mentality and even physical characteristics (for example, some people are genetically XY and yet still develop fully into females with a working uterus and everything).

>>16998
Oh, well, yeah, if you wanna go that far. The concepts of 'woman' and 'man' themselves are entirely social constructs, as are all linguistic representations of categories, and refer in the binary only to physiological difference because when the terms were coined and derived from whatever their etymological root was, that was the only distinguishing line that people in general perceived.

We can easily say that outside the purely physical 'Were you born with a dick or a pussy?' and the further abstract categorial of 'Do you act like expected of someone with a dick or a pussy?', the terms are entirely meaningless. But that, of course, leaves us with identity which is necessarily bound to categorisations and possibilities within the former two. There's no much point coming up with a specific word for every single possible permutation of biology and abstract expectation categorisation, not the least of which reasons being that it would leave us with a nearly infinite number of genders and render the entire thing fucking pointless for communication outside of an incredibly narrow spectrum.

The y-chromosome is the answer you are looking for

>>15881

It never is that.

>>17038
>because they didn't care for the science and pushed politics instead
I don't need to dispute that. It's perfectly possible that it was the case. My point is that the status of a science as such is relevant with the intrinsic characteristic of its methodology and purpose and not with whether its people actually follow them. That just makes them shitty scientists.

>No one checks anyone else's findings

Well. That's supposed to be their job. If they don't do it, then the same findings lose their prestige. I can't blame the science for the scientists that don't follow the methodology they have to in order for their findings to hold significance.

Imagine a world where most chemists pretended to have finished their experiments but where they all did half-assed jobs or didn't actually perform an experiment at all because they wanted to reach predetermined conclusions. Chemistry would still be a science. They would just not be doing their jobs.

>>15121
>implying gender isn't binary biology

Gender is a social construct.
Sex isn't.

>>17285
Except Chemists findings are independently reproducible unlike the majority of what the soft sciences publish.

>>17229
>But that, of course, leaves us with identity which is necessarily bound to categorisations and possibilities within the former two.

Why? What do you mean? Why would identity have to be categorized?

>There's no much point coming up with a specific word for every single possible permutation of biology and abstract expectation categorisation, not the least of which reasons being that it would leave us with a nearly infinite number of genders and render the entire thing fucking pointless for communication outside of an incredibly narrow spectrum.

It wouldn't matter how we grouped ourselves in terms of gender except that there are very real and very damaging affects for individuals coming from society's adherence to the gender binary, and they go beyond mere "gender roles".

>>17386
Chemists are independently reproducible?

You mean their findings? That's not relevant with what I was saying.

>>17302
It's not. That's sex.

And even that's not a binary.

File: 1363614454356.jpg-(29 KB, 640x480, 1358700405623.jpg)

29 KB JPG

>>17285

Why are you so reluctant to believe what blatantly true. Biology has proved gender is biological and not a social construct, yet gonzo "scientists" still refuse to believe it only because they don't hink it's "politcally correct".

>>17510
>actually thinking he's a scientist
He's citing philosopherfags and mathematicians from a time when philosophy was still relevant.

>>17510
>Why won't you accept that I'm obviously right?

You're just flailing now, bro.

File: 1363614667883.jpg-(104 KB, 500x410, 1362879118916.jpg)

104 KB JPG

>>17317

why do you believe this? do you believe it because feminists or social scientists told you so? Why do you deny the fact that biologists have proved gender is biological? Do you just have confirmation bias? When someone says they are transgender and know within themselves that their gender does not align with their sex are they just lying? Because gender doesn't exist right?

>>17571

>accept that I'm obviously right

But I'm not the one saying gender is biologically determined, biologists are. Why are you so reluctant to deny what biologists say yet so eager to confirm what social scientists say? Have you seen the Brainwashing documentary? Have you seen the attitude of social scientists?

>>17510
That's not what I'm saying at all.

I agree that sex is obviously biological and not a social contruct. The idea of gender seems redundant.

The point is whether roles individuals undertake are or aren't a biological or a social construct and if they are a mix of both to what extent either influences them.

This one is pending. I'm anxiously awaiting on the findings that will prove either to be the case. I have no personal interest in either conclusion. But it does have to be proven. That behaviour A is caused by biological mechanism X in that degree, or exclusively or primarilly.

Unless that is proven you are just jumping to conclusions, and It's my turn to wonder why you undertake the leap of faith.

>>17626
>Do you just have confirmation bias? When someone says they are transgender and know within themselves that their gender does not align with their sex are they just lying? Because gender doesn't exist right?

Stop confusing the social construct of gender with people's gender identity. They're different things.

If I told you that the signs of the zodiac were bullshit, would you think I was accusing everyone who identifies as an Aries of lying about their personality?

>>17740

and what does the social construct of gender show? That girls like dolls and boys like mechanical toys? Yet it has been shown that from birth this is true, when the baby hasn't been influenced by society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3C4ZJ7HyuE

>>17851
All boys come out of the womb playing with trucks and all girls come out of the womb playing with barbies?

>>18068
Nature man. It predicted shit.

>>17851
You're presupposing your position just by thinking of them as "girls" and "boys".

File: 1363616215779.png-(136 KB, 630x422, i have had it up to here (...).png)

136 KB PNG

>>9471 (OP)
>not realizing certain aspects do seperate men from women besides genitalia.

>men have more muscle mass
>men have better spacial reasoning
>women have better hand dexterity
>women have higher pain tolerance and more robust structure
gee, maybe gender roles evolved based on these innate differences, because each gender had to do what it was naturally best at in order to survive in pre-history.

NOPE JUST PATRIARCHY.

>>18571

Hey man get that science shit out of here.

Though to honest this is my problem with most Gender studies

>shall we go back to the very earliest history of humanity, with biology as guide?
>NOPE, ANECDOTAL STUDIES OF SOCIETY ONLY

To be fair, the study of Men and Women is pretty fascinating. I'm of the belief that the reason it's the way it is is because it was so fucking effective, to the point of having humanity dominate the planet.

>>18571
"Naturally best at" is an enormous stretch.

Those are only differences when taken on average and even the disparity between the averages is not so great (i.e. there are literally billions of women with better spatial reasoning than billions of men).

File: 1363617413460.png-(119 KB, 375x450, please stop.png)

119 KB PNG

>>18755
I took a gender studies class. We never talked about biology, just women bitching about how this one guy with an angry face on the subway was totally going to rape her at 3 PM in Penn station. It was all personal anecdotes, most of them involving the phrase, "I could bet he was going to..."

>>18801
Is it not possible that gender roles came from differences that made one gender more suited for one thing over the other?

When physical strength was so much more necessary, would not the naturally increased muscle mass and increased aggression from testosterone in men make for a better hunter, which became the normal gender role for men after generations?

>>12931

Hjernevask

>>13588

It's not defined, it's observed. That you can predict the sex of babies relatively accurately based on knowledge of their preferences makes it so. See http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.08.008

Isn't saying that gender is a social construct, pretty much the same as claiming that the homosexuals of the past that wanted to heterosexuals, were just too weak willed to make it?

>>10375
But they are already treated like second class citizen due to affirmative action.