I think Bourdieu wrote a quip somewhere like "if you think sex and gender are the same thing, you think a brave young boy who helps his grandma carry her groceries is courting her".
>the social norms associated with a gender are ultimately based on sex
sure, doesn't mean that said social norms can't outgrow sexual functions entirely and become something self-sustaining
>said norms vary so much across cultures that there is no actual social sex to speak of. Meaning, a woman in one culture is a man in another.
yup, that's the point. You don't have to buy the gender politics shit to understand this word. Gender is about identity and social norms. Sex is about biology. Having distinct words for distinct concepts doesn't mean you have to take the political position of completely dissociating the two. I think you obviously udnerstand the word gender, and you're just afraid to declare that because you want to distance yourself from leftists. There, I gave you permission to use the word. Done.

>>25567796
>I think Bourdieu wrote a quip somewhere like "if you think sex and gender are the same thing, you think a brave young boy who helps his grandma carry her groceries is courting her".
Sounds like something a retard would say, and probably a woman at that.

>>25567805
Sounds like you need to shut up, stop reading /pol/ and think for yourself a little bit. The quote already makes this simple enough that any retard can understand it, so you're either pretending to be even less intelligent than that or knee-jerk reacting to the phrase due to poltardism. Either way, fuck off.

>>25567796
>I think Bourdieu wrote a quip somewhere like "if you think sex and gender are the same thing, you think a brave young boy who helps his grandma carry her groceries is courting her".
I think that can only make sense if we believe that all sorts of interaction between sexes is meant to lead to procreation. That's true neither in the wild nor with humans. Of course I lack context and I'm not familiar with Bourdieu, so maybe he meant something else entirely.
>sure, doesn't mean that said social norms can't outgrow sexual functions entirely and become something self-sustaining
I guess I'm also unsure as to what you mean when you say "sexual function" and the possibility of outgrowing them. Spreading legs? The universal function of specifically female organisms is to produce large gametes and I don't see how one outgrows it.
>Having distinct words for distinct concepts doesn't mean you have to take the political position of completely dissociating the two
I'm not doing that at all and my question is hardly political.
If you say that the point is that genders (which themselves are not gender norms, which I agree do vary) differ across cultures, then there are possibly infinite genders, and so I definitely no longer understand the word. As I've clarified already, I understand it with regards to linguistics, and I do also understand that I'm a man (adult human male) though I don't think my gender has changed since my transition into adulthood.

>>25567805
well clearly this wasn't me (op)
>>25567815
sounds like you should stop accusing any person who makes any claim which can vaguely be associated with politics and which takes the more conservative position with /pol/. for all of the free thinking you prescribe, you sure do seem close minded and eager to dismiss

>>25567738
Sex refers to differences physically while gender can refer either to physical and non-physical differences.
God might have a male gender, but not a male sex unless He has genitalia and chromosomes.
Many languages give a gender to nonliving objects. A sailboat might have a female gender but it wouldn't be accurate to say the sailboat's sex is female

>>25567833
More than anything I'm upset with your dork faggot-like approach where you say the most mundane and banal things but with an air of authority and definitiveness
>Sex refers to differences physically while gender can refer either to physical and non-physical differences.
It has been established. What are the differences in gender?
>Many languages give a gender to nonliving objects
It's been mentioned in the OP you sophomore Indian retard faggot

>>25567823
>That's true neither in the wild nor with humans.
You make a good point about something that the quote is subtly sweeping under the rug. Biology gives the sexes different behaviors even when those differences are not directly related to reproduction. I agree with you. I think the point of the word "gender" is to talk about everything else that is not biological but cultural in the behavioral differences between men and women.
I'm not familiar with Bourdieu either, I skimmed a book of his and this particular quote was memorable.
>I'm also unsure as to what you mean when you say "sexual function" and the possibility of outgrowing them
Just reproduction. And I didn't mean outgrowing the needs of reproduction, just behavioral differences between the genders that are very removed from that, or not related at all to biology.
For example, you're an adult man and you speak English. So I'm confident that you very likely cut your hair short. Why? It looks manly. Why it looks manly? My guess is that you need short hair in the army for hygiene and practicality during fights -- also the reason to clip your nails. Why would you, a man, be affected by fighting and the army and war more than women? Because males are expendable and females are precious; females invest much more energy in child bearing than males do, which is why they are precious and picky. Only after all this free-association can I barely relate your short hair to biology at all. I don't know how to measure how far removed this behavior is from the needs of reproduction but it seems pretty damn unrelated to me. So it looks like gender, not sex. There's no way you can convince me men have evolved to cut their hair shorter than women, so it's really not a biological-but-not-related-to-reproduction thing either.

>>25567841
>It's been mentioned in the OP
No it wasn't? And I wasn't trying to be snobbish. This is just the most obvious definition.
I don't think calling it a noun category is accurate either since that makes it out as completely arbitrary which objects get gendered male or female. The truth is it has to do with human psychology which causes us to assign different genders to non-sex objects. Why do most cultures claim the sun is male and the moon is female? Probably because we perceive the sun as a giver-of-life akin to the male role in reproduction.
No reason to get so sensitive.

>you should stop accusing any person who makes any claim which can vaguely be associated with politics and which takes the more conservative position with /pol/. for all of the free thinking you prescribe, you sure do seem close minded and eager to dismiss
Fair. I partly come to 4chan to fight people, so I got used to assuming the worst. It was very clear that wasn't you though.

>>25567841
Why are you melting down over a milquetoast dictionary definition answer?
Do you think gender referring to non-physical differences justifies trannyism? Is that what this is about?
Trannies basically weren't a thing until the 2010s yet every society throughout history acknowledges gender as not purely a physical phenomenon

>>25567868
>the point of the word "gender" is to talk about everything else that is not biological but cultural in the behavioral differences between men and women
I might agree with that even if it's insurmountably difficult, potentially impossible, to figure out which of the roles or traits associated with gender are not extensions of sex. Still, it brings us no closer to figuring out what gender is. Meaning, fulfilling roles associated with "the other gender" only makes one of "the other gender" if some other criteria are met as well, and I reckon those are the ones which we have to figure out.
>Just reproduction
Right, I would say that that's a faulty approach, since reproduction is the function of both sexes, hence my comment on gamete production. I suppose it's beside the point.
>For example, you're an adult man and you speak English. So I'm confident that you very likely cut your hair short
I have long hair, for one, but aside from that, this reminds me of Norm Macdonald's professor of logic joke, which can just an aside, but also a way for one to show that your inferences not only can be incorrect, but also that even if they were correct, they could be so by happenstance and point to no truth.
Ultimately, though, to be blunt: You say short hair corresponds to the man(masculine? male?) gender. Women can cut their hair short as well, and it can be quite the feminine endeavor. Even if it's not, it's a trait of the feminine one who rejects femininity or seeks to express it differently.
There is a social norm for men to cut their hair short, but that norm is not gender itself and what is more, not even necessarily indicative of gender norms in general.
>It was very clear that wasn't you though.
All's good.
>>25567872
>No it wasn't?
Gender has been mentioned as a property of nouns and adjectives and so on
>No reason to get so sensitive.
I might have overreacted with my tone, but it's perfectly reasonable, I think, to attack people who provide little when it comes to information but speak concisely and with an air of superiority
>that makes it out as completely arbitrary which objects get gendered male or female
Whatever you say about sun and moon can apply in some sort of banal syncretism, but the theory fails when you consider that a table is neuter, a bottle is feminine and a glass is masculine. You sound like someone who's only engaged with gendered languages in passing while reading an article of linguistic fun facts.
>>25567884
>Why are you melting down over a milquetoast dictionary definition answer?
I've made it clear already- because it talks about things already adressed without expanding on anything.
>Trannies basically weren't a thing until the 2010s yet every society throughout history acknowledges gender as not purely a physical phenomenon
Yet the term "gender" was not used outside of linguistics until the mid 20th century. What are you even getting at?

>>25567902
>until the mid 20th century
So? How does that make it a tranny thing?

>>25567908
Chiefly because it was brought about in a context of trannyism, I'd say.
Still I'm willing to let that go. The thread wasn't made to shit on trannyism but to earnestly explore gender. You're the one keeps bringing trannies up, it's only circumstantial that you're wrong about the definition and usage of the term.

>>25567738
>Meaning, a woman in one culture is a man in another.
This isn't really true anywhere. There aren't any cultures that are actually so backwards or retarded that a man who acts like a woman is seen _as a real female/woman in his essential reality_, though there are vague feminist myths of such a thing existing but always in some far off place without any evidence from a real anthropological study.

More to the point, gender doesn't really mean anything. It is all the things you listed and none because none of the various groups who use the word have the same goals and thus none of them will define it in a way that everyone can agree on. "Gender" as such is not an abstract concept or even a normal word, it's a tool. And that tool's purpose, regardless of who is using it, is merely to sidestep sex, to keep either a small, polite or an absolute, inviolable distance from biological sex. It is a social artifact, which is why it wasn't needed until the 20th century. It's basically a meme.

Of course the exception to this is when it is used purely linguistically, "el gato" vs "la gata", in which case you already know what it means and it doesn't need further extrapolation.

>>25567902
>but the theory fails when you consider that a table is neuter, a bottle is feminine and a glass is masculine
The fact genders are sometimes ascribed arbitrarily doesn't negate it as driven by psychology. Simply claiming it's a noun category isn't a satisfactory explanation for why humans would create such a noun category.
So, I guess my definition of gender would be the human perception of an object's sex regardless of whether it is rational, metaphorical, or purely random.
Are you going to engage honestly or just keep throwing insults?

>>25567738
sex = biology (innate)
gender = semantics (made up for bad faith debate club word games)

>>25567918
From my understanding, gender was mostly popularized by feminists who misinterpreted a term for non-physical sex into meaning social roles and behaviors (which obviously isn't what it means)

>>25567918
>The thread wasn't made to shit on trannyism but to earnestly explore gender
I doubt that considering you seem to have a chip on your shoulder

>>25567919
I've heard someone say "a southern belle is so different from a bitchy New Jersey broad that they might as well be different genders" and I figured that, yes, depending on your definition, it might in fact be the case. A similar thing, I suppose, can apply if a man from a culture where to be a man is defined solely as "a hunter" is introduced to a society where women are the only ones who hunt- his gender, as it were, would change.
Of course I don't see that as an actual possibility and I generally agree with you, even with regards to "gender" being a tool rather than a term, though I don't think that can be correct linguistically, but I'm genuinely interested in learning differing opinions.
There is great infighting, as you were right to point out, between various groups of feminists and trans-inclusionaries and what have you, but just because they are wrong and generally flat-out retards doesn't mean that there's no truth to uncover. People use the term and it's only right to seek what they mean when they use it.

>>25567902
>people who provide little when it comes to information but speak concisely and with an air of superiority
The only person in this thread who comes across as arrogant and self-obsessed is you

>>25567738
Sex: biological male/female differences
Gender: perceived male/female differences
Not that complex.

>>25567922
>Are you going to engage honestly or just keep throwing insults?
Frankly it's hard to remember which of the posters I'm replying to but I think I've insulted way less than I've given earnest responses.
>The fact genders are sometimes ascribed arbitrarily doesn't negate it as driven by psychology
See, in this case, you might call me an insulting asshole if I were to call you an idiot for giving both psychology AND arbitrariness as simultaneous potential reasons for ascribing gender to objects. To be clear, you do understand that if a reason is psychological, it's no longer random, yes?
And I might and I'm even eager to concede that what you say is the case, if only to have a fruitful discussion, but this still doesn't provide a meaningful definition. If you say that
>gender is the human perception of an object's sex regardless of whether it is rational, metaphorical, or purely random
It must be incorrect because not only do objects not posses sex (nor do people associate a sex to most objects- potentially with the exceptions of screws and holes?) but also because it would mean that a gender is something that only others can ascribe to you. Which would be to say that you're genderless so long as no one is around to gender you- which I think is incorrect.
>>25567938
It might have been. I think de Beauvoir said that a woman is a person who is persecuted on the basis on being observed as a female, or something along those lines, and she quickly had to retract that when the fact that Queen Elisabeth was a woman was brought to her attention.
>>25567940
I have no chip. I certainly have a stance of my own but I think you can see that I contradict even people with whom I agree, because my aim is to understand the term.
And when I talk about non-contributing arrogant faggots I refer to people like these >>25567930
>>25567955 who think their one-liners are meaningful

>>25567955
I’ll put it even more simply: gender does not exist. You are arguing about your own fantasies.

>>25567978
>you might call me an insulting asshole if I were to call you an idiot for giving both psychology AND arbitrariness
That's not a contradiction.
Even if the genders of objects originated as purely random, the human mind would evolve to literally see those objects as having the gender they're ascribed with. A sailor really believes his ship is female.
It's ultimately an irrational psychological phenomenon, but it exists and therefore a term is necessary for it.

>>25568001
No one said otherwise. A perception, by definition, doesn't really exist except as a concept

>>25568012
>That's not a contradiction.
It is. A cause being unknown does not make the phenomenon random. In this case, still, we are given one cause: psychology.
>the human mind would evolve to literally see those objects as having the gender they're ascribed with
I've already shown that to be untrue, especially when we consider neuter objects. That aside and furthermore, what is masculine about an object that is meant to hold liquids (glass) but feminine about another (bottle)? The bottle is phallic whereas the glass is more open, I suppose akin to female genitalia. Isn't that refutation enough?
>It's ultimately an irrational psychological phenomenon
Irrational does not mean random, even if I grant you that it's irrational.
And there are some ships which are not referred to with feminine nouns- yacht comes to mind.
Is your first language a gendered one, out of curiosity?

File: 1785176863290802.png (821 KB, 540x760)

821 KB PNG

>>25567738
wimins r dum

>>25567738
Trying to get a job at Daily Wire?

>>25568066
refer to >>25567832
it's crazy how many arrogant and not only that but also drooling and retarded assholes there are and yet I'm the meanie for pointing it out

Holy fuck how are we still having this conversation? I remember this exact same debate raging back in 2014.

>>25568128
yeah let's have another start with the greeks thread. get over yourself you lousy faggot

There are two sexes and a few biological curiosities. There are societal expectations for people of theses sexes. There is no reason to use the term "gender".

>>25568181
Thanks for your contribution your turgid faggot

>>25568201
>not being able to meet the expectations for a man means i'm a genderfluid demiboy but you're the turgid faggot

>>25568206
do you have anything of substance to say or are you just going to keep dropping one liners and greentexts? you're exhausting, please fuck off

>>25567796
>if you think sex and gender are the same thing, you think a brave young boy who helps his grandma carry her groceries is courting her
kill yourself

>>25568265
>do you have anything of substance to say
I already did.
>you're exhausting
Must really have been exhausting trying to come up with a rebuttal for half an hour and failing because you're a retarded faggot. Is retarded faggot your gender?

>>25568181
This is just a thread for OP to bitch at anyone who responds to him. Don't bother engaging or you'll just fuel his tantrum

>>25568386
i've been nothing but curteous to everybody except obnoxious faggots.

>>25567796
>I think Bourdieu wrote a quip somewhere like "if you think sex and gender are the same thing, you think a brave young boy who helps his grandma carry her groceries is courting her".
Retarded quote, this actually doesn't make any sense at all.

>>25567738
Sex is what I want to have. Women are the gender i want to have it with.

>>25567738
People are constructs made out of Language, literally they are inseminated by The Name of the Father: The Word. So gender, a form of category related to the libidinal relationship of identity to The Name of the Father, is pretty important.

(How come Fatherhood comes before libidinal categories? BECAUSE COCKS ENORMOUS FUCKING COCKS!!!! COCKS~!!!!! IT IS IN LACAN PEOPLE.)

>>25567796
>a brave young boy who helps his grandma carry her groceries is courting her
He is. Read Umberto Eco's Granita.

>>25567868
Women ought to clip their nails short so they don't scratch babies. Long nails are the mark of a whore.

>>25569103
Agreed, the only reason to grow out your nails is to play classical guitar, and in that case you grow them out on your plucking hand only.

>>25567796
>helping the weak as a man without having sex on your mind is an alien concept to a Frenchman

>>25569151
>a frenchman has to specifically conceive of himself as a man

>>25567796
>I think Bourdieu wrote a quip somewhere like "if you think sex and gender are the same thing, you think a brave young boy who helps his grandma carry her groceries is courting her".
That's the dumbest thing I've read so far this month and you're retarded for quoting it.

>>25569184
Yes. Is he a fish? No. Is he a woman? No.

>>25569191
So why would the phenomenologically natural need to be explicitly linguistically summoned? Check and mate anglo autistic anal-ytical poster.

>>25567738
Gender isn't real. It's not a thing.
Stop buying into antiwhite pig shit yiu worthless fag.
There is sex. Two of them. Male and female.
A boy playing with dolls, or a girl liking carpentry does not make them some radical new 'thing'.
Fuck off retard.

File: YHWH and his ASHERAH.jpg (3.49 MB, 5616x3744)

3.49 MB JPG

>>25569211

>>25567738
Im currently reading this too, and Im actually glad to finally find a book written by a woman that is not some weird sexual fantasy, but its just their unhinged thoughts about their sex and their existence. Sure, there is lots of woman yapping in there, but some so arguements hold water. I always wanted to take a look at a thinking woman's inner machinations (I know thats a rare case, but still) and that book kinda scratches that itch

>>25567738
Where I reject modern "gender" is the attempt to rip it out of the physical world and treat it as something that can be applied to any entity.

When we experience the "apriori idea" of masculine or feminine, it is a unified horizon that simultaneously includes physical form (physique, biology), behavior (socialization, posture), and categorical concepts.

The human body is not just a biological sack of meat. It is a lived body that has meaning. Physical form and behavior are not separate variables that happen to be glued together; they are experienced as an integrated, holistic phenomenon.

True "masculine" and "feminine" aprioris are unified structures where biology, expression, socialization, and form are experienced all at once, before a sociologist steps in to dissect them into separate variables.

>>25569345
I tried reading it like 10 years ago and realized that I would slide into mental retardation if I kept reading. I think I made it about 30 pages before abandoning it for the sake of my intellectual health. Absolute dreck from the first sentence.

>>25567738
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/09/26/stand-by-your-man

File: tranny2.jpg (157 KB, 553x855)

157 KB JPG

>>25567738
YWNBAW

>>25569571
>True "masculine" and "feminine" aprioris are unified structures where biology, expression, socialization, and form are experienced all at once, before a sociologist steps in to dissect them into separate variables.
Time for Hegel: they're historical categories.

>>25567941
>I've heard someone say "a southern belle is so different from a bitchy New Jersey broad that they might as well be different genders"
The ancient and classical greeks were always on about this when they were talking about their barbarian neighbors, about how the thracians didn't mind their women and let them sleep with whoever they wanted, or the celts or kimbri or teutons (I forgot who was the specific subject) completely ignored their women outside of making babies for them. This didn't create any confusion for them as to who is actually female, nor did they need to invent a concept apart from biological sex to make sense of this. "Gender" when used outside of the original linguistic meaning is a purely political tool. And that tool is in service of feminists, trains, and the tiny hat tribe. You are looking for some deeper meaning when you really should step back and see that the lack of a coherent meaning is precisely the point: it is there to confuse and deflect.

>>25570190
>>25569211
illiterate faggots shitting up my thread when I've made it clear I reject there being more than two genders (insofar as "gender" is a polite way to refer to "sex) and that I'm against trannies
then you people bitch at me for being mean. pol is that way you fucking fags

>>25567738
Like most words, "man" and "woman" represent a category of qualities that we broadly agree upon when we use those words. To go in a (misleadingly) more concrete direction, consider the words "male" and "female" we use for the objective sexes. I'm sure you can list off a ton of physical qualities that would push an individual into one of those two sexual categories. This categorization is an act of quantization or counting; you label an individual as male when they've satisfied enough of the categories.
As you gather more observations of people though, you find that this quantization of qualities starts to break down for certain individuals. Individuals without either forms of genitalia, who don't have secondary sexual characteristics, whose vocal pitch isn't high or low enough, etc etc etc. You may also find individuals who have qualities of "male" and "female" that are too intermixed to assign a sex to. You may choose to sweep this under the rug and create a category called "intersex" that you assign this quantization failure to.

I invite you to apply this same exercise of quality determination to gender, and then do some research to see where the quantization failures actually are.

Furthermore, I invite you to explore this from more of a dialectic lens, which recognizes that there is a feedback loop between the language categories and the material world that guides the process of their development. For example, the creation of the category of "man" as a gender may itself influence individuals to take on qualities from that gender, which may itself change what qualities we assign to that gender. Or they may be suggested (or forced) to adopt those qualities in order to satisfy some broader goal. If you aren't aware of this process, then you lack the freedom to choose qualities for yourself or to even define what qualities belong to the category of "man".

>>25571187
I wonder if that was Herodotus. At any rate, insightful post, and obviously I agree. I suppose I was attempting to be charitable and make the effort to look into the issue as I'd assume it's moral, but yes, I think it's a purposefully confusing topic.
>>25571298
>we broadly agree upon when we use those words
Clearly not and it's disingenuous to pretend there hasn't been at the very least a nation-wide debate within the States regarding the meaning of these terms.
>I'm sure you can list off a ton of physical qualities that would push an individual into one of those two sexual categories
As a matter of fact, no. You can talk about genitalia and secondary sex traits and even cultural ones but you'll find that sexual characteristics are not sex itself and in fact what all sexes have in common across the entirety of the animal kingdom (and not only that) is that males produce small gametes and women produce small gametes- with the caveat that they both do that *when functioning properly*. In other words, a heart is the organ which pumps blood and that is universally true for all hearts. Biological definitions are given teleologically and so even if a heart cannot pump blood due to age, disease, anomalies and so on, it is still a heart (so a male is still a male even when unable to produce sperm).
Sizes of hearts vary, as do placements or numbers of chambers etc, but what makes them hearts is the predisposition to pump blood, much like the predisposition of females is to produce ova. Chromosomes, then, don't really factor in what makes a male male, since crocodiles don't have chromosomes at all- rather their sex is dictated by temperature of incubation. What makes them male is producing sperm.
>If you aren't aware of this process, then you lack the freedom to choose qualities for yourself or to even define what qualities belong to the category of "man".
With regards to this, I'd question why "man" is closer to "learned" as in something you can become, rather than "human" which is an intrinsic quality of mine. Unless, of course, you redefine "human" to chiefly refer to maybe the moral status of an individual rather than the ontological fact.

File: tomas.jpg (351 KB, 2048x1532)

351 KB JPG

>>25571332
>males produce small gametes and women produce small gametes
males produce small gametes and females produces large gametes*
it's a good thing that I haven't proofread since it gives me the opportunity to post picrel of this relevant book which I've also forgotten to attach
>Chromosomes, then, don't really factor in what makes a male male
Neither do penises or vaginas, I forgot to say, since plants can be male or female as well, and they lack them, yet they still produce gametes

File: Jean_Paul_Sartre_1965.jpg (378 KB, 1280x1676)

378 KB JPG

The best thing about Beauvoir is how all her modern disciples neglect to mention what she did for Sartre while they celebrate her acheivments.

>>25570190
Using an ugly tranny as an argument implies that womanhood is an appearance, and that a tranny that passes convincingly is a woman.
>>25567738
>and that said norms vary so much across cultures that there is no actual social sex to speak of. Meaning, a woman in one culture is a man in another.
I don't think overlap inter-culturally is a catastrophic error; gender is a social framework specific to a society, and it doesn't matter if it overlaps with a framework from a different society that doesn't interact with the first. They are two different ecosystems until they interact with eachother. Ultimately I think gender is just a euphemism for the social implications of sex, either in form or function, it doesn't make sense to delineate it TOO much from biological sex (this is what gender abolitionists and many feminists try to do which muddied the waters) but it's still useful to describe phenomena like ladyboys in Thailand or crossdressing prison gays.

>>25572038
The point is more likely that that is clearly a sperm-producing, Y-chromosome-having male. The fact that it is comically grotesque adds only to the humor, not the point. Oh, I should have read the rest of your post to see that you're retarded.

>>25572060
That abstraction layer where you judged their sex (without doing a penis inspection) is exactly what gender is. We have achieved homologia (no homo).

>>25572038
>Using an ugly tranny as an argument implies that womanhood is an appearance, and that a tranny that passes convincingly is a woman.
Or perhaps it's meant to (justifiably) insult those who believe that being a woman goes no further than aesthetics, and fail miserably to meet the standards they themselves impose, because packaged with their relativist idea of gender is also the notion that femininity can be manifest through merely pink short skirts, that self-care with regards to health is unimportant and that displaying sexual fetishism in public is not reprobate.
>I don't think overlap inter-culturally is a catastrophic error
I think it is, so far as "gender" is meaningful.
I could see myself conceding this to you (insofar as you'd have a consistent point of view, at least) if you were a gender abolitionist but your post seems to indicate that that's not your view. If gender is something that changes with the time zones, it becomes as meaningless as the term "cool" were it liable to describe a buck-toothed pimple-headed dork with a pocket protector, which is to say, a woman here can be a pink dressed princess and over there can be a bloodthirsty matriarch (patriarch, even!)- "woman" ends up potentially describing too varied a type of things to be able to convey any meaningful information.
>gender is just a euphemism for the social implications of sex
If "man" and "woman" are genders, then your claim has to be false, since these terms carry more information than just pertaining to sex. As I've said, "man" is "adult human male" which means that the term does not merely speak of sex but also of species and maturity status.
If not, I'd just ask what those implications of sex are, but I guess you'll just tell me they vary across time space and culture yet and again we'll get nowhere.
>but it's still useful to describe phenomena like ladyboys in Thailand
I wouldn't have considered them to be a different gender. They are men (and openly so) with abnormal traits. You wouldn't call homosexuals or metrosexuals or otherwise effeminate men or even crossdressers or drag-queens "non-men" (and you wouldn't call one-armed men "non-man" either,) so perhaps what is the determining factor as far as you're concerned is something other than being atypically manly- maybe self(or otherwise)-identification? That should only bring about more problems for you.
The same applies for crossdressing prags- we've all seen Oz. I don't think trauma turns one into a different gender- let alone clothing or who has sex with you.

WOMEN ARE ACTUALLY THE THIRD SEX

Pass it on

>>25572133
>Or perhaps it's meant to (justifiably) insult those who believe that being a woman goes no further than aesthetics
My point is that in a social setting that's what it comes down to in practice - form (look/sound/smell/dress like woman) and function (feminine activities like baking and childcare) because we don't inspect the genitals nor do a karyotype test of everyone we meet. If sex and gender were identical, we wouldn't know the sex of anyone besides loved ones we've seen naked. That would be exhausting socially so we have markers that are both arbitrary (dressing male/female babies that look the same in blue/pink) and practical (gender roles). I guess you can say gender is that layer between someone's sex and what you perceive their sex to be.
>could see myself conceding this to you (insofar as you'd have a consistent point of view, at least) if you were a gender abolitionist but your post seems to indicate that that's not your view
I'm not a gender abolitionist because I think it's a nonserious view of gender, if gender is the social implications of sex then saying "women can have full beards too!" isn't valid when 99.9% women don't and changing your pronouns to be a gender clearly different from your sex misses the point of the marker. Delineating between males and females even when unnecessary is something we seem to have some kind of instinct for, aka the baby example before or arbitrarily gendered nouns in many languages.
>If gender is something that changes with the time zones, it becomes as meaningless as the term "cool" were it liable to describe a buck-toothed pimple-headed dork with a pocket protector
Absurd men's wigs used to be 'cool' for men in the 18th century, but they still had meaning as a gender marker because they were associated with the male sex. So long as within a society or time zone that association is still there (i.e. "In this society, we associate X with male gender marking the man sex and Y with female gender marking the woman sex") I think the premise holds.
>I wouldn't have considered them to be a different gender.
I should've been more specific and said men with male sex who are women in the social setting. There are trannies who look like women, live in the female social role, and are even married to men. They often don't share their sex and hide their history. Sure, at a social function you can call them a man and you would be telling the truth but people will think you're crazy. That's why half the social media comments to passing trannies are "that's a man!" and the other half are "idc lol".
My post was pretty long, so point out anything that I missed.

adding to this, in vein of Bourdieu >>25567796 if you think sex and gender are the same thing, you think that a young boy dressed up by his sister for fun has XX chromosomes and big gametes.

>>25572038
>an ugly tranny
i.e. a tranny

>>25572038
I think what you're struggling to say is that sex is a binary state (male or female) while gender is more of a sliding sale (some men are more masculine than others, some women are more feminine than others.)
The problem with trannies is that they confuse their gender profile (an effeminate man, or masculine woman) with their actual sex (man or woman.)

>>25572279
I don't think so, because even gender profiles don't really overlap. A super zesty gay guy still gets seen as a guy.

>>25572259
there are pretty trannies for the same reason there are pretty women

>>25572232
>form
Well the point was to ridicule those who attempt to appropriate form with no effort other than the bare minimum done to provoke and revolt, but that's another topic.
>because we don't inspect the genitals
>we wouldn't know the sex of anyone besides loved ones we've seen naked
Not to be a pedantic prick- we wouldn't know the sex of anyone besides ones whose predisposition for gamete production we've managed to check- genitals don't factor in.
That aside, our knowledge of one's gender or sex, not to repeat myself, is not gender or sex itself. Much like one can be tricked by fool's gold or to drink poison, some things can trick us into misidentifying one's sex, but it has nothing at all to do with the truth of the matter.
>markers that are (...) arbitrary
I suppose I'd wonder what makes dress code arbitrary but not gender roles as a whole- especially considering that one's dress is merely another type of role fulfillment. Ultimately, this I think logically should lead to all notions of gender being arbitrary- which I'm willing to accept insofar as "gender" is meaningless outside of the definitions I've given.
>gender is that layer between someone's sex and what you perceive their sex to be.
If that's the case no trannies are of the gender they identify as or wish to be perceived as, bluntly. The added layer is a skirt, a thorough shave (sometimes!) and some pills. Not to sound too rude.
>isn't valid when 99.9% women don't and changing your pronouns to be a gender clearly different from your sex misses the point of the marker
What 100% of women have in common is the predisposition for gamete production and everything else comes down to biology too. I suppose I'd ask what social standards universal across time, space and culture you have in mind when you talk about "99.9% women", because it's not *wearing a dress* or *liking pink*.
>Absurd men's wigs used to be 'cool' for men in the 18th century
Right, hence why I will to concede "cool" as a, if not meaningless term, at least a completely relative one. You can feel free to say "woman" is the same type of term, I'd just challenge you on that, since if my 90 year old Romanian grandma went to whichever outlandish society you can conceive of, I reckon they'd still call her whatever the equivalent of "woman" is. They might have a separate word for "very old woman" but I wouldn't think that that's a different gender. Point being that delimitations based on gender not only are meaningless but in fact do not actually exist in the way which you propose.
>men with male sex who are women in the social setting
But they are not, though, not at all. Any video you see of them, they are asked "lady, or ladyboy?" and they almost never conceal their identity. Clearly, then, there is a distinction and they don't operate as actual women.
I don't say this to reject that gender exists or that it does in a way other than what I have conceived- I'm merely pointing out flaws. I don't know myself.

>>25572075
>That abstraction layer where you judged their sex (without doing a penis inspection) is exactly what gender is.
No, retard.

>>25573564
Damn, I guess you're right

>>25572303
>there are pretty trannies
LOL

>>25574302
try reading the remainder of that sentence, it's only a few words more.

>>25568001
It exists in language. That's where it exists.

>>25567738
>What is gender exactly?
Cultural psychosis.

The equivalent of an artist shitting on a canvas and calling it art, while being paid by the government to do so.

>>25567796
>Bourdieu wrote a quip somewhere like "if you think sex and gender are the same thing, you think a brave young boy who helps his grandma carry her groceries is courting her".
As the old saying goes, you need to be highly educated to be this stupid

>>25574446
It certainly exists in society as well, we're trying to figure out by which manner

>>25572249
you successfully added to the retarded quote with your own retardation

>>25572249
that's only true if you think that one's clothing dictates one's gender.
so when you wear jeans and a hoodie you go back to being a man, tranny?

>>25574420
Try it yourself. It's complete nonsense.
There are no pretty trannies, because there are pretty women. Prettiness is relative.

a spook to get you to die for israel or slave away in a factory or whatever your masters need the goypigs to do at any given moment

>>25575860
Nta but theeres a literal term called 'boymoding' which is wearing male clothes to appear male again yes
>>25567738
It used to be interchangeable with sex and now it's used more to describe someone willingly taking on the behaviors and social mores/norms relating to what used to be considered sex characteristics.
This makes chud very bigmad, mostly because the chud-to-sissy pipeline is so direct. There's a reason this place is gay as shit despite being filled with so many rewards professing hardline right-wing stances.

>>25575984
>theeres a literal term called 'boymoding'
I'm familiar, but the implication there is that all women change gender when wearing trousers and button-ups. Also that we're all genderless when nude.
>>25575984
>It used to be interchangeable with sex
right you double nigger, I must have been familiar with that when I mentioned that definition in the OP
>used more to describe someone willingly taking on the behaviors and social mores/norms relating to what used to be considered sex characteristics.
You are illiterate

>>25575997
Congrats on your transition when it happens anon

>>25576000
>i'm not mentally ill, we're all secretly trans

>>25575941
>There are no pretty trannies, because there are pretty women. Prettiness is relative.
Women are pretty because they had a high estrogen, low testosterone puberty and have developed fat deposits and retained non-androgenized tissues that we find attractive. Putting aside the rest for now, there are trannies who started HRT early without even going through male puberty and they look indistinguishable from other women. If you met them you would hold doors open for them and call them ma'am or however else you treat women. This begets the issue of defining gender that OP brings up (this issue was also intentionally muddied for 100 years by feminists to access male spaces, it's a particularly western debate).

>>25575860
>I say "if x then y. And y is clearly wrong"
>Oh so you believe in y then huh tranny?
Why is an illiterate on the board for literature?

>>25575945
When rulers undermine all social traditions for however long but then present one as acceptable to believe, it means they want something from you. Patriotism suddenly gets encouraged whenever there's a war to fight for the zionist entity, masculinity and being tough gets encouraged whenever you want safe work conditions and dignity.

>>25567738
Fuck off postmodern shit

File: ack.gif (1.88 MB, 540x960)

1.88 MB GIF

>>25576788
>they look indistinguishable from other women
Delusional.
ACK!

>>25567738
As you pointed out in the OP, masculine and feminine are already widely accepted and historically used words to talk about "gender" as in the social construct bullshit.
The reason to using male/female instead of those readily-available words is an act of intentional (and malicious) ambiguity. It's much easier to manipulate the plebs into accepting "female" using the women's restrooms than convincing them if you call the subject a "feminine man". Unfortunately language has political and legal weight, and progressists have never given value to Truth; hence lying abound.
>I think the problem with this definition as it pertains to feminists or otherwise trans-inclusive minded people is that there are feminine men and masculine women who identify as men and women respectively (which is to say cis). In other words, you can have masculine men and feminine men and they all belong to the same gender.
That just means they are wrong. The feminine man who considers himself a female is committing an error of evaluation brought out by lies he's been feed or self-delusions.

>>25576906
You're a nutjob that denies how biology works. I'm guessing you don't believe in evolution or genetic racial differences either?

>>25577272
>You're a-CK!

>The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.
Frederich Engels

>>25577284
Yup. That is whats commonly called a Truth bomb.

>>25576788
It doesn't beget anything, retard. The orchid mantis looks like a flower, so insects should treat it as once? That is so fucking stupid it should make Orwell rise from his grave to quote at you about the incestuous relationship between intellectuals and truly stupid ideas.
So some people can trick you into believing they're something they're not. Okay. They're tricking you. And them doing that makes them malicious. That's all that needs to be said about it. Anything that veers into "I'm not being tricked; the trick is real!" territory is genuine madness. Like a kid seeing a magician perform on stage and concluding that he really did teleport the statue of liberty or whatever. Actually, reminds me of those Penn & Teller guys claiming that it's easier to trick "smart" people than "stupid" people, because the "smart" people are way better at explaining away how they've been tricked. God, I fucking hate intellectuals.

>>25577371
That metaphor doesn't work because a mantis doesn't have an orchid growing from it.
Again, my point is that an XY and XX that go through the same hormonal profile at puberty roughly around the same time are visibly identical.
Treating a person with the body of a woman, sans uterus and ovaries, as a man in daily life is antisocial and absurd.
That's why conservative but far more civil countries like Japan have long had a pathway to make legal gender match social gender.
Chromosomes are scripts for maturing a certain way, and hormones are your computer mouse clicking on which scripts to run. This doesn't make sex any less real, if that's where this stubbornness is coming from.

>>25567738
gender is a non-ontological concept made up by humans in order to distinguish themselves from others and to justify their cruelty, same as all other "identities"

>>25574446
>>25574453
>>25575247
Society is language, and language is psychotic.

>>25575860
The performativity is much deeper than that, as indicated by other posters the performance of a failed performance is a performance of its own kind, like when you call your tomboy fuccpig "son," whispering in her ear so she can feel more like a naughty girl because she's pretending to be a boy. This is, of course, radically different to fucking a transman in his arsehole. Because of the implications. The first one is rape. The second one isn't, because you can't rape men.

File: .jpg (58 KB, 976x850)

58 KB JPG

>>25567738
Sexual differentiation is obviously a brute, physical fact (e.g. what's more to dig after exhausting their biological properties?).
While gender is an institutional fact, decided upon agreement between people and much more malleable with times.
You can describe someone having a 'penis' because that's his physical characteristics of having one, but it's become more debatable to call a man with lanky build and ugly make-up a 'woman' because both sides need to agree of what qualifies as a 'woman', which is why you have deviations such as 'transgender', which either depends upon altering the brute facts (e.g. cutting your penis off to prove a point) or the institutional one (e.g. "TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN."). Honestly, pick your poison.

>>25577702
>Again, my point is that an XY and XX that go through the same hormonal profile at puberty roughly around the same time are visibly identical.
You can't fathom how little chromosomes have to do with sex, as explained multiple times throughout the thread you dense faggot.
>>25578263
>Society is language
>large groups of people = language
Linguists are the worst but at least you can contradict them when they form arguments so do that at least.
>rest of your post
ah, you're not a serious person>
>25578946
>While gender is an institutional fact, decided upon agreement between people and much more malleable with times.
According to this, trans women aren't women since the majority of people don't agree on that.
I've seen this point be made before, and the entailment is that trans women indeed aren't women, but we should act as though they are until eventually they do become women, based only on the majority accepting that. I suppose it's somewhat possible.

>>25578946
>It's just lookism.

What you're saying is that trans women are men if they don't pass., and women if they do.

Otherwise you wouldn't have had to qualify with "a man with lanky build and ugly make-up," a.k.a. "a trans woman who does not pass.

This also means biological women who don't "pass" in your opinion are men.

Gender roles also aren't "decided upon by agreement between people." It's about the life you live and your relationships with people. Gender roles, expectations and experiences in rural Afghanistan are markedly different than Omaha, Nebraska.

That's the problem when you reduce gender and social identity to a simple male/female binary: it utterly removes all specificity and diversity of experience. You have reduced all social relations to one brute physical fact: standardized McMale, and standardized McFemale.

>>25579077
>>rest of your post
>ah, you're not a serious person>
Oh no I was serious. You need to read more D&G. The collapse of categories is always libidinal.

>>25567805
Why is carrying groceries considered brave by a Frenchman?

>>25582176
>Why is carrying groceries considered brave by a Frenchman?
As one *advances* home rather than retreating from the store.

>>25567738
A vague concoction of biological and cultural behaviors between the two sexes. There’s no reason you couldn’t carve out lots of genders, besides that it gets very muddy and is almost inseparable from sex.

>>25567738
a complex social phenomenon that requires serious scientific study in order to grasp it's true essence.