Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
And i never claimed otherwise. So you dont have any actual point bro
Man you cant be serious. Its too tiring to have to post it more than once. The initial link i shared on gender (not a reply to you but whoever made the claim about 2 genders) has as a first main definition the one about gender roles of male and female in society. How dense and lazy can you be
Post automatically merged:
Man you cant be serious. Its too tiring to have to post it more than once. The initial link i shared on gender (not a reply to you but whoever made the claim about 2 genders) has as a first main definition the one about gender roles of male and female in society. How dense and lazy can you be
To describe gender theory and the lunatics, it's just enough to point out who invented it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
A sexual deviant and a pedophile:
Since the 1990s, Money's work and research has been subject to significant academic and public scrutiny.[7] A 1997 academic study criticized Money's work in many respects, particularly in regard to the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer.[8][9] Money allegedly coerced the two brothers to perform sexual rehearsal with each other, which Money then photographed. David Reimer lived a troubled life, eventually committing suicide at 38; his brother died of an overdose at age 36.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
A sexual deviant and a pedophile:
Since the 1990s, Money's work and research has been subject to significant academic and public scrutiny.[7] A 1997 academic study criticized Money's work in many respects, particularly in regard to the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer.[8][9] Money allegedly coerced the two brothers to perform sexual rehearsal with each other, which Money then photographed. David Reimer lived a troubled life, eventually committing suicide at 38; his brother died of an overdose at age 36.[10]
And as i said, so your precious sociology only matters when convenient to the ideology you are trying to push. Gender roles are a thing. Gender is defined by that. So its still perfectly in line with reality. This doesnt mean you dont have a definition for gender identities. Because you have. And thats perfectly fine. You can have multiple mutually exclusive definitions for words depending on context. Just like my example of "theory" in scientific or colloquial context.
I never did and explained multiple times how i didnt
You just dont care about what im actually saying. You are just throwing around buzz words, non-sequiturs and strawmen.
Post automatically merged:
I never did and explained multiple times how i didnt
You just dont care about what im actually saying. You are just throwing around buzz words, non-sequiturs and strawmen.
Last edited:
Gender wars alone is such a minor thing in comparison to the bigger problems in America(like inflation, price gouging, lobbying etc). Transgenderism is part of the modern wokism movement in general which also consists of Girl Boss Feminism and Fat Acceptance. This wave started in 2009 and as of 2023, the results are as follows:
-increased depression and anxiety among young women
-surge in the suicide rates among young men
-increase in trans men regretting transitioning
-spike in divorces initiated by women
-decrease in marriages
-increase in loneliness among young men and middle aged women
-spike in young men leaning to the right
-surge of far right movements and sentiments
-spike in mass shootings perpetrated by young men
-Profit loss across the board
Question is why are the movements backfiring so hard and leading to such results?
-increased depression and anxiety among young women
-surge in the suicide rates among young men
-increase in trans men regretting transitioning
-spike in divorces initiated by women
-decrease in marriages
-increase in loneliness among young men and middle aged women
-spike in young men leaning to the right
-surge of far right movements and sentiments
-spike in mass shootings perpetrated by young men
-Profit loss across the board
Question is why are the movements backfiring so hard and leading to such results?
?
"Despite widespread popular belief, Money did not coin gender identity. "
"Money is generally viewed as a negative figure by the transgender community"
Those are literally words of this articles. Read mate. Read. You appear as ridiculous here for anyone who checked the article ..
There is no such thing. Unless for transphobes, you and other bigots who confuse that with "gender studies" which is a field of scientific study of sociology.
Yes. This is "a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals based on their sex ". Gender role are indeed a sociological fact. But those are not "genders" they are "gender roles"
Learn the difference
Nop. Not in science :)
Yes you did. And you still are trying to hold to a definition that invisibilized and denies them. But hey, its not like I can stop you hehehe
I think you don't understand what those three words means.
And yet. This is THE subject that creates divisions.
Lmao I don't think you understand what wokism is. Its look like you are describing it through the eyes of a child
Wokism is so much more than that.
I'm sure you have research paper explaining that wokism is the sources of those things and you are not just taking that out of your a*s ?
So tell me mr apolitical. Where are those research papers explaining that wokism is somehow responsible for all of this ?
Question. From where do you conclude that "wokism" is reponsible for all those things ? What is the science behind that ?
Tell me
Show me.
Prove your claim.
"Despite widespread popular belief, Money did not coin gender identity. "
"Money is generally viewed as a negative figure by the transgender community"
Those are literally words of this articles. Read mate. Read. You appear as ridiculous here for anyone who checked the article ..
There is no such thing. Unless for transphobes, you and other bigots who confuse that with "gender studies" which is a field of scientific study of sociology.
Yes. This is "a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals based on their sex ". Gender role are indeed a sociological fact. But those are not "genders" they are "gender roles"
Learn the difference
Nop. Not in science :)
Yes you did. And you still are trying to hold to a definition that invisibilized and denies them. But hey, its not like I can stop you hehehe
I think you don't understand what those three words means.
And yet. This is THE subject that creates divisions.
Lmao I don't think you understand what wokism is. Its look like you are describing it through the eyes of a child
Wokism is so much more than that.
I'm sure you have research paper explaining that wokism is the sources of those things and you are not just taking that out of your a*s ?
So tell me mr apolitical. Where are those research papers explaining that wokism is somehow responsible for all of this ?
Question. From where do you conclude that "wokism" is reponsible for all those things ? What is the science behind that ?
Tell me
Show me.
Prove your claim.
Yes. This is "a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals based on their sex ". Gender role are indeed a sociological fact. But those are not "genders" they are "gender roles"
Learn the difference
Learn the difference
Post automatically merged:
Well, yes it is. Both are based in sociology. Just need to make clear which context is used. If people say there are two genders, they are obviously not using the term to mean gender identity but gender roles.
Also obviously some of the people making that statement are bigotted against lgbt individuals. Doesnt change the fact its still a valid definition that is just as based in sociology as is the one you want to push on everyone.
You are just a lazy hypocrite
Post automatically merged:
Obviously that is not the case because im not excluding either definition. Both are valid. One is about gender roles, the other about gender identity. You are being anti science because you are excluding the definition about gender roles.
Not surprising though, you always cherry pick science and definitions according to your ideology, while i have literally changed my mind on this one after learning the definition about gender roles is still valid, contrary to what i believed previously.
Post automatically merged:
I wonder why. Just kidding, its because of nutjobs like you forcing their ideology on other people which will inevitably annoy the shit out of them
Post automatically merged:
Interesting how i reacted basically the same way to this claim despite being enbyphobe, transphobe, sexist or whatever fancy buzzwords you throw around.
Post automatically merged:
Gender as in gender roles is indeed a social construct. Transgenderism isnt. It is a legit condition
Last edited:
If it is a social construct then can you explain why:
- Animals have enstablished gender roles, where animals in different continents have the same societal structures across the same species
- Humans across different ages and different cultures and different continents all have developed the same societal structures?
Wrong + desinformation
First because there is no such thing as "gender theory".
"Gender theory" is a far right term meant to delegitimize the studies of gender in sociology or "gender studies". Which are a scientific FIELD OF STUDY, studying multiple things about gender.
Second because its Matt Walsh - a crypto fascist Btw - that attributed the invention of "gender identities" to John Money who actually just spoke about "gender roles".
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1...cD6WWNJ1c04o5Y-ZkflIHTBDRyY-bi2Mi1skk0STyAcE=
When we are taling about gender, we are not talking about gender role. So talking about gender role is irrelevant.
No. When you are saying that there are only two gender "based on dictionnary definition" then its not an assertion based on science, its an assertion based on the current usage and the influence of heteronormativity.
Saying that there are two gender and that there exist "gender roles" are two different things.
Gender =/= Gender roles Those concepts are not interchangeable.
So when you said "there are only two gender", you spoke about "gender identities" and not "gender roles". Therefore you denied people's existence.
If you want to talk about gender roles, you say "gender roles" and not "gender". Am I clear enough here for you ?
Nop. Saying that there are two genders is invalid.
Those are not the same things. Therefore you can't put them under only one term. This is one of the reasons why dictionnaries are sometimes problematic and why they are not efficiant enough to describe the world.
Nop, i'm just not putting it in the same category, which is what sociology did : Separating gender role and gender identities.
One the problem of patriarchy is precisely the fact that we don't separate- in usage - gender roles and gender identities.
Maybe you are missing the fact that animals are also depicting social behaviors ..
Its not that easy. There are a LOT of variations on this subject and a LOT of reason why there are variation in the first place.
"Many social behaviors of animals are adaptive, meaning that being social ultimately increases an animal’s fitness" - Nature.
This means that gender role are not as easy as a genetic blueprint. In reality, they are also defined by the context and the environment given to those species (like ours for example, gender roles were not as prevalent during our hunting gathering stage, but became more pronounce because of the sedenterization and the rise of agriculture)
First, not really. There are and were other form of societies in the word (beginning with some hunter gatherer societies) but there are also example of matriarcal societies too.
Patriarchy is just an hegemony, its not universal.
The reason why it rose so easily but be found in the rise of agriculture and the inequal distributions of power and ressources among populations and among genders.
Those things are not due to "wokism", saying it is is simple desinformation and the ignorance of the real causes for the rise of those subjects.
Nobody is forcing wokism on you sir.
Me showing your ignorant and toxicity =/= forcing my ideology on you
You can be queerphobe and still understand that those things have nothing to do with the rise of the leftist ideology. Just as you can think that you support nonbinary people and still be queerphobe by defending definition that denies their existences.
Humans are full of paradoxes. You are no different.
Not "as in"
Gender is NOT gender roles.
An identity* but yes.
First because there is no such thing as "gender theory".
"Gender theory" is a far right term meant to delegitimize the studies of gender in sociology or "gender studies". Which are a scientific FIELD OF STUDY, studying multiple things about gender.
Second because its Matt Walsh - a crypto fascist Btw - that attributed the invention of "gender identities" to John Money who actually just spoke about "gender roles".
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1...cD6WWNJ1c04o5Y-ZkflIHTBDRyY-bi2Mi1skk0STyAcE=
When we are taling about gender, we are not talking about gender role. So talking about gender role is irrelevant.
No. When you are saying that there are only two gender "based on dictionnary definition" then its not an assertion based on science, its an assertion based on the current usage and the influence of heteronormativity.
Saying that there are two gender and that there exist "gender roles" are two different things.
Gender =/= Gender roles Those concepts are not interchangeable.
So when you said "there are only two gender", you spoke about "gender identities" and not "gender roles". Therefore you denied people's existence.
If you want to talk about gender roles, you say "gender roles" and not "gender". Am I clear enough here for you ?
Nop. Saying that there are two genders is invalid.
Those are not the same things. Therefore you can't put them under only one term. This is one of the reasons why dictionnaries are sometimes problematic and why they are not efficiant enough to describe the world.
Nop, i'm just not putting it in the same category, which is what sociology did : Separating gender role and gender identities.
One the problem of patriarchy is precisely the fact that we don't separate- in usage - gender roles and gender identities.
Maybe you are missing the fact that animals are also depicting social behaviors ..
Its not that easy. There are a LOT of variations on this subject and a LOT of reason why there are variation in the first place.
"Many social behaviors of animals are adaptive, meaning that being social ultimately increases an animal’s fitness" - Nature.
This means that gender role are not as easy as a genetic blueprint. In reality, they are also defined by the context and the environment given to those species (like ours for example, gender roles were not as prevalent during our hunting gathering stage, but became more pronounce because of the sedenterization and the rise of agriculture)
First, not really. There are and were other form of societies in the word (beginning with some hunter gatherer societies) but there are also example of matriarcal societies too.
Patriarchy is just an hegemony, its not universal.
The reason why it rose so easily but be found in the rise of agriculture and the inequal distributions of power and ressources among populations and among genders.
Those things are not due to "wokism", saying it is is simple desinformation and the ignorance of the real causes for the rise of those subjects.
Nobody is forcing wokism on you sir.
Me showing your ignorant and toxicity =/= forcing my ideology on you
You can be queerphobe and still understand that those things have nothing to do with the rise of the leftist ideology. Just as you can think that you support nonbinary people and still be queerphobe by defending definition that denies their existences.
Humans are full of paradoxes. You are no different.
Not "as in"
Gender is NOT gender roles.
An identity* but yes.
