/lit/ - Literature

>>11830360
>Everything I found so far has a heavy left or right wing bias.
So? As long the studies support the conclusion, the bias doesn't mean anything.

Besides you approach it from a suboptimal angle. Gender and sex are different things, so it'd be better to read about them separately.

>>11830360
The extreme left just says "we're coming for control of ports and factories by worker's councils", I think you mean American liberals / tumblr
>t. extreme left

>>11830368
The problem is that the right and the left have different 'concepts' of gender. I just want to know what gender actually is, both sides are talking past each other.

>>11830360
people who think a person can choose their gender like rp'ers choose race/class/alignment when rolling a character need to be gassed.

>>11830382
>I just want to know what gender actually is
but it is just a concept, like every word we have. People disagree on the definition, there is no "true" meaning of the word. In many languages there aren't separate words for sex and gender either.

this is a pretty good one

Sex: biological term
Gender: political term

Avoid politics like the pest

>>11830382
left concept of gender=it's not real; an arbitrary construct to oppress people with certain physical features; a hurdle to be overcome in order to achieve equality
right concept of gender=chromosomes don't lie lmao

XX
XY

It has nothing to do with politics, it is science.

>>11830414
>>11830423
Never saw it like that. Now that raises the question why such a huge population argues about a concept without a definition or even a solid enough foundation.

>>11830424
There's more science than that

>>11830441
homogametic and heterogametic. Better?

>>11830360
gender =/= sex

>>11830382
no, the problem is that ignorant people conflate two different things

I hate trannies

>>11830438
the right argues that biological differences between the sexes mean that society should be structured with those differences in mind. a sensible division of labor, based around the female form's clear superiority for child-rearing and the physical strength and biological dispensability of men is necessary. gender differences, or "inequality", are the de facto truth, because they are the de jure truth.
not to mention the fact that our behavioral urges are more or less controlled by the hormones our bodies produce naturally, and it turns out men and womens' bodies produce different hormones.
leftists would dismiss all of this, claiming equality is true de jure even if it isn't true de facto. it's not true because it's not "fair" in some cosmic sense that people are born different from one another.

>>11830360
>The extreme left says that millions of them exist
No. The extreme left are like maoists and communists. You mean weird lgbt libs in Boston. They're not extreme left.

>the normal left says you can be any of the 2 gender (maybe a 3rd one) if you believe you are that gender, the right says that there are only 2 gender and you need to be an actual trans to be both and the far right says you're the gender you're born with, and it's also your sex.
So you don't need to read further. It's simply a bickering of terms. the "normal left" as you call it uses the word gender to be slightly different from biological sex, and involves a personal identity: in this case most peoples' gender matches their sex and for a really small minority, it doesn't. The right just thinks gender is a synonym for sex. There's not objectively right or wrong definition.

In my view, given that it is clearly possible for someone to want to identify with the social practices of the opposite sex than they were born, it seems useful to have a word(s) to describe that. Some on the right seem to think restricting terminology to describe some phenomenon means it doesn't happen, but thats not how language works. Language is just an imperfect mapping to reality, arguing over definitions is an abstract debate, and not something that actually concerns what is.

>>11830452
More than that

>>11830488
>No. The extreme left are like maoists and communists. You mean weird lgbt libs in Boston. They're not extreme left.
they are left and they are extreme. just not economically extreme, but i'd bet there's a large overlap between the two left extreme groups

There are two genders, male and female. For most of the population their gender is the same as their sex and it is a complete non fucking issue.

Trannies are an outlier. They change themselves physically to try and live as their gender. But they can never change their sex. This could also be a complete non fucking issue except for attentionwhores off the deep end screaming about 70 other genders. These people are retarded

Try Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine for your needs, I only really skimmed the sciencey/natal part of it but it concluded that predetermined gender (not sex) at birth is real fucking fuzzy at best. What makes it even more difficult is that our genders are socially influenced pretty much from the very beginning (eg. blue vs pink).

>>11830694
>(eg. blue vs pink).
pink used to be for boys and blue girls. little boys were also dressed in dresses up until the 1600's and girl was gender neutral for all children with boy basically meaning servant/young worker

little boys and girls are different regardless of how society treats them even from birth

>>11830423
Gee, I wonder which side of politics you consider yourself on?

Could it possibly be the most charitable interpretation you gave of a position, or could it be the side that's a straw man view that no one actually holds?

I guess we'll never know!

>>11830380
no, they really don't and you don't greentext that you fucking newfag

>>11830765
Not that comrade, but...
Yes. Yes they do.
Coming off the boat from reddit to /pol/ during GG still makes you new too.

>>11830360
>I wasn't born X gender I should be Y gender
>I'm poor I should be rich
>I'm old I should be young

>>11830748
To be honest I think as a whole children have no solid concept of gender, but the bias of social conditioning (what kind of toys you buy your kid, etc) from an early start should be kept in mind if you're going to get really deep into this shit. Again I'm literally referring to the social aspect of it (which is literally blue vs. pink).

Hormones make the biggest difference in the difference between male and female imo. The book I mentioned was interested in studies and evidence for gendered minds beyond the bullshit social conditioning.

>>11830406
True, it's more like you have free choice of your perks and if you choose ones that don't match your class you will have a strong debuff and pressure to change

>>11830764
i am something like a national socialist
i don't think the interpretation i gave of the leftist position is charitable at all; it sounds insane and retarded to structure a society around untruths that you have to do 420 mental backflips to justify.
it's like the left-wing meme vs right-wing meme pic, where the left-wing meme is a wall of text and the right-wing one just says 'lmao niggers' or something. plain truths don't require much explanation; everyone knows intuitively that it's correct.

>>11830791
I disagree. The fact that David Reimer still behaved in a masculine way, despite the pedophile mad scientist John Money's forcible female conditioning, shows proof of some form of innate gender identity.

>>11830360
>ctrl+f Butler
>ctrl+f gender trouble
>no results
OP asks for recs and everyone ends up arguing. Nice.
Whether you agree with her or not, Butler's "Gender Trouble" is probably the most important (re:disseminated, memed about) contemporary work on gender. Start there.

>>11831243
Imagine being so oblivious to the meaning of the post that you're replying to that you confirm its pejorative assumptions about you so completely and unambiguously

>>11830368
>gender != sex
This is a meme and it needs to stop. Transexuals have a cognitive dissonance and they need help. You don't indulge the fantasies of suicidal people

>>11831351
if your pejorative assumptions about someone are that they hold positions that are true-in-themselves, it might be time to re-examine your positions

>>11830368
Both sides conflate them constantly, the left in particular does a dance where whey constantly oscillate between disassociating and conflating them. That's how you get academics going on tv and saying "there's no such thing as biological sex"

>>11831262
I'm not asserting that gender is not innate. Im saying I don't think it's a black and white issue and perhaps more complex than we care to admit.

>>11831262
>innate gender identity
You're right but the fact that you think John Money is relevant to fucking anyone shows that you are an abject retard.

any chinese philosophy book that discusses yin and yang energies and how they manifest

Gender, as now understood by the woke masses, has been reduced to a purely linguistic construct throughout its evolution as a concept, and its purpose has been wholly defeated by its own movement in a series of poorly coordinated attempts to cover various holes in the theory.
For something with a penis to call itself a woman is a blatant contradiction in the old theory of gender. A strategic change had to be made to smooth this out: the sex/gender schism was introduced and "gender" was redefined to denote a sort of internal condition. It may have a penis and broad shoulders, but INSIDE, it is a woman. The public understanding of this change was accompanied with images of biological men with long hair and make-up wearing dresses and bras. If it looks like a woman, and says it's a woman, why not just say it is?
Merits of the claims aside, this is a logically coherent idea. At the very least, it is easily possible to imagine a world in which this holds true. However, the second and third waves of feminism introduced a new schism: one between gender and gender expression. The feminists rejected societal gender norms and asserted the ability of men and women to wear and do whatever they please: women can have short hair, wear jeans, and drink beer, while men can wear pearl necklaces, nail polish, and play with dolls. Feminine men are still men, and masculine women are still women. The assertion was that a person can manifest as anything, regardless of gender. This is also a logically coherent assertion.
The public, however, attempting to hold the values of both the feminist and transgender movements in the name of compassion, have tied themselves up in a knot. What is left of gender, given these two principals? What does it mean to "be" a woman if a woman can "be" anything? What does it mean to "feel like" a man if a man is capable of "feeling like" anything? Gender isn't the way you dress and it isn't the way you act. It is now a hypothetical non-element, meaningfully existing only in a sentence like "what gender are you?" It is a word held in the head, ready to be spat out when the appropriate context arises. The transgender movement is a meme in the truest sense of the word, and this is made obvious by its own core tenets

who cares? 1 has a dick the other has tits.

>>11831498
A few more points:
>but biological sex is more complicated than a binary!
This is true, but is not the argument that the trans community thinks it is. Intersexuality is an objective, medically verifiable occurrence, and not a matter of identity. To stand behind this argument, you necessarily must also stand for a world in which one's gender identity can be empirically disproven. The moment you respect someone using their biological intersexuality as an argument for having a nonbinary gender, you open the door to disqualifying someone else's nonbinary identity with their lack of the same.
>you don't understand what it feels like to know you're a woman
Damn right I don't, and neither does any trans woman. All a trans woman knows is the way that biological women have been physically presented to them throughout their lives. You can't get inside a woman's head and compare your experience to theirs. Comparative identity is guesswork

"Gender" as it is used in academia and politics today has become meaningless concept akin to fashion.

Per definition it describes those expressions which are socially constructed and not based on biological differences. The way you speak, dress, your manner.

Everything that differentiates male and female (the sexes) by biological differences is therefore not part of gender. And those happen to be the things of interest to anyone who is not a fashion designer. Differences in body strength, endurance, personality, intelligence, interests, health, sexual behavior and so on.

>>11831404
They aren't, but keep struggling with the meaning of a couple of plain English sentences.

In its complex form the subject of 4pt is Heidegger's idea of "Dasein" (something like a non-dual understanding of human being-in-the-world).

Gender is conceived in an ethnosociological way rather than a biological way. Roman Jakobson's structuralist ideas and relationship to Eurasianism help him bring things together a bit here, he argues gender is a social construct but the world will end if we disregard he sacred structural functionalism around which human society developed - the enlightenment failed in its dogmatic idealism and no possibility of disagreement from its assumptions, which has led to transhumanism.

>>11830424
I'm not lefty but that is incorrect. Just to preface, I think the gender-sex distinction is dumb, and it often can be nebulous (like a lot subjects in academia).

To go further, that is wrong because the XY chromosomes only accomplish sex-determination in mammals. In some organisms, sex is determined by environmental factors and not by sex chromosomes (that's why the chemical atrazine "turns frogs gay" by actually converting male frogs into female frogs). Sex chromomosomes evolved independtly in mammals and dinosaurs.

In mammals, an animal without a Y chromosome will become a female (more specifically, without the SRY region on the Y chromosome ). If they have a Y chromosome they will become male (whether XXY or XY). It is the opposite in birds (and other dinosaurs). They have either ZW or ZZ chromosome pairs (named to contrast with XY, not the shape of the chromosomes). A ZZ genotype will lead to a male, while a ZW will be a female.

That is, in mammals, the Y chromosome is the main sex determining chromosome and causes an animal to become a male. In birds, the W chromosome is the sex determining chromosome and causes the animal to become a female.

So it really isn't as simple as XY=male and XX= female. That simplicfication gives a spot for gender extremist to come in and "refute" you scientifically.

So what really is sex? Ultimately a male produces sperm and a female produces eggs/ova. This is the most powerful definition, as it avoids the complexities I just went over, and also allows an avenue to evolutionary psych, which can provide a scientific basis for conservative arguments. For example:

Why is it worse for females to be more promiscuous than males? Males, by definition produce sperm, which are cheap to produce. On the other hand, females produce eggs, which are more costly. If a male animal is promiscuous with its sperm, there is a fairly minor cost. On the other hand, a female animal will incur a penalty depending on just how costly egg production and incubation/gestation are (not very costly in bugs for example, but very costly in humans). Then, it's more favourable for the female of a species to be "choosy" and less promiscuous, and less disadvantageous for a male to be promiscuous (though it still can be disadvantageous).

>>11832023
I'm mobile posting, so all typos are due to that.

>>11831303
THANK you, finally. I came here to see if anyone already replied with some good recs

>>11831908
you are awfully snappy
time for a nappy