/lit/ - Literature

I think it's something to do with the chromosomes.

>>5585821
I really liked your use of rhetorical devices. You really showed me how smart your are and stuff.

>>5585799
wot our judith dun said innit cunt?

>>5585835
7

>>5585828
Shouldn't you post biology threads on /sci/?

>>5585840
I thought people on the internet would think this is dumb. My expository writing teacher wanted us to write an essay on gender. a while ago she asked us this question and she didn't want "Literal bullshit" I quote lightly. I want to hear more of the sociological take from random peeps.

But, no.

>>5585853
Oh, so you want pseudo-scientific opinions.

>>5585861
Yeah, if sociology wasn't a real science sure. (Even though it's considered soft)

gender is a choice that you make once you turn a teenager

>>5585872
Soft is just another way of saying pseudo.

>>5585874

I have 3 genders :^)

>>5585876
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pseudo

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soft

>>5585874
I like this

>>5585877
Like, you own three?

The male gender is an unrefined explorer from an evil place
The female gender is a meadow teeming with life

Class of nouns present in some language systems which may affect inflection, agreement between other parts of speech, or declension.

>>5585880
In an academic sense, m8, the real sciences scoff at sociology and economics.

>>5585904
K, well that's your crappy opinion.
>>5585889
can you expand?
>>5585891
what exactly are you trying to say

>>5585821
>>5585840
>sex=gender

>>5585891
I thought maybe if I left out exactly what I meant interesting responses my occur. My bad.

>>5585930
yeah, when I ask a question like that I assumed that you would maybe consider what I was actually talking about

>>5585938
jesus christ just do what everyone else is going to do and write about how gender roles are social constructs and their only purpose is to subjugate women to the role of child-bearer and legitimize men having literally all the power.

women are supposed to be:
>warm, caring, subservient, loyal

men are supposed to be:
>courageous, leaders, powerful

>>5585947
I actually am writing about the creation of gender roles and pin pointing how it started and why. But no, you hit the nail on the head with that. that's pretty much everything we discussed. Just obvious things.

>>5585955
Or write about the explorer and the meadow

>>5585920
Gender is a linguistic distinctin which does not necessarily correlate to sex roles as a social or linguistic construct, as evidenced by societies which do not have gender as a linguistic necessity in nouns or the majority of nouns, but still have sex roles, and the wealth of gendered nouns which apply to sex roles without agreement between gender and sex in languages that do classify gender, and not least because the cardinal number of genders in a language is not likely to align with any division of sex roles in the sprachbund. Think of the translators, this would make them ten kinds of faggot.

>>5585981
Op doesn't speak Spanish dingbat

>>5585991
Gender is an English word, dipshit.

>>5585996
Look man I can't even read your post. Why don't stop trying to sound educated and just try to think think about what gender really means to you.

gender is a social construct, it's like your race, or height, or religion, it's whatever you choose it to be.

>>5585799
it's the socially constructed aspect of sex, the end

>>5586013
They are yin and yang. What happens when dark renounces its ways and tries to emulate light?

>>5586004
It's a classification of nouns present in some languages which can affect the morphology of its case and number along with other parts of speech through agreement or inflection. A basic education would tell you that.

>>5586020
And you think your going to be a writer?

>>5586019
It becomes an honorary Aryan because white makes right. Truly a credit to its kind to attempt to rise above its dark instincts. Bravo.

>>5586024
>>5586024
No, and I don't see what that has to do with gender. Homophones don't interest me as much as homoglyphs either

>>5586040
Oops I meant
*and you think your going to be a make writer?

Gender is a social ranking
1. Male
2. the rest

>>5585930
Yes. Yes it does.

>>5585799
I would tell your teacher to fuck off with the faggot agenda.
>sociological take
Why don't you get naked and stand infront of a mirror and then take notes of what you see, after that you can write about your sociological role in the world.

>>5585930
Yup, they mean the same thing. Want a gold star or something?

>>5586013
I choose to be a genderfluid transzebra then.

>>5585799
a socially constructed identity

>>5586299

GENDER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT! BACK TO /POL/ YOU BIGOT

Are women more genetically disposed to wearing skirts and dresses than men?

>>5585799
the reflection of the biological sex in that which is not inherently both biological and sexual, but one or the other, or neither.

>>5586310
horsy!

>>5586324
They're more disposed to showing themselves off, but the "skirt" isn't really a relevant part

Do you really think patriarchy is forcing you to wear a skirt?

Up until recently (the last couple of years) I had always thought gender was synonymous with sex. So I guess it's not then? Say I had a staunchly feminist friend who had just adopted a baby, how would I inquire as to the type of genitals the baby had? Would I have to ask to know the sex rather than the gender to avoid offense? Also, I'm noticing I write this that 'gender' and 'genitals' both have the same prefix. Does that not imply that gender was, at least originally, based on penis/vagina rather than any imposed masculine/feminine traits? Is the whole argument one of semantics then? Is this mere pedantry?

>>5586330
A baby doesn't have a gender yet. It has a sex, but not a gender

>>5586335
That really didn't answer any of my questions.

>>5586337
I didn't get further because your post was so shit

>>5586330
It's a pretty stupid argument really.

The question I always want to throttle feminists with is: "if gender roles are a social construct, that just begs the question of where social constructs arise". The only possible explanation is they are a natural occurrence, and the more abstract ones (who leads the tribe, etc, not dumb shit like who grinds the grain) are so ubiquitous throughout humans until you get into postmodern times it's laughable to think that men are anything but natural leaders

>>5586338
Your answer was worse

>>5586342
No, u suck dick

>>5586339
>everything is just like, nature, man
then so is postmodernism, nice try

>>5586330
It takes a male and a female to bring life into the world. Male and female are told apart by genitals, the biological role that they perform. Deviation was always present, the problem is that deviation is now supported by intelectuals that made sound inquiries offensive.

>>5586346
>implying it's not true

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17186303/

>oh hur hur you mean men have and develop strength beyond anything women can possibly develop innately
>oh hur hur you mean men aren't innately the same as women
>oh hur hur but surely this bears no consequences for the long-set history of humans hur hur
>surely 1/4 of women being on antidepressants isn't because of listlessness due to how little shit we must do, it's men's fault!

>>5586353
what, that postmodernism is a natural occurence? great, but this doesn't help answering any question ever, in very much the same way as calling everthing a social construct doesn't.

This guy again, >>5586330.

So if gender isn't synonymous with sex, that implies that there are no restrictions on what one identifies as their gender, correct? You're not limited to male/female because we've already established that this only applies to sexual organs. So what is gender then? Is it not something that varies from person to person? Is it not decided upon an individual basis? Does that not then render it an entirely pointless categorisation? It has to do with personality/character traits no? Maybe you're a male and you like to wear dresses? Or a female that wears a beard? Is this the sort of thing the whole argument stems on?

>>5586366
Well, you could consider the global drop in testosterone levels a sufficient condition for men not wanting power as badly. IOW, we did it to ourselves

Even today though, men control nearly everything. It's not like 1980 hit and women got half. Nor should they have half.

>>5586359
>hand grip strength
Its over, folks. The gender issues have been solved. Despite the fact that most people know the brain to be sexed and men's bodies and brain's to be different, this now proves that men and women are incompatible and don't deserve to be treated equally. Go home

>>5586369
Gender is a scale as opposed to separate bins, very few people are 100% male or female, although they are close enough that they don't really feel the need to question it outside of a few 'quirks', they are somewhere on the scale as to how masculine or feminine their brain is and how masculine or feminine their presentation is.

Most people refer to ones sex organs as to what ever "sex" they are.

>>5586380
I'm not talking about what's in your head dumbfuck, leave your gender confusion at home.

>>5586397
So basically it's all bullshit. Who decides what traits are masculine or feminine? How much of what we consider to be masculine/feminine isn't conditioned into us? It doesn't mean anything. Why do we have to talk about this shit at all?

>Oh well I have a penis but I'm only 64.5% masculine really :3

Why can't we just be, man? What use does any of this have?

>>5586423
To clarify. That penultimate question should be read as: Why can't we just 'be'? That was a poorly placed 'man' lel

>>5586423
It doesn't have any use

>>5586423
>What use does any of this have?

it's the same as thinking that your race or nation is superior, it's just to fill the giant void in your personality, hence why people that identify themselves as having a gender or as belonging to a race or nation aren't interesting.

>>5586397
>very few people are 100% male or female

wtf

>>5586372
>Nor should they have half.
>should
there is no 'should' in nature. if women ever got half, or more, of all 'power' (which is also a concept without relation to biological science btw), it would be just as natural.

>>5586437
I agree with this, though I find some racists quite interesting if completely idiotic.

>>5586446
They won't though, is my point. I meant should in the social sense, i.e. male supremacy

>>5586452
>I meant should in the social sense, i.e. male supremacy
interesting, when it serves your cause, you suddenly abandon your own naturalism in favour of some abstract social sense.
and here's just a quick reminder: you can't predict the future, just like no 18th century man could have predicted the world of today, so i wouldn't be as confident regarding the prospects of female power.

>>5586467
>and here's just a quick reminder: you can't predict the future, just like no 18th century man could have predicted the world of today, so i wouldn't be as confident regarding the prospects of female power.

lol that sounds like a threat

>>5586470
to your kind, it certainly is.

>>5586475
My kind? And pray tell what are 'my' kind? I'm not the guy you had been responding to btw.

A performative structure.

>>5586487
a faggot

>>5586491
Well I walked right into that one. Congratulations.

>>5585891
You forgot "which in many languages correspond to categories of humans that many people believe are innate but some scholars argue are socially constructed. Unfortunately, discussing these categories and their possible sources is beyond the scope of this essay."

>>5586397
Gender is neither a scale nor separate bins.

>>5586487
>I'm not the guy you had been responding to btw.
then it probably isn't your kind to begin with but his:
men who are so much in grips of -a probably justified- status anxiety that they feel the need to comensate for their lack of power by appealing to nature, which supposedly makes men (all men? idon'tthinksotim.jpg) born for leadership.

>>5586512
Fair enough. Power's overrated anyway. It only serves to highlight your inadequacies.

Gender has differing degrees.
Physically, gender is defined biological. A woman can't naturally reproduce with another woman. Neither can a man. Mankind, and most other species have evolved this way.

There are, however, different psychological traits to men and women. Just as giving yourself testosterone, the male hormone, changes your body, so it changes your personality. The same is true of estrogen, the female hormone.

A full definition of gender should define gender biologically, physiologically, psychologically, and finally socially/culturally. Saying "gender is just a social construct" is wrong biologically, physiologically, and by extension psychologically. There is, however, a social construct surrounding gender that is a specific culture's definition.

These are not all mutually exclusive definitions of gender. They're simply different categories. To define gender as only one of these categories is a category error. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

A biological man can have a dick but psychologically be a woman. That biological man/psychological woman may have feminine traits in his personality. These feminine traits are defined through biology and physiology. "Choosing" to define woman psychologically through biology and physiology is not wrong. It's just a different category. Likewise, people who define men or women outside of biology, physiology, and psychology are themselves defining via a different category.

Where the former category is defined by biology and psychology, the latter is loosely defined by psychology (identity, not generally via traits). The former has created its own social construct, but can still be defined outside of this social construct through biology and psychology. Likewise, the latter is also a social construct, but can still be defined by psychology.

These "women", however, may still have a masculine mind and a biologically male body. If they identify as women then clearly they're on a different category on the man/woman psychologically spectrum. They /are not/, after all, a psychological man if they don't think they're men! They still, however, biological men. And if they still hold a somewhat masculine mind then it's because of their physiology. If that weren't the case then personalities wouldn't change when on hormones, or when born a man or a woman. Men and women would have the exact same frequency of personality across the human spectrum when developed outside of society.

Yet even when children are raised isolated from societ, via television and other children, in a very liberal home, men still tend to want to rough house while woman want to play nice. Take this last part as you will.

Basically you all know that the different sides are making category errors but refuse to admit it because you don't want to give an inch to the "bigots" or the "degenerates". It's a matter of different categories, not the end all be all definition.

>>5586644
Also the fact that any of you thought giving gender a proper definition when there are different categories is a testament to how shit /lit/ is.

Are there any other places on the internet where people will actually think about what they're writing without just posting one or two sentences about a complex subject, attacking it with one or two sentences, and defending yourself against attacks with another two sentences ad nauseum?

>>5586653
So you want to write essays back and forth instead of having a discussion that's more like conversation?

Academia.

>>5586653

gender = male or female

except in the last 10 years or so the term was hijacked by retards and made meaningless.

>>5586644
Great post

>>5586659
>in the last 10 years or so
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Or about cultures with more than two gender concepts.

>>5586659

ya they basically want Gender to mean your "personality" or "identity" when it never EVER meant that.
gender = sex = reality: chromosomes and genitals and phenotype.

>>5586655
that's some gender rhinoceros, too fat for a unicorn

>>5586667
What about cultures that have existed for a long-ass time with other concepts of gender?
>>5586673
I thought it was supposed to be someone in a costume. Kind of like Barney the dinosaur or whatever.

>>5586665

gender referred to the categories: woman / man.

the word woman / man have a specific etymology that is related to the physiological sex of a person. And woman actually meant something like "wife of man" wīfmann

>>5585799
Sex is if you got a dick or nah.

Gender is if you want a dick or nah.

>>5586675
>What about cultures that have existed for a long-ass time with other concepts of gender?
They were wrong. Science have shown there are only two.

>>5586675
>What about other cultures

That's their business and has nothing to do with us in the West.

>>5586682

did you know urine soaked eggs are a Chinese delicacy?

>>5586679
You're on crack.

Also, what about intersexed people (people born with both bits)? Are they neither? Both? Something else? If something else, doesn't that mean there are at least three sexes?

Actually, I believe I read somewhere that, taking biology alone into account, there are at least five.
>>5586682
Understanding other cultures and how they developed allows us to better understand our own cultures and how they developed, and how they could have developed differently. This is huge and can affect the way we shape our society in the future.

Saying the fact that it doesn't directly affect us means it's worthless to know is like saying history is worthless because it's over.

>>5586688
>Understanding other cultures and how they developed allows us to better understand our own

No it doesn't, it might make me appreciate my culture more than I originally did though.

refer >>5586687

>>5586687

>>5586660
Of course it is, because I put a lot of thought in my post. I suggest you all do too.
REALLY try to see the reasons as to your position beyond your biases.

Whether or not you have a vagina or a penis or some medical condition which causes you to have both and whether you are fucked in the head or not

>>5586703
back 2 tumblr, SJW

>>5586709
That was one of the least SJW posts in this thread. Hell, I'm not a SJW at all, and I still feel like that person is overvaluing the role of sex and undervaluing the cultural construction of gender norms.

>>5586712
To be fair I only made it halfway through. Didn't see him going all 'muh human nature' at the end

>>5586712
>overvaluing the role of sex and undervaluing the cultural construction
Define it then. Define all of it.