/lit/ - Literature

>>9520202
>Any recommendations?
Study biology.

>>9520202
Don't give a shit about her feminism, but she wrote a great book on Hegel's influence on the 20th century French philosophers and their conception of desire.

>>9520349
wow really makes u think

how about you read my c*ck and balls lmao

>>9520349
Kek. Explain how she's wrong, biology boy

>>9520202
Literally one of the worst feminist philosophers who brought about the nonsense of the third wave.

Read de Beauvoir or Firestone.

>>9520410
male = penis
women = vagina

Ever heard of chromosones? Men have some and women have some, but their not the same. Try the redpill, honey

>>9520415
You're a radfem.

>>9520415
is this bait?

>>9520410
What is the best way to deal with a spoiled child? Only a fool would argue in this situation. Any sane person knows that the best thing to do is to use your strength in order to educate the brat.

>>9520423
If their were no difference between men or women or women could be men if they just performed that way and vice versa then how come men have created civilization while women have contributed with nothing but idleness, manipulation, worthlessness and inferiority in all respect despite how they are allegedly equal to men as the liberals claim is true, well let's face it and get it out in the open theirs simply no way that this makes sense when you see who have created literature, great art, made inventions and brought us to the moon and invented medicine and the nuclear bomb, they've all been men and what have women contributed besides opened their legs mackarel reeking cunts, absolutely nothing.

I suggest you pick up Schopenhauers on Women

>>9520443
it almost sounds like you're building the perfect strawman for feminists to argue against
I wonder if that's deliberate :^)

When I was young and pure I raped a feminist. Her boyfriend didn't stop me because he believed in sexual liberation. Good old times, man.

>>9520453
My facts > your feelings
Why do leftists like you always try your armchair psychology when you cant refute something?

>>9520423
yes

>>9520477
Because pathologizing your opponent gives you power in the conversation, and everything they do comes down to power.

>>9520477
lol

>>9520423
>scientific facts are bait because my ideology goes against them!

>>9520498
>sex and gender are the same

>>9520498
gender doesnt equal sex

>>9520504

>gender is not something made up by post modern sociologists

>>9520509
Correct

>>9520504
In any meaningful sense, yes. I understand it's necessary for the advancement of the feminist agenda, but we shouldn't affirm blatant falsehoods because it's convenient to the enemies of all decent people.

>>9520504
Only ideologues use this meme distinction.
>your biological structure is 1000% unrelated to your social roles because I said so!!!!
lol

>>9520443
for all the "sex doesn't equal gender", it still holds that trannies didn't create anything great either, so what's your point?

>>9520515
>IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY BRO *tips tinfoil hat*

>>9520523
>our biological structure is 1000% unrelated to your social roles because I said so!!!!
I never said that. However, gender and sex are not the same

>>9520524
They, like women, are inferior to the white man

>>9520443

I think someone here got cucked.

>>9520524
>trannies didn't create anything great eithe
what about The Matrix?

>>9520527
>I never said that.
obviously you didn't because you lack the balls to do so, but such distinction only makes sense if you presuppose that

>>9520549
>such distinction only makes sense if you presuppose that
Wrong

>>9520546
meh, that tranny chick who did hooked on bach is probably better, but i'm not talking about dudes who created work as males and then had their balls chopped off after they were set financially, i mean ppl who've been on hormones since they were 12 or something

>>9520515
Assuming you dont browse /pol/, its kinda depressing that supposedly well-read posters here are capable of having beliefs this stupid.

>>9520527
>>IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY BRO *tips tinfoil hat*
It's less a conspiracy and more an example of the symbiotic relationship between the bourgeois and the intellectual caste. Both are the enemies of all decent people.

>>9520537
that's sexist please don't use mean words here

>>9520561
>hooked on bach
switched on bach my bad

>>9520561
>i mean ppl who've been on hormones
well, trannies only make up a tiny demographic and hrt hasn't existed for that long. don't you think it's a bit unfair to compare them against millenia of male achievements?

>>9520527
>BIOLOGY IS JUST A CONSPIRACY USED BY """MEN""" AGAINST """WOMEN"""" *tips blue hair*

>>9520579
Nobody is denying biology or the influence of genetics on behavior. You assuming that from my posts makes me question your reading comprehension or motivation (is it a deliberate strawman?)

>>9520575
>well, trannies only make up a tiny demographic and hrt hasn't existed for that long.

and that is exactly why it's disingenuous to bring up the "but muh gender" when someone talks about sex

>>9520587
>Nobody is denying biology or the influence of genetics on behavior.
Wrong

>>9520202
Read Man and His Symbols by Carl Jung.

>>9520564
nice fascistic dichotomy. Who are all the "decent people"?

>>9520614
you sure BTFO'd that fascist scum, bro
He says there are decent people, but like, what if it's all relative????
great job my comrade

>>9520614
the ones in my head, you gay retard.

>>9520614
White heterosexual males who major in STEM and follow sports

OP here.

This isn't /pol/. Please keep it literature related

>>9520620
It is literally a fascistic, populist dichotomy no different from when Trump claims to speak for "real Americans" or Farage claims that Brexit was a victory for "the real people", though. Select an enemy, and then create a false impression of unanimous opposition. This sort of stuff is rife across all political ideologies, of course, but it's a telltale characteristic of fascism.

>>9520202
I bet about 90% of people didn't read anything from her so why don't you summarize what she has o say in 3 sentences or less. Yes, people here are lazy and don't want to put in the work but you made this thread to start a conversation so you have to put in the work too.

>>9520636
But the discussion in this thread is as serious as feminism. Why are you complaining?

>>9520589
>"muh gender"
everyone has masculine and feminine traits, that's what gender refers to. the only people who get triggered by this are boring retards and closet homos.

>>9520620
Those groups of poor and working class people who have not been propped up by both the bourgeois and intellectual caste in order to create the antognism required for the reproduction of society.

>>9520643
people would be likely to read here if she didn't write like some asspained european in translation, can't help but feel she's larping hegel

>>9520651
but again you're being disingenuous, alan turing had the "feminine trait" of liking to suck big fat dicks, but he wasn't "female", he was all man baby, you can't say women are oppressed but then say men have female traits so women are really just unsuccessful men, it just doesn't hold up, eventually this era will be a joke

>>9520651
>everyone has masculine and feminine traits, that's what gender refers to
how do you define which trait is masculine or feminine?

>>9520673
you can't, that's why gender is spooky stuff.

>>9520673
>men
dicks that shoot sperm
>women
pussies that shoot babies

>what about the men and women who dont
don't let the outliers dictate the norm

>>9520679
>you can't
why?

>>9520686
You defined "men" and "women", not "masculine" and "feminine". And that anon clearly implied they are not the same.

>>9520690
what do you mean why? Do you have some apriori knowledge of what constitutes masculinity and femininity?

>>9520666
what? is that your masculine vagina speaking?
>>9520673
>>9520690
>triggered

>>9520703
Given that you claimed that everybody has masculine and feminine traits, you are the one who is supposed to have such knowledge.

>>9520700
big ass beards = masculine
skinny with big tits = feminine

Butler can suck my clit

>>9520713
If masculine and feminine are biological, then there's no need use the word "gender".

>>9520700
Well, then I'm assuming you mean traits.

Men like things
Women like relationships

There was a study with this using baby chimps playing with dolls or cars based on gender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOJaVL7N4G4

>>9520731
it's referring to character traits you closet faggot.
nobody says someone is masculine just because they have a penis or feminine just because they have a vagina.

>>9520641
Cause people don't have enemies. The "nuance" touted by the left serves no other purpose than to have their opposition disband their armies mid- battle.

>>9520731
yeah but if you inject a girl with enough test she'll grow a beard, and if you give a guy enough hrt he might sprout little tits...oh, so if you give someone the chemicals that those sexes produce naturally they become that gender...but let me ask, how many women go on test and then wear a dress? no they put on jeans and popped collar polo shirt and try to act like a charicature of a man, and men who get fake tits don't put on a tux, they put on a barbie bimbo outfit and larp as a slutty chick from a rap video...transgenderism is larping, which was fine when it was ppl cross dressing at gay clubs etc. but when ppl starting going on hormones and trying to permalarp this gets weird because now it's not just your bros at the mlp convention but like your classmates, boss, clients, etc.

>>9520738
>Men like things
>Women like relationships

honest q no troll

does testosterone like things and estrogen likes relationships? or is it built into the chromosones so even if a kid has his balls chopped off because he watched too many pornos he will still like things more than relationships?

>>9520757
yes on both

>>9520738
>Men don't like relationships
>Women don't like things
WRONG
R
O
N
G

>>9520777
set up a better strawman

>>9520777
oh in that case can you tell feminists to please stop telling men how they lack "emotional intelligence" etc.

>>9520751
Exposure to those chemicals in those quantities changes alters then physically to the point in which they behave those ways.

>>9520786
>it's a strawman when i'm confronted by my own stupidity
>>9520787
have you spoken to a female that wasn't your mother?

>>9520738
>>9520777
BTW, gender trait differences developed as soon as males began inserting their cocks into females. ie men were the ones who went out searching and women were stationary or passive.

Evolutionarily, specifically with female humans had to be more selective with who they bred with. At the same time, men wanted to breed with a woman at all (most men did not get to breed, you have twice as many female ancestors as male). A trait that develops is that women take less risks while men take more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzdqyXtPbbE&list=PLE60A08636F41C128

>>9520800
yes, that's right, the chemicals are making them biologically that sex

>>9520498>>9520415

>scientists establish facts

found the 20 yo liberal. ever heard of empiricism ?

>>9520803
Didn't say just because men have a proclivity to things that they dislike relationships.

You literally setup a strawman.

>>9520803
>have you spoken to a female that wasn't your mother?
>arguing we should believe sexes are the same
>virgin shames a male

nice

>>9520803
>>9520813
I'll make it even easier for you. Scandinavian countries have the most egalitarian societies and women's rights programs help women get into stem fields. With all that fairness, the difference between female and male occupations differs even more than the US.

>Women like relationships
More women are family doctors vs surgeons
More women are veterinarians (a long ago male dominated field)
More women are therapists and psychiatrists (long ago male dominated)

>>9520202
Have you read The History of Sexuality Vol 1 by Foucault? If you liked Gender Trouble, you'll love it.

>>9520413
De Beauvoir is good. Butler is good. Butler is influenced by De Beauvoir. Have you ever read Butler? Third wave feminism is similar to second wave feminism, but with an emphasis on intersectionality. As a second wave feminist (which is what I'm assuming you are), what is your issue with this?

>>9520349
>>9520415
>>9520498
>>9520515
>>9520549
>>9520579
Too lazy to quote all the /pol/tards in here but I'll try to dumb this down as much as possible.-

sex = biological (e.g. has a penis and facial hair)
gender = cultural (e.g. drives a pickup truck and watches football)

This isn't up for "debate". This is actually what a typical (non-braindead) pedestrian believes. The distinction simply arises based on the way both concepts are defined and delimited. The argument presented in Butler's book is actually much more radical. In fact, she argues against this distinction. Gonna quote from wikipedia here because the article is pretty decent-

>She challenges her readers' assumptions about the distinction often made between sex and gender, according to which sex is biological while gender is culturally constructed.[...] The distinction proves false. Sexed bodies cannot signify without gender, and the apparent existence of sex prior to discourse and cultural imposition is merely an effect of the functioning of gender. That is, both sex and gender are constructed.

Try actually attempting some literature from the other side before shitting up another decent thread with your half-baked redpill "critique". I am so sick of /pol/ ruining this entire fucking website. Having the same understanding of gender & sexuality as a man from the 1940s isn't "edgy".

>gender = cultural (e.g. drives a pickup truck and watches football)

so you're saying if a chick drives a pickup truck she's now transgender, spare me dude

>>9520834
do u notice something about those toys? it's not just color...the blue side has "things" the pink side has "personalities", women aren't less successful than men for the last 5000 years because the toy aisle at walmart has pink dolls

>>9520841
Actually I'm not saying that. I think gender is fluid (and arbitrary). If this isn't bait, you're honestly just too dumb or uninformed to discuss this topic, sorry.

>>9520834
I wouldn't disparage the "/pol/" side of the argument because it has merits. Mainly, people are disputing the claims that gender is a social construct and that even that has a BIOLOGICAL basis.

>>9520841
it just means she'd be considered masculine in that culture. you're just projecting your own insecurity as all closet homosexuals do.

>>9520845
Then you're being a hypocrite because there are salient arguments against gender fluidity.

>>9520845
maybe you're mistaking class for gender, a common mistake, i grew up in a rural town (with an elite university, don't try to hill billy shame me, nerd), all the girls who lived in my neighborhood shoveled cowshit and rode horses and drove trucks when they were old enough...but eventually some developer made some mcmansions up the road which filled up with people who drove european sedans and played videos games instead of going outside etc. it's easy, especially for people with marxist leanings, to show this is some kind of "degeneracy" because the males are "effeminate" but it's just a class distinction, it's not gender

>>9520849
>Drives pickup truck
implies physical labor
>watches football
implies interest in violent physical competition

how is this cultural?

>>9520849
>anyone who doesn't agree with me is a closet homosexual!

well i'm convinced then! good argument!

>>9520848
>Mainly, people are disputing the claims that gender is a social construct and that even that has a BIOLOGICAL basis.
This. Most feminists take this for granted

>>9520849
what about those kings of the closet homosexuals: motorcycle clubs, is there anything more manly than a fat hairy dude covered in leather gear driving a harley? and could anything be more gay?

seems like you might have a problem with homophobia since calling people "closet homosexuals" is your favorite insult

>>9520724
c-can i

>>9520202

That photo definitely has some Gender Trouble

>>9520202
Rollo Tomassi

>>9520413
>Read de Beauvoir

>>9520834
>This isn't up for "debate". This is actually what a typical (non-braindead) pedestrian believes.
Most people outside of academia have no idea about the distinction. Most people believe the two terms are interchangeable. If that weren't the case, there wldn't be a large-scale propaganda effort to convince them otherwise. That first sentence also shows your true colors nice showing of power, Mr. academic.

>Try actually attempting some literature from the other side before shitting up another decent thread with your half-baked redpill "critique". I am so sick of /pol/ ruining this entire fucking website.
Even the worst conceivable critue is leagues ahead of the blatant lies spewed by Butler and Foucault in order to advance the interests of powerful businessmen and at the same time look as though they're criticizing the powerful. I have no fondness for that other board, but they're opposition to intellectuals like Butler is more than laudable.

> Having the same understanding of gender & sexuality as a man from the 1940s isn't "edgy".
If you believe this to be true, you severely misunderstand how power is allocated in our society. Those that dominate the fourth branch of the US government (academia, epsecially prestigious schools like Berkeley) are anti-essentialists, and they rule with an iron-fist. To be an essentialist in and of itself is an act of rebellion.

>>9520928
>blatant lies spewed by Butler and Foucault in order to advance the interests of powerful businessmen


mmm, i wouldn't throw foucault under the bus so fast, his work actually undermines the "born this way, i can't help being a sodomite" identity politics of sex in the modern era, and his writing about the scientific obsession with sex and sexuality displays a sense of nostalgia for christian hegemony before the rise of scientific power

>>9520928
>blatant lies spewed by Butler and Foucault in order to advance the interests of powerful businessmen
Can you.... expand on this?

>>9520985
its all a scheme by george soros to ... do something!

>>9520834

>This isn't up for "debate".

Everything is up for debate.

>>9520997
To destroy the western world and flood it by third worlders, effectively turning it into a third world shithole. Because such shitholes are much easier to deal with, control and milk. And also because he hates the west, being a jew.
t. pol

>>9520997
>its all a scheme by george soros to ... do something!
Soros is part of the problem, but it's wrong to single him out. Someone like Donald Trump is just as much to blame.

>>9520985
Their brand of anti-essentialism provides the means for them to introduce women into workplaces , which in the post-industrial world, they are more valuable than men, at the expense of men by overcoming the hurdles provided by gender roles. This is also desirable because women are better consumers than mean, so society should work to transfer as much wealth as possible to them as long as it still allows for these businessmen to make a profit. Because this is a the expense of men this creates antagonism in the portions of society where men cannot make enough money to overcome these tensions. Foucault was also a neoliberal shiil.

>>9521031
Business men just want to make money. It's their academic allies hate the West.

>>9520509
fuck off
Gender is a prevalent concept in all societies, it's embedded in several languages. Though I'd still dismiss pretty much anyone that labels themselves a "feminist".

Including English actually, though it's lost it over time. Non-American English still has a masculine and feminine version of blond, "blond" being masculine and "blonde" being feminine. These aren't just gendered to apply to sexes, they're gendered to evoke the concepts of masculinity and femininity in the society when they were widely used, such concepts are not static either, just like our different societies' expectation/conception of emotions is also different, especially so in different eras of time. Obviously the concept of 'gender' has roots in sex but it can/has easily super-seceded it and become something wildly different. If you were a native speaker of a language that had gender to be a very prominent concept, you would understand the difference very clearly. English and your own denial blinds you in this.

>>9520985

>"Torches of Freedom" was a phrase used to encourage women's smoking by exploiting women's aspirations for a better life during the women's liberation movement in the United States. Cigarettes were described as symbols of emancipation and equality with men. . .. In 1928 George Washington Hill, the president of the American Tobacco Company, realized the potential market that could be found in women and said, ““It will be like opening a gold mine right in our front yard.”

Traditional gender roles have a negative "impact" on sales. Notice how lotions and creams are now being marketed to men, even though these are traditionally a women's product. Capitalism is an inherently liberal economic system because tradition and "arbitrary" distinctions between people are a brake on progress.

>>9520202
probably the worst obscurantist shit in all post-structuralism, and that's saying something

>people in this thread whining about the difference between sex and gender

yeah everyone knows that you fuckin fools. literally the first thing they tell you in any anthro or sociology class. that still doesn't mean you can just make up whatever "gender" you can think of. in other cultures they have things like the bissu, but it doesn't translate into american culture. it's no better than otherkin bullshit. of course as technology steamrolls biology i'm sure we will have legit otherkin as well. idk it's pretty awful. free kaczynski

>>9521164

>any anthro or sociology class

i.e. liberal indoctrination seminars.

>>9521176
i mean yeah but sex/gender is not necessarily a leftist distinction

fuck the patriarchy
t. Victorian highschooler

>>9521137
You fail to consider that Capitalism both informs and conforms to societal behaviors and the demand of the market.

>>9520928
>That first sentence also shows your true colors nice showing of power, Mr. academic.
I'm not an "academic" (I have a bachelors degree in economics). I read all that stuff on my own. Pretty sure I learned about this distinction in high school health class, but maybe I'm mistaken. If you consider me some academic elitist for suggesting that people read books that challenge their worldview, I have nothing to say in response.

>Even the worst conceivable critue is leagues ahead of the blatant lies spewed by Butler and Foucault in order to advance the interests of powerful businessmen
Foucault and Butler are both anti-capitalist though...

>If you believe this to be true, you severely misunderstand how power is allocated in our society. Those that dominate the fourth branch of the US government (academia, epsecially prestigious schools like Berkeley) are anti-essentialists, and they rule with an iron-fist. To be an essentialist in and of itself is an act of rebellion.
Ah, so you've finally outed yourself as an anti-intellectual here. Take a look at our president and then tell my how I "severely misunderstand how power is allocated in our society".

>To be an essentialist in and of itself is an act of rebellion.
lol. 99% of the US population are essentialists, consciously or not.

>>9521223
cont.
Just to expand a bit here. This is actually what triggers me most about the /pol/ or "alt-right" or whatever. This forced meme that being a conservative who jacks off to 1950s sexism and racism is somehow counter-culture or subversive. It's a fucking joke.

>>9521218
and? you think that this means capitalism is anti-feminist or something?

capitalism likes creating consumers. more individualists, more weirdos, bigger workforce, means more consumers. that's it

>>9521223
>lol. 99% of the US population are essentialists, consciously or not.

that doesn't mean it's not rebellious to be essentialist. what it more likely means is that that they're hypocrites.

welcome to the internet, we're all LARPing here

>>9520863
driving a truck doesn't imply physical labor and the conception of liking violent competition as something that's masculine is cultural

>>9520834
Can someone who actually read her help me out? I can't wrap my mind around that argument.

> Sexed bodies cannot signify without gender, and the apparent existence of sex prior to discourse and cultural imposition is merely an effect of the functioning of gender.
> That is, both sex and gender are constructed.

So you get
> Gender is socially constructed.
> Sex is dependent on gender.
> It follows that sex and gender are socially constructed.
If I understand correctly.

Isn't she confusing sex with gender at this point? If sex, actual biological physical sex, were dependent on gender, wouldn't the body be able to change based on the cultural environment? If there was a culture with no notion of gender, would that mean the physical differences in sexed bodies would disappear?

If she argues "no, but people wouldn't care about them", she's talking about gender, not sex. In which case she'd say nothing more than "Genders is dependent on gender", which wouldn't be that much of a surprise.

>>9521223
>Foucault and Butler are both anti-capitalist though...
But the nature and manner of their critique helps to strenghten it, and they contributed (especially Buter) to institutions that our capitalist society depends on. Their anti-capitalism is superficial if it's sincere at all.
>Ah, so you've finally outed yourself as an anti-intellectual here.
Yeah. I even said that the intellectual caste is the enemy of all decent people earlier.
>Take a look at our president and then tell my how I "severely misunderstand how power is allocated in our society".
The highest office in our country is occupied by an Ivy League alumnus. the selection system works, congrats. Same thing goes with Dubya.
>lol. 99% of the US population are essentialists, consciously or not.
But those in power aren't. A rebellion of the majority is still a rebellion.
>This forced meme that being a conservative who jacks off to 1950s sexism and racism is somehow counter-culture or subversive. It's a fucking joke.
Then why are those in power working as hard as they can to fight against it? Why the largest corporations denounced it? Why are academics trying to dismantle these attitudes so much? The only reason it seems otherwise is because the powerful in society have tasked academia with legislating nature, and you;ve bought into it.

>>9521244
It's not really the argument so much as the punchline. She's saying there's an ideological (which is to say, assumed but not acknowledged) element to the way we discuss and understand gender which takes for granted that sex precedes it or comes prior to it. This understanding of sex as being "outside of" or "before" culture/discourse is a result of the way we discuss gender.

>>9521259
Sorry bud. It kind of seems like your one of those people who thinks that academics are insidiously trying to manipulate you into thinking that black people are secretly better than white people or gay people are secretly better than straight people. One of my best friends became this way recently. I don't understand the appeal of this conspiracy theory (that's what it is) at all.

>Why are academics trying to dismantle these attitudes so much?
Gee, why would academics try to dismantle ignorant beliefs? Must be an evil plot to brainwash you, anon!

>>9521283
> Sorry bud. It kind of seems like your one of those people who thinks that academics are insidiously trying to manipulate you into thinking that black people are secretly better than white people or gay people are secretly better than straight people.

i'm not him, but it doesnt help your case that like 90% of the people who support social constructionism use it arbitrarily or legit don't understand what it means

i had a facebook conversation with some people where i brought up the fact that in this model, both science and racism are social constructs, and someone completely flipped their shit like "ARE YOU SAYING THAT RACISM IS AS VALID AS SCIENCE" and eventually called me a "stupid kid" simply because i politely asked him to read berger

you, my anon friend, have a LOT of faith in the ability of your side to hold consistent arguments, and a LOT of mistrust in the other side's "irrational" responses

a book just came out about this last month called "the enigma of reason"

>>9521283
>academics are insidiously trying to manipulate you into thinking that black people are secretly better than white people or gay people are secretly better than straight people
They often openly state that.

>>9521298
>gay people are secretly better than straight people

but they are tho

>>9521294
>you, my anon friend, have a LOT of faith in the ability of your side to hold consistent arguments, and a LOT of mistrust in the other side's "irrational" responses
Fair enough, although I don't really think of random idiots on your facebook wall who I've never met as being "on my side". In fact, I usually end up getting into intense disagreements with most self-proclaimed feminist or "SJW" type people that I meet. I get the point you're making though. John Berger is cool btw.

>a book just came out about this last month called "the enigma of reason"
I'll check it out.

>>9521302
fair enough -- one rando doesn't stand for everyone, and everyone has false convictions. I guess I have just lost faith in the supposedly rock-solid arguments of left theory, and I tried to explain why. cheers

>>9521301
And that's why one starts with the greeks

>>9521283
>It kind of seems like your one of those people who thinks that academics are insidiously trying to manipulate you into thinking that black people are secretly better than white people or gay people are secretly better than straight people.
Not at all. Considering someone better than someone else would be far too essentialist for these people. Though there does or even the seem to be some sort of slight moral inferiority that accompanies being "privileged".
>I don't understand the appeal of this conspiracy theory (that's what it is) at all.
Of course, there's no power in academia. It's not like the prestigious institutions function to select and groom the country's (or even the world's) elite. Harvard's yearly endowment isn't bigger than the GDP of Bolivia or anything like that. Let's be honest, these institutions wield considerable influence, and theories taught at them have a considerable impact on society.
>Gee, why would academics try to dismantle ignorant beliefs? Must be an evil plot to brainwash you, anon!
I don't care about knowledge or ignorance. My concern is a healthy society, and it is that which they are trying to dismantle. I just find it funny that these supposedly radical people are theorizing in accordance with the interests of big business.

>>9520803
>have you spoken to a female that wasn't your mother?
Are you implying his mother is a female? Fucking bigot!

>>9521349
i used to like /lit/ because it felt like a place i can talk about literature without having to deal with the plebs of real life, but there seems to be more and more of them around here all the time, i think /pol/ and their meme magic are bringing in some real kooks and bottom feeders, at least back in the day you'd get immature kids wacking it traps and gore on /b/ and then eventually maturing and spreading out to /mu/ or /lit/ etc. but now you get random bozos popping up with conspiracies that would straight credulity at a trump rally

>>9521363
The problem is, /pol/ shitters and lefty shitters are more or less equally bad, and even more so because of their synergy that turns a lot of threads into shit flinging.
>ask about feminist literature
>get shitposted
>ask about right-wing literature
>get shitposted
And so on.

>>9521363
I've been using this board since the day it was created, and I primarily used /mu/ before that.
Maybe I've just descended into lunacy, but you never mentioned where I was wrong, and that's because you can't deny that academics have a considerable amount of power.

>>9521371
what's the highest level of education you've attained?

>>9521241

>driving a truck doesn't imply physical labor

What would you know about it? My dad's back is ruined from driving truck.

>>9521375
At the moment, High school. By next year it will be a Bachelor's.

>>9521379
You were posting on /lit/ when you was 10?

>>9521383
I was maybe sixteen or seventeen at the time.

>>9521392
You're one venerable undergrad student

>>9521400
I'm more than well aware of the fact tat I'm a a total fuck up, but I'm not that old. /lit/ wasn't added until 2010.

>>9521411
O fuck. I presumed it was around 2005 or 2006 desu.

>>9520417
I'm a terf sweetie, are you triggered yet?

>>9520504
Implying bioessentialist conceptions of sex isn't bullshit

Educate yourself and read Zoe Samudzi and Angryblackgurl

>>9520873
I meant boiclit

>>9521363
This is cute, but /lit/ is not your safespace.

I miss the girls who read Butler instead of tumblr. The ones who ridiculed gender but didn't list their pronouns. They would also have blasted safe spaces and trigger warnings.

>>9520834
>This isn't up for "debate"
Neck yourself or go back to your STEM field. Everything is up for debate.

>>9521367
>equally bad
You've got some heavy bias going on senpai, janitors actively suppress any attempt to discuss conservative philosophy.

>>9520202
Bodies That Matter and History of Sexuality

>>9520834

Listen. I agree with you, but the problem isn't with the facts. The issue is politicised and how many people are able to untangle the structuralist literature? The situation is that if you do not make this the central issue of your intelectual pursuit, you are not going to understand it properly. In that situation the choice is between five thousand pages of text and two liners on social media sites. We desperately need someone to explain the reality behind this impartially in three page pieces, in hundred and something page books.

You cannot deny the political reality of the issue. You cannot expect everybody to read the same books you read.

>>9521244
I think that she means that sex depends on human interaction. If you were shipwrecked somewhere, the reality of sex would slowly fade away.

Now this is obvious, but if you are in the academy, you have to translate this to some kind of universal language, of which there are dozens and all have different consequences.

I got halfway through the being and time so I could possibly explain it in the terms of being, but imho a good old metaphor does always a better job.

>>9521327
I fell like starting is all I do my whole life.

>>9521943
nice meme but any form of feminism attempts to create an infrastructure to protect women, since they are weak and can't do it for themselves
feminists who argue against safespaces or whatever are as stupid as "not real communism" commies

>>9522017

I said that I miss these girls not that they were more intelligent than the current crop. I just feel like an old misogynist now.

>>9522017
well, let's just say women are weaker than men, not even explaining whatever context we're talking about. Why wouldn't they want to create safe spaces to protect themselves?

>>9522028
because normal women have husbands, so they don't need it

>>9522038
we live in an age of liquidity, when people change more than a few partners in the span of their lifetime, so talking about marriage feels almost meaningless. So in such a period of uncertainty, why do you think women seek other women to create a safe space to feel less weak than men?

>>9520202
Why are feminists always so ugly?

Judith Butler is perhaps one of the most important voices on political philosophy today. It would be unwise to attempt to talk/debate/refute her if you have not read her.

>>9521016
just like your ass, honey, now hand it over.

>>9522017
just out of curiosity have you ever read camille paglia?

>>9522083
>reading feminist propaganda

>>9522091
why are you in this thread then?

>>9522083
>Judith Butlerality is perhaps a voice-game of importantality in philosophies of politicality. It would be unwiseality to attemptality to engage in a language-game with her if you have not read herality

>>9522092
To make you mad.

Modern feminism in western cultures is a fucking joke

>>9522094
u spooky

>>9521233
I wasn't saying that. What I'm simply stating is that though we often times perceive consumers as being impressionable and vulnerable to what Capitalism wants them to consume/buy/etc, it also remains vulnerable/impressionable to consumer's wants and desires. It's because it operates in both these ways that Capitalism cannot be entirely Liberal, and hat to assume such would be an idiotic gesture exhibiting a fundamental misunderstanding of market relations. Your claim is "interesting" and nothing much beyond that.

>>9522100
Are you trying to tell me that manspreading and free bleeding aren't serious issues? Let me guess, you're a fucking white male.

>>9520202
Judith Butler writes fiction. She doesn't engage ideas or reality as they exist in the real world

>>9522133
and what ideas exist in reality?

>>9522054
>So in such a period of uncertainty, why do you think women seek other women to create a safe space to feel less weak than men?

Not him, but don't you feel like this strategy, where women band together to support each other against individual men (women's shelters being the most benign example), will result in a responsive strategy where men band together to protect themselves against against multi-female alliances? In some ways, it feels like this is already beginning to happen.

>>9521993
>The issue is politicised and how many people are able to untangle the structuralist literature?

Isn't queer theory more post-structuralist? Breaking down binary distinctions and the like. But yeah, you'd have to have
familiarity with structuralists in linguistics, anthropology, and so on to comprehend what Butler might be saying.

>>9522004
>If you were shipwrecked somewhere, the reality of sex would slowly fade away
This is just wrong. Would women cease to have bleeding vaginas and rollercoaster hormonal cycles If they were shipwrecked?

>>9522054
>why do you think women seek other women to create a safe space to feel less weak than men?
Only feminists do it.

>>9522154
>will result in a responsive strategy where men band together to protect themselves against against multi-female alliances?

I think, in a way, you're right about this. Third wave feminism hails from academia and that's where its most active groups remain: colleges. Coupled with corporate feminism that is nothing more of an effort of the upper-middle class to deceive poor women to feel more confident in their own exploitation, this new feminist movement feels more like an imposition because of its lack of pragmaticity compared to other movements like the suffragettes etc. AT the same time i think there's a fundamental lack of communication between the feminists and the male-centered groups you're describing, because, as i said before, are too attached to an intellectual world, while white men are too strongly bonded to their own private interests.

>>9522159
well, feminists are also women

>>9520202
>No one understands what she is actually saying. OP claims Butler is articulate.

>>9522222
true, but hardly they can be considered human beings

>>9522293
I can't say we can have a meaningful discussion from now on then

>>9522220
>Coupled with corporate feminism that is nothing more of an effort of the upper-middle class to deceive poor women to feel more confident in their own exploitation, this new feminist movement feels more like an imposition because of its lack of pragmaticity compared to other movements like the suffragettes etc.

I don't even think it's particularly new, mainstream feminism has been essentially bureaucratic since the late 80s/early 90s, relying for the most part on top-down models of change through the legal system and government programs. Like you said, these models have their origins in academia, such as feminist law professors and philosophers of gender; ideas about "harrassment", when something is a "gender stereotype", what constitutes "consent", etc. Catherine MacKinnon wrote in the 80s about how the state could and should be used to implement her and many other feminists' ideas of gender equality (which is what people like Camille Paglia were arguing against in 1993), and I think this approach has generally been adopted since then: articles in academic journals whose ideas eventually bleed into more mainstream liberal and centrist media, court cases, government-sponsored initiatives, corporate anti-bias programs, and so on. It's only been in the past 6-8 years that these ideas have attracted truly mainstream coverage and earnest believers amongst a portion of the general population, albeit one that is not yet as significant as its supporters (and its enemies) make it out to be.

>>9521349
>>9521371
>>9521379
I'm the anon you were talking to last night. This is someone else-
>>9521363

In response to what you've said. I'm well aware of how academic institutions (especially elite ones) function as a source of power that spread ideology. What you are saying actually conforms with some Marxist theory (see Althusser's 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses'). However, all power isn't automatically bad simply by virtue of being power and blindly opposing the ideas presented because they contradict what you already believed prior to learning about them is reactionary and bad. I've yet to hear any legitimate criticisms from the "alt right" or whatever, because frankly no one has bothered to actually understand what's being said. Your claims about Butler and Foucault supporting capitalism or whatever are completely unsupported. Butler lives in a capitalist society (we all do). We don't have a choice but to participate in capitalism. Honestly, it seems like Marxist theory would really appeal to you (and by extension feminist theory, once you are able to comprehend the extent to which they are related).

For me, here's the problem- There's a recent trend on /lit/ of people constantly making threads to trash Butler, Foucault, Baudrillard, etc. that are obviously made by refugees from /pol/ who have never read said theorists and have a facile if not completely inaccurate understanding of what their theories consist of. It doesn't generate any good discussion and these people are too god damn lazy to read, period. I've been on 4chan for about 10 years. It's always been filled with edgelords but /pol/ has infested every board I frequent and made this website insufferable. You can't even have a decent discussion anymore. /pol/ culture is even worse than /b/ culture.

>>9521363
This is spot on, by the way.

>>9522421
Wait, are you that Anon in the philosophy thread that got absolutely destroyed when it was pointed out that nobody in academic philosophy cares or even reads Derrida or Deleuze outside of France and continental philosophy is dying if not already dead?

>>9522421
>Your claims about Butler and Foucault supporting capitalism or whatever are completely unsupported.

You should read these:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/foucault-interview/
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/michel-foucault-responsibility-socialist/

Maybe you disagree with the author's conclusions about Foucault, but to dismiss them as illegitimate criticisms of Foucault as a supporter of capitalism is blind. I like Foucault, but I share some of the sentiments Zamora expresses.

>>9522442
No idea what you're referring to. Is the thread still active?

>>9520202

Wer sich tief weiß, bemüht sich um Klarheit; wer der Menge tief scheinen möchte, bemüht sich um Dunkelheit.

>>9520443
This is just stupid

are these post-structuralists even worth reading? I only went through Deleuze since he's more of a philosopher.

Kys

>>9520443
The things we take for granted such as clothes, calendars, and baskets, that originally helped us advance as a species to form societies and cultures, were invented by women.

>>9523096

Cite your sources.

>>9522132
Muh oppression

>>9522119
geez, shut the fuck up
his claim makes total sense; feminism is a capitalist's wet dream

>>9522119

It's hard to separate capitalism and liberal ideology from the Protestant religion that spawned both.

wasnt there a female author that btfos mainstream feminism? i watched a youtube video but i forgot her name. shes like a female peterson.

>>9521101
ah, yes, chairs are women in france

>>9520202
>Any recommendations?
Start with the greeks.

>>9523205
Christina Hoff Sommers

>>9521233
women have to shit out "consumers" or else the hamster wheel stops

>>9523096
youre taking for granted men invented better hunting tools and spent all day chasing animals while women sat on their ass weaving baskets

>>9523346
interesting. but thats not it. has the butler and haraway spunk but shes praised in rightwing circles. cant recall. help

>>9523531
Camille Paglia?

>>9520834
A woman who drives a truck merely has a culturally masculine attribute, that doesn't make her a man

>>9520834
>That is, both sex and gender are constructed.

This is why Butler is retarded and basically gutted the feminist movement turning it into the abomination it is today

>>9523174
And? So what if it is? If we are adopting your assumption, than most everything can be incorporated within this "wet dream". Just because something is impressionable to capitalism (as most everything is) does not mean that it's ideology is rhetorically diluted.

>>9523514

If all women acted like westerners we'd be fucked as a species. It would be worse than an asteroid.

>Dude social constructionism
>Dude what if, like, everything was discourse?
>Dude that must mean my penis could mean anything, It could mean I'm a lady! Wouldn't that be fucked up? Dudeeee woah

What about this line of thinking has attracted so much blind acceptance? You can play any linguistic game you want, your biology remains. You are not the sol determiner of things and neither should you be. Yes gender is a social construct, but ask yourself, Why is it a social construct? Do you think we just make them up willy fucking nilly? Having a penis means you are a man, and that is performed socially, it is constituted by your biological predilection.

>but muh causality, but muh intersex people
Get over yourself

>>9523558
yes thanks.

>>9520834
>Unironically recommending Foucault
>This isn't up for debate
You redefine gender to fit your worldview and then hide behind a false sense of pseudo-scientific certainty to protect yourself from debate. Post-modernism is a bane to our existence.

>>9524660

>dude there's like no objective truth lmao
>you cannot know nuffin
>we're sure about gender though, that's not up for "debate"

>>9524437
>most everything can be incorporated within this "wet dream"
Wrong

Yeah, bro, the fact that the countries with the greatest gender equality and strongest feminist movements also rank among the freest economies on earth is just a coincidence.

>>9524177
That's the point, dipshit. The idea that driving a truck is masculine is entirely a construct.

>>9524660
>Post-modernism is so bad!!! I hate it its destroying western sociedy :---(

You're posting on a website that has an entirely postmodern basis. To disparage it entirely is to be a completely ignorant.

>>9524699
Men and women drift to different things and it has nothing to do with "social constructs." Women in the US are now 60% of graduates with a bachelors in biology. Yet despite the push for equalization of women into STEM fields they remain only 5% of the graduates with bachelor's in Physics. Are biologists less sexist then men, do physicists not want to see women in their fields? No, biology is simply more appealing to women, they will most likely be mothers sometime in their life and so it might appeal to them more then something abstract like physics.

>>9524770
Yeah, no. You're still maintaining that biological imperatives shape all tastes of men and women.
> "Despite the push for equalization of women into STEM"
You're argument hinges on the presumption that this push for equalization is instant and completely eradicates the complex system of tastes and incentives in a society. You're argument includes "motherhood" which already presumes that all women want to be mothers, but curiously leaves of social dynamics within the physics workplace and STEM fields at large.These are complex questions. Retorting with a generalization makes you look like a fool.

Anyway, I'd even agree biology and sex do influence taste, but only to a small degree. The majority of influence comes from society.

>>9524809
>I'd even agree biology and sex do influence taste, but only to a small degree. The majority of influence comes from society.
This guy OD'd on Kool Aid. He drank it all up!

>>9524809
>motherhood assumes all women want to be mothers
No, irrelevant. Women should be mothers because that's their primary and most useful function. There is no "spectrum" of gender, only the masculine and the feminine.

>>9520834
This is me^

>>9520928
>>9521016
>>9521960
>>9524660
>This isn't up for debate.
Lots of you seemed to focus exclusively on this sentence, so I just thought I'd clarify what I meant by this-

>Gender: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
>Sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
Source: google.com

When I said the distinction between "sex" and "gender" isn't up for debate, I was referring to the fact that the difference is actually in the way the words are defined. To conflate them is not an intellectual position. Its a fundamental misunderstanding of what the words "sex" and "gender" mean. Yes, of course you can argue that they are related, but its important to understand that there are two distinct concepts here.

>>9524859
Someone could believe gender isn't real and sex is, yes, a conflation of both concepts. So yes, it's an intellectual position

>>9524861
what do you mean by "isn't real"?

>>9524864
"does not exist"
Are you stupid?

>>9524857
>Women should be mothers because that's their primary and most useful function.

At least you are being blatant. Thank you for your time. See ya.

>>9524865
i think you are bud. you are actually proving my point because you can't describe what the fuck you mean by "gender doesn't exist" (of course not, because it's a word in the english language that has a meaning most people easily comprehend).

>>9520834
>sex = biological (e.g. has a penis and facial hair)
>gender = cultural (e.g. drives a pickup truck and watches football)
Remember the twins who were grown to test this theory? They killed themselves.

>>9524867
Refute my "blatant" (obviously true) assertations IMMEDIATELY or you are a coward backing out in the face of an obstacle you cannot surmount

>>9524868
>a concept has a definition, therefore it exists
Time to go home, folks. We are dealing with a philosopher here

>>9524870
That was probably more the result of constant raep

>>9524876
Except for the interview part, where the other one is adamantly telling that the theory is wrong and it killed his brother.

But it must be true because it makes you feel validated.

>>9524873
It's an abstract concept, so yes it exists as an abstract concept. What exactly are you asserting when you say "gender doesn't exist". Be specific. Do you mean to say that gender is an arbitrary set of cultural norms? Do you mean to say that gender is 100% determined by sex? To say "x concept doesn't exist as a concept" is nonsensical because you've already begun your claim by referring to it.

>>9524859
The debate is exactly that sweetie. Setting definition then arguing your point like it isn't up for debate is dishonest.

It's like saying racism is only against white because I redefined racism as "oppression+privilege" or same with microaggression, ....

The debate here is that people claim that gender is independent of sex, which is not the case. It's correlated at 95%. People who are born male most overwhelmingly behaves as male.

Finally, I would agree that gender as it stands is culturally constructed because the activists all come from the same place (Academia, gender studies, sociology, ...). You can see their physical transformation from somewhat young to freaks. This indoctrination is cultish and soul-destroying to see.

>>9524881
>letting truth be decided by child sex slaves
I don't even disagree nerd

>>9524882
what exactly is someone asserting when they say "unicorns don't exist"?
I don't see why I should keep engaging someone this dense, so I'll stop here

>>9524882
Back at you, what does gender means? How is it measured? What are the test that can objectively put someone into a category?

>>9524886
not the same thing. because "unicorns don't exist" is understood to mean that the concept of a unicorn is not manifested physically in the real world. you are conflating two different meanings of the word "exist".

>>9524891
I have already defined gender numerous times.

>>9524883
>It's correlated at 95%. People who are born male most overwhelmingly behaves as male.
Literally nobody disagrees with this. I even included this caveat in my post. Thanks for reading. Also, I'm not "setting the definition". I got it from a dictionary. If you don't like what the word "gender" means, that's too bad.

>>9524891
easy, you ask them if they're male, female or another gender. It's as simple as that.

>>9524900
like I said: dense

>>9524910
like i said, 100% proved my point that you fail to understand how the concepts are distinct.

>>9524900
Read the next part: I asked for an objective test.

>>9524901
That's not science though. If anything subjective is real, I will accuse you of X because I feel like it.

If you read the psychometric literature, the first step before affirming a concept is a metric that is objective and repeatable.

In psychology, if you feel like another gender, it can be self-deception of trauma. Skepticism is warranted before acceptance.

Finally, if you accept that as a criterion it will lead to complete chaos because there should be the possibility that each person on earth identify differently for each day. Do you really want to work on a society which tries to deal with 7 000 000 000 * 365 yearly pronouns?

>>9524910
According to you, "gender doesn't exist" so this is simply a man, correct? Despite obvious cultural signifiers of feminine gender presentation. You are being extremely disingenuous.

Psychologists are wastes of skin

>>9524900
>I got it from a dictionary.
But that's culturally constructed. It is not valid.

Joke aside, because a word exist in the dictionary doesn't mean it is a valid concept. Example: "grit" is said to be a key concept, yet there is no psychometric test that has validated the concept.
Same with a lot of other "spooks".

>>9524912
>Read the next part: I asked for an objective test.
Gender is culturally constructed therefore not objective. Once again failing to understand the basic definition provided multiple times.

>>9524913
Remove surgery, makeup, clothes and any hormone and see how well your concept stand.

It's like cutting an arm and saying you are disabled.

>>9524922
>Take away all the cultural stuff and the cultural construct doesn't exist!
Yeah, no shit. That's my point. Are you thick?

>>9524919
Right, if it cannot be objectively measured it is a worthless concept. Discussing a subjective concept is a matter of opinion therefore it is not science and should not be in law or studied for that matter.

Do we agree on that? If not, can you make the case that a non-objective concept can be studied at all and how it should be done?

>>9524913

>so this is simply a man, correct?

Well, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I like traps as much as the next man but they're not actually female.

>>9524901
My cuckoo cousin says he's michael jordan. should I believe him?

>>9524930
>hurr durr objective
What are you doing on a literature board, my man? I guess we shouldn't study poetry or literature anymore since they aren't objective.

>>9524913
So pic related is a bear?

>>9524933
No, you should study thing and then report them as objectively as possible so that dispute can be resolved.
If you can't do the second part, it is not science, should not be into law and finally a futile endeavor.

>>9524932
>>9524935
Going to bed. Lots of really insincere replies in this thread, otherwise people are incredibly thick. One word refers to the cultural domain, the other to the biological. It's actually so mind numbingly simple that I'm completely convinced I'm being trolled at this point so I won't be replying anymore.

>>9524938

Nice damage control bud.

You've been begging the question the whole time and you can't figure out why people won't take you seriously.

>>9524938
Let's go for a last answer then

>sex is biological
Yes, it is for objectively measurable reasons. That's why it is a valid concept.

>gender is cultural
Yet you claim that it cannot be measured. If it cannot be measured or objectively discussed, you can't solve any claim like there are more than one gender because no valid categorization exist.

More precisely: if gender is truly a subjective thing, you can't categorize anything like a third gender because you should be able to define the first two gender first, which you said you can't.

Finally, if gender is truly subjective, I would argue that gay people would have a tough time with that. Western society accept that gay "are born that way" and no amount of cultural interference will change that. Yest now being gay is completely subjective and dissociated from biology?

>therefore gender should also be valid because it muh simple explanation
Fuck off. The devil is in the details in this case. Setting a definition and framing the world with it is pure confirmation bias.

>>9524927
Makeup, clothes, etc are usually used to highlight biological assets. Saying that it is purely cultural is denying the biological basis.

Example: women wear lipstick because red lips is a sign of fecundity, etc ....

There are so many people ITT who unironically think that "gender is a social construct." Wake me up from this nightmare

>>9524970
It sad because they have a point. If sex is a binomial distribution, there is some overlap between men and women, just as there are relatively few tomboys and feminine men. That doesn't change the fact that the best way to categorize humans is male and female.

When they argue that gender is 100% dissociated from sex, it is incorrect. They take indoctrinated college freshmen or extremely fragile people (like trans) to prove that exception do exist. It's vile beyond words.

>>9524938
I'm just seeing this thread now but I think the point that some people are making is that it's impossible to define what gender a person is so it's not really a useful concept. It's not that the concept doesn't exist it's that people don't have a gender.

For example how do I know what my gender is for definite? I'm more feminine than some women and more masculine than some men so where do I fall on the spectrum?

Personally I think gender is a pointless concept and only further serves to cement cultural differences between the sexes.

>>9524970
Gender is mostly a social construct, but it's not *entirely* a social construct. Sex hormones do contribute a lot to how men and women behave.

But money is also socially constructed, but that doesn't mean it's any less real though because you'll simply die of hunger if you don't have enough of it.

>>9525019
>But money is also socially constructed, but that doesn't mean it's any less real though because you'll simply die of hunger if you don't have enough of it.

What benefits does gender have?

>>9525023
Well for one, adult men are seen as disposable tools. That's very beneficial to women and children, because they are the first to leave the sinking ship.

Men really need to rise in status in order to be seen as worth protecting by other people, which is a value women just have by default.

>>9525030

>>9525023

Gender roles are essential to maintain a healthy birth rate. If your culture is literally dying out because you can't have enough babies, then what good is it?

>>9525033
Well, am I wrong?

>>9525038
What do you think?

>>9525044
I think I'm at least partially right.

>>9525049
You're not wrong but sex explain that: eggs are rare and sperm is plenty, pregnancy is a huge cost,...
Gender is not necessary to explain that because sexual dimorphism already necessitate some behavior.

Do you have any other example that are not subsumed by biology?

>>9525070
Yeah, but like I said, gender isn't completely independent of biology, it's just that a lot of it is social constructed.

Take for example masculinity. Do you think masculinity means the same thing today as it did in Ancient Sparta?

I don't think so.

>>9525084
Yes, they were not the same. But they were more similar than dissimilar. Focusing on gender when it is the tip of the iceberg (biology) is putting the cart before the horse.
Let's focus on the 95% correlation between sex and gender before putting forward aberrations like genderless children raising.

>>9525185
The point I'm trying to make is that how society views masculinity changes depending on the society.

Masculinity always implies certain things, like strength and honor, but what strength and honor means changes a lot.

I mean, today masculinity is associated with arguing strongly with your corporate boss so you get a higher salary, or watching football and drinking beer with your mates, which is not what masculinity was 250 years ago.

How can people on a literature board be so uneducated on a topic? Modern "gender" theory stems from the work of John Money, a psychologist and sexologist in the 1960s who traumatized two young boys in an effort to prove his research.

It was a massive failure, however, as David Reimer and his brother would both commit suicide as adults. I urge you all to look up the whole story, the details are sad and gruesome.

>>9525195
>How can people on a literature board be so uneducated on a topic?

Have you been here long?

>>9525195
Well there is a simple answer to this though. Most people feel comfortable with who they are gender-wise. Men usually identify as men, and women usually identifies as women.

The question is what we are supposed to do with the people who don't.

>>9525195
>Modern "gender" theory stems from the work of John Money

stop using shitty youtube videos as sources for retarded claims.
John Money is insanely critizied these days and almost all his works have been discredited as lying/falsified bullshit.
the only thing John Money has proven through the failure of an attempt to raise David Reimer from infancy through adolescence as a girl, after his genitals were accidentally mutilated, was disproving the theory that gender identity is determined by parenting.

>>9525193
I understand that. If you consider that sexual dimorphism is at the bottom of gender roles, you'll get something like that: males cooperate around hierarchical and vertical structures (at best meritocracies, at worse tyrannies). On the other hand, female cooperate around hierarchical horizontal structures (social networks, at best they take care of each others, at worse they destroy each others - infanticide is primarily done by the mother).

Now, is a spartan and your average sports fan closer to the typical male behavior or not?
If you focus on how dissimilar they are, you would have to argue that it is closer to a typical female behavior than a male behavior.

The argument is a clustering argument. Does X belongs to the male or to the female class? And I can't see how you can make the case that they are more dissimilar than similar. But that's just me.

>>9525256
I agree with you, but the point is that these characteristics aren't exclusive to 1 sex.

I know of women who are vastly more masculine than the average man, and I know of men who are too feminine for their own good, even though both of them consider themselves heterosexual.

>>9525254
I beg your pardon. Money's theory of gender neutrality is the exact same jargon that the trans activists and so on are espousing now, they're not criticizing him. There are people in this thread claiming to be true what his horrible experiment proved wrong.

>>9525269
Why are you 1) arguing on the basis of personal experience, 2) arguing on the basis of exceptions?

It's like saying I know this person with two heads therefore "human have one head" is false?

Anyway, if it is a binomial distribution, you have overlap. No shit. However, what matters is the difference between the expected value of the distributions.


I'm still struggling to see why we seem to disagree so strongly, yet simultaneously agreeing with each other.

>>9525269
>these characteristics aren't exclusive to one sex
>typical male behavior
>typical female behavior
>typical

your anecdotal evidence means nothing

>>9525250
Treatment that doesn't involve bodily mutilation.

>>9525307
Amputation isn't a thing?

>>9525309
Well you'd have to amputate the brain, and that would probably kill them.

>>9525313
Nice retort

>>9520202
>Feminist
>Philosopher
pick one

>>9525317
Not an argument

>>9520834
>gender = cultural (e.g. drives a pickup truck and watches football)
This is a nonsense concept (in the sense that it has no utility and serves no real purpose) and I don't see any reason for why anyone should give a shit about it. When my girlfriend deadlifts she doesn't suddenly become more of a man, it says nothing about her being a man or a woman, nor does my using a moisturizer or anything else.

Literally a useless concept that I just can't grasp why people give a shit about it. I don't need to know the intricacies of your own mind and identity problems that cause you to identify as a different sex (because that's what they tend to be doing "I'm a man as a woman" or "I'm a woman as a man", it's never "I'm an oompa loompa" or just "yeah, I do some things men tend to do" and leaving it at that.)

Now redpill me please, explain to me why this outdated and shit.

>>9520202
>Any recommendations?
Read a real philosopher
Gender Trouble
>Based upon the debunked Marxists materialist view of reality and hegemonic view of personal interactions
>Her rejection of the essentialist outlook of gender as an expression of an underlying physically real sexual division that is naturally expressed boils down to 'she doesn't like it'. >She argues that physical sexual dimorphism is *created by* "heteronormative power" because the human body is a discursively regulated social construct, NOT a natural material entity
That's right - her argument is 'women have vaginas because muh patriarchy'.
OP, if you actually read Gender Trouble and did not conclude that it is anything but proof that lesbians are crazy, you need to get out more.

>>9525328
And it wasn't presented as one.

>>9520834
>gender = cultural (e.g. drives a pickup truck and watches football)
A definition so broad and undefinable it is meaningless. Which culture? Subculture? Outlook? etc.
"gender" referring to cultural norms is a made-up argument to distract from the embarrassment of Feminists like Butler

>>9525350
>When my girlfriend deadlifts she doesn't suddenly become more of a man

Of course she does. The spectacle of a young female lifting weights to gain muscle is barely 10 years old, and most people still don't find women with too much muscle attractive.

She is a woman, and she will always be a woman, but the fact that something that was almost exclusively associated with men just 10-15 years ago but isn't any longer, should tell you something about how the concepts of masculinity and femininity change.

>>9525369
At this point I am convinced you are a troll.

>>9525369
>to gain muscle
Hey don't assume her intentions, shitlord.

>She is a woman, and she will always be a woman, but the fact that something that was almost exclusively associated with men just 10-15 years ago but isn't any longer, should tell you something about how the concepts of masculinity and femininity change.

Is it just because I'm Swedish that I literally couldn't give less of a shit about these concepts? They play no role in my everyday life except for when buying toys for my sister's daughter because she WANTS princesses and the like, even then it's not framed in the sense of "alright gotta get something from the X gender role category" rather it's "get what she wanted". Also it's not like lifting is going from being masculine to feminine, it'll always be masculine seeing as big muscles signify high testosterone which is a masculine trait in and of itself, stemming from biology. It'll be masculine in the same sense that having high testosterone is.

Anyway you didn't answer the bulk of my post, I called it a nonsense concept with no utility and no real purpose. Why should I care about it?

>>9525375
I'm not trolling at all. In fact I'm convinced that it's all the /pol/-tards here who are really trolling.

If you can't supply an actual argument for how masculinity and femininity is biological, you should just shut the fuck up honestly. Just stating that something is biological isn't an argument.

>>9525369
>The spectacle of a young female lifting weights to gain muscle is barely 10 years old
Female weightlifters are pretty old, pal
>Provincial fool

>>9525384
>If you can't supply an actual argument for how masculinity and femininity is biological
First, read this
>>9525352
Butler's core argument, the real one, is that the human body is not a natural, material entity but is only a social construct.
Not "gender is cultural"; she means "biology is cultural".
If you had actually read the book, you'd know that

>>9525384
I'm not him but I'll bite. Signs of high testosterone such as high muscle, a wide jaw etc are attractive traits for women but not for men, that's one example.

Women tend to look for men with these traits especially when ovulating etc. Just some things I could think of.

>>9525387
This proves squat though. Having freakshows with bulky women or circus employees who looked like that doesn't mean that this was socially acceptable in general.

There was an obscenely fat guy who used in a freakshow in the 1800s too, but it certainly wasn't socially acceptable to be that fat, and yet if you go to the U.S today, you see people who are as fat as that guy were all around you.

>>9525384
Leave it to a fucking biology denier to not understand how biology works in the first place.

A female lifting weights will not put on muscle the same way a man will. Lifting weights in general will not cause one to acquire "too much muscle." Bodybuilding requires a dedicated routine for many years. Or steroids.

"Too much muscle being unattractive to most people" is something you invented in your head and is not quantifiable in any way.

Female weight lifting AND female bodybuilding have both been around for a long time, it is not a recent spectacle by any means. Miss Universe competitions began in 1965. A woman named Ivy Russell won a women's competition back in the 1930s.

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

>>9525400
>Signs of high testosterone such as high muscle, a wide jaw etc are attractive traits for women but not for men, that's one example.

And? Bodily markers are obviously biological.

But I don't get why it's so difficult to differentiate cultural aspects and biological aspects for you guys.

Do you think the fact that men wear a suit to work is biological or what?

>>9525409
>A female lifting weights will not put on muscle the same way a man will.

This wholly depends upon the woman. Some women produce more testosterone than others do, but of course on average, you are right.

But that doesn't change the fact that biological markers of high testosterone are more attractive to women when they are on men, than vice versa.

Men are way more attracted to markers of neoteny in women, e.g youthfulness.

>>9525387
"The obsession with health and ancient Greece had a strange influence upon each other in the Victorian Britain of the 1870 when women began what would now be understood as 'strength training', often based upon the zor xune systems of contemporary Iran. This became so popular that exhibitions of 'strong women' were common sights"
Look, your ignorance is not an argument

>>9525427
sorry; this was for
>>9525403

>>9525413
There was nothing about cultural aspects in your post. So to get to where this went south, can you define these words
>masculinity
>femininity

For me, I took them as typically male and feminine traits, including in them things such as signs of attraction etc. But by your definition, I take it as something more like "typically male and feminine traits minus biology" is this correct? If it is, then asking to point to something biological there is redundant, I don't see your point.

Please also answer my first criticism/concern regarding this whole thing
>>9525383
>Anyway you didn't answer the bulk of my post, I called it a nonsense concept with no utility and no real purpose. Why should I care about it?

>>9525392
Are you implying biology is not cultural? It's already a well-known fact that there's no thing as nature, that any 'real' nature would be inseparable from the idea of nature, so what changes when we call it biology?

>>9525403
"Strength and Health magazine, the leading weight lifting publication of the first half of the 20th Century, responded to the increase in women readers and weightlifters by adding the 'barbelles' column, written by famed female weightlifter Abbye Stockton, in 1944. Abbye was able to parlay this column and the amazing increase in women weightlifters into a series of annual sanctioned weightlifting competitions for women in 1947, the core of which continue to this day"

>>9525423
>This wholly depends upon the woman. Some women produce more testosterone than others do, but of course on average, you are right.

No. Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge in biology. Any woman that outpaces any man's production of testosterone is a statistical anomaly.

>According to the National Institutes of Health, the normal range of testosterone is 30 to 95 nanograms per deciliter (ng/dL) for women and 300 to 1,200 ng/dL for men, but individual laboratories might have a slightly different range that they consider normal.

>>9525431
>For me, I took them as typically male and feminine traits

Yeah, and what constitutes "typically male and feminine traits" is never something that is eternal and outside culture.

That's my point. I'm not saying biology has nothing at all to do with it, but you can't just deny that there is a strong socially constructed/cultural aspect of what it means at any given time to be a man or to be a woman.

A modern male of 35 years, will never act like an ancient Spartan, and the reason for that is our societal concept of masculinity has changed over 2500 years.

>>9525434

>>9525441
Read my post again moron.

>>9520202
ITT
-OP is impressed by a Feminist that says biology is a social construct
-Someone repeats the bad joke 'gender is a social construct' as if it was relevant
-People argue about whether or not an ugly woman is feminine
-No one is responding to the 2-3 anon's actually critiquing the book
>Another 200+ reply thread on /lit/ is on its way

>>9525444
>a modern man will never act like a Spartan
>and because of this asinine statement my asinine theory is proven correct

What does this even mean?

>>9525463
Look, I'm not going to learn you the English language. If you didn't understand my post, there's nothing I can say to make it even clearer.

>>9525444
>but you can't just deny that there is a strong socially constructed/cultural aspect of what it means at any given time to be a man or to be a woman.
To me, being a man is having XY chromosomes and being a woman is having XX chromosomes, with some abnormalities where this may not be the case. What you're referring to as "what it means to be X" is from my point of view just "things that men and women tend to do more or less on average", and yes, that's totally malleable.

>A modern male of 35 years, will never act like an ancient Spartan, and the reason for that is our societal concept of masculinity has changed over 2500 years.
You're right about that. And society does foist upon men/women certain ways of being in some cultures more clearly than others. I think at least here in Sweden it's blurred to the point where not many people care and it's not very clear. But if you look at, say, the arab world and poll them, in most countries 90%+ of the men will say a woman should always obey a man and the women tend to conform to these stereotypes and see that as a woman's role (servant to her husband). A man has to defend the honor of his family, a woman can break it by fucking, he can restore it by killing her and so on. Some cultures are really shit and you can definitely highlight problems, some of which are gender-specific, so far I'm with you.

I guess the problem is I thought (and you may very well be) you're trying to point to western civilization and how it's a problem here, and it may very well be, but for me to acknowledge that I'd need specific, tangible problems that we can point to. Most of what I hear is usually just wishy washy. I mean, we can probably both agree that having women trapped in cloth bags and risking their lives for fucking freely is a bad thing, that'd be an example of something, albeit an extreme one.

But even when pointing to a problem, I don't see the point in framing it through gender. I just see it as a cultural problem that needs to be addressed and fixed, by pointing at it specifically and it's detriment to society. I called it a useless concept etc, in which way would it help us address these problems beyond just looking at them face-on and seeing the consequences? For example keeping women out of the workforce, we can look at that and make an economical or moral argument for why it's bad. In which way does viewing it through the lens of gender help?

>>9525444
>A modern male of 35 years, will never act like an ancient Spartan
translation
>"I am a spindly middle class wimp born and raised into a soft existence in an OECD nation and just barely educated enough that I mistake my personal experience for contemporary reality"
Go tell a member of the FFL that no one acts like a Spartan.

For all of you 'cultural construct hurr durr' morons.
Any definition so vague as to be indeterminate is useless. 'Gender' as separate from biology meets the 'useless' critereon.
If you want to talk essentialist sex-based behavior, use the Anthropological definitions of 'division of labor' and 'patriarchy'
>"Division of Labor' means the tendency of women to choose to work within the family, especially in child-rearing, and for the man to work outside of the family to provide for mutual children'
and
'Patriarchy is that tendency of men to fill leadership positions due to the division of labor by sex'.
Every single culture that lasted long enough to leave evidence was (and is!) Patriarchal because of the division of labor. The division of labor is a an expression of sexual dimorphism and, thus, universal to all human cultures.
These two things are also unaddressed *and unaddressable* by Gender Trouble because of Butler's idiotic rejection of the brute fact of sexual dimorphism!

>>9525472
"Act like a Spartan" is a purposefully vague descriptor so when called out on it you can respond as you did. Something brief: A key defining aspect of a Spartan male's life was military service from a young age. This still occurs today in many places all over the world. Modern man acting like a Spartan.

You have no arguments. You are a troll.

>>9525487
>Go tell a member of the FFL that no one acts like a Spartan.

Well they don't act like Spartans. They act like a modern military unit, and most of them are raised in a 21st century family and social system.

>>9525492
It's not vague at all. Spartans had a culture. Spartans had traditions. Spartans had social expectations on both men and women. Spartans had specific pre-Christian pagan morals.

It's absolutely the opposite of vague. There's almost zero cultural overlap between a modern person raised in the West and a common Spartan.

>>9525497
>>9525516
>What are honor, duty, loyalty, courage, temperance, prudence, and fealty?
Like I said - the idea of 'gender is cultural' is too vague to have any meaning.
Your example proves that harder

>>9525601
All of which are words that never have static meanings.

I mean, is this so fucking hard to understand? The concept of honor isn't eternal. Being an honorable gentleman, meant that you put your fucking coat in a water pond so a woman's foot didn't get wet just 100 years ago, and nobody would do such a ridiculous thing today.

>>9525635
>All of which are words that never have static meanings.
You continue to miss the actual point - you want to define 'gender' as 'socially constructed' which means you can never, ever point at *ANYTHING* and say 'that is masculine' or 'that is feminine' even when you use specific words because the rebuttal is always 'well, I will use that word how I want'.
'Gender is a social construct' is as meaningful as the questions 'how deep is a hole?' or 'how long is rope?' It is subject to the Sorites Paradox, so it has no descriptive value.

>>9525721
>which means you can never, ever point at *ANYTHING* and say 'that is masculine' or 'that is feminine'

That's absolutely wrong you fucking fag, and I've never said that. You obviously don't understand what a social construct is.

>>9525733
>That's absolutely wrong you fucking fag
About the extent of your ability to "argue".
Also WAAAAY off topic from the book in question.
OK, super-genius - name a cultural artifact (not biological) that is unambiguously masculine that is not subject to the Sorites Paradox

>>9525774
The fact that we associate femininity with having long hair for example.

Is that a biological fact?

Or the fact that white collar men wear suits to work? Is that a biological fact?

Or the fact that men are expected to pay on dates? Is that a biological fact?

No, they are not. They are social constructions. That doesn't make them unreal, but it does make them more arbitrary than biological facts.

>>9525807
>The fact that we associate femininity with having long hair for example.
Who is "we"? Western culture has traditions of men wearing their hair long, wearing wigs, wearing makeup. This is not 'unambiguously masculine' since many males seen as masculine (Fabio, for example) have long hair that is admired by women and women can have short hair and bee seen as feminine.
It is ambiguous, transient, and subject to the Sorites Paradox.
>Or the fact that white collar men wear suits to work?
In a rather limited culture and place, sometimes, perhaps. Women wear suits to white collar jobs (see: the '80's, the Annie Hall look, etc.) and feminine women wear men's clothes routinely while still being heterosexual and feminine (Annie Lennox is a prime example).
It is ambiguous, transient, and subject to the Sorites Paradox.
>Or the fact that men are expected to pay on dates?
In some cultures, places, and times. Even in the rather provincial places you seem to frequent this 'cultural norm' is largely dead with people paying for their own meal or 'who asks pays' being the norm. It also ignores cultures where women are expected to pay, etc.
It is ambiguous, transient, and subject to the Sorites Paradox.
>it does make them more arbitrary than biological facts.
You retarded fuckwit - that's the point. The entire 'gender is a social construct' bullshit is so arbitrary it has no meaning *is what people have been telling you for hours*.
You remind me of Feminists who whine
>"Boo hoo, the Patriarchy means men can't show their emotions, boo-hoo"
Bullshit. UMC WASPS from New England aren't supposed to show emotions, Hispanic men from Mexico openly laugh, wee, and such.
Let me repeat this again, very slowly
"Standards of behavior vary by culture" is both obviously true *and trivial*. Thus,m the claim "gender is a cultural construct" is essentially meaningless and forces us to revert to essentialism.
Get it yet, or do you need a few years of intro Philo and Logic?

>>9525881
>Western culture has traditions of men wearing their hair long, wearing wigs, wearing makeup.

Which is the fucking point you stupid cunt.

Do you think it's normal in 2017 for a man to wear wigs, and make-up? No it's not. It's not even normal for a man to have long hair, even though it's more common today than it was just 20 years ago.

You still don't get what I'm talking about at all. You still think that the abstract concepts of masculinity and femininity are synonymous with biological sex, which is absolutely flat out wrong.

If you act like a flamboyant queer on a football field, you will crushed.

>>9525902
Either you're retarded or...
No, you;re just retarded
I wrote
>name a cultural artifact (not biological) that is unambiguously masculine that is not subject to the Sorites Paradox
>a cultural artifact (not biological) that is unambiguously masculine
>cultural artifact (not biological) that is unambiguously
>unambiguously
And now you are PROUD of the fact that you have proven ther is no such thing as if you showed me!
When, in fact, you keep proving my point.
>You still don't get what I'm talking about at all. You still think that the abstract concepts of masculinity and femininity are synonymous with biological sex
No, moron, I have been saying *the opposite*. You're just too stupid to grasp it.
In China the traditional dress for upper-class men is, essentially, a long dress (and with long hair and long, painted fingernails) and the traditional dress for women is a jacket and trousers. The opposite of 'unambiguous'.
But, and here is the point *again*, because Chinese woman in traditional dress dropped into Victorian England is obviously still a woman and still feminine
>fucking wait for it
that means the argument 'gender is a social construct' is meaningless because if "gender" WAS such then cross-cultural expectations would demand that she be seen and treated as a man. Which she wouldn't be. Because "gender" is not 'a social construct'.

>>9520202
Why is it that every perverse leftist is a fucking jew

>>9525951
Listen to me now, because this is the last time I'm saying it.

A person simply having a penis and testicles is not identical to how we as a society expect a person with a penis and testicles to behave.

The first is a biological and scientific category.

The second is a social category and is arbitrary and ambiguous.

Deal with it faggot.

The Communist Manifesto

>>9525962
>repeats what anon told him for multiple posts
>Thinks the other guy is the idiot
Never change, /lit/

>>9525952
Or gay
or a gay Jew
I'll give you three guesses

>>9526153
>repeats what the anon told him multiple posts

What?

>>9526188
You must be this guy
>>9525902
Here, let me show you
>>9525601
>the idea of 'gender is cultural' is too vague to have any meaning.
He points out that 'cultural' is so vague and ambiguous that if you use it as the definition the word 'gender' becomes meaningless
>>9525721
>ou want to define 'gender' as 'socially constructed' which means you can never, ever point at *ANYTHING* and say 'that is masculine' or 'that is feminine' even when you use specific words because the rebuttal is always 'well, I will use that word how I want'.
>'Gender is a social construct' is as meaningful as the questions 'how deep is a hole?' or 'how long is rope?' It is subject to the Sorites Paradox, so it has no descriptive value.
The Sorites Paradox is 'when something reaches a certain level of ambiguity it cannot be used to define other things' [well - among other meanings]
So he is saying 'gender is a social construct' is so arbitrary and ambiguous as to be meaningless
>>9525774
>name a cultural artifact (not biological) that is unambiguously masculine that is not subject to the Sorites Paradox
He is trying to point out how ambiguous and arbitrary cultural norms are, how divorced from reality they are.
>>9525881
He repeats, a few times, that the idea of cultural norms being used to define something is
>...ambiguous, transient, and subject to the Sorites Paradox
and tells you, flat out,
>...the claim "gender is a cultural construct" is essentially meaningless and forces us to revert to essentialism.
because of the ambiguity and indeterminacy
after all of that you think this
>[gender]...is a social category and is arbitrary and ambiguous.
is anything other than what he has been saying.
You very literally didn't understand that not only was he AGREEING with you he was taking the next step to point out that the facts you keep repeating demonstrate that, therefore, 'gender' is essentially meaningless BECAUSE OF the arbitrary, ambiguous nature of the definition.
I am amazed he was that patient

>>9526256
>not only was he AGREEING with you he was taking the next step to point out that the facts you keep repeating demonstrate that, therefore, 'gender' is essentially meaningless BECAUSE OF the arbitrary, ambiguous nature of the definition.

But something isn't meaningless just because it's existence is at bottom arbitrary. Notice that nobody would say money is meaningless, and yet the value of money is completely socially constructed.

>>9526302
>But something isn't meaningless just because it's existence is at bottom arbitrary
In isolation, no
>nobody would say money is meaningless, and yet the value of money is completely socially constructed.
Assuming a fiat currency, rather than a commodity currency, maybe.
But notice something here, a bit of a 'Motte and Bailey'.
If it takes 10 blue yen to buy a hotdog but only 1 green franc, no one is saying 'value is completely divorced currency'.
Biological sex is a *brute fact* meaning it cannot be denied. Sexual dimorphism is (regardless of what Butler claimed) reality.
Saying 'different culture have different expectations of behavior of people' is likewise a brute fact. It is obviously true.
BUT! the claim 'therefore, the new term 'gender' must be used to describe cultural expectations of how men and women act' is does not follow. We have perfectly good words for sex
>male, female
And we have plenty of good terms for cultural expectations that bind people together. So there is no reason to invent a new term ('gender') that is so ambiguous and and arbitrary that it can mean almost anything UNLESS you are trying to be intellectually dishonest.
Here is an example we see everyday
>"My sex may be male but my gender is female"
This is a ridiculous statement. Why? All he is really saying is
>'I am not following some of my cultural norms of behavior'
That's it. But because he is using a weasel word ("gender") he can follow on with
>'because of that I demand that you treat me as a woman and act as if I am a woman in every way'
Or, translated, 'I expect everyone else to adopt my non-conformative behavior as acceptable AND I demand you ignore physical reality to match my subjective rejection of some cultural norms'.
Parsed down to clear, unambiguous language this is ridiculous.
So he has to use a word so nebulous, so arbitrary, it can mean almost anything.
Gender fits the bill.
By using a sloppy word you can actually say obvious falsehoods like
>'That man is a woman'
Because of this, the word 'gender' has, really, no inherent meaning.

>>9526410
Jesus Christ.

Following(or not following) sex-dependant cultural norms IS what gender is you moron.

That's the whole fucking point of the word.

I've never seen someone have such a huge problem with a single fucking word in my entire life.

>>9526442
incredulity is not an argument.
So far all you have done with 2 or 3 different people is prove you can't follow a sentence, have no idea the implications of the words coming out of your keyboard, and can't rebut.

>>9524809
>many things can influence people's taste, these are complex questions, anons
>therefore you can't say that sex has a major influence on preferences
>but I can say that society has a major influence on preferences because fuck you lmao

>>9526513
You're not answering me you fucking faggot.

Following sex-dependent cultural and social norms IS what gender is.

Literally learn to read.

>>9526549
Repetition is not an argument.
You still can't comprehend what multiple people have said to you.
You're OP, right?

>>9526683
>Repetition is not an argument.

It is when you're not supplying any arguments.

Saying "gender doesn't real lol because I can't handle ambiguity lol" isn't a fucking argument.

>>9526698
I'd think you were a troll except you keep going.
After seeing someone write this
>>9526410
?
You're just a moron

>>9526727
Yeah, people actually have the ability to write walls of text with zero arguments in them.

Who knew.

The author does describe herself as a femininist, so this should be feminist literature, correct?

>>9523526
not an argument

>>9526442
>>9526549
>reddit spacing
>clearly low IQ
>can't engage an argument at all
/r/ ban