Is there any scientific indication that gender is socially construced?

[Anonymous No.15881205]

I study psychology at a shitty university and one of my lecturers is a 'critical psychologist' (and has admitted that she pays no attention to quantitative research). We had a lecture on 'gender & sexuality' and the social constructionist view on gender was completely taken for granted without any real reason. Is there any actual evidence for this perspective or is it all just ideological?

[Anonymous No.15881212]

>>15881205
>critical
This is slang for interpreting observations in a predetermined worldview. Like: how does X show that women are suppressed? X is a woman dancing naked around a pole. That proves women are victims of sexual objectification by men. The opposite of science. Runaway. I've been there (media studies) and regret not running away.

[Anonymous No.15881229]

>>15881205
>some things are culturally conditioned
>some things that are culturally conditioned are split along [INSERT DEMOGRAPHIC] lines in our culture
>therefore all things split along [INSERT DEMOGRAPHIC] lines are entirely arbitrary
This is the basic form of their sophistry, and it's purely ideological. You'll find it in different forms across all sorts of subjects.
Like anon said "critical" is a code word, it means "criticizing" rather than "analytical". The critical theorist knows what they are "theorizing" about is evil and oppressive, they just need to figure out why. It's mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.15881233]

"Gender" is nu-speak, and mentioning at all furthers the tranny bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15881288]

What I've always wondered is how are nurses and doctors able to tell the child's gender in the womb before the child has had any social interaction if gender is supposedly something that is socially constructed.

[Anonymous No.15881291]

Is another anon's find excuses in biology to not behave with people as they require from you

Just use the proper pronoun won't biologically change your sex orientation

[Anonymous No.15881294]

>>15881288
Just ask who the mother voted for in the last general election.

[Anonymous No.15881298]

>>15881205
Naturally social constructs are formed around Biological realities.
Women were physically weaker, had to give birth and take care of children so they didn't engage in Hunt or Warfare.

[Anonymous No.15881300]

>>15881205
More variance within than without. 99 % of men fall within a weight, height, IQ, etc. range that also exists in women.

[Anonymous No.15881303]

>>15881298
Lots of men are just as weak as any woman you know. Lots of women hunted. Lots of women don't have children, and lots of men do.

[Anonymous No.15881308]

>>15881205
read Mein Kampf

[Anonymous No.15881310]

>>15881291
>do as I command
No.

[Anonymous No.15881320]

>>15881303
Yeah all of that is BS
You are Low IQ and can't understand average.
> Lots of women don't have children
And?
> Lots of men do
And women used to take care of those children.
Your whole post is nothing but COPE
See dude at some point you have to accept the world as it is, I know you think everything is some sort of conspiracy to oppress le women and niggers but that's not how world works.
It's all biology, how we evolved.

[Anonymous No.15881324]

>>15881300
Men are better in almost everything compared to women, even at cleaning and cooking.
Again this statement talks about average.

[Anonymous No.15881325]

in a very stupid technical sense, trans women are women, because you can define words to be whatever you want.

The next step is to ask why they define it in such a way, which is no other reason than political ideology.

[Anonymous No.15881327]

>>15881325
That isn't technical though.
And no, you can't define words to be whatever you want, that obliterated the whole purpose of language and grammar.

[Anonymous No.15881335]

>>15881205
The social constructionist view on basically anything is pure garbage, it is fundamentally based upon what I call conspiraCHUD thought
There are many seething pheminists who believe the through out history there was basically a plot to keep le womyn down - men invented "womenhood" and forced women into being housewives etc etc.

[Anonymous No.15881337]

>>15881335
They are right: without men, women would be whores.

[Anonymous No.15881339]

>>15881327
>That isn't technical though.
it's true in a very low and literal sense. I define woman to be a conical object, and in a technical sense my definition could be used to define a birthday hat as a woman

>And no, you can't define words to be whatever you want, that obliterated the whole purpose of language and grammar.

Well you can. Nobody will stop you. But we both share the same reason for rejecting such a definition. It adds nothing in terms of truth.

[Anonymous No.15881360]

>>15881339
>I define woman to be a conical object, and in a technical sense my definition could be used to define a birthday hat as a woman
NTA but this way of thinking is extremely useful ackshually.

[Anonymous No.15881362]

Differences in the social roles of men and women are culturally determined.
Some of these differences stem from biological differences between men and women, directly or indirectly, and to varying degrees.
Some do not, and are purely contingent products of particular cultures.
There you go. It's not very complicated.

[Anonymous No.15881366]

>>15881360
only when rightly motivated

[Anonymous No.15881372]

>>15881310
Look a socially constructed response

Here lays gender not in your genitals but in the way people behave because of you

[Anonymous No.15881426]

>>15881205
pants are for males to wear and not females
this is an example of gender, it was true at various times in history, the ancient romans for a time actually held the opposite view.
gender is things like this, which are assigned to sexes as social traits but are not actually derived from sex

[Anonymous No.15881428]

>>15881372
define gender to be whatever you want, it doesn't materially change anything. You still have a cock. You still have XY chromosomes. You still are a repulsive homosexual male.

[Anonymous No.15881435]

>>15881428
Think am a male or a female base it on my response

If you determine based on looks you will get looks, if you deal with gender identity like it's a thing

I can do this

This anon am replying to is a biological woman maybe even hot

[Anonymous No.15881467]

>>15881362
Here's what sex roles and cultural expectations aren't
>presumed to be unrebutable
>self-referential
>completely mental
>operationally undefinable
>undetecable
>notional
>an excuse for medically unethical amputation of uninjured without pathology that aren't impinging on other organs/structures
though they're often used rhetorically as a red herring.

[Anonymous No.15881468]

>>15881467
*uninjured without pathology members and glands

[Anonymous No.15881474]

>>15881468
I wish thinking with your dick was a disease

[Anonymous No.15881494]

The strongest female is mogged by a male most gymbros.
The best female athletes are mogged by highschool male athletes.
The smartest female chess player is mogged by most competitive male chess players.

Society is spiraling down the drain as cunts are glorified in positions of power they should have never held.
The sham will come to an end as hags realize their cats are not going to take care of them when their organs start failing.

[Anonymous No.15881688]

>>15881205
If it's not socially constructed then show me the "pink frilly dress" gene on the X chromosome

[Anonymous No.15881702]

>some things are socially conditioned
>some things that are culturally conditioned are split along sex lines in our culture
>therefore all things split along sex lines are entirely arbitrary
it's all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.15881709]

>>15881205
If you insist that gender and sex are pure synonyms, that the concept known to psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists as "gender" doesn't actually exist, and that psychology, sociology, and anthropology aren't sciences, then I suppose by definition, no. But that would make this entire thread a rather pointless and dishonest masturbatory exercise.

If you allow that psychologists etc. may have a point then I suggest you take their evidence into account.

[Anonymous No.15881711]

>>15881702
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.15881729]

>>15881702
Not really is the best part

You are not biologically enforced to mate and die, therefore you can have a life and develop romance, you know culture

[Anonymous No.15881758]

>>15881205
The pink bitch kinda bad

[Anonymous No.15881760]

>>15881709
psychology isn't science, so your first point stands untested.

[Anonymous No.15881765]

>>15881760
I will repeat the same questions until we have enough samples to call it science

Are you a fag?

[Anonymous No.15881766]

>>15881760
So what would you allow as scientific evidence regarding social constructs? I mean it's easy to proclaim your worldview is scientific when you simply reject everything you disagree with as unscientific innit

[Anonymous No.15881777]

>>15881327
I wish i was born as the figure in the right and not the one of the left this shit sucks ill never be a woman but looking the bright side i might learn how to do heroin in my home one day there is still hope!!!!

[Anonymous No.15881938]

>>15881709
I am a man who thinks he's a man. I don't have a "gender" (at least insofar as the word's been redefined). I no more need a taxonomic attribute to distinguish me from a man who thinks he's a woman than I do one to distinguish me from a man who thinks he's a chimpanzee. And btw, if you insist that "gender" (in the mental construct sense) actually has a referent, "cisgender" is tautological. Everyone is cis. You can't be anything but adjacent to whatever "gender" you claim. A distinction that's not a misnomer would be "gender-congruent" and "gender-incongruent".

[Anonymous No.15881939]

>>15881688
>wearing a dress is not a part of the female genome
>therefore gender is socially constructed

you can't see the missing premise here. you are below 110 iq

[Anonymous No.15882006]

>>15881426
That's a red herring and a separate issue from auto-taxonomy. As opposed to culture or society, a person having a "gender" is unremarkable. The point of contention has to do with the mental/identity construct (which to avoid conflation and red-herring argument, should be, according to general semantics principles denoted with another word or phrase, like "mind-sex".

[Anonymous No.15882030]

>>15881426
>be biological female in 1950s
>put on father's trousers
>wtf im not a woman anymore

you are low iq

[Anonymous No.15882191]

>>15881709

if you insist there is something called gender which is a social construct that is being studied by academics you also admit among its major accomplishments is letting biologic men use the ladies room.

[Anonymous No.15882199]

>>15881709
the "gender" known to the sciences that you have listed does not exist. They don't even know how to define gender.

[Anonymous No.15882218]

>>15882199
Because is made up

Your genitals are real, talk about them like a normal person

[Anonymous No.15882221]

>>15882218
>Because is made up

no, gender is not made up. "gender" is made up

[Anonymous No.15882230]

>>15881426
Milk a bull then you can talk about gender.

[Anonymous No.15882239]

>>15881298
This
t. ranny even

[Anonymous No.15882243]

>>15882221
Look anon you sound like a virgin but some things out there in people's bodies don't look like a penis or a vagina, ergo categories

[Anonymous No.15882355]

>>15881938
>I am a man who thinks he's a man. I don't have a "gender" (at least insofar as the word's been redefined)
You have no idea what you're talking about. You are obviously of the masculine gender.

[Anonymous No.15882356]

>>15881939
All right, what's the missing premise? That gender isn't real and therefore fashion isn't actually gendered and no one is going to think I'm strange for wearing a pink frilly dress that accentuates my giant cock?

[Anonymous No.15882439]

>>15882355
Taxonomically, mammals and other creatures are male and female. In English nouns referring to them are masculine (or feminine, common or neuter).

[Anonymous No.15882443]

[Anonymous No.15882478]

>>15882356
The obvious response to this is that gender is the same as sex, and fashion and others are associated with gender. Note that this does not imply that wearing a dress makes you a woman. It is the exact opposite.

[Anonymous No.15882595]

Scientifically speaking what kind of horrible crime does one commits in order to be born with a y choromosome inside your body

[Anonymous No.15882755]

>>15882439
Yes, very good. Now if you hadn't slept through the other 59 minutes of that linguistics 101 lecture you'd also know we distinguish between grammatical and natural gender.

[Anonymous No.15882756]

>>15882478
>The obvious response to this is that gender is the same as sex, and fashion and others are associated with gender.
A purely semantic quibble. You're adamantly insisting that gender is NOT a social construct before feebly admitting that obviously there is a huge socially constructed component to all the cultural baggage around what you call "gender", but of course to follow academic convention and properly refer to that as gender, heaven forbid...

At this point you're not really saying "gender isn't socially constructed" but "we shouldn't use gender to refer to the social construct" which is a fundamentally different argument and also rather pointless.

[Anonymous No.15882757]

>>15881766
>So what would you allow as scientific evidence regarding social constructs?
It's been over 14 hours and no one has answered this, so a pointless and dishonest masturbatory exercise this thread would seem to be.

[Anonymous No.15883186]

>>15882757
Anything that supports your hypothesis is evidence for it. We can find evidence to support any dumb shit we come up with. That this is the angle you came up with shows how you think, you search for validation for preconceived notions instead of trying to falsify them.
>>15881688
>show me
I can't but how do you know there isn't one? Most behaviour attributed to gender is shared across cultures including uncontacted hunter gatherer tribes. You're spreading dogma that you refuse to think critically about.

[Anonymous No.15883239]

>>15882756
>cultural baggage around what you call "gender"

cultural baggage =/= gender. Nobody has ever called homosexual men in dresses "women" until it was ideologically convenient.

>we shouldn't use gender to refer to the social construct

nigger, you don't even use gender to refer to the social construct. In this thread you argue that it refers to the baggage of wearing dresses, nail polish, etc, but not even trannies believe that is the criterion to be called a woman. They go by what the "identify" as, which is a very different thing than what you're arguing.

[Anonymous No.15883296]

>>15883239
>cultural baggage =/= gender. Nobody has ever called homosexual men in dresses "women" until it was ideologically convenient.
You fail to grasp what I'm getting at. Is a dress a gendered article of clothing, yes or no? If the answer is yes (and I'm just going to ho ahead and assume you agree that it is) then that must be for cultural reasons because there is fuck all in our biology to suggest that a dress is feminine. Your strawman is so egregious I find it hard to disentangle all your misconceptions in order to properly correct them, so maybe you just want to try again.

"Gender" is not something exclusive to trans people btw, I seem to have encountered that ridiculous misunderstanding earlier in the thread. What do you even think I'm arguing?

[Anonymous No.15883308]

>>15883186
>That this is the angle you came up with shows how you think, you search for validation for preconceived notions instead of trying to falsify them.
What I'm thinking is we have plenty of evidence in favour of the notion that gender is a social construct but you conveniently deny every single method we have of obtaining said evidence as "unscientific". You can sit there with your thumbs up your arse pontificating about how psychology isn't a real science, but then you simply prefer complete ignorance to flawed knowledge. Yet surely you can't think the "hard" sciences have bottomed out and found out all there is to find within their fields? Tell me how you would study human cultures and psychology "scientifically" and I will tell you, that is where you will find the evidence for gender being socially constructed. But if you deny that such things can be studied at all, what is even the point of the question? It's like asking a question about space but discounting astronomers and their fancy telescopes. Only astrological answers, please!

>You're spreading dogma that you refuse to think critically about.
How ironic.

[Anonymous No.15883346]

>>15883308
>What I'm thinking is we have plenty of evidence
The entire point is we can find plenty of evidence for any conclusion we want to support, thinking like that invites confirmation bias. That you think this is a valid way to support your conclusion reveals that you really are using "unscientific" methods.

[Anonymous No.15883379]

>>15881205
Yes and no. Depends on who's using the word gender and how he's trying to psyop you with it
Generally, people mean 3 different things when they use the word gender
1. Gender as in the way people dress up and pick which bathroom to use and whatnot. Socially negotiated rules. Yes, that one is constructed. Only a narcissist would break these social rules and cause discomfort to others. All the trannies that walk around looking like a gorilla with a wig and clown makeup are narcissistic as fuck. Even the ok-looking trannies keep away from them
2. Gender as in the physical shape of the human body. The proper term that should be used here is phenotype, but many trannies call it gender anyway. This one is obviously 100% biological
3. Gender as in behavioral mannerisms and body language. Men and women move their bodies in different ways, and surprisingly few of those differences are due to biology. The tranny copium about this one is to dismiss it entirely because it's sexist or whatever

Here's the thing though: og tranny psychologists (the ones from the 50s/60s) viewed behavioral mannerisms as the "real" litmus test of gender.
If a would-be-tranny walked and talked like a man (or made a very poor impression of female behavioral mannerisms), they tried to turn them away.
If the tranny was a feminine faggot since childhood (i.e. not faking behavioral feminity), that one was allowed to proceed, because otherwise he would have a shit life as a fem gay man (even other gay men stay away from those). So in a sense, behavioral mannerisms are the "essence" of gender

[Anonymous No.15883380]

>>15883296
>Is a dress a gendered article of clothing, yes or no?

define gendered

[Anonymous No.15883387]

>>15883308
In physics and astronomy a single deviation from the model falsifies it. When reality doesn't behave as you predict your political dogma about social constructs remains unchanged. There's plenty of evidence that girls prefer pink frilly dresses more than boys do without any outside social pressure. Being fancy relates to social relationships so little boys will like the dress too but less so than the girls and will be more likely to choose an instrument of power like a gun or legos. These subtle differences influence how social roles later naturally emerge.

[Anonymous No.15883556]

>>15881205
It's all just ideological. Do what you must to keep yourself inside, because as soon as you show dissidence you're ostracized.

>critical anything
That's just an ideological saboutage course, i.e., alas, politics. Learn what you must to use it against who goes against you.

>she pays no attention to quantitative research
Consider that's all observational anyways. We're long past factual ideals, if you plan into having any academical prevalence it's all politics and as soon as you commit to any factual ideal you're ostracized.

>>15881291
>just use the proper pronoum, it won't hurt
>just let the teacher diddle your kid under schooling pretenses, it will teach the kid to defend themselves from diddling when it comes
>just cut your genitals off and curse yourself to a perennialy deranged, unwholesome, cursed series of relationships where all you'lll ever be is an exotic sex muppet

-=-

You can just turn their theory against them. Say something of the like "it's just burgeoise degeneracy making the populace more easily manipulable by capitalist oligarchs". Quote Kropotkin before calling the teacher a status-quo intelectual. It's not that hard, you can get excellent results with high-school discussion levels and "theory" book abstracts, you can have them seething for a lifetime with less than a month of work.

[Anonymous No.15883571]

>>15881205
'gender' is an unscientific term. there is only sex.

[Anonymous No.15883577]

>>15883571
>sex
made up garbage
idiot

[Anonymous No.15883625]

>>15883577
its not tho

[Anonymous No.15883724]

>>15881205
it's all bullshit you're either a man, a woman, or a genetic freak hermaphrodite
if you're a man, be a man
if you're a woman, be a woman
if you're a hermaphrodite, kill yourself

[Anonymous No.15883760]

>>15881205
Evolution: If you've got a sexual species (where two cells from each individual share genetic material), you will almost always have a situation where one sex will invest more in reproduction, e.g. a woman becomes pregnant and must share her body's resources with the fetus to grow it.
Which ever sex invests more will select their mate. Whichever sex invests less in reproduction will compete with others of that sex to mate.

This means there is going to be a genetic basis for the differences in behavior between sexes. It seems obvious that cultures will develop around this genetic predisposition.

[Anonymous No.15883765]

>>15883760
False.
Women just need to train harder.

[Anonymous No.15883783]

>>15883346
I have no idea what you think is happening here but I get the feeling you're projecting. The fact that I think evidence exists for some things proves my confirmation bias? The fact that I think evidence is a valid way to support a conclusion is unscientific? Get real m8. Load of absolute tosh. You're trying to pull some sophistry but I don't think you're clever enough for it.

[Anonymous No.15883793]

>>15883387
>There's plenty of evidence that girls prefer pink frilly dresses more than boys do without any outside social pressure.
Really curious to see that desu. I mean, there were times when we dressed little boys in dresses and pink was considered a masculine colour. Yet now without any research into the topic at all we've somehow done away with those unnatural affectations and for the first time in history managed to bring baby fashion in line with what babies actually want?

Also quite interesting how boys have an innate sense of lego or guns signifying power, as they naturally do without any social or cultural context

[Anonymous No.15883797]

>>15883783
>The fact that I think evidence is a valid way to support a conclusion is unscientific?
Yes and it's incredible that you still don't get it. You don't think in terms of falsification. You think in terms of gathering data points that support your model, fully embracing confirmation bias instead of using the methods we have to mitigate it.

[Anonymous No.15883798]

>>15883765
the environment can only modify the phenotype so far, the genotype determines the upper limit. This is why we're seeing a reverse flynn effect, environmental benefits to intelligence can no longer mask the dysgenic decline. Dumb people out breeding smart people results in a dumber population

[Anonymous No.15883799]

>>15883793
This kind of dishonest horseshit does not help anyone. You're undermining your own ability to find things out.

[Anonymous No.15883800]

>>15883760
>Which ever sex invests more will select their mate.
If you think that being a pregnant woman is hard try being a man who needs to take care of a fat, tired, grumpy and hungry woman while earning a living.

[Anonymous No.15884023]

>>15883800
I'm talking in general terms for all sexual species. The female is obliged to invest far more resources than males in reproduction. For a man to reproduce, he only needs to cum in a hole. For the woman to do the same, she must acquire the resources to feed herself and the fetus inside her. The same is true for most mammals.

[Anonymous No.15884196]

>>15883577
You're retarded

[Anonymous No.15884201]

>>15883577
lmao what

[Anonymous No.15884317]

Well gender is simply a social expectation base on sex and the resulting differences that come from that. Like men have balls and hence testosterone. So they are expected to go after women. To fight. To work. Bc thdy can do so easily. Women are the opposite. They play passive accepting males that go after them. They take care of the kids. They refrain from fighting.

[Anonymous No.15884402]

>>15883797
>You don't think in terms of falsification.
You base that on absolutely nothing except your own desperate desire to discredit me. We're not even discussing evidence at this point. We're discussing a hypothetical standard of evidence. And you're saying that me asking for the standard of evidence you'd be willing to entertain is "not thinking in terms of falsification"? No, the problem is rather that you're not willing to think in terms that might prove you wrong.

[Anonymous No.15884405]

>>15883799
I think you're rather undermining my ability to find things out given that I'm asking for the evidence you claim to have and you respond like this.

[Anonymous No.15884457]

>>15881288
They can't tell the gender. They can only tell the sex. Sex is biology, gender is identity.

[Anonymous No.15884458]

>>15884402
>You base that on absolutely nothing
>So what would you allow as scientific evidence regarding social constructs? I mean it's easy to proclaim your worldview is scientific when you simply reject everything you disagree with as unscientific innit
I answered that any point of data that supports a hypothesis is evidence for it. This alone doesn't help us approach truth, only reinforce our belief in whatever we're searching for evidence for. Falsification is about actively wanting to find errors in our models and trying again, adjusting them.
If your model is accurate there shouldn't be data points that don't fit the model. There are plenty that don't fit the social constructionist dogma on gender, you can find them if you try to falsify your models instead of trying to reinforce dogma. Demanding I do that for you is a way for you to avoid thinking yourself.
>We're not even discussing evidence at this point.
I'm explaining the absolute basics of the scientific method because you don't have a clue. There are entire fields now calling themselves scientific but are apparently really based around undermining basic science and confusing people like you.

[Anonymous No.15884516]

>>15884458
>If your model is accurate there shouldn't be data points that don't fit the model. There are plenty that don't fit the social constructionist dogma on gender
On the contrary, there are many data points that don't fit the biological essentialist model. You can say "oh all the falsifying data points are out there if you look for them but I won't do it" but I can just point out that you have a child-like understanding of what you're attempting to discuss and whatever you're thinking of doesn't prove what you think it does. And I know that not because I can read your mind (which seems to be what you want me to do) but because you don't seem to even know what you're supposedly trying to falsify to begin with, nor can you tell me how you would do it.
You're not thinking for yourself. You're trying to avoid thinking as hard as you can. You label something dogma and ignore it.
>I'm explaining the absolute basics of the scientific method because you don't have a clue.
No, this is just you being a presumptive condescending smug prick. But I already knew this entire thread wasn't intended in good faith so I guess I'm getting exactly what I came for.

[Anonymous No.15884526]

>>15884458
>If the globe Earth model were accurate there wouldn't be any data points that don't fit the model, but there are actually many, and I shouldn't even have to mention them because you would know if you were genuinely interested, you dumb globehead sheep

[Anonymous No.15884609]

>>15884526
Yes you absolute retards. If there was even one data point that was actually inconsistent with the globe model that would represent a flaw in the model. It would be invalidated until fixed. Your supposed flaws are accounted for in the model.
>>15884516
>On the contrary
I'm not defending any specific model as the holy truth, you are, while undermining understanding of basic science in the progress. In one of my comments I off hand presented a very reasonable rough model where subtle biological differences cause tendencies in more macro patterns that become reflected in culture. That rough idea is not contradicted by any data I know of and generally predicts what we see. It's neither extreme biological essentialism nor extreme social constructionism. For some reason there are a few models that are according to mainstream academia to be kept as holy, the only way I can account for that is by assuming their reason for being is propaganda not science.

[Anonymous No.15884621]

>>15884609
>If there was even one data point that was actually inconsistent with the globe model that would represent a flaw in the model. It would be invalidated until fixed. Your supposed flaws are accounted for in the model.
Psh, shows what you know, you dogmatic idiot looking for validation.
>I'm not defending any specific model as the holy truth, you are
Actually, no, I'm not, we're *still* working towards that because you've been annoyingly coy about what would convince you. All right, falsifiable hypotheses. You know, psychology works with those. Guess you didn't know that. Now you do.

Which prediction of the social constructionist model do you consider to have been falsified, specifically? Because if you're going to come out with something that no one was claiming to begin with you would seem to be talking out of your arse. So I can kind of understand why you'd rather take the "I'm not doing your homework" route.

[Anonymous No.15884624]

>>15884609
>If there was even one data point that was actually inconsistent with the globe model that would represent a flaw in the model.
Yes, and what I'm saying is that you, like a Flat Earther, seem to be operating under some ridiculous strawman notion and falsifying that and then claiming to be doing science. Flat Earther have thousands of data points that they believe absolutely disprove the globe model. But all it shows is their own flawed understanding of the concept. And they sound literally just like you.

[Anonymous No.15884660]

>>15884402
>>15884458
>>15884516
>>15884526
>>15884609
>>15884621
>>15884624
NTA, but calling for evidence or falsification for the social-construction model is giving them too much credit than is due. Both trannies and rightoids agree that there exist sex differences, and gendered cultural aspects. The trannies posit the existence of a new object, "gender", which is distinct and related to these two. Their burden is to prove that the existence of this object has any explanatory power at all (which it does not). This is prior to the falsifiability criterion. I don't reject the social-construction position because it is falsified, I reject it because it explains nothing and doesn't say anything that can be falsified or proven. Its motivation is purely ideological.

[Anonymous No.15884723]

>>15884621
>Psh, shows what you know
If you don't acknowledge this you don't share the basic premises of science. Pretending you do while in the next breath dismissing its principles is undermining everything.
>>15884624
>some people are retards therefore the scientific method doesn't work
ok but you and me can practice sincere inquiry. We can see the planetary model accounts for observations, using it I can predict things and won't get surprised by the planets suddenly doing something strange. If they do the model is invalidated unless the error is accounted for within the context of the model. There's a ton of actual data I can go check like making sundials, they never surprise me.
Working from a social constructionist model leads to constant surprises and inconsistencies I have to actively ignore to maintain faith in what effectively becomes a delusion instead of a model.
>you've been annoyingly coy about what would convince you
Sincere inquiry is not about "conviction", it's about models being consistent with observations. I tended towards modelling people as blank slates but it doesn't work so I adjust, both the seed and the environment shape the tree. In my experience people move further towards the seed side as they age and actually observe some humans grow up.

[Anonymous No.15884848]

>>15884457
>gender is identity.

and therefore as unimportant as whether a person likes broccoli or classical music.

[Anonymous No.15884957]

>>15881205
In the past, "gender" pretty much only referred to grammatical sex, whether a word was masculine or feminine. The only word used for living beings was sex.
The use of gender as "socially-constructed sex" is extremely recent and has more to do with politics than science/biology.

[Anonymous No.15885045]

>this entire thread
Is a great example of how critical theories operate as a kind of "academic" guerrilla tactic.

[Anonymous No.15885130]

>>15884723
>ok but you and me can practice sincere inquiry.
I've yet to see evidence of your sincerity. Oh, I'm sorry, I mean, the hypothesis that you and me can practice sincere inquiry seems to have some conflicting data points.

I've been trying to get a straight answer to the question of what would convince you for several days which you deliberately misinterpreted to go on a sophist spiel about the scientific method and how therefore anyone who disagrees with you is fundamentally unscientific, as if, under the scientific method, a lack of falsification does not constitute evidence in favour of a hypothesis. We've been having the dumbest semantics argument just so you could avoid saying why you actually think we lack evidence. Even when you've been asked directly you're still evasive and vague. I still have no idea whether your concept of social constructionism is even remotely accurate because you won't say what you think it is and you act like I insulted your mother when pressed to say what exactly you think has been falsified. You seem to be trying to present yourself as free of bias, as a neutral interpreter of scientific fact, which you alone are wholly privy to, and everyone else as an uninformed dogmatist. And in the meantime we still haven't said one actual thing about what we're trying to prove (or disprove) here.

[Anonymous No.15885136]

>>15884723
>>15885130
So, to be absolutely unavoidably clear here, can you give one (1) example of an observation that you think is inconsistent with the social constructivist model, and why

[Anonymous No.15885182]

>>15885136
Extended-phenotypic behavioural sex differences in other mammals than humans, replicated in geographically remote places (i. e., not possibly due to "culture" or "society").

[Anonymous No.15885197]

>>15883556
No one replies to you not because they fear your wokeness but because you are a false equivalence moron

My name is Miranda, would you call me by any other name and claim you are on the right?

My pronoun is she, will you call me he and claim you are on the right?

That's an equivalence, by the way the proper pronoun for miranda is she

[Anonymous No.15885202]

>>15885182
Cool so then all the differences in genders we've found between different cultures must be due to some other reason, because if it were just down to phenotypes we'd expect them to be the same the world over and throughout history

[Anonymous No.15885213]

>>15885197
>No one replies to you
Don't care. I'm exercising my ESL anyways.

>they fear your wokeness
I found very hard to keep myself writing after this

>would you call me by any other name
Why would I join your gaslighting games? You will threaten me if I don't, don't you. I wonder how you'll go about it.

>by the way the proper pronoun for miranda is she
Don't care. The pool for joining the ESG con is closed. Sit over there and go back to work like everyone else.

[Anonymous No.15885221]

>>15885202
What about the cross-cultural similarities in sex roles? Are such just down infiltrations of agents of "the patriarchy"?

[Anonymous No.15885240]

>>15885136
Are you saying that all cultural differences with regard to men and women are made-of-whole cloth society dictats or do you acknowledge as least some essential differences between men and women more or less accurately expressed, though through a cultural lens?

[Anonymous No.15885250]

>>15882755
English is a natural gender language and "masculine", while useful as a descriptor in biology, is taxonomic in no other domain than grammar.

[Anonymous No.15885251]

[Anonymous No.15885255]

>>15882756
>A purely semantic quibble.
To avoid conflation, it's better no to have the same word denote two or more related but different referents. Of course if conflation is propagandistic objective....

[Anonymous No.15885297]

>>15884660
A. k. a., "gender" (as in cis/trans-gender) is purely notional. An "idola mentis" as Bacon would have called it.

[Anonymous No.15885641]

>>15885130
>I've yet to see evidence of your sincerity
Establishing the basics is needed to communicate or build anything. You refuse to even acknowledge the basic principles of science and in the next breath talk about the importance of science and sincerity. You're not interested in thinking, the opposite, you actively subvert all thought and communication.
>therefore anyone who disagrees with you is fundamentally unscientific,
Look at this blatant dishonest horeseshit. Look at yourself you disgusting propagandist. Do you have any self awareness at all? Any clue how to put together a sincere thought about any subject? Why don't you even fucking try?
This is how your mind works >>15884624. You have no clue about any subject and have no interest in finding out how to get a clue.
Why not read something about the history and philosophy of science, even on a surface level?
>>15885202
>then all the differences in genders we've found between different cultures
There's very little difference, the patterns are remarkably similar while your model predicts a massive difference. Everything is a surprise like that if we work from your model. Countries with less supposed patriarchal pressure to conform lead to behaviour being more strongly associated with gender roles, not less. If you try to raise a child with your model as a premise nothing rooted in that premise works. It's just destructive bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15885706]

>>15885641
Confounding factors. Cryptopatriarchy. etc. You make far to general of a point that they can make a general non-answer. A society that has been recently trooned, as they all have, will have an echoic resonance of quasi-fascist sentiment spontaneously arising as individual elements believe they still want what they had - perhaps, what they never had even. You must understand, that recorded history is the seed. They carefully nourish a fantasy world that looks just so-and-so and with each passing moment, the seedling feeds on antisemitism and bigotry.
Next thing you know, they are writing about the evils of technological society, or blowing up police stations and shooting summer camps.
Living in the past and hating the future.
This is the chud way.

[Anonymous No.15885848]

>>15885706
>You make far to general of a point that they can make a general non-answer.
The point is about the methods. We can always make up excuses for things inconsistent with our models like you're doing here but the philosophy of science is focused on mitigating that kind of bias. You offer stories you happen to like based on ideological preconceptions, one of a million stories like this you could come up with. Your story could still be useful to approach truth but your methods are flawed. When we defend models because we're emotionally invested in some political point they supposedly make there's an obvious bias there that needs to be mitigated. That model should be the focus of more criticism than others, not less.
We can know you're over-representing history as a factor in this post by noting the cross cultural commonalities associated with gender. The rough model you present is not consistent with observations. If you try to apply this model, like in childrearing or expectations about foreign cultures you will be consistently surprised by elements you're not accounting for.

[Anonymous No.15886006]

>>15884848
This. 99% of the time when we are talking about men and women, the men and women we are talking about is specifically the man-sex and the woman-sex. Who the hell cares what your "gender" is as a social construct.

[Anonymous No.15886019]

>>15885213
So you can't call people by their proper names?

I mean is just that, anything else you want to attach to it, is to hide the fact that you can't properly name people for reasons

[Anonymous No.15886029]

>>15884848
This. 99% of the time when we are talking about men and women, the men and women we are talking about are specifically the man-sex and the woman-sex. It doesn't matter what social constructs you have, you are still either a man or a woman and that is identified before you were even born which is a scientific fact that not even the best scientists with infinite budget could change. All that they can do is give you a surgery and make you look like a freak - someone who appears as the opposite sex than they really are.

[Anonymous No.15886851]

>>15886019
>So you can't call people by their proper names?
So, you have not stopped fucking your mom with no condom? Your spells have no power here, go try your contrived empathy bullshit with someone else

[Anonymous No.15886938]

>>15885848
You offer no counter example, but merely assert that there may be one. Again, this is too general. Where does the system breakdown? What is the boogeyman? When does hitler rise to power in your little fairy-tale of a problem that never was?
One of those most tedious rebuttals is the exception proves the rule. If there are a million different exceptions, then the there are a million different rules and the generality is gone.

[Anonymous No.15886954]

>>15881303
Exceptions don't disprove the rule, are we seriously still making arguments at this level? Didn't realize there were actual unironic retards on this board.

[Anonymous No.15887036]

>>15886938
What is wrong with your brain? How can you make everything about Hitler? I gave you examples of flaws in your model and you made up stories to patch it up. How does introducing the Hitler character help?
Gender is not even that complicated, behaviour patterns rooted in biologically adapted roles are reflected in social customs. You can make up new social customs but the original patterns still have biological origins. If you know anything about evolution you understand how powerful roles based on sex are in shaping the behaviour of animals and human gender isn't some special exception. Yes gender was invented and it resulted in the Cambrian explosion.
Evopsych has way better stories than any of your Hitler nonsense, stories that imply an underlying model that actually has predictive power.
Here's a video with some stories about the birds and the bees, absolute basics which social constructionist dogma subverts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RkhQsGCXco

[Anonymous No.15887045]

>>15886954
Depends on what you mean. Strictly speaking yes they absolutely do, this is basic logic which you're trying to undermine with an appeal to your misunderstanding of a colloquialism. Why do you keep posting about things you have absolutely no clue? It's like you never even heard of concepts like science and logic.

[Anonymous No.15887057]

>>15884457
Then why do trannies need to take hormones and mutilate their genitals? Its seems like that presupposes that biology has some relationship to gender.

[Anonymous No.15887061]

>>15887045
>the sky is not blue because sometimes its orange during the sunset
>humans don't have 10 fingers and 10 toes, because sometimes a guy is born with 9 fingers
If only you spent as much time actually thinking as you did working on your verbal intelligence and trying to SOUND smart.
Literally behead yourself.

[Anonymous No.15887085]

>>15887045
>t. doesn't understand how probability works

You can still make statistical claims even if there are exceptions. That's literally the whole point of statistics.

[Anonymous No.15887087]

>>15887061
>the sky is not blue because sometimes its orange during the sunset
It isn't, you perceive it as blue due to rayleigh scattering and the light scatters differently when going through more atmosphere.
If you actually believe the sky is blue your model of the sky is deeply flawed, as demonstrated by the fact that it's sometimes orange.

Instead of simply reading introductory books to basic science you're here working hard to undermine the concept that if your model doesn't match observations it's falsified. The AI chatbots understand all this better than you, you can ask them instead of polluting boards with your shit. Ask them if logically speaking exceptions don't disprove the rule.

[Anonymous No.15887093]

>>15887087
>ignores the 2nd example because he has no valid counterargument
Quite literally elementary, my childish friend.

[Anonymous No.15887094]

Listen CHUDS. Biological essentialism has been disproved. If biocunts are losing in sport, then they need to train harder and/or the patriarchy subconsciously conditioned them to be weaker.

[Anonymous No.15887124]

>>15887093
>>ignores the 2nd example because he has no valid counterargument
Because the point was already made you slimy piece of shit. If you believe humans always have 10 fingers your model is falsified. The actual established model for finger formation does account for these variations, nothing is invalidated, no special exceptions are needed to account for the outliers.
What interests me more than anything you've said so far is how people become like you. Why don't you understand anything about anything? How do you justify all this dishonest shit to yourself? Do you think it helps you or anyone somehow? This post is a good example. You must understand the point I was making but just pretend you don't and make a chatbot tier smug reply as if you don't grasp anything said on any level.
>>15887085
>statistical claims
Like I said, depends on what you mean. Strictly speaking an exception does invalidate a rule, that's the definition of a rule. If the rule allows variation then the variation is within the defined rule. If there's too much variation the rule/model isn't accounting for much at all in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15887129]

>>15881205
"gender" is a word. It means whatever you want it to mean. Just don't be an asshole about it.

[Anonymous No.15887137]

>>15887124
>If you believe humans always have 10 fingers your model is falsified
Nobody said this, retard. Be honest with me anon, are you on the spectrum? Normal people will understand that when people make statements like "people have 10 fingers", its a generalization. There is no need to specify that you are talking about the majority, because that is inherently implied.

[Anonymous No.15887145]

>>15887137
>Nobody said this
And that is why the example does not falsify any model anybody holds or presented retard.
>Normal people will understand
I understood and understand you completely, you have no clue about anything and work as hard as you can to keep it that way.

[Anonymous No.15887157]

>>15881205
Gender is an abomination i never wanted to be a male what a total disgust every single day but i guess you could argue that about life

[Anonymous No.15887168]

>>15887145
You know in most countries you can receive quite a few benefits from the government such as financial assistance for heavily autistic people? It may be worth looking into getting an official diagnosis for that reason, anon. Unless you live in a 3rdie country without such provisions, I guess.

[Anonymous No.15887169]

>>15887157
Yes you can argue that. It's stupid as fuck tho. Just be whoever you are with or without gender oppressing you.

[Anonymous No.15887175]

>>15887168
Do you notice how your mind always goes for the laziest passive aggressive angles? There's no hint of wanting to find anything out, not even what posts you're reading actually mean.

[Anonymous No.15887181]

>>15887169
>vapid platitude that means absolutely nothing
So brave. Thank you for your service.

[Anonymous No.15887186]

>>15887169
Negative chief this is like wanting to go to run and be born without legs you can only do but cope all day until death comes to free

[Anonymous No.15887194]

>>15887186
Why do you care so much about a bitch? Are you a bitch?

[Anonymous No.15887200]

>>15887194
I dont i just hate the Y chromosome that deformed my body into this

[Anonymous No.15887208]

>>15887200
Who doesn't hate their own chromosomes? Jesus christ yall are so self obsessive WTF

[Anonymous No.15887211]

>>15887186
>>15887200
You're supposed to cope, though. That's literally what you're supposed to do. Unironically.
(You) are not supposed to stay a petulant child forever.

[Anonymous No.15887213]

>>15887211
Bye

[Anonymous No.15887222]

>>15887213
You only hate him because he's honest with you.

[Anonymous No.15887267]

>>15887211
What is the best cope that is not hell of alcohol

[Anonymous No.15887274]

>>15887267
Grow up.

[Anonymous No.15887279]

>>15887267
Gratitude, less time online, and physical activity.
Break the fixation on what you missed out on and look around for what you have or might have. Play the hand you've been dealt.

I know it's trite and the woke programming says to reject me as evil, but it's real advice. Your life can be better, anon. (You) can be better.

[Anonymous No.15887287]

>>15887175
I already know what happened here, so there is nothing further to reveal. You are moderately autistic and conflate casual speech with claims of statistical certainties. That's literally all that happened in our exchange.

Also, it wasn't a passive aggressive angle, it was a genuine suggestion. You could be slightly richer you know

[Anonymous No.15887338]

>>15887274
>>15887279
Thanks for sending me back to reality i was deluded beliving there was any escape from this hell time to fully embrace being unhappy 24/7 hey it must be not that hard many people live like that

[Anonymous No.15887356]

>>15887338
your life can be difficult or easy, but only you can make your life BAD.
the more you rhapsodize about how your situation is inescapable, the more that will become true. you'll end up in a fetal position with your thumb in your mouth. i see it over and over and over and over and over again.
your brain latches on to self-fulfilling prophecies, good and bad. that can be useful, but you have to be able to take away its authority without wasting willpower.

if you want more willpower, increase your quality of life. these people's advice will do that, but there are also tons of tiny habits and environmental conditions which add up.
focusing on PERFECTING a single habit will feel like an uphill battle because you get diminishing returns, and then you end up in a fetal position again. distribute your effort to fixing several things, try to figure out which ones give you the most bang for your buck in terms of quality of life.
or don't, but in that case shut the fuck up about it, try not to spread your disease to others.

[Anonymous No.15887377]

>>15887338
Come on, anon. Can you not see that you're throwing a tantrum? You've collapsed the whole world into "either I gain this impossible thing, or else I live in hell on earth with nothing to be happy about". That's insane.
People born without legs don't do that. They learn how to carry their pain with grace and courage, and build up the parts of their lives that they can. Eventually the good outweighs the bad and life is worth living. They cope.

[Anonymous No.15887378]

>>15887338
Post fizeek

[Anonymous No.15887511]

>>15881205
No.

[Anonymous No.15887920]

>>15887287
>That's literally all that happened in our exchange.
No it is not, try to read your own dishonest horseshit and never post again. You're an illiterate brainwashed retard trying to peddle propaganda as science while not understanding anything about science. Just fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15888047]

>>15881205
>Is there any scientific indication that gender is socially construced?
Yes.
Fashion is one aspect of gender. Clothing in our society is gendered. Men wear trousers, but cannot wear skirts. But of course this makes no sense. Purely biologically speaking skirts are masculine clothing while trousers are feminine. And yet we can observe an inversion that is completely divorced from biology.

Why? Social construction.

[Anonymous No.15888121]

>>15888047
>Fashion is one aspect of gender

Nobody denies that fashion is associated with sex. Everyone calls these "gendered norms". The only purpose of this argument is to try and pull a bait-and-switch to claim that trannies are women.

[Anonymous No.15888149]

>>15888047
Unremarkable. The police wear different, distinguishing clothes. Coining an empty and notional abstraction like "policity" (and even going further with ridiculousness, going against grammar rules by rendering such meaningless abstraction in the form of a verb-derived adjective, referring to policemen as "policitied") would be nothing but a superfluous explanation. "Women dress different from men" quite suffices without the need to create an idola mentis to explain "why".

[Anonymous No.15888636]

>>15887920
No need to get irrationally angry on me, aspie anon. Just trying to help here.

[Anonymous No.15888760]

>>15888149
Police is a social construct as well.

[Anonymous No.15888786]

>>15881205
Lol more than 150 replies discussing liberal arts on a science board because no one on campus told the schizos to take their meds. You deserve eachother.

[Anonymous No.15888807]

>>15887036
Elaborate cope. You didn't witness the cambrian explosion. And there is zero reason to believe in timelines over ten millions years because of mass variance problem. You argue worse than schizos, just jumping from topic to topic without saying anything. Your evolution of gaps argument is irrelevant. Nothing you declared has been witnessed and is therefor not scientific in addition to being muddle nonsense. You make up fairy tales. Why can't you successfully argue gender? Why do you need events nobody has any statement about from 6 gorillion years ago? How do you not see this as complete gap in your understanding.
Documentary might be fine, but with your recommendation, I can only assume it is more of your troon schizo trap and I simply have no reason to watch it.

[Anonymous No.15889033]

>>15881300
Please give me a percentage about what you perceive to be the difference
>Humans vs. Chimpanzees
>perhaps also
>Humans vs. Pig.
I leave the choice of metric(s) up to you. Anything goes. I just want to hear 2 or 3 data points regarding, according to you, that percentage about these two/three comparisons (i.e. men vs. women, humans vs. chimps, humans vs. pigs).

[Anonymous No.15889039]

>>15889033
>hurrdurr women are like chimps
This is seriously the level of discourse on 4chan....

[Anonymous No.15889046]

>>15889039
Please just bear with my incel energy for just one second
EDIT: ninja edited my post to make it a bit less inflammatory/easy to misinterpret

[Anonymous No.15889051]

[Anonymous No.15889897]

>>15885251
>Language model replicates the patterns in its training corpus
I really wish they'd stop reporting this as if it were news.