Just going to point out the irony of someone calling people radicals, and then advocating for totalitarian policies. 

Yes it can happen with any topic that is researched so we agree and i'm free to worry about that i assume. :p

I'm not saying research can not happen so ending science would be a weird unneeded solution,lets just start being carefull before reaching for oblivion.

Yes i know but it is important to worry about all the possibilities,the number of researches done does create some kind of armor for false information but i'm worried that there can be new existing ways to mitigate the effect of certain studies in the likes of a modern bookburning in digital form.

People are influenced by what they see and not always on what is existing outside of that eyefield.

Create confusion and recruit more people to LGBTQ community where people question their gender. You may not be the gender you were born into? You can choose your own gender and you must support gay marriage because it is law. Then they go on about political correctness, ethnic diversity. This confuses people and fills their heads up with nonsense. Social media pushes activism that only impacts the unique snowflakes of this world. Conservative morals, ethics and values have been replaced with Radical Leftist social activism.

My problem with these movements is that they're fighting for equality, but with an emphasis on gender. Saying that women should be equal to men is harmful in itself because it already pretends as if there is a difference that needs to be gapped, basically hurting their own cause. It's kinda stupid to fight for equality while clinging to arbitrary separation at the same time. There wouldn't even be this kind of inequality if it wasn't for the strict definition of gender.

People who fight for equality shouldn't label themselves with genders and sexualities, they need to label themselves as humans and nothing more. Being a lesbian means absolutely nothing, half of the human population is attracted to females, you're not fucking special. By labeling themselves they're just making themselves easy targets and making themselves look like hypocrites. You cannot fight for equality and at the same time pretend that you're different or special from everyone else.

Fighting against inequality because you feel that you're being treated unfairly because you're different is the completely wrong angle. The correct angle is fighting against inequality because you're being treated unfairly despite being the same as everyone else.

This sense of being special hurts everyone but people just can't shake it off because they want to feel special. People revel in their treatment. I believe that a lot of extremists do not really want equality, because as soon as they get it, they won't be special anymore. I'm already seeing a lot of suicides incoming because people can't cope in social settings where they're not treated differently than others.

You have a significant dislike for something you don't truly comprehend, huh?

They are human beings and should be treated as such, same-sex marriage was legalized by the majority, thus your opinion is now a minority in Australia... There is no political correctness, snowflake rubbish or anything else you use as an excuse to it.

Social Media activism is propagated by the left and right, rubbishing your opponents because you simply disagree with their views when the far-right is equally as guilty isn't forwarding your position one iota, if anything it makes your position extremely hypocritical.

Here's the crux of a lot of my issues associated with gender.

Gender is a social construct. Sure. But what does this mean? It means that the society that you participate in has developed this concept in order for it to function more effectively. Being that it's a social construct, ones gender isn't actually dictated by the individual. It's a contract that is constantly negotiated between an individual and society itself. The onus is on the individual to express their gender to society and the onus is on society to be able to effectively read this gender expression as the gender the individual is attempting to express. These gender expressions come in multiple forms, whether it be clothing, jewelry, posture, tone of voice, hair style, make up, scent etc. But, this is a complicated process,, as over time the markers used to express ones gender can change. For example, pink was traditionally considered a masculine color until the suffragist movement adopted it as their color, where to spread to a point where its the primary color associated with women and girls. (side note: it's actually gone so far that I've seen some modern feminists use the color pink as a symbol the patriarchy uses to oppress women - how ironic).

So today, someone sees an individual that's wearing a dress, high heels, has a higher pitched, soft voice with long hair, using makeup, etc. That person is ticking a lot of the boxes of "gender markers associated with women", and thus the individual is expressing "my gender is a woman, my pronouns are she/her" whether that individual likes it or not, Not everyone expresses their gender as overtly. Many individuals don't check as many of those boxes when they put themselves out in the world, which makes it more difficult for society to determine what their gender is and associate the correct pronouns. Then you have other individuals that are transgender whose voice, stature, posture etc are beyond their control. As a result, either consciously, or subconsciously transgender individuals tend to go out of their way to express their gender in as many ways as they can to make their gender expression in its totally overwhelming point in the direction they want it to. This is why you see so many trans people "dress to the stereotype".

So, people put out expressions of their gender,and we as society read them and use that to determine peoples gender and the pronouns associated with them, but now that whole concept is being put on its head. Now a group have decided that your gender expression is not a constantly negotiated contract with society, but rather a dictation that has literally no way of being uniformly or consistently expressed that allows society to clearly be able to identify what their gender is or what their pronouns are. They believe that gender and pronouns are chosen by the individual. They're trying to dictate to society that there are no longer any gender expressions, or any pro-nouns associated with gender that society can determine without members of that society specifically asking the individual what their gender and/or pronouns are. Suffice to say, this is pretty disruptive, and many people reject the notion.

To go even further, related to this is the concept of "gender as a spectrum", which I personally feel is a pretty difficult concept to comprehend. From the countless conversations I've had with nonbinary friends and their colleagues, with literally every single person I've talked to about this, who claims to have a very clear understanding of this concept, they seem to have an idea in their head of "what is a man" and "what is a woman" and those two ideas are just about the most stereotypical images you can possibly imagine. Like every man out there aims to be a 90's action movie star, and every woman out there aims to be that star's damsel in distress. And the logic appears to be that since these people know that they are do not fit those stereotypes, they must not be "a man" or "a woman", while seemingly obvivious that 99.99% of the world doesn't fit that strerotype of "man" or "woman either. Let me give you an example. For one person I know, they were assigned a woman at birth. They like dressing in jeans and hooded sweatshirts and wearing baseball hats. They also like football and cars, and playing sports, and have actual athletic bodies that don't fit well in women's jeans so they wear men's jeans, but really enjoy lingerie, and flowers, and being "treated like a lady" on occasion. But based on that, they told me, "how could they possibly identify as a woman? They have traits that are feminine, sure. but they also have masculine traits. So clearly they must be non-binary!" They also told me they feel more masculine some days and more feminine other days and express as much by how they dress themselves, do their hair, or whether they wear makeup. They're also contemplating whether their pronouns should change on such occasions.

But I just don't understand, what about liking cars or football, or playing sports, or wearing baseball hats makes them "less of a woman" or "non-binary"? Is a woman that is attracted to men and dresses like women typically dress, but loves the Green Bay Packers and doesn't miss a kick off less of a woman? No. Is a man that likes dressing in suits, and going out with the guys for beers at the bar, but can't stand sports less of a man? No. But if there's a handful of interests or traits that they identify as masculine traits that the woman is into, suddenly the "woman label" might not apply all of a sudden? To make things even more complicated, if there are other people that were assigned women at birth and have the same"masculine" traits and "masculine interests" as the non-binary person I'm referring to above, they can still 100% be a woman and have all of those traits if they feel the label of "woman" suits them. So it's not actually the traits themselves, or the number of traits its literally that the person in question has decided that the label "man" or "woman" doesn't apply to them for whatever reason they want. There is no clear way for society to tell the difference between "a woman", and "a non-binary person whose gender expression strongly indicates woman", but yet non-binary people expect society to get that individuals gender and pro-nouns right? That doesn't seem reasonable.

And I'm not even getting into the people who say their gender and pronouns can and do change throughout the week, or the day, or even the conversation. Look up "aerogender" for an interesting read.

Then there's the whole idea that it appears for me that the most I look into it, the concepts of "trans" and "non-binary" seems to directly contradict each other. Trans people seem to very firmly believe that there's a gender binary, and they were born assigned the opposite gender they identify as, and as I said, seem to diligently put out gender expressions that are stereotypically associated strongly with the gender they identify with . Non-birary people claim that it's all on a spectrum and everyone is different degrees of masculine and feminine, and there's no such thing as gender expressions that are associated with one gender or another, so shouldn't trans people, in their eyes, have literally nothing to transition to? If "men" and "women" don't actually exist and it's an infinite spectrum with infinite labels in between "man" and "woman", then a trans person is simply who they are at birth, born exactly they way they are supposed to be, in the body they're supposed to be, going through the puberty they're supposed to, etc, since those physical features and personality, and interests are no longer associated with gender, right?. As someone that has seen a trans person truly struggle, that seems like such bullshit. Then again, they struggle just as much today as they did before they started jumping through hoops, since as many know there's a lot of mental issues that are strongly associated with people with transgenderism.


I think that's probably enough for now. Please if I'm wrong or misinformed about anything, I am happy and open to discussing it and learning, so don't hesitate. Thanks for reading.

You are wrong! Not worth debating. You are wrong!

Elaborate on how he is wrong, not for his sake, but for everyone elses.
Otherwise you aren't really adding anything meaningful or constructive to the discussion.

"The original comment was in response to the generic "how is gender derived?""

I asked you specifically, how do you differentiate between men and women, you ultimately concluded that you ultimately do so based on self declaration by the person in question

"Probably since, there's no reason for that person to call themselves a woman, unless they have dysphoria, or in the rare case they are playing a joke.  Either way, calling them a woman doesn't negatively affect me."

so can we conclude finally that this proposal for whether someone is man or woman is entirely based on the doctrine of inclusion and "being nice to people" and runs at odds with biology?

"There's no discussion of throwing away methods of differentiation.  

The way to tell the difference doesn't change. "

...until the person makes a self declaration that is odds with them obviously being a man or woman

" you can't always know what gender someone is.  You might see a girl with biological girl parts, who has some masculine facial features and likes to dress more masculine and you might have an immediate impression that they are male.  "

yes for the millionth time exceptions exist

" Just today, my wife and I were disagreeing what gender someone was."

when you met your wife, how were you able to ascertain that she was a woman?

"culture can also affect your skin color "

can you elaborate on this?

"can you explain what you think gender is bound by?

To be honest, it's beyond me."

so you don't know what gender is bound by but you still know that unicorn cannot be a gender?

does this mean that gender can potentially be infinite?

"but I understand that there are all kinds of psychological, biological and cultural complexities when it comes to gender."

not really but people are starting to pretend that they are so they can undermine the categories man and woman

"if someone's gender expression is important to them, as long as it doesn't negatively affect someone, then I think they should be free to do whatever they want. "

imposing an ideology that you seem to be admitting more and more has no factual basis on people is what I would call harmful

"The biggest reason that I back on talking about biology is because biology is a grounded science, whereas social sciences are more complex, and they're easier to dismiss.  "

the point i'm making is that if you are taking this ideology seriously(and lets be truthful for a minute, no one really can even though they claim they do since it makes no sense) then you cannot make appeals to physical reality since for you gender is all in the head

"I don't think you understand what gender dysphoria is."

I do and it does not contradict what I've stated

"Even if it absolutely did, why would that be an issue?  Some languages don't even have a gender feature, so why is it an issue if English weren't to have one?"

do you know why? its because they just talk about sex instead

"And I'm in disbelief that you appear to be arguing that you have no control over your own brain.  "

which I didn't argue, what I did argue is that we have limited control over our perception

meaning that we instinctively differentiate between this and this

or are you telling me that because they both are wearing feminine clothing that you weren't instantly able to make the differentiation? did you have to stop and think or did it happen automatically? we are reaching ridiculous levels of suspension of disbelief here

"You've given bizarre examples arguing that you can't make conscious decisions based off your perception because perception is subconscious.  "

perception obviously is not entirely subconscious but aspects such as pattern recognition and recall largely are, how do you think you can read and understand this for example? 

do you have to go and relearn english everytime you want to make a post? you think that once you learn language you can deprogram yourself out of recognising letters while participating in society? sounds stupid to suggest that right? well differentiating between men and women goes much deeper than that and actually has a biological basis embedded into each of us, that you actual seem to be arguing against this is alarming

"That only holds out if all a human brain does is mindlessly respond to stimuli.  "

I hate to break this to you but for the most part that is what we do(again i didn't say all as you feel the need to say so you can attempt to dismiss not just my argument but reality), even if that was not the case you still couldn't program something as basic as differentiating between obvious differences in appearance out of people, nor would any sensible person want to

"The hope would be that someday those disappear because the need is gone."

when would that be? when there is 50% representation of women in every field?

"The biggest reason why is because men tend to be stronger than women.  A better system would probably be to put people into classes.  The strongest women might be able to compete in the men's boxing rings.  "

so you want to desegregate sports, take away affirmative action, take away women's advocacy groups among other things and yet you have been arguing that this ideology is not about radically changing society?

why do you want men to compete against women directly in sports? what is the goal there?

"I'm asking you why someone would say they're a gender they're not."

you mean why would someone in a woman's body feel like they should have a penis and a more masculine body? or vice versa? sounds like mental illness to me, its curious that in other cases like paranoia we give people therapy in an attempt to ground their perception in reality but with this, that conversation is a complete nonstarter

I don't think people should have to go to therapy to deal with this, if they want to transition then fine and obviously they should be granted all the rights of other members of society, but I also don't think people should be forced or expected to kowtow to their demands to be perceived differently since we do that with no other group in society and sounds pretty authoritarian to me