Something being a construct doesn't mean we are basing it on nothing. Typically we have some "rule" that we use to make them, and there are still outliers. For instance, our idea of male and female is incomplete because intersex individuals exist that fall outside of those two groups.


Now, think about all the things that we don't make groups of out. We could, for instance, categorize people based on if they are above 5 foot 5 or below. You might think there's no reason for that, but taller people can reach higher things. So why don't we create a "talls" and "shorts" category and start organizing society around it? I've personally been massive inconvenienced almost every week by shorts in my job. It's also based on biology. You can tie being tall to genetics.


See what I mean about categories being a social construct? There are an infinite number of "categories" we could make, but don't.

lets roll with gender being a social construct. let me tell you a story about who was the man who constructed it. the name was john money, a psychologist from new zealand. well, one day john was thinking "well i sure wonder why men consider themselves men and women consider themselves women". he thought, what would happen if a man suddenly became a woman. but alas, how could he check that?

so he found some kid with a sibling to be the victim. he persuaded the parents (and by persuaded i mean probably bribed) to change the sex of the child. theeen, he made that child simulate sex with its sibling, under the watchful eye of our good dr. john

he even found the answer to his initial question, what would happen if a boy suddenly became a girl. the kid killed itself unfortunately, no one killed our good dr. john as far as i know



so whats the point of the story? well first of all, john was one sick fuck second, some things dont need categorizing as people understand them intuitively. if you really need to categorize a gender fluid person, i propose you do it under "mental illness" thats all the categorization you need

This post was edited by Snyft2 on Mar 30 2022 08:48pm

It's not incomplete. There can only be two sexes. The intersexed is a diseased state of being. It's not a legitimate category.



If you personally want there to be "talls" and "shorts", then by all means go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. The rest of us apparently believe its useful to categorize people into either male or female. I am sorry that you are dissatisfied with it.

There is no such thing as a "legitimate category". We are creating categories. We make the rules. We can include whatever we want. You've just decided that everybody else is "illigitimate", but to doctors they are a very clear and obvious category. To me they aren't "illigitimate". In fact to me they are necessary to consider in order to make our categories more complete.

I already told you that categories are useful. Why are you now claiming the opposite? I'm just trying to have a conversation and now you're going out of your way to lie about my position

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Mar 30 2022 09:05pm

except we are creating categories based on things that actually exist, or at least should. you dont make a subcategory of physiological types and then add a pathological type into it. so this isnt really if something is a construct, but is it a valid one. and its really not

basically you are violating the rule of categorizing anything, by adding something to a category that doesnt belong in it

To you it's necessary, but to me, along with quite a few people, it's not necessary.

And if you want to change the rules such that the categories of sex now include the intersexed, by all means. I can tell you though that I will not go along with it. A lot of other people won't, either. So I guess you better split off with your fellow "sex is a continuum" buddies and form a little social group of your own where your brand of sensibility prevails.



I am not lying about anything. I am just having a hard time trying to understand what you are saying.

Here's the thing, no matter what you call it, it doesn't change the fact that intersex people exist and are completely natural. Why wouldn't you go along with it? These people haven't modified their bodies in any way. They've lived with it their entire lives. So what's the hang up? You think that just acknowledging there are people who don't fall within the traditional bounds of "man" and "woman" will destroy society?

I said nothing about society being destroyed. I just do not consider diseased states of being as being legitimate categories. And apparently you disagree.

no, it will destroy society if you consider those people normal, because they arent

and if you consider that normal, who knows whats next

edit:



exactly. this is *not* normal. i mean we shouldnt hate them for it, but its not normal

This post was edited by Snyft2 on Mar 30 2022 09:20pm

What is and isn't a diseased state is itself a category



What you call "normal" is just another category

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Mar 30 2022 09:41pm