It's Ma'am!

it isn't. but you can raise a few dozen humans in a vacuum with only robots to feed them and years of language lessons showing only asexual imagery then interview them to prove me wrong if you'd like.

All the right wingers here kiss their daddy on the lips, and the left wingers here pee sitting down.

Or I can just point to societies that have different gender roles, or societies that have third genders, or any other number of things.

Gender is just a way we categorize people. There's nothing intrinsic about it. Eventually genders will change, as has happened in the past.

thats doesnt prove anything, i concede there is a social aspect to gender. societies with an abnormal gender role aspect to their makeup could simply be explained by the social aspects being more predominant to override the biological tendencies. and in any case 3rd (or 4th, 5th, etc) gender societies are just a social reaction to the reality of femininity and masculinity scales for either biological sex, they're just societies that were ahead of the game in labelling these outliers, because even in these societies they're still outliers statistically.

but biological gender and how it manifests on average, including in how we socialize it along those generalities, is still the driving force. not some tradition built on toxic masculinity.

You are just defining gender to include sex. It's just a matter of definition, which is also a social construct.

I'm gonna blow your mind real quick. Even the fact that we say male and female are different is a social construct. Nature does not create distinctions. It merely is.

the ones with the penis tend to be a certain way, the ones with the vagina tend to be a certain way. some of it is due to society, most of it is due to biology.

it really is that simple. male and female differences are not simply a social construct. i know its a trending idea in academia but it's not accurate. they're overstating sociological affect on gender bifurcation to appease statistical outliers rather than the norm.

people who are trans, cis femboys, mas tomgirls, etc. can also be the way they are due to either their biology, their socialization, or likely a combination of both. that doesnt change the norms of the relationship between gender and sex, which i havent combined at all, just drawn a stark general correlation between.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 30 2022 01:42pm

And yet none of this goes against gender being a social construct

You are defining gender in terms of sex when you define it based on correlation between sex and behavior and then call everybody else an outlier. Why are you using sex and not head size? Why are you using sex to classify these things and not body hair percentage? What you choose to correlate gender to matters, and you're just using gender as a proxy for sexy when you say "people of one sex act this way and the rest are outliers".

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Mar 30 2022 01:53pm

you're going to have to define very specifically what you mean then. i can't argue against buzzphrases.

it's my specific contention that socialization is like salt on roads to cars rusting for a simple example, it has an affect but doesnt change the overall outcome.

if you're saying that gender is SOLEY a social construct that's silly, and anecdotal evidence of some Amazonian tribe where the women do the hunting does nothing to prove that. if you're saying socialization has a role in gender construction than i dont disagree.



because using sex provides the best statistical outcome of correlation. and im not labelling them an outlier, statistical math is.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 30 2022 01:57pm

Wtf Santas Clause isn't a tool for any kind of emotional manipulation. It's a celebration of a joyful holiday

If parents are using it as a tool for that, that's an issue. But it's not intrinsically designed to do that

This post was edited by ChocolateCoveredGummyBears on Mar 30 2022 02:00pm