you better watch out,
you better not cry,
you better not pout,
i'm telling you why.
Santa Clause is coming, to town.

So the first thing to understand is that ALL categories are psychological projections. Nature does not categorize things. Our minds do.

Second thing to understand is that "statistical mathematics" don't tell us what is real. Even perfect correlations are worthless without a mechanistic understanding of the material. So no, "statistical math" is not saying anything. That's still just your mind.



Suppose you visited another world and they said "everybody with a shoe size over 12 goes to the camps". You would say "there's no reason to send people with big feet to the camps. That's arbitrary". Their retort would be similar to what you're giving now. "No, it isn't arbitrary. It's based on biology."

What biological factors we choose to turn into categories is ultimately arbitrary. We used to organize society heavily around race. We don't do that anymore. We could also elimiunate gender as a concept and choose to only describe people by their genitals, and not attach all the skirts, pants, feminine or masculine stuff to it. The fact that we create categories instead of matter-of-fact descriptions is a projection of our minds.

nature creates penises, nature creates vaginas, and nature makes the people with those act a certain way based on the chemical biology that it generally creates in the brain of the person with each type.

you can write all of the sci fi think pieces you want but it wont change that. boys in kindergarten get into more scraps than the girls and its not due to socialization, although socialization forms around this natural reality.

If you aren't even going to engage with what I wrote why even respond?

Seriously this might as well have been a post from sirthom.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Mar 30 2022 02:18pm

i laid out a simple argument and your response was "its all in your mind".

sexual bifurcation across the animal world and differing behaviors are almost universal. from animals we cant even confirm socialize in a sophisticated manner to humans. some have dominant males, some dominant females, both socially AND physically, due to the chemical and biological makeup of their species. and the argument to this is "u only wear pants because ur dad and grandpa showed you that you should"?

do you think that Chimp males fight 10x more than chimp females due to socialization?

do female birds build their nests because of the lazy and oppressive male birds?

how far does the theory of socialization and not biology driving sexual behavior bifurcation extend? what does and does not if control?

i did ask for a very specific definition for gender as a social construct afterall. i asked and you basically told me how language works, almost a non sequitur.



o plz, mithril coin is still never going to spike btw if u want to be shitty rather than answering simple questions.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 30 2022 02:23pm

You're obviously too emotional right now to have a real conversation on this. You're just throwing out straw men for the sake of scoring points.

first im sirthom then im too emotional, even tho i havent even insulted you lol. clearly....

chemicals in the body predominately controlled by biological sex do more in my opinion to drive behavior than socialization, and socialization is largely a reaction to this biological generality. are you or aren't you saying the inverse? and if so what specific proof are you basing this on?

Categorization is psychological. Stratification is biological. When 99.999% of people conform to a binary archetype from basic biological process, that dichotomy isn't psychologically derived.
To reject well defined biological constructs is to reject natural science. To reject them on the basis of miniscule amounts of exceptions is a red herring, to reject them on the basis of social narrative without justification is sheer delusion
There is nothing arbitrary about basic biology. Grouping and constructs exist for reasons, created by natural processes, adhering to common qualities. There is no scientific debate to be had over them, no more than the number of chromosomes in human DNA nor the speciation of animals. It is not arbitrary that a Kangaroo and a Koala cannot mate and produce offspring. A Koala can't just cut a slit in its belly for a pouch and declare itself a Kangaroo and try to make little Roo babies before it rolls the dice on a 41% chance to attempt suicide. No amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise, it is born what it is born and cannot change that. The distinction of its birth is not psychological.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Mar 30 2022 02:32pm

It's been pretty clear that I'm not denying biology plays a role in socialization and behavior. It's pretty dumb of you to think I'm denying that since you know my backgorund.

This is a contradiction. You literally just said it's not a dichotomy.