The Gender Debate

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,272
I'm still baffled as to why gender should be debated. No debating biology.
There is some merit in it. It is literally possible for a man to be in a woman's body and vice versa, though exceedingly rare. It comes down the brain structure where there is current scientific proof that a testosterone dominant brain is different in structure to that of an estrogen dominant brain.
Hermaphrodites and other genetic mutations regarding the gender organs show that it is possible that even though the instruction set it male or female, the instruction set is not always fully obeyed.
Vanishing twin syndrome has resulted in some peculiar baby births as well.

So no, we cannot completely rule it out as a possibility. Some if it is pretty damn straight forward though and we cannot argue that at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STS

MEIOT

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
2,083
There is some merit in it. It is literally possible for a man to be in a woman's body and vice versa, though exceedingly rare. It comes down the brain structure where there is current scientific proof that a testosterone dominant brain is different in structure to that of an estrogen dominant brain.
Hermaphrodites and other genetic mutations regarding the gender organs show that it is possible that even though the instruction set it male or female, the instruction set is not always fully obeyed.
Vanishing twin syndrome has resulted in some peculiar baby births as well.

So no, we cannot completely rule it out as a possibility. Some if it is pretty damn straight forward though and we cannot argue that at all.
In that context - I agree.

In the context of all the other bullshite going on in society these days - not so much.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
7,910
If women didn't start feminism to correct the ship, we would probably be quite a bit worse off in terms of equality between genders. Those that "have it good" and are benefitting from the imbalance will of course be resistant to it changing and will most certainly not seek to downgrade their lifestyle willingly in order to better someone else's lot in life. Again a generalisation, but enough of one that is accurate because feminism became a thing.
I have never seen anyone argue against the first and second waves of feminism. Like the Civil Right's movement, we needed this movement to grow and move forward. If you speak to any women, they will probably be able to identify as a second wave feminist.

Yet, even though this movement has redefined our society and way of living, we still have millions of women who are still living under oppression in Africa and the Middle East. But, we can't really talk about it anymore.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,756
If women didn't start feminism to correct the ship, we would probably be quite a bit worse off in terms of equality between genders. Those that "have it good" and are benefitting from the imbalance will of course be resistant to it changing and will most certainly not seek to downgrade their lifestyle willingly in order to better someone else's lot in life. Again a generalisation, but enough of one that is accurate because feminism became a thing.
Probably, although there was already the human rights movement. But yes, there would have been less progress.

This is a 2 edged sword. Like cops see criminals in everyone, doctors see sick people in everyone, psychologists see mental illness in everyone, feminists see misogynists in every one.
Couple that with realising that the soldiers in the war no longer have a war to fight. So they jump at any chance to still stay relevant.
I realise that, I just don't agree with the feminists. They see it as... their viewpoint is factual. This makes them misandrists, which they cannot see. So, while I think what you say is true, I don't have any time for feminists that think like that. In fact, I think feminism is becoming dangerous for the survival of the West as a whole. Incidentally, I see feminism as a kind of mind virus that is interested in propagating itself. It doesn't actually want what is best for women, but only what is best for itself.

See above about "staying" relevant. The facts will bear out the reality. Not as many women want to be CEO's as men do. Or computer engineers, or whatever other fields that there's an imbalance in.
And remember, if they want equality of outcome, then it swings both ways.
They will need to be equally present in human waste disposal as they are equally present in top tier positions. This is the winning turning point where feminism is losing its support.

Reality doesn't care about what feminism wants. Reality is heartless and brutally honest and has been the best weapon against feminism, especially showcasing the really idiotic hangers on to old ideas.

It's choice that determines career and income. It is supply and demand that determines a careers price point.
Feminists don't like facts or reality though. This is the problem. They want to change the reality to fit their agenda. So when there are not enough female CEOs, it must be because the women on the CEO selection panel have patriarchy so deeply ingrained in their brains that they would select a male candidate.

So, they ignore reality, suppress it if they can. They have already had research which shows that, in countries with more gender equality, women tend to choose jobs that are more traditionally feminine (I cringed a little at describing a job as feminine but you know what I mean). As in, in the Scandinavian countries, women are more likely to become teachers and nurses, than in Afghanistan. However, Scandinavia has a whole lot more equality than Afghanistan, which means this does not fit with feminist theory that women only choose to become teachers and nurses when strongly influenced by the patriarchy.

Of course, this result is ignored by feminists as being inconvenient.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,756
Yet, even though this movement has redefined our society and way of living, we still have millions of women who are still living under oppression in Africa and the Middle East. But, we can't really talk about it anymore.
Ironically modern feminists are happy to leave Middle Eastern women to their own devices because they don't want to be accused of Islamophobia.

Clearly "not all female lives matter"
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,272
I realise that, I just don't agree with the feminists. They see it as... their viewpoint is factual. This makes them misandrists, which they cannot see. So, while I think what you say is true, I don't have any time for feminists that think like that. In fact, I think feminism is becoming dangerous for the survival of the West as a whole. Incidentally, I see feminism as a kind of mind virus that is interested in propagating itself. It doesn't actually want what is best for women, but only what is best for itself.
So this is where, ironically, the human condition comes in and it makes these women as equally "bad" as the men they were once fighting. (Look to long into the abyss...)
What's in your mind is real. If you believe in conspiracy theories, then that is your reality manifest.
If a thought exists in your mind which you give credence, you will choose to believe it over any alternate information, unless you are open minded and receptive to new idea's/information.

However, not everyone is open to information like that, because it means a lack of control and admitting that they may have been wrong. (god forbid)
Couple that with a lack of purpose and suddenly you have a person in existential crisis because they have to redefine who they are and what their life goals are. That's the problem with achieving goals... very few people actually plan for the end.

It's actually kinda sad in a way that they're so adamant in staying relevant they risk becoming the problem they thwarted in the first place.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
36,560
I found this article interesting. Sweden introduced a third gender pronoun (hen) in 2012 and it's been remarkably successful:

https://www.wired.com/story/actually-gender-neutral-pronouns-can-change-a-culture/

Except even so, it turns out that “they” is no hen. Are no hen. Whatever. “They” might not perform up to hen’s specs. Old terms bring some baggage. In one study—looking at English and Swedish words and speakers—68 percent of English-speaking respondents associated “they” with the masculine gender, compared to a 50-50 split with ze. “In Swedish, we saw that ‘she/he,’ writing them together, produced equivalent amounts of male and female perception, and ‘hen’ also did that,” says Marie Gustafsson Sendén, a psychologist at Stockholm University who studies the new lingo. In English, though, “they” and even the seemingly neutral “the person” were associated with a masculine bias. “You can reframe a word if you do a lot of work with it,” Sendén says. “But a smart new word might be more efficient.”

Whether or not “they” or some newer term becomes English’s mainstream non-gendered pronoun, what all this research suggests is that deferring to people’s preferred pronouns is more than mere “political correctness” or social-media performance. It’s a way of giving people new, more inclusive ways of seeing the world. “The work we have here suggests that it’s more likely that matters in subtle ways,” Pérez says. “You perceive not different realities, but you place more or less emphasis on different things.”
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,756
If you think "they" is masculine then unfortunately you are just too PC for this world.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
36,560
If you think "they" is masculine then unfortunately you are just too PC for this world.
What are you talking about? It was an associative study, and I'm guessing that the people who automatically associated 'they' with masculinity weren't at all PC.

'They' isn't great though. It's also used in a strict context as a plural pronoun, so trying to re-engineer it as a gender neutral pronoun is going to cause confusion. I like the idea of introducing a new pronoun.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,756
How do you feel about calling someone "they"? Personally it feels weird and alien, like I'm talking about a collective entity.
if people really insist on a gender neutral singular pronoun, I don't see what the problem is.
 

Aquila ka Hecate

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
4,827
There is a chasm between the male and the female that cannot be traversed.
I don't believe so. There is far more that is similar between the sexes than is different.

However, there is a clear case of denial of material reality going on in people jumping on the transgender bandwagon. The physical differences are mostly clear, and it can disadvantage the female when a male-bodied person claims to be a female.

If a person wants to believe that their soul, or whatever, is of the opposite sex to their body, I say let them get on with it, as long as they don't try to force everybody else into sharing their spiritual belief.
 

jack_spratt

Expert Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
2,327
I don't believe so. There is far more that is similar between the sexes than is different.

However, there is a clear case of denial of material reality going on in people jumping on the transgender bandwagon. The physical differences are mostly clear, and it can disadvantage the female when a male-bodied person claims to be a female.

If a person wants to believe that their soul, or whatever, is of the opposite sex to their body, I say let them get on with it, as long as they don't try to force everybody else into sharing their spiritual belief.
Yes, if a person whats to become another gender...then go ahead.

But... the differences between the two genders are massive, you cannot traverse this gap.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
7,910

Over the past week, an assortment of trending stories — from Jeffrey Epstein to the Dayton and El Paso mass shooters, to Miley Cyrus’s separation and Julianne Hough’s declaration that she’s “not straight” — together have laid bare the strictures of an American patriarchy on the edge of a nervous breakdown. As the status quo, heterosexuality is just not working.
Framed differently, the picture is this: Men need heterosexuality to maintain their societal dominance over women. Women, on the other hand, are increasingly realizing not only that they don’t need heterosexuality, but that it also is often the bedrock of their global oppression.
o_O
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,326
@buka001
Patriarchy is at its most potent when oppression doesn’t feel like oppression, or when it is packaged in terms of biology, religion or basic social needs like security comfort, acceptance and success. Heterosexuality offers women all these things as selling points to their consensual subjection.

Historically, women have been conditioned to believe that heterosexuality is natural or innate, just as they have been conditioned to believe that their main purpose is to make babies — and if they fail to do so, they are condemned as not “real,” or as bad, women.
Absconding from responsibility is the quintessential strategy of the patriarchy; it’s how men stay in control and never lose their power. As Lorde wrote in “Sister Outsider,” the cost for those of us who not only have carry the responsibility of others but to educate them, too, is our own liberation, agency and self-creation: “The oppressors maintain their position and evade their responsibility for their own actions. There is a constant drain of energy which might be better used in redefining ourselves and devising realistic scenarios for altering the present and constructing the future."
While men stew in their mess, women are rising. They are taking back control of their lives and their bodies and they are questioning the foundation of the patriarchy — heterosexuality — that has kept them blindly subordinate for centuries.
“A feminist critique of compulsory heterosexual orientation for women is long overdue,” Adrienne Rich wrote in her 1980 feminist classic “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.”

It looks like this critique has finally arrived in the mainstream.
Wanna guess what ideology this rot is grounded in? :sneaky:

 

technofool

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
570
Sorry I'm new to this thread, can somebody please get me up to speed? I haven't found an answer to the Caster question. Women don't compete against men because it would be unfair. Men are competitive beings and we understand fairness, that is why we fight in weight categories, and compete in age groups.

What is it that makes Caster female enough to qualify to compete in women's races? What does our SA regime (sporting adminstrators, media, politicians, public) know that makes them support her so feverishly?
 

Puk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
153
Biologically, there are only two genders. For practical purposes, we separate public restrooms etc. on that basis. If you identify as trans, no gender at all, a man, a woman or a bloody attack helicopter - that is YOUR choice. It's got nothing to do with anyone else. I think what traditional heterosexual people find the MOST annoying about people who identify as alternative genders, is the fact that they often use it as a conversation piece and become very arrogant when others don't agree. People will not agree with each other on everything - that's life. I would tell the LGBTQ-XYZ crowd to accept that people will disagree with them and continue with their lives (in private) like the REST OF US.
 
Top