They are always real, which exactly means what I said. In some cultures there are three genders, in Western culture 70 years ago there were only male and female, now it is still a predominant understanding but there is also a visible search for other models. Is it really so hard to grasp?
Different cultures have different social constructs which is not limited to gender.
I think your confusing gender roles with actual gender.
your saying all social constructs are real, if that is the case then there is only male and female. the argument on why and how there are more genders then 2 is that gender is a social construct so it is not real. if social constructs are real then we only have 2 genders.
you have xx or xy chromosomes. you cant change that. you can change your appearance and the way you act but at most you will be a mutilated feminine male or a mutilated masculine female.
you can not change your gender only your gender role.
i will say gender is not a social construct right now but if the transtrenders get their way then the lack of gender we will end up with will be a social construct. does not make it real though.
I am not saying there is no social constructs, im saying just because you claim something is a social construct does not make it one no matter if you think it then makes it a lie or real.
besides calling gender a social construct do you have any way to support the claim that there is more then 2 genders? if not I rest my case, if you do i would love to look into it so maybe i can learn how i am wrong about it.
I think your confusing gender roles with actual gender.
I'm using the terms as most science does, i.e. what is anatomical characteristics is called sex (which you apparently mean by gender) and psychological and social ones are called gender.
the argument on why and how there are more genders then 2 is that gender is a social construct so it is not real. if social constructs are real then we only have 2 genders.
You're confusing real and material. Or so I think, your English is beyond comprehension here.
besides calling gender a social construct do you have any way to support the claim that there is more then 2 genders?
There's quite a load of anthropological literature about cultures where there are more than two genders.
I'm using the terms as most science does, i.e. what is anatomical characteristics is called sex (which you apparently mean by gender) and psychological and social ones are called gender.
ummm, again i think your confusing gender roles with actual gender. sex and gender are the same thing. science shows there are only two genders/sexes. "psychological and social" studies on gender roles is not based in science. if it is can you please provide links to factual based scientific data proving me wrong? gender roles is a social construct and is why we have masculine females and feminine men. it does not change their genders only their gender roles.
You're confusing real and material. Or so I think, your English is beyond comprehension here.
that's funny, it was very simple to read and understand. maby you have no come back so you have to attack spelling and gramer? how am i confusing "real and material". i am only talking about the real. the stuff that is not real is just that, not real. good try on the dodge of the points though.
There's quite a load of anthropological literature about cultures where there are more than two genders.
yep, you have no answer for it? that's great you can say their is literature out their to support your case but you have not provided any of this literature or given any reasons why im wrong. you simply said, yes there is the proof is out there somewhere. :/
so as i said in the last post.
"besides calling gender a social construct do you have any way to support the claim that there is more then 2 genders? if not I rest my case, if you do i would love to look into it so maybe i can learn how i am wrong about it."
ummm, again i think your confusing gender roles with actual gender. sex and gender are the same thing.
Dude, it's a definition, which means there can be no argument here. It's simply a way people chose to name some notions.
If you want to use other definitions, state them here.
"psychological and social" studies on gender roles is not based in science.
While I myself am often skeptical of social sciences, it's a fact, and a well documented one, that in numerous cultures there are genders (or in what appears to be your parlance, gender roles) beyond masculine and feminine.
the argument on why and how there are more genders then 2 is that gender is a social construct so it is not real. if social constructs are real then we only have 2 genders.
Your English is really beyond comprehension. What do you mean in this last sentence? That if gender social constructs are real then they must be the same as external sex characteristics? What do you mean by is a social construct so it is not real? How does it even follow?
i am only talking about the real.
What do you mean by real if social constructs are not?
yep, you have no answer for it? that's great you can say their is literature [...] you have not provided
Gender is essentially an anthropological notion so what would you exactly expect? Read that book, or if you want just some examples, well, start even here.
If it is only a "notion" and not based in fact, only what people believe, then it is not real.
If you don't take your theory and do some research and some experiments to prove your theory right or wrong its it still just a theory.
Saying something is real because of a theory that supports your idea is the same thing the therians do. Nothing based in facts for any of it but because someone said a theory that agrees with me it must be true. -smh-
If social constructs are real, and otherkins and therians are a social construct, are they really animals trapped in a human body just like trans people are trapped in the wrong body?
Well, either you don't know what a social construct is or what real means. Or both.
Real does not mean true or false, it simply means that something exists. Say, the belief in God (or gods). It's very real, people kill and die for it, although we don't know whether it is true or false. Being an atheist I believe it to be false, but I can't prove it so, and even if I could it wouldn't be any less real for that.
A social construct is a common understanding or notion in a given society which is not an inevitable consequence of non-social factors. For example any notion of private property is a social construct, which is different among societies, and in some does not exist. Does it mean that it isn't real?
The fact that people believe in something does not make it real. I am not saying that people don't have belief. People believe all kinds of bullshit lies. It does not make them real. So just because a bunch of people think they are really girls when they are boys or the other way around does not make it real.
The idea of private property is not a social construct, even animals mark territory and defend it as their own. Society did not create that evolution and nature did. The idea of it is just that, an idea. It is not a fact or a truth. The fact and truth is there is only male and female, everything you have presented has not been based in facts.
Now you are arguing that social constructs are not real if they are just a belief that can not be proven. :/
What is it?
The fact that people believe in something does not make it real.
The belief is real. It is very important, because, true or false, these beliefs have real consequences.
just because a bunch of people think they are really girls when they are boys or the other way around does not make it real.
Again, the belief or feeling is very real. As to whether it is true, your childish remark about chromosomes some comments above strongly suggests that you should learn very very much before you even start to assess this (did you even know that there are people who look like women, think of themselves as of women yet are genetically men?).
The idea of private property is not a social construct, even animals mark territory and defend it as their own
Some do, some do not. This does not mean that idea of private property is not a social construct, or that it is an evolved one. From what we know about so called primitive societies, their idea of private property, if at all existing, is very different from our western one. You should really do some learning.
The fact and truth is there is only male and female, everything you
The fact and truth is that you lack basic knowledge beyond high school level, not only in anthropology, but also in quite elementary biology and anatomy.
im still waiting for you to back up any of your claims with facts. so far your basing everything on theories. if i got the time later ill make a full post oyour points and mine so we can actually solve this disagreement we are having. to many strawmen and red harrings in this back and forth.
so go get your links ready with factual based science to prove me wrong on the new post. if you can.
If there are exceptions there is no rule.
there are exceptions to just about any rule. The main principle of the adage is seen best when there is only one or a very few exceptions. In those cases the validity of the rule is proven. For, if only a very few exceptions to a rule can be found, then it must be a very good rule. You can't find a single exception to e.g. gravity, good luck trying.
Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gravity-still-technically-just-a-theory
here are your exceptions to gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
so i did answer your question. the exception to the rule does not negate the rule.
you try to talk about dodging questions, go back and answer the questions i asked you. but you wont. just try to twist this crap around but it don't work.
hopefully you look up and read that stuff about how gravity is a natural occurring phonomon and we only have a theory on how it works. it is still the basis we have to go off of considering we are only going off facts when it comes to gravity. not feelings. if it was based on feeling like your argument on gender then people would be saying it is not a theoy it is a fact like you just tried to do. the exceptions to gravity are really kool. should check them out. or don't.
So no, you are not dodging this question in that it is rare. Male or female and why?
if you check the first link i gave you when you first asked you would see it says "People with this condition are genetically male,"
you can not geneticly be female and have CAIS
-smh-
The main principle of the adage is seen best when there is only one or a very few exceptions.
If there are exceptions, the rule is negated and a new rule (usually the old one amended) is needed. Often it ends as a statistical rule, like that "in 99% (or simply most) cases ..."
Folk adages is not science, dude.
here are your exceptions to gravity.
These are no exceptions, we just don't know everything, so the rule as we know it is not complete and needs further research and amendments. Which may conclude in that these will refute our current understanding of gravity, and we'll need a new theory (technically, it will most likely be current theory amended), or discovery of new forces. Or both.
Either way, these are no exceptions. No responsible scientist would say hey, these are exceptions but exceptions don't negate gravity, it's all ok, no worries, which is how you attempt to dismiss CAIS example. But I agree that these are cool.
But hey, if you insist on calling these exceptions, that's of no help to you, because if only male and female has exceptions you also have to recognize that other exceptions may exist. CAIS is not the only one example where genetic, anatomic and psychological characteristics of sex and gender are not in agreement, albeit an extreme one. So where these exceptions would start/end?
So, male or female? Or where do the exceptions end? And how these exceptions are not non-binary gender?
ps. I wonder if you even bothered to read the links you supplied. Really.
ps2. If you want to quote me, please use > at the line start, not backticks. It looks awful with backticks.
that was a response to you saying "So no, you are not dodging this question in that it is rare. Male or female and why?" i had already answered the question and provided you with a link on it. with a quote from the post you provided on the subject.
i have been reading everything, that is why i have been able to back everything i say up with facts and links to prove the sorces.
you on the other hand do nothing but red harring, strawman, and word twisting replys to not answer questions.
im sure you have a great reply about my spelling and grammerand not the points of facts.
maby you will notice it is because i don't care enuff to correct things ot hold the shift key for you. this is all noncence. i hope everyone looks at the full converstion so they can see how insane this all is.
No, you did not. For CAIS means genetical male but phenotype, behavior and identification are female. You did not answer why genes should prevail over phenotype and behavior, you did not even read my description of CAIS, or you wouldn't try to reveal in this style that CAIS happens only to genetical males.
I also doubt that you'd supply the first links about gravity as they are supporting my point, not yours. Read them, really, both have misleading titles, that's probably why you got so fooled. Though the wikipedia one also supports my point, so perhaps it's beyond you to understand it.
how insane this all is.
Yeah, trying to educate a guy like you probably is insane... sometimes this kind of thing amuses me though.
If they are real, then you are saying there is only male and female?
Depends on social construct, i.e. culture. In some there are only male and female, in others there are other genders.
(Real does not necessarily mean biological or material.)
Oh, so social constructs are only real when they help your narrative but when they don't they are fake.
You need to choose if social constructs are real of fake, you cant say they are both.
They are always real, which exactly means what I said. In some cultures there are three genders, in Western culture 70 years ago there were only male and female, now it is still a predominant understanding but there is also a visible search for other models. Is it really so hard to grasp?
Different cultures have different social constructs which is not limited to gender.
I think your confusing gender roles with actual gender.
your saying all social constructs are real, if that is the case then there is only male and female. the argument on why and how there are more genders then 2 is that gender is a social construct so it is not real. if social constructs are real then we only have 2 genders.
you have xx or xy chromosomes. you cant change that. you can change your appearance and the way you act but at most you will be a mutilated feminine male or a mutilated masculine female.
you can not change your gender only your gender role.
i will say gender is not a social construct right now but if the transtrenders get their way then the lack of gender we will end up with will be a social construct. does not make it real though.
I am not saying there is no social constructs, im saying just because you claim something is a social construct does not make it one no matter if you think it then makes it a lie or real.
besides calling gender a social construct do you have any way to support the claim that there is more then 2 genders? if not I rest my case, if you do i would love to look into it so maybe i can learn how i am wrong about it.
I'm using the terms as most science does, i.e. what is anatomical characteristics is called sex (which you apparently mean by gender) and psychological and social ones are called gender.
You're confusing real and material. Or so I think, your English is beyond comprehension here.
There's quite a load of anthropological literature about cultures where there are more than two genders.
I'm using the terms as most science does, i.e. what is anatomical characteristics is called sex (which you apparently mean by gender) and psychological and social ones are called gender.ummm, again i think your confusing gender roles with actual gender. sex and gender are the same thing. science shows there are only two genders/sexes. "psychological and social" studies on gender roles is not based in science. if it is can you please provide links to factual based scientific data proving me wrong? gender roles is a social construct and is why we have masculine females and feminine men. it does not change their genders only their gender roles.
You're confusing real and material. Or so I think, your English is beyond comprehension here.that's funny, it was very simple to read and understand. maby you have no come back so you have to attack spelling and gramer? how am i confusing "real and material". i am only talking about the real. the stuff that is not real is just that, not real. good try on the dodge of the points though.
There's quite a load of anthropological literature about cultures where there are more than two genders.yep, you have no answer for it? that's great you can say their is literature out their to support your case but you have not provided any of this literature or given any reasons why im wrong. you simply said, yes there is the proof is out there somewhere. :/
so as i said in the last post.
"besides calling gender a social construct do you have any way to support the claim that there is more then 2 genders? if not I rest my case, if you do i would love to look into it so maybe i can learn how i am wrong about it."
Dude, it's a definition, which means there can be no argument here. It's simply a way people chose to name some notions.
If you want to use other definitions, state them here.
While I myself am often skeptical of social sciences, it's a fact, and a well documented one, that in numerous cultures there are genders (or in what appears to be your parlance, gender roles) beyond masculine and feminine.
Your English is really beyond comprehension. What do you mean in this last sentence? That if gender social constructs are real then they must be the same as external sex characteristics? What do you mean by is a social construct so it is not real? How does it even follow?
What do you mean by real if social constructs are not?
Well, start here.
you provide me to a book about Anthropological Theory as your facts for why there are more then 2 genders? its a book on theory. -smh-
Gender is essentially an anthropological notion so what would you exactly expect? Read that book, or if you want just some examples, well, start even here.
If it is only a "notion" and not based in fact, only what people believe, then it is not real.
If you don't take your theory and do some research and some experiments to prove your theory right or wrong its it still just a theory.
Saying something is real because of a theory that supports your idea is the same thing the therians do. Nothing based in facts for any of it but because someone said a theory that agrees with me it must be true. -smh-
If social constructs are real, and otherkins and therians are a social construct, are they really animals trapped in a human body just like trans people are trapped in the wrong body?
Well, either you don't know what a social construct is or what real means. Or both.
Real does not mean true or false, it simply means that something exists. Say, the belief in God (or gods). It's very real, people kill and die for it, although we don't know whether it is true or false. Being an atheist I believe it to be false, but I can't prove it so, and even if I could it wouldn't be any less real for that.
A social construct is a common understanding or notion in a given society which is not an inevitable consequence of non-social factors. For example any notion of private property is a social construct, which is different among societies, and in some does not exist. Does it mean that it isn't real?
The fact that people believe in something does not make it real. I am not saying that people don't have belief. People believe all kinds of bullshit lies. It does not make them real. So just because a bunch of people think they are really girls when they are boys or the other way around does not make it real.
The idea of private property is not a social construct, even animals mark territory and defend it as their own. Society did not create that evolution and nature did. The idea of it is just that, an idea. It is not a fact or a truth. The fact and truth is there is only male and female, everything you have presented has not been based in facts.
Now you are arguing that social constructs are not real if they are just a belief that can not be proven. :/
What is it?
The belief is real. It is very important, because, true or false, these beliefs have real consequences.
Again, the belief or feeling is very real. As to whether it is true, your childish remark about chromosomes some comments above strongly suggests that you should learn very very much before you even start to assess this (did you even know that there are people who look like women, think of themselves as of women yet are genetically men?).
Some do, some do not. This does not mean that idea of private property is not a social construct, or that it is an evolved one. From what we know about so called primitive societies, their idea of private property, if at all existing, is very different from our western one. You should really do some learning.
The fact and truth is that you lack basic knowledge beyond high school level, not only in anthropology, but also in quite elementary biology and anatomy.
im still waiting for you to back up any of your claims with facts. so far your basing everything on theories. if i got the time later ill make a full post oyour points and mine so we can actually solve this disagreement we are having. to many strawmen and red harrings in this back and forth.
so go get your links ready with factual based science to prove me wrong on the new post. if you can.
Dude, a simple question to you: if there are only male and female is a person with CAIS, i.e. a person who:
a male or a female? Why one or the other? No adjectives please, just male or female and why.
Note that this happens with no intervention and the condition is often diagnosed only at puberty when the individual does not start menstruating.
Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome affects 2 to 5 per 100,000 people.
So I would say the exception to the rule does not negate the rule.
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome#statistics
If there are exceptions there is no rule. You can't find a single exception to e.g. gravity, good luck trying.
So no, you are not dodging this question in that it is rare. Male or female and why?
If there are exceptions there is no rule.there are exceptions to just about any rule. The main principle of the adage is seen best when there is only one or a very few exceptions. In those cases the validity of the rule is proven. For, if only a very few exceptions to a rule can be found, then it must be a very good rule.
You can't find a single exception to e.g. gravity, good luck trying.Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gravity-still-technically-just-a-theory
here are your exceptions to gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
so i did answer your question. the exception to the rule does not negate the rule.
you try to talk about dodging questions, go back and answer the questions i asked you. but you wont. just try to twist this crap around but it don't work.
hopefully you look up and read that stuff about how gravity is a natural occurring phonomon and we only have a theory on how it works. it is still the basis we have to go off of considering we are only going off facts when it comes to gravity. not feelings. if it was based on feeling like your argument on gender then people would be saying it is not a theoy it is a fact like you just tried to do. the exceptions to gravity are really kool. should check them out. or don't.
So no, you are not dodging this question in that it is rare. Male or female and why?if you check the first link i gave you when you first asked you would see it says "People with this condition are genetically male,"
you can not geneticly be female and have CAIS
-smh-
If there are exceptions, the rule is negated and a new rule (usually the old one amended) is needed. Often it ends as a statistical rule, like that "in 99% (or simply most) cases ..."
Folk adages is not science, dude.
These are no exceptions, we just don't know everything, so the rule as we know it is not complete and needs further research and amendments. Which may conclude in that these will refute our current understanding of gravity, and we'll need a new theory (technically, it will most likely be current theory amended), or discovery of new forces. Or both.
Either way, these are no exceptions. No responsible scientist would say hey, these are exceptions but exceptions don't negate gravity, it's all ok, no worries, which is how you attempt to dismiss CAIS example. But I agree that these are cool.
But hey, if you insist on calling these exceptions, that's of no help to you, because if only male and female has exceptions you also have to recognize that other exceptions may exist. CAIS is not the only one example where genetic, anatomic and psychological characteristics of sex and gender are not in agreement, albeit an extreme one. So where these exceptions would start/end?
So, male or female? Or where do the exceptions end? And how these exceptions are not non-binary gender?
ps. I wonder if you even bothered to read the links you supplied. Really.
ps2. If you want to quote me, please use > at the line start, not
backticks. It looks awful with backticks.I wrote just as much in my description, thanks for not reading it.
that was a response to you saying "So no, you are not dodging this question in that it is rare. Male or female and why?" i had already answered the question and provided you with a link on it. with a quote from the post you provided on the subject.
i have been reading everything, that is why i have been able to back everything i say up with facts and links to prove the sorces.
you on the other hand do nothing but red harring, strawman, and word twisting replys to not answer questions.
im sure you have a great reply about my spelling and grammerand not the points of facts.
maby you will notice it is because i don't care enuff to correct things ot hold the shift key for you. this is all noncence. i hope everyone looks at the full converstion so they can see how insane this all is.
No, you did not. For CAIS means genetical male but phenotype, behavior and identification are female. You did not answer why genes should prevail over phenotype and behavior, you did not even read my description of CAIS, or you wouldn't try to reveal in this style that CAIS happens only to genetical males.
I also doubt that you'd supply the first links about gravity as they are supporting my point, not yours. Read them, really, both have misleading titles, that's probably why you got so fooled. Though the wikipedia one also supports my point, so perhaps it's beyond you to understand it.
Yeah, trying to educate a guy like you probably is insane... sometimes this kind of thing amuses me though.