/sci/, do you believe sex/gender is >fixed? (i.e. can't

They are words that are only and exclusively useful when binary.

Nobody ought to give a shit what you "identify as". What matters is who can fertilize, and who can get fertilized.

The SRY gene is a social construct you fascist

Sex is a biological thing. It can change, theoretically, but odds are it doesn't for any one individual.
Gender is a social construct, it can change, it can be non-binary and while it is influenced by choice, it isn't wholly under the control of the individual.
That said, nobody ought to care about anyone else's gender, or rub their own gender in anyone's face. It's a non-issue and in most cases is simply used as a way to harvest attention from others.

Our society accepts cis gendered people and it should not have to be tolerant to any other form of gender identification. Once the flood gates open...

Sex is biological, binary.

Gender is a social construct, on a spectrum. Anyone who disagrees with this is probably still in their edgy """anti-SJW""" stage, and will mature to accept this eventually. However, I do agree that some people abuse this spectrum and try to get the most off-the-wall identification just so they can think they're special.
>>8977047
Agree entirely with this.
>>8977048
What's the issue with being tolerant towards what someone wants to call themselves. Is it really that big of a deal if they're not causing issues?

>>8977011
So go fuck a transman, since they can get fertilized.

>>8977176
the problem is that you're telling us we're required to call you a nonbinary genderkin wolf, if that's how you choose to identify yourself.

I can't, nor will I ever attempt to, control what you choose to call yourself. On the flip side, you can't (or otherwise shouldn't), attempt to control what I call you.

We can call each other fucking faggots for all we care, but neither of us can honestly tell the other to not call us a fucking faggot.

That just makes me want to call you a fucking faggot some more

>>8977000
The simple fact that there is a debate about this that cannot be settled empirically proves gender is not binary and to some extent socially constructed. Many forms of categorization are non-binary and constructed, like species.

>>8977182
First off, I don't think anyone should be "forced" or "required" to call anyone anything.. that's not the argument at all.

But, if someone came up to me and asked if I could call them fairykin, I would do so because it doesn't really matter, and I'm not an asshole. It's not like you're running into these people on a daily basis, and it'll make the dude feel better about himself.

Call someone what you want, I'm not forcing you. Just know that if you go out of your way to refuse something that simple that could make someone a little happier, I'll think you're just a dick. It's a matter of being a decent human being.

>>8977182
I can't force you to call me a man even though I'm a "cisgendered male" but you do anyway because it's the polite way to behave. If you accidentally called a man who looks like a woman "her" you would probably apologize. Why, if you don't care?

>>8977176
>>8977047
Kill yourseves you anti-scientific retards. You have no business being on this board.

>>8977203
>>>/pol/

ITT: SJWs astroturfing.

>>8977204
>>>/lit/
>>>/pol/
>>>/tumblr/
>>>/anywherebuthere/
This is /sci/ence. We have enough cancerous cranks on our hands as it is.

>>8977203
you know sex and gender, by definition, have two different meanings right

do you live in the deep south or something? or do you just like to think your definitions are more correct than the actual real definitions? you either need to mature, or you're just braindead

>>8977192
>it's not draconic authoritarianism, we just want you to be polite
Kill yourself.

>>8977215
To the extend that they mean anything and point to something real, sex and gender are one and the same thing. Gender is a 1960s invention. It is entirely fictive. A term borrowed over from grammar for purely ideological reasons.

Nouns have gender. Organisms have sexes.
Once again, I kindly ask you to go back to >>>/lit/

>>8977222
This reminds me of something. It's speculated that the anglosphere has went so batshit insane over this because the English language has abandoned gender as a grammatical category. I think it was some French feminista who pointed it out.

>>8977217
>he actually believes the strawman that all non-edgy """anti-SJW""" teens are that unreasonable when it comes to trans people, and that the government will eventually jail you for misgendering someone
Watching a little too much Sargon lately buddy?
>>8977219
>a sociological term isn't "real" because it was invented in the past 100 years
Whelp guess we'll just throw out all recent discoveries. Didn't know science and humanities worked like that.

>>8977211
>hurr gender is science
No it's not you dumb LARPer.

>>8977000
I believe sex and gender are distinct, heavily linked phenomena that are based heavily in biology and culture.

>>8977197
No, I call you a man because that may be how I perceive you. If I perceive you as a boy, I'll call you a boy. Politeness has to do with the context of the interaction, not the objectivity of the situation.

>>8977230
>Whelp guess we'll just throw out all recent discoveries
Keep trying. "Gender" is not a discovery. It's entirely made up. Humans exhibit "gendered" behaviour at birth* for fuck's sake. Fuck off with this anti-scientific bullshit. There is no such thing as gender.

(*) DOI (Archives of sexual Behaviour, Springer): 10 [dot] 1007 [forwardslash] s10508 (hyphen) 008 [hyphen] 9430 [hyphen] 1 (link broken up because it got caught in the spam filter for some retarded reason)
>Sex Differences in Infants’ Visual Interest in Toys
>Consistent with primary hypothesis, sex differences in visual interest in sex-linked toys were found, such that girls showed a visual preference (d > 1.0) for the doll over the toy truck and boys compared to girls showed a greater number of visual fixations on the truck (d = .78).
>Our findings suggest that the conceptual categories of “masculine” and “feminine” toys are preceded by sex differences in the preferences for perceptual features associated with such objects.

Males and females have different brain: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011
>muh gender

>>8977322
More: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/823.short

>b-b-but muh GENDER

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18712468
>Only sex predicted means for all four traits, and sex predicted trait means much more strongly than did gender equality or the interaction between sex and gender equality. These results suggest that biological factors may contribute to sex differences in personality and that culture plays a negligible to small role in moderating sex differences in personality.
>These results suggest that biological factors may contribute to sex differences in personality and that culture plays a negligible to small role in moderating sex differences in personality.

>>8977279
So if you perceived a person as a boy and then someone pointed out to you that that person is 36 years old you would continue calling that person a boy? If yes, you're being impolite. If not then clearly politeness has little to do with perception.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029265
>The idea that there are only minor differences between the personality profiles of males and females should be rejected as based on inadequate methodology.
>the true extent of sex differences in human personality has been consistently underestimated.

>MUH GENDER

>>8977353
>he is still trying to push this bullshit here
wew

>>8977305
>humans exhibit gendered behavior
>there is no such thing as gender
What did he mean by this?

>>8977322
>>8977328
>The brain typically displays sexual differences
>atypically brains do not display these differences in a way that matches their sex
Therefore gender exists.

>>8977363
Are you blind? I put "gendered" in scare-quotes. >>8977369
Exceptions prove the rule dumb-ass. The existence of outliers does not invalidate the results. A 10% overlap in distributions is very small. Gender is proving to be a "theory of the gaps". Like all nonsense, hiding in ever narrower nooks and crannies of "unexplained" variance.

>>8977342
>RA Lippa
>This engaging text presents the latest scientific findings on gender differences, similarities, and variations--in sexuality, cognitive abilities, occupational preferences, personality, and social behaviors. The impact of nature and nurture on gender is examined from the perspectives of genetics, molecular biology, evolutionary theory, neuroanatomy, sociology, and psychology. The result is a balanced, fair-minded synthesis of diverse points of view. Dr. Lippa's text sympathetically summarizes each side of the nature-nurture debate, and in a witty imagined conversation between a personified "nature" and "nurture," he identifies weaknesses in the arguments offered by both sides. His review defines gender, summarizes research on gender differences, examines the nature of masculinity and femininity, describes theories of gender, and presents a "cascade model," which argues that nature and nurture weave together to form the complex tapestry known as gender.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract
>Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences.
(Note: the author is using gender as a "polite" synonym for sex. Throughout the article, gender is used as two categories: men and women.)

>>8977357
How does this conflict with gender exactly?

It seems like you just posted the first results you got on Google without even reading then and then proclaiming gender BTFO.

>>8977376
>Are you blind? I put "gendered" in scare-quotes.
Yes and then you presented research which shows gendered behavior.

>>8977381
>masculinity and femininity
Yes, he's talking about sex in a PC way. Probably just to get lunatics like you off his back.

>>8977376
>Exceptions prove the rule dumb-ass.
That's a nice cliche but how about you actually respond to the argument? You just showed that gendered behavior can diverge from sex.

>The existence of outliers does not invalidate the results.
Of course, because the results are not GENDER DOES NOT EXIST HURR DURR. You just can't read.

>>8977387
It shows that "male" and "female" are fixed categories and "gender" is only an obfuscation of sex.
>>8977390
As long as you use gender as a synonym for sex.

Why am I reading this garbage.

What would be the point of having sex and gender mean the same thing?

>>8977399
It's not a cliche. >>>/lit/
> the results are
that to the extent that it is anything, gender is the same thing as sex.

>>8977403
I see you changed tactics: what would be the point of having them mean different things when all evidence available points to them being the same?

>>8977385
>he's j-just being p-polite
>he only refers to masculine and feminine Because those are the two poles of the gender spectrum around which the population is massed. You just can't stop arguing against yourself.

>>8977407
Nice, more pseudoscience. There is no such thing as a gender spectrum.

>>8977400
>It shows that "male" and "female" are fixed categories
That statement is so vague its meaningless. I don't disagree with it. It also didn't seem to be the point of the paper.

>>8977414
Keep backpedalling with pseudoscience pal.
Why don't you spare us all your nonsense and go back wherever it is you came from.

Funny how the "gender and sex vary independently" crowd is yet to provide any evidence.

>>8977400
If gender is a synonym for sex why did we need a paper linking gendered behavior to sex? And why is the link not 100% predictive. In reality, what the paper shows and what we all know is that sex is usually matched with gender and sometimes not. Thus not synomous.

>>8977404
>that to the extent that it is anything, gender is the same thing as sex.
Except when it's not. Thanks for playing.

>>8977408
So then everyone is either male or female right? And all males exhibit masculine behavior and all females exhibit feminine behavior right? Except the research you just posted disproves that.

>>8977418
>backpedaling
LOL You're the one who backpedaled to "male and female are fixed categories."

>>8977427
>why is the link not 100% predictive.
Because biological development is a very noisy process. Errors can occur at any level and accrue. I like how you have to cling to the Nirvana fallacy to keep a foot in the door.
>>8977430
There are people which are born with various abnormalities. They are extremely rare. Like I said, exceptions prove the rule. In more than 99% of cases a person's identifiable sex phenotype is the same as their genotype.

>>8977422
The evidence was already presented. Sex does not determine gendered behavior 100% of the time.

>>8977435
All the articles I posted unambiguously refute the nonsense straight out of the trashcan of ideology that is gender studies that gender and sex somehow vary independently.

>>8977440
>Because biological development is a very noisy process.
Yes therefore gender exists. You've already admitted that I'm right, now you're just arguing semantics.

>>8977443
Your thermometer doesn't measure the temperature in your perfectly accurately either. Doesn't mean there's no such thing as temperature.

>>8977000
>/sci/, do you believe sex/gender is...

D) Obsessed about by people of low imagination and curiosity who aspire to achieve nothing of value in life

>>8977447
>99+% concordance between sex and "gender"
>AHA! THEY VARY INDEPENDENTLY
You're a fucking brainlet. The only one arguing semantics here is you.

>>8977440
>There are people which are born with various abnormalities. They are extremely rare. Like I said, exceptions prove the rule. In more than 99% of cases a person's identifiable sex phenotype is the same as their genotype.
The rule the exception proves is that gender generally matches sex. Not that gender does not exist, moron. You keep failing to respond to what I'm actually arguing.

>gender does not necessarily match sex
>>yes it does, see this research shows gender correlates heavily with sex

>>8977444
>not an argument

>>8977463
No. The rule the the exception proves is that phenotypical sex matches genotypical sex. If gender is anything, it is phenotypical sex.

GO THE FUCK BACK TO WHATEVER BRAINLET HELLHOLE YOU CRAWLED OUT OF.

>>8977457
>they vary independently
But this is a strawman you just made up. Here's what I argued:

>Gender exists

Here's what you argued against:

>gender is not correlated with sex

Do you see a difference?

>>8977464
You're reduced to memery. As expected of a brainwashed brainlet.

>Links research showing the obvious fact that sex and gender typically correlate
>"HAHA THIS MEANS GENDER DOESN'T EXIST"
god some people are retarded

>>8977469
>you just made up.
LMAO
>>8977000
>keep in mind that while these are often treated as one, they are different and may vary independently

>>8977472
Cognitive dissonance is hitting hard I see. No worries, in time you will accept the fact that gender and sex are the same thing.

And
>>8977469
>Here's what you argued against
No, I didn't argue against that at all. If that is your position than "gender" is an entirely redundant concept that just means (phenotypical) sex.

>>8977473
>you just made that up
No lol that's actually what you did. He never said they vary independently, retard. OP said that they "may", and this person isn't even OP.

Jesus christ dude
>>8977475
>"I think you're wrong so you're experiencing cognitive dissonance"
Nah if the evidence and definitions actually pointed towards them being the same thing I'd accept it. I'm a cis male after all, there's no harm to me if they were the same thing.

>>8977452
LOL what does temperature analogize to here?

I'm not saying something does not exist because gender and sex are only correlated. I'm saying that gender exists. This is essentially tautological. You're only arguing against a strawman.

>be a transgender
>"I use a skirt, therefore I'm woman"
This is why I can't understand all this shit. Trans talk about oppression but they validate this old concepts of masculinity and femininity.

>>8977481
At this point you're clutching at straws.
>>8977482
You're just arguing semantics, which you (pr some other moron) accused me of doing.
Gender is sex or it is nothing at all. If you want to be more precise: gender is phenotypical sex.

This is a cold hard fact. End of discussion.

>>8977468
>The rule the the exception proves is that phenotypical sex matches genotypical sex.
Which is only generally true. Which is what I'm arguing. Yes or no?

>>8977488
Only good point I've seen from anti-gender ITT
>>8977489
>Shit guys, I got BTFO'd.. uh....
>"At this point you're clutching at straws."
This discussion is finished.

>>8977490
You're arguing that gender is just developmental noise/errors? I'm pretty sure you aren't. You have a whole lot of other baggage attached there.

>>8977479
You just spent the entire thread stating over and over that gender is correlated with sex.

>>8977497
We never had a discussion in the first place because you're an intellectually stunted ideologue. Sorry this isn't your gender studies classroom.

>>8977507
No, I pointed out the fact that it is the same thing as (phenotypical) sex. (Provided you want gender to point to something real, not just looney bullshit in your head.)

To go back to the OP
>>8977000
It is a fact that "gender" is fixed. It is a fact that it is biological. It is a fact that it is binary: there are male human organisms, and female human organisms.

Every argument against these facts is the same as saying "hands are not fixed and not biological because some people can be born without hands" or something retarded like that.

>>8977511
I'd rather kill myself then take a gender studies class, I'm just not a raging reactionary teen. Most matured and educated people accept my stance, the other side is almost entirely composed of people like you.
>>8977530
Mixed definitions there, buddo. You're talking about sex there.

>>8977533
Gender is phenotypical sex or it is nothing whatsoever.

>>8977506
>You're arguing that gender is just developmental noise/errors?
Thank you for articulating you can't read and/or can't argue honestly.

>>8977516
Every piece of research you posted shows they aren't the same thing, just heavily it correlated. If they were the same thing they would be 100% determined by each other. You lost, get over it.

File: anon_is_a_normal_person.png (391KB, 1024x887px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1024x887px

>>8977176
>>8977230
>>8977533

<--- (you)

>>8977548
>Every piece of research you posted shows they aren't the same thing
No, every article I posted shows that gender is indistinguishable from phenotypical sex.
>If they were the same thing they would be 100% determined by each other.
Wrong. Developmental errors can happen. No phenotype is 100% correlated with the underlying genotype. If you'd clone an organisms, its clones would still be slightly different.
Thank you for once again demonstrating that you are a fish out of water though.

>>8977549
Nicely memed

>>8977554
>No, every article I posted shows that gender is indistinguishable from phenotypical sex.
If they were indistinguishable then it would be impossible to perform a study finding a only a correlation between them. They would just be the same thing. You can't have a correlation between a thing and itself less than 1, numbskull. You proved yourself wrong, but your tiny pea brain can't handle it. Time to go back to /pol/.

>>8977554
>No phenotype is 100% correlated with the underlying genotype.
So by your logic genotype is the same thing as phenotype and phenotype does not exist/is meaningless.

>>8977570
The imperfect correlation is between the genotype and the phenotype you fucking imbecile, and it is entirely expected. I just spelled it out to you a post ago (and a couple ones before). Can you selectively illiterate or something?

There is absolutely no study (not one) that shows gender is something distinct from phenotypical sex.

>>8977575
Jesus Christ you're fucking dumb.
Fuck off.

>>8977580
>The imperfect correlation is between the genotype and the phenotype you fucking imbecile, and it is entirely expected.
Sorry, no phenotype does not exist. The exception proves the rule etc. Everything is genotype and everything which is not genotype doesn't count. I win.

To show that gender is distinct from phenotypical sex you have to show that it is not correlated with sex genotype (Y chromosome). Every measure of "gender" developed is very strongly correlated to sex genotype, i.e. gender is just another name for sex phenotype.

>>8977580
>There is absolutely no study (not one) that shows gender is something distinct from phenotypical sex.
Except for all the studies you posted in this thread. It's not like any of them determined sex genotypically.

>>8977584
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. Kill yourself and spare us of your stupidity, you uneducated mouthbreather.

>>8977590
I don't think you understand what phenotype and genotype mean.

>>8977588
>To show that gender is distinct from phenotypical sex you have to show that it is not correlated with sex genotype (Y chromosome).
False. They clearly are correlated. You realize two distinct things can be correlated right? You fail at basic logic buddy.

>Every measure of "gender" developed is very strongly correlated to sex genotype, i.e. gender is just another name for sex phenotype.
So if gender is the same thing as sex genotype then the following sentence should make the sane sense:
>Every measure of sex phenotype is very strongly correlated to sex genotype, i.e. sex genotype is just another name for sex phenotype.
Is genotype the same thing as phenotype? Does correlation mean equality?

>>8977598
I don't think you understand what phenotype and genotype mean, since you think they're the same thing.

>>8977176
>>8977047

No, that's not what Gender means. But the confusion is easily made when supposed figures of academic authority begin using this new definition without quesiton. But really, you can't just change language defintitions and expect people to go along with it. The Etymology of the word is devoid of any mention of social constructs until recent years. It has not been long since a particular group of people just suddenly decided that this was going to be what the word means now. A more accurate and professional way of describing the new phenomenon would be to call it, specifically, gender-identity. As to not confuse it with biological gender or gender-role, or any other use of the word.

The War on Words was a thing Hegel predicted would come to pass eventually, a prediction he made over two hundred years ago.

Non-english speaking regions of the world are just going to scratch their heads over this social constructionist nonsense. Because while many languages evolved along the same lines, to attribute this loaded meaning to a word to convey a complex political ideological suggestion is not a meme that can survive outside of the anglosphere. What I'm saying here is that this new definition of Gender will no longer be a translation for how it is used in just about every other language the world has.

>>8977594
>Not an argument

>>8977610
>The Etymology of the word is devoid of any mention of social constructs until recent years.
So inanimate objects are assigned gender based on biology? You don't know what you're talking about.

>>8977607
>They clearly are correlated
That's what I said.
>if gender is the same thing as sex genotype
Gender is the same thing as sex phenotype you stupid motherfucker. Phenotype, not genotype.
>Is genotype the same thing as phenotype?
No. I'd tell you to grab a genetics textbook but you're too dumb to understand it anyway, so there's not point to it.
>>8977608
No, I don't think they're the same thing at all. Your problem is that I actually know what I'm talking about.

>>8977617
His point.
Your head.

>>8977618
>That's what I said.
Yes and you keep saying It as if the argument is about whether they correlate.

>Gender is the same thing as sex phenotype you stupid motherfucker. Phenotype, not genotype.
Phenotype is heavily correlated with genotype, therefore they're the same. Yes or no?

>No, I don't think they're the same thing at all.
Oh so you admit that correlation does not imply equality and that your entire argument fails. Thanks for playing.

>>8977620
>not an argument

>>8977617
No. I am quite sure inanimate objects are not assigned a biological gender.

>>8977618
So can two distinct things be heavily correlated? You didn't answer the question.

>>8977633
But they are assigned a *gender* in certain languages. That's where the concept originates. That you can have objects which are gendered without having sex. This origination in language has always been about social rather than biological implications.

>>8977625
>Phenotype is heavily correlated with genotype, therefore they're the same. Yes or no?
No.
>correlation does not imply equality
Never said otherwise.

I doubt you'll ever get it. Not before you understand what genotype and phenotype are in any case.

>>8977634
I answered that question several times over.

>>8977640
So this isn't you?

>Every measure of "gender" developed is very strongly correlated to sex genotype, i.e. gender is just another name for sex phenotype.

>>8977645
Of course that's me.

>>8977644
Yes and you're giving conflicting answers. I just want your definitive position.

If the answer is yes then your demand that I show gender is not correlated to sex phenotype or genotype (you can't seem to stick with one or the other) makes no sense.

If no, then you contradict yourself.

>>8977649
But you just said correlation does not imply equality. Your entire argument so far has been that gender is heavily correlated with X therefore gender and X are the same. Do you abandon that?

>>8977176
>Gender is a social construct

so when a tranny says they are woman (gender), since it's just a "social construct" there's no reason theory and a good deal of convincing shouldn't work to make sure they identify as another "social construct", man.

>>8977610
It's funny that you bring up non-english speaking regions of the world as proof that "gender" is a made up term. You know that cross-cultural analysis of gender roles are how social scientists arrived at this new use of "gender" right? The traditional concepts of "masculinity" and "femininity" are blurred when you try ot take into account the Native American two-spirit, or the Venus of Willendorf, or the gauges and piercings of African tribes. Hell, the Greeks believed large penises to be uncivilized and did not fit in with their ideal of masculinity.
However, I feel as though your gripe with fluent gender goes beyond the semantic. Like, your entire problem with gender as a social construct is that it should be called "gender-identity" so as to not confuse it with sex? Academia redefines words all the time to suit their purposes and that academic language bleeds over into the colloquial. At this point, trying to deny the 'new' meaning of "gender" is being a prescriptivist, since so many people use gender as a social identity rather than as "sex".

>>8977660
>theory
*therapy

>>8977651
>(you can't seem to stick with one or the other)
Maybe because you're functionally illiterate. To show that gender is distinct from phenotypical sex, you have to show that it is not correlated with genotypical sex. If gender is correlated with genotypical sex, than gender is just phenotypical sex.

File: 1323552595177.jpg (10KB, 193x120px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 193x120px

>>8977000
>and/or all

>>8977659
My argument is:

G (+ noise) causally determines P.
Any measure of a complex of traits that is correlated with G is necessarily a measure of P.

>>8977664
>To show that gender is distinct from phenotypical sex, you have to show that it is not correlated with genotypical sex.
Again why?

I assert that gender is distinct from phenotypical sex, and heavily correlated with genotypical sex.

>If gender is correlated with genotypical sex, than gender is just phenotypical sex.
If being a construction worker is correlated with genotypical sex then being a construction worker is just phenotypical sex. Do you see how stupid this is? Its not simply empirically wrong, its just logically false.

>>8977661
You're massively overstating the degree of "blurriness".
>>8977342
>We found a global effect size D=2.71, corresponding to an overlap of only 10% between the male and female distributions. Even excluding the factor showing the largest univariate ES, the global effect size was D=1.71 (24% overlap). These are extremely large differences by psychological standards.

>>8977676
>The argument is not whether you can measure G with P but whether they are the same thing. I can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the average temperature, that doesn't mean they're the same thing. G doesn't cause itself.

>>8977691
Because the causal link between genotype and phenotype is established
>gender is distinct from phenotypical sex, and heavily correlated with genotypical sex.
this is physically impossible.
>Do you see how stupid this is?
It is not stupid. It is completely true.
>Its not simply empirically wrong,
It is empirically true, you ignoramus. 98% of construction workers are genetically male. Organisms with the female phenotype actively avoid construction work.
>its just logically false.
lolno, you're a clueless idiot. The link between genotype and phenotype is established. Correlation implies causation here.

>>8977699
The argument is whether P (sex phenotype) and X (gender) are the same thing. G (sex genotype) is distinct from P. This is a given. We don't need to find out whether they are the same thing or not.

>>8977000
>do you believe sex/gender is
a word

When you read a book, you can do two things: 1, apply your own definitions to the words being used as a means of perceiving some meaning in the text, or 2, try and deduce what the author's meanings behind each word are in order to figure out what they were getting at. The latter is what actually constitutes communication, or at least an attempt at it.

nice trips

>>8977701
>Because the causal link between genotype and phenotype is established
That doesn't answer the question. Why must I show gender and sex phenotype don't correlate to show they're distinct?

>this is physically impossible.
How?

>It is not stupid. It is completely true.
It is stupid and absurd to argue being a construction worker is the sane thing as sex. Especially when we know there are construction workers of both sexes. Your argument has forced you to accept absurdity.

>>8977705
I'm confused. First you said

>My argument is:

>G (+ noise) causally determines P.
Any measure of a complex of traits that is correlated with G is necessarily a measure of P.

And then I said that showing you can measure P with X does not show they are the same thing. Explain how.

>>8977661
So what you're saying is that these cross-cultural analysists of gender ROLES are how non-biologists arrived on a redefinition of a word that used to be the direct translation of the Latin word Genus?

How incredibly convenient of them to do so.

>>8977711
>Why must I show gender and sex phenotype don't correlate to show they're distinct?
>How?
The only way A and B can correlate is if there is some C upstream of both to which they are both causally linked, if one is causally linked to the other, or entirely by accident (spurious correlation). But spurious correlations do not persist. They are easy to break. Regression models already account for spurious correlation anyway. And the causal link between G and P is already established. So any non-spurious correlation with G is a component of P.
>It is stupid and absurd to argue being a construction worker is the sane thing as sex
That's not what's being argued you doofus. What's argued is that being a construction worker is causally linked to being genetically male, i.e. that it is part of the male phenotype. This is a fact. It is within expectations that not all construction workers are genetically male. The reason is once again noise.
>Your argument has forced you to accept absurdity.
You really don't know what you're talking about.

>>8977719
>but dey changed duh wurd
Who the fuck cares autist?

Does gender describe something real or not?

>>8977610
>you can't just change language defintitions and expect people to go along with it
That's exactly how it works, actually.

>>8977718
>I'm confused.
I'm not surprised. I can't be bothered to spell it out to you. Educate yourself.

>>8977725
>The only way A and B can correlate is if there is some C upstream of both to which they are both causally linked, if one is causally linked to the other, or entirely by accident (spurious correlation). But spurious correlations do not persist. They are easy to break. Regression models already account for spurious correlation anyway. And the causal link between G and P is already established. So any non-spurious correlation with G is a component of P.
The only substantive point here is your claim that anything which correlates with G is a "component of P." Which is just a restatement of what I asked you to show. Try again. If X correlates with G and G has a causal link with P, how do we get to X = P? This would surely be a momentous achievement in logic if it could be proved.

>>8977719
>How incredibly convenient of them to do so.
Uh, yeah? That's almost verbatim the concept of "jargon". The word "space" is going to mean two different things to the mathematician and the astronomer, but nobody gets all in a bunch when astronomers say "space" in reference to the expanse of the universe?
>So you're saying that in order to fit a meter, Shakespeare used 'eyeballs' to redefine a word that used to be the direct translation of a germanic word? How incredibly convenient of him to do so.
>>8977693
Two-spirit isn't blurry? Do you genuinely not believe that masculinity and femininity are, for the most part, social constructs?

sex = gender

there is nothing in support anything else. delusional transgendered people just don't want their fee-fees hurt.

>>8977743
>If X correlates with G and G has a causal link with P, how do we get to X = P?
Because
1)P is the entirety of what G determines, by construction.
2)There is nothing upstream of G. Every organism begins from a genome.
>his would surely be a momentous achievement in logic if it could be proved.
It is a triviality. You just have to know what a genotype and a phenotype are (knowledge you obviously do not posses, which is why you're so stupefied when confronted with such a basic reality).

>>8977725
>That's not what's being argued you doofus. What's argued is that being a construction worker is causally linked to being genetically male, i.e. that it is part of the male phenotype.
Well it is what's being argued since you replied to exactly that statement saying that it's true. Now you are backpedaling. Anyway, what I'm arguing is that being a construction worker is distinct from sex since there are female construction workers. This exception is exactly the reason why construction worker and male are not synonymous. Bachelor and male are synomous because one must be male to be a bachelor. Not because being a bachelor is correlated with being male or being single is correlated with being male. Construction worker does not necessitate male.

>>8977748
It is a fact that masculinity and femininity are not social constructs. Infants show masculine and feminine behaviour long before they are exposed to any socialisation. See >>8977305

(I doubt it'd help. You lot are a bunch of brainwashed morons.)

>>8977757
You can argue semantics until you're red in the fact. The existence of outliers is within expectations.
NO ONE CLAIMED THAT BEING A CONSTRUCTION WORKER IS IDENTICAL TO GENOTYPICAL SEX. You're fucking stupid. Stop replying to me.

>>8977758
Then why do fags act like girls and dykes act like dudes?

>>8977764
Their wiring is messed up.

>>8977758
You missed the clarification of "for the most part". I'm not denying that you can find links in male gender roles and female gender roles cross-cultural, nor that the sexes are the same cognitively, but that the gender roles we occupy are basically socialized and only exist due to culture. In the paper cited, it goes on to say, "However, the positive value of
objects for males and females in infancy may still be acquired
or experience-dependent. For example, parents provide children
with gender–congruent toys even during infancy (Pomerleau,
Bolduc, Malcuit, & Cossette, 1990) and toys may
acquire positive affective properties through familiarity or
associations with other rewarding stimuli (e.g., caregivers)." Not to mention the low sample size in the paper and how your conclusion massively overstates the effect this sex-linked divide affects gender roles in the real world.

>>8977752
>1)P is the entirety of what G determines, by construction.


>It is a triviality.
Then why is there no proof in your post?

If distinct variables effect P and X then they must be different. Culture can affect gender but not sex.

>>8977785
>If distinct variables effect P and X then they must be different
I am holding a revolver in each hand. One out of six chambers of each revolver is loaded. I do not know which one is loaded. I point both revolvers at my head and pull both triggers. By your logic, if revolver 1 fires but revolver 2 doesn't, some part of me will stay alive, since the revolvers are distinct variables, thus they can't influence the same thing (my head getting blown off).

>>8977783
>the gender roles we occupy are basically socialized and only exist due to culture.
False.
>>8977785
>Then why is there no proof in your post?
Because you're dumb?
>P is the entirety of what G determines
Whereby, if X is correlated with G, it is either a part of P (i.e. causally linked to G), or there is something else upstream of G to which both X and G are causally linked, which is not physically possible because
>Every organism begins from a genome.
>Culture can affect gender but not sex.
Culture is downstream from genotype.

>>8977353
If you are objectively a boy then I will call you a boy.

If you are objectively a man, I will not call you a genderkin wolf.

I can't make you call yourself otherwise, nor can you make me call you anything but a man.

If I'm my intention is to be polite, I'd call you a genderkin wolf and suspend objective reality.

If my intentions are irrespective to politeness, then you will be referred to your sex and nothing else.

I typically choose the latter, because in my subjective experiences, people who are non-binary are unnecessarily hostile towards me due simply to the fact that I'm a cisgender white male. For no other reason, I would add.

So I choose to not consider politeness, and choose instead to focus on objective reality. If you are a man, that's how I'll refer to you as.

File: 1477236584961.jpg (26KB, 588x586px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 588x586px

>>8977799
>If I'm my intention is to be polite, I'd call you a genderkin wolf and suspend objective reality.
>If my intentions are irrespective to politeness, then you will be referred to your sex and nothing else.
Just a thought: maybe they're unnecessarily hostile towards you because you're disrespecting them by rejecting their identity.

>>8977787
>By your logic, if revolver 1 fires but revolver 2 doesn't, some part of me will stay alive, since the revolvers are distinct variables, thus they can't influence the same thing (my head getting blown off).
What are you talking about moron? I didn't say distinct variables cannot influence the same thing. I said that if P and X have distinct variables they cannot be the same thing. I then clarified this by saying that culture affects gender but not sex.

>>8977866
How come gender is correlated with genotypical sex then.

>>8977869
Btw, I am >>8977790 not >>8977787
and I'm still waiting for you to provide a study that shows X (gender) is not correlated to G (genotypical sex).

>>8977790
>P is the entirety of what G determines
Sex is not the entirety of what the sex genotype determines. It is only the biological aspect. The question is whether gender is distinct from sex, not whether it's affected by genotype.

File: reason trannies are rising in numbers.jpg (603KB, 3333x2500px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 3333x2500px

>>8977000
I used to be conservative in this matter but now I believe that gender and sex are independent and that MtF trannies are girls.
The sexual revolution is to blame in my opinion

>>8977764
fags are turned into girls in Iran.
They just fix the problem once and for all with a sex change.
Because there are only 2 genders. Men and women.
Fags are mentally women and therefore need to be turned into women

>>8977799
>If you are objectively a boy then I will call you a boy.
>If you are objectively a man, I will not call you a genderkin wolf.
And how exactly are you going to objectively determine that someone is male or female? Appearance as we've already seen, can fail. You would be embarrassed to call someone the wrong sex, but how do you know what their correct sex is? If you asked them or someone around them, and they told you their gender rather than sex, would you be able to "objectively" tell? The whole thing seems silly to me, since the point is not to objectively categorize them, it's to refer to them in a way which avoids awkwardness.

>>8977906
Just call them what they look like.
If someone can't pass a girl, then they've done a bad job as a tranny

>>8977869
Because something can affect two distinct things. Anyway, as I already pointed out, the flaw in your argument comes from conflating sex phenotype with sex.

>>8977909
You would probably be embarrassed if you called a man who looks like a woman a woman and he corrected you.

>>8977913
then she's delusional

>>8977192
>It's a matter of being a decent human being.
>Humoring delusions is being a "decent human being"
Lol, and what a fucking retarded phrase that is anyway. You go to most other cultures around the world and humoring retards who want to be fairy faggots won't make you decent, it'll make you a retard just like them

>>8977204
See kids, when someone says go back to /pol/, they don't mean it because you are discussing politics on another board, they say it because you espoused politics THEY don't like!
So kids, when someone tells you to go back to /pol/ for not being a leftist parasite like them, call them what they are, a faggot!
Faggot

>>8977443
I am objectively a man. I can choose to act like a frilly little faggot woman. That won't make my gender a woman. Don't talk bullshit about "behaviour"

>gender
How annoying. Kys, troll.

>>8978095
>>>/pol/

>>8977661
Oh wow, because Greeks thought big penises were barbaric means batshit stuff like intersex and pansexual are legitimate things?

>>8977764
Fags act like girls because they want to, that's why they're faggots. That doesn't magically make them not men.
Shit, back in the day before people were batshit, they called manly girls tomgirls and left it as that. Nowadays that girl NEEDS a penis grafted onto her

>>8978128
Fuck off tumblrite
And telling me to go anywhere doesn't work queerboy

>>8977900
>my politics influences reality

>>8977910
>conflating sex phenotype with sex.
rofl. They are one and the same thing. One is just a more precise way of saying things.

>>8978182
woah haha calm down there cowboy

>>8977000
fixed, biological, MOSTLY binary with the exception of literal physiological hermaphrodites, who often only have one set of functional genitalia.

MTF trannies are literally just guys who cut their dick off or want to, lol!

>>8978520
>my politics influences reality
>implying a person doesn't choose what to believe what they think is the truth

File: 3306337063_a521e95943.jpg (23KB, 280x280px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 280x280px

>>8978541
pic related, it's you

>>8978815
> still this buttmad
try to take some deep breaths

>>8978164
I'm afraid you probably need to do more research on this topic: intersex is a purely biological term and you can see pictures of the genetic phenomenon if you'd like.
Before even talking about sexualities like pansexual, you have to talk specifically about gender and whether gender non-conformity exists. However, you completely miss my central point entirely in your response, glossing over the other, more extreme examples of masculinity and femininity being blurry when looking across cultures. Point being, if you believe that people can have mental instability from one gender identity (in the case of transgendered people) and that gender expression varies wildly across cultures, you can definitely accept the idea that gender identity isn't a rigid structure defined by sex organs.

>>8979342
i wasn't the guy you were arguing with, i can just tell you're that kind of person lol

>>8979556
> splerging and screeching
> arguing
what did he mean by this?

>>8978095
go back to /pol/ though

Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina. If you dont know if you are a girl or a boy, then you are super messed up on multiple levels of health. I see an opportunity for abuse and manipulation of society here. Go home fags, youre sick.

>>8979765
what if boys like to wear dresses and have long hair and play with dolls? What if boys like to cleaning, do laundry and cook?
what if boys want to wear a long white wedding dress and marry a boy?

>>8977000
I don't give a fuck, go back to /lgbt/ and take your pseudo-science with you.

>>8979550
They aren't blurry at all. You're clutching to some very rare practices and blowing them way out of proportion.

>>8977758
But then how do these kids know cars are masculine and dolls feminine? There's nothing intrinsically masculine in a toy car, especially for a kid before the age of 3 who just sees bunch of colorful gobs and not a car

>>8980276
Trucks are masculine toys by way of them being a male's toy of choice, dumb-ass. You can observe this in other species too. Men play to prepare for tool making, women play to prepare for childrearing. Shit's inborn. Deal with it.

>>8980295
so if a boy plays to prepare for childrearing, it means he's mentally a girl and should transition. Deal with it

>>8980621
No, it means he's exhibiting abnormal behaviour, and if it is persistent, it means he is mentally ill.

File: tfw 22 and you can pass.jpg (162KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 736x736px

>>8980664
no he's not mentally ill

>>8980667
<citation needed

File: reason trannies are rising in numbers (3).jpg (571KB, 3333x2500px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 3333x2500px

>>8980670
here you go. It's just my theory though

>>8980673
Well I guess that at least accounts for the higher number of MtF compared to FtM; otherwise a bit simplistic.

You could really put anything to describe the demographics that don't reproduce and It would still be as reasonable.
Example: heroin addicts | school shooters

If anything, you're stating that people make these choices after failing in societal expectations as means to cope; which implies it as a stress related mental illness.

>>8980686
It's only a natural development to the sexually free society.
Society isn't going to change to prevent this "mental illness" from propagating so the only thing we can do is not treat it as a mental illness and accommodate it as normal.

>>8980673
anecdotally, the only FtMs I know were REALLY hot and promiscuous as women

>>8980706
Girls have it easier all the time. Both as cis girls and as trannies

Sex is a biological reality. Gender is a social construct that should be abolished asap, as it only serves to promote archaic stereotypes.

Any "feminist" supporting gender theories isn't a feminist at all. Everything you see branded as feminism today is bourgeoisie idpol that has nothing to do with the female workers' emancipatory feminist struggle

>>8980694
>*"assuming I am correct,..."

>>8977000
biological thus fixed for the rest of your life. anyone who says otherwise is a literal faggot.

>>8980706
well anon. she is still genetically a woman so i would go for it

>>8980817
yeah assuming I am correct (and I am because I want to be for the sake of beta males everywhere).

>>8977533
>Most people I interact with accept my stance, the other side is almost entirely composed of ebil nazis like you

FTFY

>>8977000
Sex and gender are on a spectrum

Biology is an outdated concept and merely a social construct

>>8981023
Biology can proof nothing. It is not science, but fairytales.

>>8979788
Still a boy. If he believes that these behaviors change his sex, he is a retard and he is just validating old concepts of masculinity and femininity

>>8977000
>"uncertain" and "all" being the same peice

Pretty shit d e s u. There was another thread that argued that all you had to do to describe everywhere someone could fall was to have masculinity and feminimity as separate categories instead of things at the opposite end of just one scale. That way you have like a unit-square any individual can land on where the origin means youre a blank slate or something, and the opposite corner means youre some amaglamation of complete feminimity and complete masculinity (rather than 50/50, which would be the center of the square). Less complicated that the color picker in microsoft paint.

>>8977180
No but they ugly

That's pretty obvious that gender is biological.
Every single human bears as a female or male. No one can change it, including your own mind.

>>8981408
yes it can