If you polled Americans, I think most of them believe that "gender" is a more official synonym of "sex." The concept of gender as a social construct is too abstract for most people outside of brainwashed zoomers.
Gender and sex are supposedly different with gender being a social construct. However, if someone chooses a gender identity that doesn't align with their phenotype, you're expected to treat and refer to them as though they're the sex that matches their gender identity, and failing to do so is illegal where I'm from. So in leftist land, gender and sex are simultaneously different and the same. It's a deliberate obfuscation that keeps people uncertain and always walking on eggshells.
The intentional confusion is suuuuper obvious once you recall the decades of education around "gender roles." They already had a term for "socially constructed gender" but they jettisoned it because it prevented them from playing these power games via linguistic obfuscation.
Correct. Conservatives have been losing for 100 years. The fact society is where it is today isn't a sign of "winning", it's a sign of losing badly. We're just losing a little slower than before.
Call me when we reestablish the racial nationalist patriarchy with small government, eugenics, strict objective morals and high standards.
Conservatism is inherently a losing philosophy. It's accepting the liberal mindset of "We're on the right side of history!" at face value and responding with "OK but can we just slow down a bit?"
That would be inherently self defeating to Conservative ideology.
Conservatism isn't meant and was never meant to prevent progressiveness and maintain the status quo at all costs. That's shitty lefty doublespeak as usual. Conservatism inherently does not have a path "Forward" only a foundation upon which to erect should the country need a fallback.
The point for Conservatism was to allow progressive change to society GRADUALLY and carefully monitored to prevent a shit show.
I disagree with your "point of convervatism". That's more liberal doublespeak again. Much of the change that "liberals" push for are negative, period. There's no gradual about it. Conservatives didn't have apprehension and wanted to slow down change, they simply didn't want the change but slowing it down was all they might have been able to accomplish. Liberals thus push the concept that the change was inevitable but much of what has changed is not inevitable and we can change it all again to be exactly what we want not what liberals propose is an inevitability.
For example, there's nothing to stop us from banning women from working or relegating them to nothing more than property of men. There's nothing inevitable about modern feminism. We can do away with it for good and call the patriarchy, progress.
I mean you can disagree with it all you want, I am correct. Conservatism has never been opposed to change, just that change is promoted gradually and tested within the confines of the existing society. You can look up the mission statement of any historical Conservative movements ideological definitions and you'll see this. (Excluding pure Evangelical theocrats masquerading as Conservatives such as the "Freedom party")
Liberals thus push the concept that the change was inevitable but much of what has changed is not inevitable and we can change it all again to be exactly what we want not what liberals propose is an inevitability.
Except history itself has shown that they are in fact correct in that one avenue. The United States never would have been founded without progressive change and shift away from a Theocractic Monarchy that was Great Britain. Change IS in fact inevitable and the earliest Conservatives thought very pragmatically about this. Knowing society will change, it's best to try and control the vector and speed of change rather than prevent it entirely.
Now here's the kicker on how fucked up "Horseshoe" Theory really is, ready?
For example, there's nothing to stop us from banning women from working or relegating them to nothing more than property of men. There's nothing inevitable about modern feminism. We can do away with it for good and call the patriarchy, progress.
You are absolutely correct! However, you and I would no longer be Conservatives. We would be "Regressives" which is equal and opposite of Conservatives. The libs would then become Conservatives to maintain their tranny/feminism bullshit. round and round the wheelhouse goes....
It's all less about the political definitions and more that we all need to objectively agree on what is immoral bullshit.
I agree with your take on things. What conservatives need to become is regressives but again, this label is not good. See, the labels are inherently derogatory. There's nothing regressive about a patriarchy, it is the superior ideology compared to egalitarianism thus it is progressive to promote a patriarchy and regressive to promote egalitarianism.
This is the point I'm getting at, we need to flip things around so that liberals become the regressives in society and the "regressives" become the progressives. Feminism is regressive and patriarchy is progressive. We want to progress society, right? Then patriarchy is inevitable. Progressives believe in patriarchy. You're regressive if you promote feminism.
I think it can be an interesting area of thought if you aren’t trying to use it to push a revolution. I think it’s interesting to ask, how much of “femininity” or “masculinity” derives from the average biological makeup of females vs males, and how much is centered more on social choices/custom/etc. over time.
Unfortunately, almost no one wants to look at gender/sex questions outside the context of trying to push their preferred revolution.
When you study native tribes in the US you get an idea. I've been in several matriarchal societies and they all have the same roles as patriarchal societies. The only difference is the emphasis. It really annoys the tribes because the US will send people to talk to tribal members and demand to meet with a man as the leader and then try to lead the women in rebellion against the patriarchy. It's happened several times over the years and always ends with laughter at the fools.
But then you get into academic studies and they act as if there never was a matriarchal society and men have always been brutishly ruling over everyone. I gave a lecture once, and the moderator showed me the comments afterwards. It was entirely people quoting from textbooks or professors but no experience with the cultures themselves.
Depends on the department somewhat. I had an anthropology professor who, while rather far left-leaning, was also very socially conservative on specific issues. She brought up a few matriarchal cultures and what-not and emphasized motherhood a bit, yet while trying to get her doctorate thesis going she kept bumping heads with a bunch of career feminists who were essentially anti-motherhood in general.
She wasn't a TERF either, at least at the time, being a strong proponent of gender spectrum nonsense. I didn't entirely agree with her opinions on a lot of things, but I at least respected her as a decent person otherwise. But I won't deny that she was part of the same system that was actively brainwashing a lot of college students, even if she was well meaning and somewhat duped.
I have met people who study cultures directly and know what they're talking about. It's why I always check how they did their study first. I've discovered that people in other fields have no idea how anthropology or history work. Computer science is right out.
I've been told the only way to find out information is to sit in a formal interview to do anthropology. We haven't done that in decades. It doesn't work, because it's so out of the norm for the interviewee that they either lie or tell jokes the interviewer won't get.
Psychologist here! We've had this discussion for a LONG time and it's pretty well known. We call this "Temperament" and it is a non-static sliding scale throughout an individuals lifetime.
There are some objective items we have identified about human behavior. It is correct that gender ROLES are socially created. Though we know that the social construct behind those roles usually has some sort of sensible biological marker that based them to begin with:
Example 1: Males do heavy lifting because they are more built for it, but it doesn't mean woman can not do it. It's just a matter of what makes the most sense.
Example 2: Women are better at interior design and micro engineering due to having eye evolution that grants them access to a wider array of the color spectrum and more patience on average than a male.
The idea that "Gender" and "Sex" are completely separate entities is pseudoscience. Politically motivated leftwing folk deliberately twist the language to make their point. Whereas most Americans do and historically have used Gender/Sex as a synonymous term, the modern left wing have insisted that "Sex" is simply a verb and a noun and gender only exists as an adjective. They use examples such as:
Example 1: "Lol go gender with your dad!"
They do this to deliberately obfuscate the language to put their position as completely unarguable or unbeatable. It's called Weasel Wording or "Doublespeak".
Now as for the whole "Gay is a choice or make people gay" debate there is a whole host of evidence that supports a lot of points and the conclusion at present time is "We just don't know with certainty."
We know that 100% Hetero or Homosexual human beings don't really exist. Everyone is sort of in-between. We call this the: "Kinsey Scale". So we know that human beings can be somewhat malleable to either side.
We also know that sexual abuse at a young age is HIGHLY correlated with being gay later in life and also a high chance of being a sexual offender themselves. (Which is extremely sad I will say)
Transgenderism is where things fly off the rails.
Yes, Body Dysphoria is a real condition. People with Diabetes and other forms of "by proxy" weight gain often experience this and it leads to depression and all sort of other mental ailments which can be pretty easily understood without a medical education.
We know from a singular comparative study done in the United Kingdom that kids who identify as 'Trans' are usually just confused on who/what they are (Typical of teenagers in general.) and these kids usually grow up to be gay but associate their feelings as "I must be a woman because I like X".
Intersex people DO exist but account for around 1.3% of the entire human population and while having intersex traits exist there is in fact no "Third classification" of sex. We use a variety of panel test and psychiatric evaluations to best determine the sex the individual fits in the most with. These people often look nothing like a transgender as you know them today.
Ultimately, there will come a point in time in which technology is able to make transsexual transformation a reality in true form but at that point in time of singularity the discussion will be far less about transgenderism and far more about transhumanism.
As of now, lopping off body parts of which kids are convinced is the right move via cognitive behavioral therapy isn't just incorrect, it's ethically reprehensible and any medical specialist engaging in this should both lose their right to practice and be subjected to criminal action. This is the modern equal of lobotomy for the low IQ.
We also know that sexual abuse at a young age is HIGHLY correlated with being gay later in life
To play devil's advocate, I believe all he's saying is that the capacity for developing a philia for same-sex relations exists in everyone. There's no "gay gene" or "gay switch" from birth. As men we think we aren't into that shit and it's so foreign that we can't understand how a guy could kiss another guy. Some of us even admit that women are naturally "bicurious" but that it doesn't apply to bros. We see two dudes getting it on, we have a natural revulsion. While there could be a sex difference, it's mostly learned for both sexes. Anybody could be conditioned to like anything, especially from a young age. That's why grooming is so essential to propagate their degenerate lifestyles to the next generation. At some point your preferences will become more or less "locked" in place.
As far as Kinsey goes, you don't need to read that pervert's research to conclude that if the above assumption is true, there will be a spectrum of that conditioning in every individual based on their unique upbringing and experiences. So some people will be more amenable to developing same-sex attractions than others. That position on the scale is also locked in at some point. It's not a binary switch. That doesn't mean we can't define gay and straight as a binary without issue, based on behavior or stated preference. Zodiac can correct me if I misrepresented his or her position.
I disbelieve that women are more patient. My hypothesis is that they are more agreeable so will but up with more timeeasting bs than men if they feel that quitting carries a social cost.
Also how is "better at interior design" measured? That doesn't seem particulary objective.
And lul "kinsey scale" is serious quackery. All "sex studies" are just excuses for perverts to tittilate themselves using grant money.
99% of psychology is fake. The "real" stuff the CBT can be summarized by "stfu and gbtw".
This is a case where asking the question is pushing the subversive agenda, there is no way around it.
The answer to all of them is "Men and women are different."
Understand their behavior in terms of each other doeen't yield any useful results and pretemding it does will always eventually lead to damaging children.
Watch as someone who keeps championing "diversity" switches their opinion in quickly when you actually put them around blacks and Arabs.
Let someone hang out with a gay man for a little bit, and his lecherous behaviour will become a nuisance in short order, if not for the company he keeps, for the habits he maintains.
It doesn’t matter if they are afraid to speak up. I’ve noticed the majority of conservatives are skittish about talking about their beliefs. Talk around: you’ll be surprised who will speak with you and not against you.
now that they have been exposed to shit for some time, more kids get to see the effects of it rather than just hearing about it from their teachers. The things they see in here are more powerful than the things that they are told.
I tell people there is a third gender but humanity hasn’t discovered it yet. I figure that’s at least as likely as “non-binary” being a thing or dragongender and shit like that. (That is, statistically zero).
We are still losing as long as the concept of "gender" is taken seriously enough to argue about.
If you polled Americans, I think most of them believe that "gender" is a more official synonym of "sex." The concept of gender as a social construct is too abstract for most people outside of brainwashed zoomers.
This is absolutely the case, and leftists are not innocent in this confusion. They actively foster it so that they can agitate from the murky margins.
For sure.
Gender and sex are supposedly different with gender being a social construct. However, if someone chooses a gender identity that doesn't align with their phenotype, you're expected to treat and refer to them as though they're the sex that matches their gender identity, and failing to do so is illegal where I'm from. So in leftist land, gender and sex are simultaneously different and the same. It's a deliberate obfuscation that keeps people uncertain and always walking on eggshells.
The intentional confusion is suuuuper obvious once you recall the decades of education around "gender roles." They already had a term for "socially constructed gender" but they jettisoned it because it prevented them from playing these power games via linguistic obfuscation.
That's a leftist frame. confusing the definition of words. Having an opinion on gender regardless is a lose lose.
Correct. Conservatives have been losing for 100 years. The fact society is where it is today isn't a sign of "winning", it's a sign of losing badly. We're just losing a little slower than before.
Call me when we reestablish the racial nationalist patriarchy with small government, eugenics, strict objective morals and high standards.
Conservatism is inherently a losing philosophy. It's accepting the liberal mindset of "We're on the right side of history!" at face value and responding with "OK but can we just slow down a bit?"
Indeed. The right-wing needs to take the reigns of progress in their own path and force liberals to start calling themselves conservatives.
That would be inherently self defeating to Conservative ideology.
Conservatism isn't meant and was never meant to prevent progressiveness and maintain the status quo at all costs. That's shitty lefty doublespeak as usual. Conservatism inherently does not have a path "Forward" only a foundation upon which to erect should the country need a fallback.
The point for Conservatism was to allow progressive change to society GRADUALLY and carefully monitored to prevent a shit show.
I disagree with your "point of convervatism". That's more liberal doublespeak again. Much of the change that "liberals" push for are negative, period. There's no gradual about it. Conservatives didn't have apprehension and wanted to slow down change, they simply didn't want the change but slowing it down was all they might have been able to accomplish. Liberals thus push the concept that the change was inevitable but much of what has changed is not inevitable and we can change it all again to be exactly what we want not what liberals propose is an inevitability.
For example, there's nothing to stop us from banning women from working or relegating them to nothing more than property of men. There's nothing inevitable about modern feminism. We can do away with it for good and call the patriarchy, progress.
I mean you can disagree with it all you want, I am correct. Conservatism has never been opposed to change, just that change is promoted gradually and tested within the confines of the existing society. You can look up the mission statement of any historical Conservative movements ideological definitions and you'll see this. (Excluding pure Evangelical theocrats masquerading as Conservatives such as the "Freedom party")
Except history itself has shown that they are in fact correct in that one avenue. The United States never would have been founded without progressive change and shift away from a Theocractic Monarchy that was Great Britain. Change IS in fact inevitable and the earliest Conservatives thought very pragmatically about this. Knowing society will change, it's best to try and control the vector and speed of change rather than prevent it entirely.
Now here's the kicker on how fucked up "Horseshoe" Theory really is, ready?
You are absolutely correct! However, you and I would no longer be Conservatives. We would be "Regressives" which is equal and opposite of Conservatives. The libs would then become Conservatives to maintain their tranny/feminism bullshit. round and round the wheelhouse goes....
It's all less about the political definitions and more that we all need to objectively agree on what is immoral bullshit.
I agree with your take on things. What conservatives need to become is regressives but again, this label is not good. See, the labels are inherently derogatory. There's nothing regressive about a patriarchy, it is the superior ideology compared to egalitarianism thus it is progressive to promote a patriarchy and regressive to promote egalitarianism.
This is the point I'm getting at, we need to flip things around so that liberals become the regressives in society and the "regressives" become the progressives. Feminism is regressive and patriarchy is progressive. We want to progress society, right? Then patriarchy is inevitable. Progressives believe in patriarchy. You're regressive if you promote feminism.
Regression is definitely the better choice in a lot of areas. Progress is not inherently good.
I think it can be an interesting area of thought if you aren’t trying to use it to push a revolution. I think it’s interesting to ask, how much of “femininity” or “masculinity” derives from the average biological makeup of females vs males, and how much is centered more on social choices/custom/etc. over time.
Unfortunately, almost no one wants to look at gender/sex questions outside the context of trying to push their preferred revolution.
When you study native tribes in the US you get an idea. I've been in several matriarchal societies and they all have the same roles as patriarchal societies. The only difference is the emphasis. It really annoys the tribes because the US will send people to talk to tribal members and demand to meet with a man as the leader and then try to lead the women in rebellion against the patriarchy. It's happened several times over the years and always ends with laughter at the fools.
But then you get into academic studies and they act as if there never was a matriarchal society and men have always been brutishly ruling over everyone. I gave a lecture once, and the moderator showed me the comments afterwards. It was entirely people quoting from textbooks or professors but no experience with the cultures themselves.
Depends on the department somewhat. I had an anthropology professor who, while rather far left-leaning, was also very socially conservative on specific issues. She brought up a few matriarchal cultures and what-not and emphasized motherhood a bit, yet while trying to get her doctorate thesis going she kept bumping heads with a bunch of career feminists who were essentially anti-motherhood in general.
She wasn't a TERF either, at least at the time, being a strong proponent of gender spectrum nonsense. I didn't entirely agree with her opinions on a lot of things, but I at least respected her as a decent person otherwise. But I won't deny that she was part of the same system that was actively brainwashing a lot of college students, even if she was well meaning and somewhat duped.
Somewhat duped is half of academia. The other half knows and either chooses to continue or wants to sell it.
I have met people who study cultures directly and know what they're talking about. It's why I always check how they did their study first. I've discovered that people in other fields have no idea how anthropology or history work. Computer science is right out.
I've been told the only way to find out information is to sit in a formal interview to do anthropology. We haven't done that in decades. It doesn't work, because it's so out of the norm for the interviewee that they either lie or tell jokes the interviewer won't get.
Psychologist here! We've had this discussion for a LONG time and it's pretty well known. We call this "Temperament" and it is a non-static sliding scale throughout an individuals lifetime.
There are some objective items we have identified about human behavior. It is correct that gender ROLES are socially created. Though we know that the social construct behind those roles usually has some sort of sensible biological marker that based them to begin with:
Example 1: Males do heavy lifting because they are more built for it, but it doesn't mean woman can not do it. It's just a matter of what makes the most sense.
Example 2: Women are better at interior design and micro engineering due to having eye evolution that grants them access to a wider array of the color spectrum and more patience on average than a male.
The idea that "Gender" and "Sex" are completely separate entities is pseudoscience. Politically motivated leftwing folk deliberately twist the language to make their point. Whereas most Americans do and historically have used Gender/Sex as a synonymous term, the modern left wing have insisted that "Sex" is simply a verb and a noun and gender only exists as an adjective. They use examples such as:
Example 1: "Lol go gender with your dad!"
They do this to deliberately obfuscate the language to put their position as completely unarguable or unbeatable. It's called Weasel Wording or "Doublespeak".
Now as for the whole "Gay is a choice or make people gay" debate there is a whole host of evidence that supports a lot of points and the conclusion at present time is "We just don't know with certainty."
We know that 100% Hetero or Homosexual human beings don't really exist. Everyone is sort of in-between. We call this the: "Kinsey Scale". So we know that human beings can be somewhat malleable to either side.
We also know that sexual abuse at a young age is HIGHLY correlated with being gay later in life and also a high chance of being a sexual offender themselves. (Which is extremely sad I will say)
Transgenderism is where things fly off the rails.
Yes, Body Dysphoria is a real condition. People with Diabetes and other forms of "by proxy" weight gain often experience this and it leads to depression and all sort of other mental ailments which can be pretty easily understood without a medical education.
We know from a singular comparative study done in the United Kingdom that kids who identify as 'Trans' are usually just confused on who/what they are (Typical of teenagers in general.) and these kids usually grow up to be gay but associate their feelings as "I must be a woman because I like X".
Intersex people DO exist but account for around 1.3% of the entire human population and while having intersex traits exist there is in fact no "Third classification" of sex. We use a variety of panel test and psychiatric evaluations to best determine the sex the individual fits in the most with. These people often look nothing like a transgender as you know them today.
Ultimately, there will come a point in time in which technology is able to make transsexual transformation a reality in true form but at that point in time of singularity the discussion will be far less about transgenderism and far more about transhumanism.
As of now, lopping off body parts of which kids are convinced is the right move via cognitive behavioral therapy isn't just incorrect, it's ethically reprehensible and any medical specialist engaging in this should both lose their right to practice and be subjected to criminal action. This is the modern equal of lobotomy for the low IQ.
Pretty sure that’s fucking bullshit propagated by the rampant faggots infesting your field.
To play devil's advocate, I believe all he's saying is that the capacity for developing a philia for same-sex relations exists in everyone. There's no "gay gene" or "gay switch" from birth. As men we think we aren't into that shit and it's so foreign that we can't understand how a guy could kiss another guy. Some of us even admit that women are naturally "bicurious" but that it doesn't apply to bros. We see two dudes getting it on, we have a natural revulsion. While there could be a sex difference, it's mostly learned for both sexes. Anybody could be conditioned to like anything, especially from a young age. That's why grooming is so essential to propagate their degenerate lifestyles to the next generation. At some point your preferences will become more or less "locked" in place.
As far as Kinsey goes, you don't need to read that pervert's research to conclude that if the above assumption is true, there will be a spectrum of that conditioning in every individual based on their unique upbringing and experiences. So some people will be more amenable to developing same-sex attractions than others. That position on the scale is also locked in at some point. It's not a binary switch. That doesn't mean we can't define gay and straight as a binary without issue, based on behavior or stated preference. Zodiac can correct me if I misrepresented his or her position.
That information is older than modern identity politics so I highly doubt it.
If we were to discuss rise of transgender leaning feelings however.....
(X)
I disbelieve that women are more patient. My hypothesis is that they are more agreeable so will but up with more timeeasting bs than men if they feel that quitting carries a social cost.
Also how is "better at interior design" measured? That doesn't seem particulary objective.
And lul "kinsey scale" is serious quackery. All "sex studies" are just excuses for perverts to tittilate themselves using grant money.
99% of psychology is fake. The "real" stuff the CBT can be summarized by "stfu and gbtw".
This is a case where asking the question is pushing the subversive agenda, there is no way around it.
The answer to all of them is "Men and women are different."
Understand their behavior in terms of each other doeen't yield any useful results and pretemding it does will always eventually lead to damaging children.
True but I guess this is at least a little progress
It’s almost like the more time people spend around degenerates the less they want to keep pandering to them.
The antidote to the ideology of diversity...
... is being exposed to diversity.
This.
Watch as someone who keeps championing "diversity" switches their opinion in quickly when you actually put them around blacks and Arabs.
Let someone hang out with a gay man for a little bit, and his lecherous behaviour will become a nuisance in short order, if not for the company he keeps, for the habits he maintains.
It doesn’t matter if they are afraid to speak up. I’ve noticed the majority of conservatives are skittish about talking about their beliefs. Talk around: you’ll be surprised who will speak with you and not against you.
Wow. Nice to see
I remember when it was 100% across the board, and I'm not even that old.
If they're losing, I'd hate to see what them winning looks like
Your genes don't care what you believe.
now that they have been exposed to shit for some time, more kids get to see the effects of it rather than just hearing about it from their teachers. The things they see in here are more powerful than the things that they are told.
Damn near supermajority. 28th Amendment, here we come.
I'm glad the numbers are generally moving in the right direction, but we're still deep in Clown World.
MFW even Democrats are starting to get tired of this batshit insanity.
Gender to mean 'sex role' is a leftist perversion perpetuated by John Money, the most evil of 60s degenerates. Gender theory is all based on his work.
They are unironically right when they say 'gender is a social construct', because it does not exist. There are 2 sexes.
I tell people there is a third gender but humanity hasn’t discovered it yet. I figure that’s at least as likely as “non-binary” being a thing or dragongender and shit like that. (That is, statistically zero).
Women clinging to their privileges. There is only one gender, the other is [removed for Rule 16]
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: You can't violate Rule 16 if you removed the comment yourself.
literally Moclan