Gender is not a social construct: study from 2000 shows sexual dimorphism exists in 1-day old babies

[–]Meyright 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 50 points51 points52 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RockFourFour 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedXephosAB 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedXephosAB 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]420weedscopes 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TearShitDown 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Male_Positive 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Nergaal[S] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-redditardation- 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]-redditardation- 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]JitGoinHam -16 points-15 points-14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Apexbreed 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

"Gender is a social construct" might be the most misunderstood and misinterpreted sentence in all of gender politics.

The original intended meaning of that phrase is "the EXPRESSION OF GENDER is a social construct". And that's true. The idea that long hair and makeup and dresses and high heels all belongs to women, and that short hair and suits and appreciation of competition and sports all belongs to men, is purely a social construct. There is no necessary reason for it to be this way, and it could just as easily work the other way around.

Trans people make heavy use of this social construct. A trans woman is desperate to be recognized as a woman, so she will typically follow this stereotypical social construct as closely as possible.

But "gender is a social construct" was never intended to mean "there are no difference between the sexes" or "your gender can be anything you want it to be".

[–]harbo 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the-capitan 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

sexual ideals. that's what attracts a male for sexual activity. this is biological. our lizard brains equate this with sexuality in that she is being attractive because she wants to mate.

Right, but why are those the ideals? You could argue that long hair signifies her health and reproductive capability, and that makeup works the same way (hides flaws and makes her look younger/prettier/healthier). But then why isn't it standard for the men too?

And this still doesn't explain the clothing. Why do only women wear dresses and all kinds of fancy shoes? Why is women's clothing tighter, more colorful and decorated, and more revealing? It wasn't always like that.

There are explanations for most of this, but what the explanations add up to is "it's just a social construct, people long ago decided that the two genders should dress differently and certain things just ended up belonging on one side or the other". And because it's just a social construct, you aren't required to care about it, and everyone should be able to wear whatever they want.

But sadly, idiots misinterpreted it to mean all kinds of other nonsense instead.

[–]elonsbattery 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]elonsbattery 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mycroftxxx42 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]elonsbattery 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob1987 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]78sixup 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

feminists REALLY want to argue that nothing is due to biology.

This isn't really true. It would be more accurate to say they want it both ways. For example if some study claims that girls mature faster than boys, or develop reading skills faster than boys they will shout it from the roof tops, beaming with pride. However if it is claimed that boys are better at something it will be chalked up to "patriarchal oppression" of girls.

In fact feminism is deeply rooted in the idea of female supremacy. Elizabeth Candy Stanton, who founded the feminist movement in the US, wrote in her diary that "we are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men." The impetus behind first wave feminism was that women would "civilize" brutish men.

During the second wave this delusion morphed into patriarchy theory, ie all men oppress all women. The founder of the first gender studies course, Sally Miller Gearhart, actually argued in favor of male genocide. Mainstream feminists like Germaine Greer openly claimed that men were "defective" women due to their chromosomes. It was all based on junk science, junk anthropology and junk sociology, but then feminists have never been very good with facts.

The claim that feminists think gender is a social construct is false. They use such language when it is convenient to their purposes, but will turn around the next second and trumpet female superiority. The key in understanding feminism is that it is rooted in emotion, not reason or "oppression."

[–]bostonbob1987 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob1987 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob1987 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob1987 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob19870 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob19870 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bostonbob19870 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the-capitan 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Right, but why are those the ideals? You could argue that long hair signifies her health and reproductive capability, and that makeup works the same way (hides flaws and makes her look younger/prettier/healthier). But then why isn't it standard for the men too?

because men and women are different. also, water is wet. the obvious is not obvious to people willfully ignoring reality.

It wasn't always like that.

snore. you found a single example and think that disproves everything? women have been wearing buttressed waists with corsets since the dark ages.

it's just a social construct

it isn't.

everyone should be able to wear whatever they want.

sure, they can, but it's perfectly okay when people point out that obesity or dressing like an idiot or dressing like the opposite sex, IS NOT SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dis_mah_mobile_one 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You're right. Unfortunately, there are a handful of Luddites around here which are unable to recognize the difference between biological sex and social gender norms.

The worst of them seem to think this concept is "confusing society". Shit son, if you're confused about your gender, maybe you should be. Start asking questions! Your genitals do not define your personality.

Biologically, gender exists in more of a spectrum than a binary. Go ahead and take a spin, that's an international science journal with 20 citations. Prefer neurology? It's impossible to tell the sex of a brain from MRI scans because most people are a mosaic of male and female brain structures.

If you prefer something with easier terminology, have a look at National Geographic's extensive article.

OP needs to read more, is all.

[–]ProudandConservative 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I've read through the entirety of your first article

Doubtful. You clearly didn't even get to paragraph four, which contains the line:

What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body.

I mean, there's literally a section of the article titled "The sex spectrum"

Here's another quote from the article you didn't read:

Since the 1990s, researchers have identified more than 25 genes involved in DSDs, and next-generation DNA sequencing in the past few years has uncovered a wide range of variations in these genes that have mild effects on individuals, rather than causing DSDs. “Biologically, it's a spectrum,” says Vilain.

So yes, while the article focuses on the 1 in 100 people with full blown DSDs, it very explicitly states that certain genes express in a wide variation which have more mild effects than a full blown DSD.

The other articles you didn't read go into the subject further about brain anatomy and the history of social roles.

So no, "the opposite conclusion" is not right. Stop lying.

[–]ProudandConservative 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I have no reason to lie. I read the article, so stop being such a passive aggressive asshole.

First of all, that passage from the article you're quoting does not support your conclusion. Everyone is indeed made up of genetically distinct cells, but how do you get from that to gender=spectrum. Also, how do our cells have sexes? Is the study talking about XY/XX chromosomes in our cells; what makes something male or female?

Again, the second quote doesn't really support your thesis. In fact, because you ripped it from it's context, I don't even know what it's saying.

I believe both you and the article writer are twisting the research to fit your agenda, because I'm seeing little support for the idea that gender is completely non binary and instead exists on a spectrum. The reason I say the opposite of your claims is true is not because I'm lying, it's because that's what I'm seeing being presented to me. It seems like the researchers/scientists agree with me on these things.

There are two genders.
Some people are born with, or aquire diseases that give them traits of the other gender.
Not all people have these diseases.
Seemingly most people are born completely "normal", and their sex is in line with the rest of their bodies and personalities.
Their is some research to suggest some people might have very few female/male traits in their body that may not have necessarily come from some sort of disease, but again, I'm not sure how this means gender exists on a spectrum. In fact, I'm not even sure how we're defining gender here. I think this is where some of my confusion might be coming from, because it seems people are mixing up, or just blatantly misunderstanding gender and sex. In fact, what the hell does gender on a spectrum even mean? For all I know, we might have completely different ideas of the concept.

All in all, this is a reasonable discussion I'm trying to have with you so I think it's completely uncalled for to accuse me of being a liar. I will remain courteous but will actively remain in the discussion because of my curiosity on the subject, and I just hope we can have a meaningful conversation about sex and gender together.

[–]Clockw0rk -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProudandConservative 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]pepti315 points 9 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for needling u/Clockw0rk on this one! His/Her posts are so irrational. I was actually hoping they would have some decently insightful things to say but then again...feminism.

[–]Clockw0rk -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pepti3150 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

The idea that long hair and makeup and dresses and high heels all belongs to women, and that short hair and suits and appreciation of competition and sports all belongs to men, is purely a social construct

I question that!

Short hair, appreciation of competition and sports are direct consequences of the role men had e.g. in hard manual labor or war. And men are suited for these jobs because of biology! Suits are a form of uniform. Maybe a form of modern warfare?

Long hair, makeup, dresses and high heels are all things which are not pacticle for hard manual labor. Only privileged people were able to wear those things in the past!

Biological differences formed gender expressions! So they're are not a social construct, but a consequence of biology!

There is no necessary reason for it to be this way

Not anymore! But saying this is a social construct is misleading.

[–]illHitABitch 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]Nergaal[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Dude, you are countering an actual scientific study with a "funny" YT video. Noice!

Anyways, video doesn't mention heels and makeup, so 2/3

And arguing that clothes coloring was tested in the 50s when literally only mega rich people could afford any coloring before then is relevant. For millenia humans did not have the option to choose colors, so the fact that it took a few decades to stabilize the preferred colors is not surprising. Plus there are tons of studies proving males find females dressed in red more attractive; and pink is very close to red to the human eye. Not sure why males started prefering red females, but if that is indeed true, female brain choosing young to dress in a red-like color is not surprising.

But please don't mind me. Go on with your narrative-taught explanations because a YT guy said it.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Dude, you do realize you are being extremely superficial?

he smoky kohl liner they wore served both practical and ritualistic purposes. It was thought to repel flies, protect the eyes from the sun's rays and ward off infection

You are comparing NLF "makeup" to women's lipstick. One is functional, one is meant to enhance physical attractiveness. You do realize that Egyptians were pretty much the first to invent cosmetics. Every discoverer tests its invention for a while, until the best use is eventually chosen. Cars when invented looked like horse carriages, but not anymore. Are 1800s cars a proof that the shape of the cars these days a social construct? Or actual functionality after sequential optimizations?

There is a long list of reasons why females use makeup to market their availability visually. Males rarely get attention visually so it's normal that biologically there is a reason to men generally not using makeup.

[–][deleted]1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]illHitABitch 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]derpylord143 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

its probably more naunced with regard to make up and heals than what Illhitabitch is making out (women also wore a ton of make up as well, im only aware of higher class males wearing it though and predominantly in very hot countries, the assumption most people i know of make is that it was aimed at protecting the skin, but these were just generally school/college teachers, nothing "academic", as opposed to female prostitutes, serving girls etc. heels i dont know about) heels i dont know about but im assuming the same applied (no farmer could possibly wear heels, nor would a blacksmith want to, nor would a armoursmith, skinner, butcher, or anything involving loss of life or limb (basically every middle and lower class job historically before the industrial revolution), the issue of colours is true but i lack the sources to back it up.

[–]Nergaal[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

its possible, but its also possible you are conflating our societies values and theirs... back then they didnt have a garuntee of having "everything they need" most people wouldn't waste money on wants, unless their lives were going well, good harvests etc. its entirely possible that they did own or partake in such activites, im merely saying that it would seem strange in a world where everything was generally based around what was "needed" not what was "wanted" that they would be willing to spend money on items such as high heels and make up when they were entirely impractical, the only thing that i can think of that might prompt such, is if they owned them for religious purposes (which they considered a need because being non-religious was generally shunned). like i said, its merely a matter of possibility (youll note i never asserted anything as fact just a probability).

[–]Nergaal[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

where did i assert that owning things didnt make you more "attractive" to women. my point was, that unless you had money to spare, which most of society back then didnt, you wouldnt own them, the middle classes possibly did have enough for a little make up and cheap high heels, sure, i could accept that, but it wasnt the "norm" as such to own them, it was a privilege that only small parts of society got to benefit from, you dont judge a society based on what a small group of people dress in, otherwise our society dresses like this: http://cdn.fashionisers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Giorgio_Armani_spring_summer_2016_collection_Milan_Fashion_Week1.jpg now dont get me wrong, a small portion of the female population does dress like this at times, look at film premiers, all sorts of funky dresses on show there, but in general that is not the case.

A lot of women wore make up, because make up was beneficial to womens work in attracting or pleasing males, the same wasnt true the other way around. in fact the one society (or group of societies) that i know which had make up as a tradition for all females (pre-industrial revolution asia) used lead which was both cheap and poisonous...

this is what i meant by conflating our values and theirs, back then they put a lot more emphasis on what was needed and not what was wanted, much like how we often look at historical societies through the lenses of "rights" when those societies judges individuals based on "responsibility", it makes no sense to disregard their position and reasons for holding that position.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lrellok 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lrellok 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lrellok 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]twomillcities 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]perplexedm 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Male_Positive 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theprodigy_11 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]JitGoinHam -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Kravego 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't it already illegal to discriminate against sex or sexual orientation?

No! It's only illegal in the blue states.

What do you mean by federally protected classes?

We need laws that protect LGBTQ people from discrimination in red states, where they need that protection the most. Federal law only outlaws discrimination against "protected classes": race, color, religion, nationality, sex, age, military status.

That sounds pretty much like feminists special priviledges 101.

I'm sure feminists want to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination as much as anyone else does. I'm not seeing how keeping someone from getting unfairly fired or removed from their home for being transgender is a special privilege.

...but I question that they wouldn't get their right in court!

It's pretty simple. It's because that kind of discrimination is 100% legal. Laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination were sponsored by democrats and blocked by republicans.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]twomillcities 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dorgalg 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]twomillcities 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrandPoobah_ 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrandPoobah_ 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrandPoobah_ 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GrandPoobah_2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JitGoinHam2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]twomillcities0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]twomillcities -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheSummerain 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]similarsituation123 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gender dysphoria is.

Gender identity disorder, or being transgender in general is not.

I am a conservative transgender. Believe it or not it exists. Sex and gender are separate things and this is agreed upon by the medical and psychological community.

Gender does fit on a spectrum. Most people are not 100% either gender.

Even though I'm trans and identify as a woman, I still support mens rights. I absolutely hate these "trans-trenders" who think being trans is cool. It's fucking not. With therapy I've been able to understand how this has been a part of me my whole life, even though i couldn't realize it before.

Hell, there's a ton of trans people on /r/TumblrInAction who agree with my points of view. Even though that sub tends to make fun of these crazy feminists and trans-trenders, otherkins and the like.

Gender identity issues are a real thing. I'm not crazy because of it. But Damn if it hasn't been a huge part of my life. Thankfully i have a supportive wife and family. I'm also high functioning, about to finish my undergrad and goto grad school to be a therapist.

I'll be happy to answer questions to help those who don't understand or struggle to. It's a difficult thing to wrap your head around.

[+]HelmetTesterTJ -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meyright 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bonzaibananarama -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To think gender and sex are anything but the same is to think for the hundreds of millions of years we've been evolving there has been a need for more than 2 sexes to propagate. To come to this notion one would also have to ignore sexual selection techniques, dominance hierarchies, physical attributes, and a plethora of other well-known and documented fields of study.

"But you're erasing intersex and trans people"

Yes, because they are an anomaly of such insignificance they are at most a genetic flaw or deformation. I do not aim to remove their humanity, but the low-down of it all is anything other than XX/XY is an abnormality of 1/5000, or 0.02%.

"But other societies had multiple genders"

They sure did. They also burned wives alive along with their dead husbands, considered gay folks to be another gender, and largely used them in ceremonial areas.

To think we're even having this discussion is absurd. Gender is a spectrum? Perhaps along dominance hierarchies, sure, perhaps in areas of interest too, but to suggest a male/female can exist full on each other's sexual areas (best wording I can do at this hour, I'll fix it later) is foolish.

[–]Liv47 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nergaal[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Liv47 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Gender is not a social construct: study from 2000 shows sexual dimorphism exists in 1-day old babies
Author	Nergaal
Upvotes	144
Comments	153
Date	March 14, 2017 10:59 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5zbgge/gender_is_not_a_social_construct_study_from_2000/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/gender-is-not-a-social-construct-study-from-2000.929156 https://theredarchive.com/post/929156

Comments