Do people actually dispute the genetic reality of human gender?

Do people actually dispute the genetic reality of human gender?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4556901
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

kek doesn't

They believe biological sex is different to gender. A pile of crap nonetheless.

question:

what do hermaphrodites chromosome look like?

What gender are they considered to be?

If it contains a Y chromosome it is male. If there is no Y it cannot be co sister Male

That happens due to not fully functioning Y chromosome. So it will always have a any combination of X and Y chromosomes. It doesn't matter if you are XY or XXY, having Y chromosome develops male characteristics.

There are different genders tho. People have legit identity and sexuality disorders.

On the one hand, if they clearly indicate that "gender" is whatever you want it to be, it robs the entire "transgender" thing of its validity.
Because something that's anything, is really nothing.

The danger lies in the trannies conflating gender and sex.

As in "my child is transgender, so xe needs to have xir penis removed".

If you follow the definition of "gender" as the trannies themselves like to use (i.e. divorced from biology), surgery and/or hormone treatment would make zero sense.

As in:
>I can have a female gender and have a penis at the same time, so I need to have my penis removed to be female.
Completely contradictory.

So sex is biological, and gender cultural.

So what's the problem with calling a trannie a "man" when that's obviously his biological sex?

Say you have a large residential building. In certain contexts you would call it a "mansion" or a "villa" or something, but it's still correct to call it a "house" too.

In other words, a "transgender" can never require hormone therapy or surgery.

Because that would mean altering one's biology. And as we learned, "gender" has nothing to do with biology, since it's purely a social construct.

As soon as a person wants to do hormones or surgery, that person is a "transsexual".

We here don't distinguish between sex and gender. Or rather, we don't have a word for gender.

I have a dude with tits working the front desk of my security office.

I think im going to go on a spree

reality is a social construct designed to oppress

Well that's a transsexual, not a transgender.

And you can still call him a "he", since it's still biologically (genetically) correct.

Tumblr whales obviously

Let me strawman for a moment:
>But Y gene is tiny therefore men are tiny.
Women have two copies of the X. The second copy is mostly useless.
Men have a copy of X and Y. The Y is additional genetic information.

Even if you discount the fact that the Y is filled to the absolute limit with genes that change every part of the human body the fact is men have all the female genetic information plus a certain amount extra therefore proving that men are superior to women.
Also this explains why realistic androgyny related illness trends towards the female side and why liking traps isn't as gay as liking Canadian lumberjacks.

gender= social\cultural , has nothing to do with genetics.
it is,the genes dont code for the culture\customs associated with the social construct of the gender .that is if a human group is somehow raised isolated from the rest of human culture and thus from gender they will still be men and women but they wont assume the exact social genders we have in our society.

the connection between gender and sex is that in human society the faminine gender is associated with people with female bodies and the male gender is with people with male bodies.

the distinction between gender and sex is important but nevertheless people wanting to be the gender that isnt associated with their sex is not normal.

my libtard friends believe men and women are identical

Well that can be true if you want it to be, but only when it comes to GENDER (which is cultural).

When it comes to sex (i.e. biology), it is not true.

No. Its transgendered.

Dude with tits. Its transitioning. It calls itself a girls name.

And yet it functions in society better than I.

I think im going to just be homeless.

>needs to have penis removed
well it might be one of two things
either they are a dude but wanna be faminine and shit so they want to also look like a woman.this is purely psychological.

or they have a rare condition where they are disassociated with their male body parts(the same kind of neurological disassociation that can 'tell' your brain only have one arm so the other feels like a weird tumor growing in you)

Gender= a synonym of sex until this fucking year.

...

They make delusional mental gymnastics to justify it which never make sense with any amount of thought
Hence
The specific "transgender" people have a mental illness related to body dysmorphia and need help. And no enabling their delusions and illness through hormone"treatment" and sex changes isn't help that is like saying that this woman is treating her body dysmorphia by getting larger and larger breast implants

Yes I know huffpo but who else did you expect to cover this kind of stupidity
m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4556901

I'd be OK with a weird tumour growing on my left stump if it was another arm. Functionality>all.
Heck I'd have another pair of arms growing from my sides if my brain can cope with having more gaming hotkeys mapped.

this gender shit doesnt even make sense, either you are born a man or a woman, you cant choose

...

...

...

because genders are associated with the sexes a person might want surgery to make himself look like the normal people of that gender.

its a purely superficial cosmetic procedure and dosnt change your genes or biohemistry.

that's why the whole thing of calling trans people differently is bullshit .if there was a word for whatever gender they identify as i'd have no problem saying that . but 'he' refers to biological males and 'she' refers to biological females .

the problem isnt trans people or people that dont call them what they want the problem is language .we still dont have words for people that are biologically neither sex (extremely rare).

Gender is a social matter, not a biological one.

If someone says they are "transGENDER", that has nothing to do with biology.

Say you have a guy who had surgery/hormones to become more female biologically.
If that person then says "I'm transgender", then "she" is saying "she" is a woman who has the male gender.

That is complete bullshit. Its a dude with tits.

Just understand that "gender" is whatever you want it to be, it's a cultural thing by definition.
So they can go around saying "male and female genders are identical" if they want to, culture is created by humans so they can do whatever they want with it.

Don't be afraid, everything still makes perfect sense, and trannies are still retarded psychos. This whole gender/sex argument still blows up in their faces whichever way they turn it.

Oh, and you're also human, so you can just as easily say "male and female genders are very different", and you'd be just as correct as they are.

So it's an 'identity/sexuality disorder' because people are acting like it's just a 'different Identity/sexuality' that doesn't require treatment. Like how schizophrenia is a 'different way of thinking' and treating it would be schizophobia.

its not a synonym for it its just that 99.999% of the time you see a manly looking dude he's gonna be biologically male and do cultural things dudes do.

the word gender always referred the the cultural part associated with different sexes its just that people usually didnt think of people that culturally identify with the gender that isnt associated with their sex because normally this doesn't happen.

>Its a dude with tits.
Exactly.

It's a biological man who underwent surgery to become more like a biological woman. A transsexual.

Anyone who has had hormones/surgery is BY DEFINITION no longer a transgender, but a transsexual.

>"gender" is whatever you want it to be
so it literally has no meaning?

Yes.

Something that is anything, is really nothing.

You can use this against them.

> if my brain can cope with having more gaming hotkeys mapped.
the whole point is it cant .your brain neurologically thinking you have a 'weird tumor arm' means the 'hotkey mapping' is fucked and the circuits in your brain that interface with hat arm arent working correctly .

i guarantee you that ANY person with this condition would want to have the disassociated bodypart amputated in a heartbeat .you simply cant comprehend the feeling of your brains 'mapping' of your body not matching your actual body.

Also, you can still call obvious dudes "men" all you want.

And the best part is: you can use both gender and sex as justification for still calling them "men" against their wishes.

1) Sexual justification: "you simply have male genetics, XY"

2) Gender justification: "gender is a social construct. I am a member of society, I can construct it any way I want, and to me you are a man. Stop oppressing me by making me conform to the terminology of your social construct."

It's beautiful.

Even if all it can do is hold your beer after being set up with your other arm it's still a bonus.

I don't believe XYY is exactly normal, at the least XYY's are tallet on average, and there is plenty of evidence they are more aggressive and exhibit other especially "male" traits.

what about xxy xyy xxxxxy yyyxxxxxx yyyy ?.

and technically defining sex with chromosomes is incorrect.its true that in 99.999999% of cases chromosomes or bodies are strongly correlated with maleness\femaleness but the actual definition of sex is the size of your reproductive cells .
smaller then species median=male.
bigger then species median=female.

if you literally have no sex cells(accident\surgery\whatever ) you are literally sexless .

To add to this: since gender is a "social construct", which means that you can invent as many of them as you want, you could claim that "faggot" is a gender.

You could simply go around saying men who act/dress (partly) like chicks are faggots. There are even massive amounts of well-documented precedents for this. You could almost say it's deeply ingrained into modern culture.

And whenever someone says you can't use that word, tell them it's insensitive and oppressive of them to make you conform to the terminology of their social construct.

Leftists here are playing with words and conflate culturally assigned expectations with behavioral characteristics. So, they say that pink for girls is a social construct, and it is correct. But than they drag into it behavioral characteristics of men and women. Thing is, that expectations from gender is a social construct, while behavioral are not, it's a "breed". Even if nowadays woman are expected to do same shit as men, they will do this same shit differently due to their behavior. Just look at how women store things and men in one bag. Even cucks still show male behavioral patterns.

>what about the one in a 6 million?

>if you literally have no sex cells(accident\surgery\whatever ) you are literally sexless .
Well no, that would be like calling paraplegics "non human" because they aren't bipedal.

What matters in definitions like human or sex, is the general principle and characteristic.

A woman who is born infertile (bless her heart) is still a woman, even if she can't technically bear children.

Sociology took the definition of gender and changed it for their practice and are now trying their damdest to make it the primary definition for everyone

They usually just have 2 copies of the same Y unless something especially weird has happened so their behaviour shouldn't vary much from a normal XY.
XX combinations generally have two separate X (one from the male, one from the female) so this influences various aspects which are different between the two. As a shitty example if one X gives big tits and one gives big ass but the guy has a Y as well then you end up with a guy that suffers manboobs if he gets a bit fat and has an ass that American's love.

The funny things is that while they constantly yell that gender is cultural certain aspects of what they call gender are actually biological.

Male and female brains work in very different ways and largely defines how you act, speak and what your interests are. I imagine this movement was started by a few people whose interests slighly deviated from the norm. The idea that gender is cultural/sociological is only partially correct.

>guy who had surgery/hormones to become more female biologically.
no he doesn't the very idea of becoming 'more of some sex' is astronomically absurd with today's technology.
transgender guy = male that wants female gender.so he wants to act and look like and be treated like people of that gender (all cultural things), thats why he wants all the surgery .


if someone was transsex he wouldn't give a shit about tits and vagina he'd want eggs.

>I Fucking Love Science.
>except darwinism because it implies race and certain aspects of biology because it implies gender/sex

Easier to just not associate with people like that, but I agree with the sentiment.

t. a delusional tranny

Yes you can invent genders, but you can't invent a behavioral patterns. Even if you are an attack helicopter, you would still behave either masculine or feminine. Those tumbler birches may claim everything they want, but they still behave as women.

No, I dispute the "right" trannies demand, to be able to dupe other people into treating them as if they are the gender they select, up to and including forcing men to marry them and try to start a family with them, only to be told after 20 years "haha, you were fucking a guy all this time and now you're too old to have a baby without mental defects, SUCKER!"

>no he doesn't the very idea of becoming 'more of some sex' is astronomically absurd with today's technology.

There's no denying that surgery and hormones bring men closer to the biology of women. This is simply a technical truth.

>transgender guy = male that wants female gender.so he wants to act and look like and be treated like people of that gender (all cultural things), thats why he wants all the surgery .
Wrong.

Gender is a social matter, by definition it cannot have anything to do with biology.

As soon as physical changes are made (surgery/hormones), that makes someone transsexual.

Well, whenever I can't get a straight answer, I've taken to asking "Do you, or do you not have a Y chromosome?"

sex = your genetics

gender = cultural expression

your sex can be male and your gender can be female if you're trans for example

> become more like a biological woman. A transsexual.
there has literally been no case in recorded history of a human being transsex and the very notion is absurd .

wanting purely cosmetic secondary characteristics =! wanting different sex.
female = eggs, anything else (bodyshape,tits,pussy,anything) is some secondary bullshit that evolved because it made the eggs more successful.

if we make transsex technology you could literally have a big manly looking person with a large dick that cums eggs and it would be 100% a woman. THAT would be transsex.

>I dispute the "right" trannies demand, to be able to dupe other people into treating them as if they are the gender they select
As is your right.

The "social construct" argument works both ways. You are a part of "society", therefore you can also construct it any way you please.

Feels over reals m8

>Gender is a social matter, by definition it cannot have anything to do with biology.
When did the likes change the meaning of this word?

>gender= social\cultural , has nothing to do with genetics.
t. schlomo

>there has literally been no case in recorded history of a human being transsex
I agree that it is impossible to fully change your sex. To date at least.

But there is no denying that breast implants, vaginoplasty, hormone therapy, ... bring men closer to the biology of women.

you wouldnt be able to do shit with it without your brain neurologically bluescreening.
read up on it its interesting shit.

>xxy xyy xxxxxy yyyxxxxxx yyyy
these people are broken genetically just like trannies are broken mentally.

Just accept it. It only makes things worse for them.

See and

And yes, they say that gender is performative, but it has to be authentic. Otherwise you just pretend to be someone you are not, just like closet fags try to imitate "masculinity"

If they want to debase the term gender, let them.

Remember that you can interpret and create "genders" any way you want.

Personally, I'm a fervent proponent of the three-gender principle: male, female, and faggot.

Maybe with a provision for actual unfortunate people who were born with an obvious biological disorder.

The meaning of that word was changed because kikes and the mentally I'll decided to start using it incorrectly. If there's nothing wrong with that, then there is nothing wrong with us using its original meaning "incorrectly" to reclaim the word.

im speaking of the rigorous biological definition of sex. no sex cells = no sex.
when you call someone without sex cells a woman your referring to that person having a body that kind of looks like the body most people with female sex cells have.

that person is NOT a woman by the sex cell definition but normal everyday language is a clusterfuck that calls both the female sex,the gender associated with it and people with secondary sexual characteristics associated with is 'women'.

the word 'woman' in everyday use refers to a gorillion things and most arguments about it happen when the two sides refer to different things .

if you want to discuss anything you first need to disentangle these clusterfuck words and be clear what you're referring to.this is one area where i think being autistic about definitions will save you 95% of arguments, where both sides are right but refer to different things by the same words.

Agreed, there is no such right. If you want to call me a guy, it's your right to do so.

I don't proudly advertise that I'm a tranny (that would be pretty fuckin counterproductive considering the whole concept of 'gender dysphoria'), but I wouldn't hide it if asked, and anyone I know on a personal level generally knows. Duping guys isn't a thing as I'm not attracted to guys in the first place and don't put myself in situations where it could potentially happen.

If gender just means sex, why would there be two words?

I think gender always had something to do with the roles of sexes in society as determined by culture.

Just accept it, it works out beautifully.

Only xyy is fertile. The rest are genetic malfunctions. They are literally too rare to make an argument out of.

they're not 'genetically broken' the only reason they arent the majority is that they cant reproductive compete with xx and xy's which have a symbiotic relationship.

maybe some ultrarare xxxxxxxxxxyyyyy are perfect ubermensch better then xx and xys and produce a gorillion perfect fit and ultrasmart kids asexually. it IS possible but unlikely.

>they're not 'genetically broken' the only reason they arent the majority is that they cant reproductive compete with xx and xy's which have a symbiotic relationship.
literally genetically broken

drink bleach faggot

Sex was the scientific term and gender is the colloquial term. There are literally hundreds of examples of this.

>im speaking of the rigorous biological definition of sex. no sex cells = no sex.
Breasts, hormone levels, vaginas, ... are all part of that definition.

Again, I agree that it is impossible to fully change your sex.

I am simply saying that surgery and hormones are physical/biological measures that are meant to bring men closer in biology to women.

The point is that social matters (like gender) are simply cultural conventions. Biological traits like breasts are NOT cultural conventions.

>People have problems in their brains
>this means there are more than 2 genders

No

Learnt a little about this in my film studies class.

The female gender is a social construct as someone who presents themself as ready for dick. The male gender is of course, the fucker. I imagine genderfluid is someone who changes between the two or more ? :S depending on tides or whatever.

I firmly believe gender is something you're born with because biology wins lmao.

It is a very good system. Faggot is one who has a linear composition of two poles - male and female. People simply cannot invent a 3rd independent gender, it would always be a mix of two main ones, in behavioral terms at least. Masculine is rigid, feminine is fluid etc. male is sun, female is moon.

Definitions do change all the time, there is no argument against that.
Let them have their definition. It only makes things worse for them.

Science is also a construct, it's not truth at all. Only pure logical constructions can be truth, I.e. Math.

>men closer to the biology of women.
no, if you can cite one case where a man became a woman please do because i'd be extremely interested .
a man isnt a woman by the sex cell definition or chromosomal definition of sex no matter how many surgeries or hormones he has . he might look to other people like most women look but biologically i'v never heard of a case that a man became a woman or anything 'close' to one.

that being said im not sure what happens to chimeras when you fuck with hormones and what about chimeras that are both male and female by the sex cell definition.

>Gender is a social matter, by definition it cannot have anything to do with biology.
you're absolutely right .but what im saying is that surgery to make yourself look different is still a social matter.
nothing about that person changed other then he butchered his body to look different to maybe be treated different .

you are correct in saying that hormones\surgery constitute a biological change but its still not a change of sex so he's still transgender and not transex.

Science is applied maths and no current scientific theory has been disproven.

The decimal system is based on the amount of fingers we have. Even math is definitely a social construct.

So by SJW logic, you can say 1+1=3.

How would trans/non-trans homosexuals fit into that?

Not all gay guys are effeminate, and most don't crossdress.
Male-to-female transgenders that don't lust for dick exist.
Most lesbians don't want to be guys.
etc.

Yes you can but you don't get my point. It's a build up on some axiomatics. You can build your own system on the other axioms. What is derived from them is not a "social construct". So you can make up such axioms that would explain "them" as well

>no, if you can cite one case where a man became a woman please do because i'd be extremely interested .
I said twice already that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to fully turn into a woman.

What is undeniable is that giving a guy breasts, a vaginoplasty, female hormone levels, ... makes that man CLOSER to being a biological woman.
The same way climbing a ladder brings you closer to the moon, but closer nonetheless.

>surgery to make yourself look different is still a social matter
No it isn't.

Behavior is a social matter.
Surgery/hormones is a physical/biological matter.

The SJWs have gone through tremendous effort to divorce the term "gender" from biology, and it blows up in their faces big-league.

They all are, "masculinity" of gays is just a mask, a "dress". Hence Muslims, who try to act macho in order not to be called weak fags.

>But there is no denying that breast implants, vaginoplasty, hormone therapy, ... bring men closer to the biology of women.
yes, these but these things are only changing secondary characteristics.

people undergoing these procedures are not 'becoming more women-like'.
they are becoming 'physiologically more like the bodies women have'.

i think what you and i disagree on is the nature of the changes. im saying they're purely cosmetic since they dont do anything to try and actually make him a woman and you're saying physiological change = more like women.

you are correct in the broad everyday definition of 'women' but im talkinga bout the autistic rigorous definition of 'women'.

You see, you are using Zeno paradox here to prove your point.

>yes, these but these things are only changing secondary characteristics.
Absolutely, but they are definitely physical/biological characteristics.

>they are becoming 'physiologically more like the bodies women have'.
Yes.

It's all superficial, but very very physical nonetheless, and that's all that matters.

SJWs are saying "gender is a social construct" because they know they have no leg to stand on when it comes to biology (sex).
Therefore, they are NEVER going to say "gender is also a physical construct".
Therefore, you can make the case that transgenderism BY DEFINITION excludes surgery, hormones, ... and pertains ONLY to behavior.

Not sure what you mean, but there is a definite paradox here:

>pre-surgery man: "I'm transgender"
= he means a woman

>post-surgery man (now a woman according to law and his own logic): "I'm transgender"
= he still means a woman, but since he is a woman he is actually saying he's a man

Oh, I see what you mean. I don't lust for dick and I'm not attracted to guys, though.

Achilles and turtle. Distance between sex poles can not be crossed.

>Breasts, hormone levels, vaginas, ... are all part of that definition.
not at all
female= a living organism that is a part of a species that has sexual dimorphism that is on the big-sex-cells side of that dimorphism.

that is the DEFINITION of female .anything that it applies to is female and anything that it dosnt isnt a female .

tits,hormones,vaginas,all that shit is called secondary sexual characteristics and are STRONGLY CORRELATED with female sex but a person with tits vagina and hormones that you did some wierd genetics on and made them produce sperm is male BY DEFINITION.

you use the same word for both things everyday because they re 99.99999% correlated but they are not the same thing.

>Biological traits like breasts are NOT cultural conventions.
true but the biological changes are meant to trick you into identifying them as the other sex and socially interacting as if they are.
you are right in saying that what they're doing also has biological components but they dont change sex and the reason for the changes they make is their end goal which is social.

You're being very problematic right now.

yes, and it's quite sad

X is all the same, so a man can also be a woman
but a woman dont have Y, so she cant be a man.
Lesbians confirmed for being a hoax!