For thousands of years, philosophers, poets, artists, geneticists, chemists, physicians...

If you identify with another sex it is obviously related to the behavior and sexuality of that sex.

A lot of people in victorian times thought that clothes made the man or woman; literally.
you could get a permit to cross dress and enter womens' only/mens' only spaces because of it.

I see you're illiterate and blinded by your burning hatred of "trannies".

>to dismiss outright the possibility that gender might be separate from sex is ignorant and arrogant.
I don't get it op, you saying sex is a social construct or w/e?

too many buzzwords for me

Untrue or there wouldn't be gay trans men and lesbian trans women.

I'm saying we shouldn't just do the pigheaded "muh peanice and vagenis" shit every time somebody defies our expectation of gender. It's brainlet shit.
I think that we should actually explore our social norms, not ignore them because we;ve always done it that way.

It is also interesting to look at Victorian ideas of how homosexuality worked.
People back then believed that a homosexual woman was clearly a man and as such was expected to dress and act the part.

It is an odd mirror of the way people look at gender today, with how you cannt be girly as a man or masculine as a woman, without people trying hard to push the trans label onto you.

Why not? Being a gay man is a sexuality that is tied to men. It's not the same thing as being a straight woman.

Nah. I read your entire post. It was still retarded, and did nothing to disprove that gender is literally just societally expected sex roles. There is no such as thing gender. Gender = masculinity or femininity.
No matter how you dress or """"""identify"""""", you will never, ever, ever be a different sex from the one you were born as. Even if you transition and take billions of hormones.
You can tell someone's sex solely by looking at them on the street. I've been able to recognise hundreds of trannies IRL. Your secondary sex characteristics will never, ever change. You can tell someone's sex usually just by looking at their face, eyes, or frame.
This entire thread was utterly pointless and it seems you just made this thread to validate your delusions and desire to be the other sex. I'd recommend extensive psychiatric help and self reflection.

>defies our expectation of gender.
jesus fucking chirst fag, dumb down your argument for me.
wtf do you mean by "defy our expectations of gender"

he means cute boys with long hair

so he is saying we shouldn't assume they are fags right off the bat?
if so he has a point I guess.

I recommend you read some box on this subject you are clearly very passionate about, instead of learning about it through your shitty disinfographics

What it means is that he thinks gender has some sort of personal significance or value, and that gender (i.e societal expectations of one own's sex on how to outwardly perform, behave, and dress, such as machoism for males and femininity for females) is somehow relevant or proves that being a man or woman is a complex thing beyond the realms of biological sex, which is objectively and scientifically false, and he thinks anyone who does not perform their sex in a stereotypical fashion, either through behaviour, clothing or sexual orientation, is "challenging" the way he thinks we should look at biological sex.

In short, he's a retarded faggot nigger, like all trannies.

I'm trying, I'm sorry
I think when we see a tranny we shouldn't be like "wtf freakshow" and we should use our big brains to think about how they are actually people just like us.

victorian crossdressing is intensely interesting to me, in both the parallels to modern times, and also the differences.
I am trying to write a story about a woman in the 1800s who poses as a man to become a doctor and manages to hide her "condition" by self-treating her illnesses.

this is what I am saying.

It does have personal significance and value which is objectively true, and I'm not a tranny.

well that sums it up pretty well, tx fren.
>how they are actually people just like us
I think it just biological/evolutionary to be creeped out by trannies tobequitehonest.

>It does have personal significance and value which is objectively true
Not really. Conforming to whatever you've been taught and brainwashed to follow since birth is not valuable. But either way, gender expression is essentially worthless and meaningless considering people will still treat you accordingly to your biological sex. You aren't being revolutionary by choosing to dress or behave differently during one day.

How do you define gender and how do you define sex?

>Conforming to whatever you've been taught and brainwashed to follow since birth is not valuable.
i almost thought you were going to follow this with something intelligent.
also nobody is suggesting a woman in trousers is in any way "revolutionary".

Attached: 946.jpg (500x565, 18K)

I don't know! That's why it's so interesting, because it's something nobody can agree on but everybody is extremely confident about.

>I think it just biological/evolutionary to be creeped out by trannies tobequitehonest
No, it is 100% a social concern. People have very strong internalized dislike for the idea that you can "switch" gender roles as you want, because they are indoctrinated with the fact that these things are immutable.

not today
70 years ago, though.

Well, your first priority should be to define them both and state what they are when you begin these sorts of arguments.
Or else you will instantly run into misunderstandings and have fruitless discussions since you are arguing with people who have an understanding of what gender and sex are that is different from others.

>No, it is 100% a social concern.
then why am I not creeped out by 100% passing trannies?

I wasn't actually trying to start an argument, I am just saying that it's healthy to question things like this and the general hostility toward people exploring their gender is brainlet-tier.

>"-to dismiss outright the possibility that gender might be separate from sex is ignorant and arrogant."
You have a funny way of not starting arguments if you start a discussion with insulting everyone who might disagree with you.
Especially when you do not have a definition of sex and gender, but are still convinced that the possibility that they are seperate must be considered.

Because it doesn't trip your internalized belief about gender roles. You can plausibly deny that they are trannies.

>Because it doesn't trip your internalized belief about gender roles.
what does gender roles have to do with me staring at what I believe to be a woman?

Attached: 1540603436015.jpg (1080x809, 72K)

I am not insulting people who disagree with me, sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm saying that people who are convinced they are right with no evidence are stupid, regardless of the side they take.

I still don't get what these fucking people want.

I want it to be okay for boys to be cute and girly and not gay so I can have a cute bf.

please go away

I'm not a tranny if that's what you mean. I've just been really interested in victorian crossdressers lately. look up Dr. James Miranda Steuart Barry.
it's just incredibly fascinating to me.

So, you start a discussion with no definition of sex and gender. Yet you are confident enough about your viewpoint of sex and gender that saying that they are not seperate is ignorant.
And you also start by calling people arrogant and ignorant while talking about a topic of which you yourself have no idea and cover it up by saying that you only call them that if they outright dismiss the possibility of sex and gender not being seperate. A viewpoint no one had taken yey by virtue of you starting the conversation.
I have no idea what you were expecting from this thread.

it's up to the individual to define them currently.
>talking about a topic of which you yourself have no idea

Attached: no.jpg (540x523, 45K)

only SJWs and MGTOWs read gender studies

Women are weaker thats why women dont do anything physical, like constriction workers the women always just hold the sign. There how can you say women and men arent different.

How can you have a discussion about a topic if you have no clear definition about what the topic is in the first place?
It is the obligation of the one who starts a discussion to make sure that what is being talked about is clear to everyone joining the conversation.
Or else we get nonsense screaming contests of people who do not even know what they are talking about.

It has nothing to do with behaviour. Don't be a nominalist, realism is the only way to go.

yes and realistically speaking gender IS a performance.

You're not even curious about it?

yeah I feel ya, I'm a constriction worker and women can't handle the squeeze.

I started the thread to hear peoples' opinions, knowing that many would conflict, but intending the conversation to stay civil.

How is it a performance? I haven't made up my mind either way. I am just curious, this seems like a very victorian attitude.

>"for thousands of years, philosophers, poets, artists, geneticists, chemists, physicians, psychologists and writers have been exploring what it means to be a man or a woman.
to dismiss outright the possibility that gender might be separate from sex is ignorant and arrogant."
This is not an invitation to discussion. This is making a statement that sex and gender should be considered seperate and that people who do not agree are stupid.
First you start with a sentence that says people in well respected positions for a long part of history have been asking what it means to be a man or woman. This implies that this question is shared by our brightests and best minds. With the obvious implication that people who do not consider this question do not belong to these groups of people.
While there is no shown evidence to back this up or how many of these people actually seriously considered this gender and sex question in the past.
Second of all you have a rather insidious argument in the second sentence. You say that people who dismiss these claims outright are ignorant and arrogant. The juxapostion with the first sentence implies that intelligent people see a difference between sex and gender, while stupid people do not. This is shuffled under the rug by saying that people who "outright" dismiss it are the only ones who are being ignorant and arrogant.
Of course there is no mention of people who asked the question and still came to the conclusion that sex and gender are not seperate while belonging to the philosophers, poets, artist etc. Or the people who outright claim that sex and gender are seperate without any evidence.
These two statement do nothing but incite angry debate between the ones who agree and the ones who disagree. While not even POSING the question of wether sex and gender are seperate, but making a value statement about the people who ask the question and the ones who don't.

Attached: xrvdhk[1].jpg (512x358, 31K)

bitch, i said might be.

Your opening statement still had loaded language that would incite angry debate and was still a value statement about the people discussing the definition of sex and gender instead of an opening to discuss sex and gender.

Fucking based debate club poster.

Attached: 1553653784191.gif (220x164, 242K)

All of this sounds very nice, if you assume debates to be formal exchanges of ideas between equals.
However the value-asserting opening statement explicitly bars people who do not have certain cultural and philosophical knowledge from engaging in the debate. This is not a bad thing, when you argue about complex questions that have been addressed by many different people historically with a person far less knowledgeable on these cultural contexts than yourself boils down to handing your opponent a reading list and telling them to come back when they read it.

I would not for instance be willing to argue with you about the implications of ligandfield theory, because I recognize the fact that you are lacking in prerequisite knowledge to even engage with the subject in a meaningful way.
The "debate" would just be me teaching you about the thing and telling you to read the textbooks.

This idea of needing some eligibility to speak about certain subjects addresses your first issue with the opening statement. The implication is that if you do not know at least a few of these concerns and explorations you are not educated enough to contend the subject matter and you should accept your role as the good student and ask what books to read. This is one of the major concerns with internet debates, people won't read primary literature, especially books. Because reading that is difficult and not very fun.

Your second concern is very cute, but ultimately it shows that you have trouble interpreting text.
The implication is not that people who say "X isn't true" are ignorant, but that people who do not have the prerequisite knowledge required to engage with the question AND assert that "X isn't true" are ignorant. And it is hard to find fault within that statement.

I would suggest you watch the debate between Zizek and Dr. Lobster. It clearly shows that you require a certain authority to speak on complex issues.

This discussion has been you being btfo and dodging questions. Not you teaching anything to anyone.

Why are you assuming me to be OP, just because I have gripes with the idea that everyone in a debate is equally valid and valuable? Debate club kids are unaware of the realities of academic discourse. There you will not be heard unless you can prove that you are worth listening to by providing appropriate accreditation. So what indeed is wrong with asking people to have read things.

And I have not seen anyone getting "btfo" here either. People dropped their concerns after being taught what OP's statement actually means, for instance here .

You don't see it because you lack the prerequisite intelligence.

Struck a nerve, did I?
You seem quite angry about this.

Seems like you're now projecting your butthurt about being btfo.

Maybe you should stop projecting your own projections.

I wasn't projecting. I was explained why you think I am angry for pointing out that you do not have the necessary intelligence to see how you have been blown the fuck out repeatedly.

>I wasn't projecting
If that's all it takes to prove that you aren't, then naturally neither was I. Funny how it goes, eh?

>you have been blown the fuck out repeatedly
To me it seems like the idea that you need a certain authority to engage in discussion just made you really angry.
So I guess I "blew you the fuck out", yes?

You: You seem quite angry about this.
Me: Seems like you're now projecting
It's quite ironic that lack the intelligence to tell the difference between projection and explaining.

>You: You seem quite angry about this
>Me: Seems like you're now projecting
Funny, how in your recounting of this exchange you conveniently leave out your reply that made you seem angry.
Let's try looking at the complete exchange:
Me: You need similar status to discuss things, because otherwise there is no point in discussion
You: You (not me btw) repeatedly got "btfo" and didn't feel it necessary to educate people on a complex subject
Me: That wasn't me and why do you have a problem with the fact that all people in a debate are not equal?
You: You're stupid
Me: You're angry
You: You're projecting
Me: no u

With the full context this looks quite different, doesn't it? Makes it seem like you're a bit angry.

You're stupid is not a projection.
You're angry is a projection.
Please read a book before we continue this discussion.

What is the point you are trying to make here?
That "no u" is not a worthwhile argument? That is correct, but then neither is "you are stupid".

That you do not understand what a projection is.

user, any "no u" statement is obviously drenched in irony. The fact that you don't recognize this discourse pattern suggests that you may have difficulties interpreting social interactions.

Yes. Or maybe your behavior is odd because you're a subhuman tranny.

How odd that an autist is calling anyone subhuman.

Have fun killing yourself in a few years.

Better to die than live as a subhuman.

>gender might be separate from sex
Its not and even if that were the case people would just cheat the system, they would identify as w/e they wanted depending on the circumstances to gain certain advantages.

Attached: 1554626204419.jpg (1024x1012, 89K)

No one is dismissing that idea, you idiot. As long as a single person subjectively identifies as not-their-sex gender, it's obviously the case that those things can be separate.

What people disagree on is whether genders are "real things" or just mental states based on psychological issues (or genetics, or whatever you want).

History, biology, and statistics, all indicate the same answer, but that is for another time.

Attached: funnies-2016-politics.png (1080x1057, 642K)

come on, it's all about how you feeel

>brain scans
so does that mean gender isnt a spectrum, you are either gender a or gender b?

you're just replacing penis and vagina with arbitrary abstract traits and brain scans

You have explicitely stated that you have no definition of gender or sex. So by your own admission you should exclude yourself from the debate when you start it with a value statement like that. This is an self defeating stance to take. You can't make a claim like that, follow it up by saying you have no definition about the topic being discussed and then demand people read up on literature on the subject so they can be on "even" ground with you.

Second of all, if you want to start a discussion with people who have a back ground in the cultural and philospohical context you want to talk about, it is also self defeating to start a thread about it in a forum where the posters are anomynous. Why would you ever start a discussion like that in a public anomynous forum and expect this to fly? Know your audience!

Next to that, the value asserting start was ALL that was stated in the opening text. Nothing was said about sex and gender ONLY a value statement about what kind of people discuss about it. So, you are right, this whole thing did not start of as a debate, but as nothing more than insulting people. Not the position someone who claims to want to have an intellectual debate should take if they are serious about it.

As for my second concern. You would have more ground to stand on if not for the fact that you suspiciously only said people who dismiss the statement that gender and sex are different outright are ignorant and arrogant. While not mentioning that people who say sex and gender are different outright are not also ignorant and arrogant. Not to mention the explanation I gave about the subtle insult of mentioning that well respected people discuss it that implies that stupid people do not think about it.

Attached: 1456965546364[1].jpg (392x500, 18K)

ok retard, go back to /lgbt/

Attached: 8020e637-4fa9-4da5-af97-79f19af574ef.gif (500x281, 893K)