Whats the difference between gender and sex?

>Gender is people trying to turn Sex into an urban tribe.
Gender is another "politically correct" name for sexist stereotyping. It's purely disgusting and the people who apply it are horrible human beings.

This is a given. Obviously it's not normal to have gender dysphoria just like it's not normal to have Body Integrity Disorder. But here's a fun fact for you, do you know what we discovered was the best way to deal with body integrity disorder? Removing the affected limb. It's not an ideal solution, but ultimately ensuring the mental health of the patient takes priority and the same goes for trannies, if pumping themselves full of hormones and partaking in invasive surgery helps their mental health, who the fuck cares?
For those out of the loop, body integrity disorder is a body disphoria caused by a feeling of "wrongness" in an afflicted limb, it's your brain telling itself that the limb in question shouldn't be there, it causes severe distress and without remedy frequently leads to suicide. Many doctors give pause to actually removing the limb because 1. No one can see the mental anguish except the individual suffering 2. removing a limb is INCREDIBLY invasive and dangerous even in ideal circumstances, with a high risk for complication, infection, etc.

A "woman" may exist who meets #1 = F (apparent female) and #3 = F (genetic xx), but is unable to reproduce so #2 = ?? (nil, null, void, nada, zero.)

Is "she" still a "woman" ? Society would say yes... except in a reproductive sense. She's then a "failed female", functional in other expected ways but not capable of reproduction.

Take another example of a functional female who has #3 = F, #2 = F and #1 = ??. The "tomboy" for example. Is this a "real woman" ?

Society would answer: yes, this is a genetic and reproductive female that has a questionable physical appearance. Maybe she has small breasts, a deep voice, muscles and drives a rusty old pickup truck. Tank girl in other words. She also has a vagina that'll gobble your dick and absolutely absorb your sperm to produce triplets after a one-night-stand though.

Also she'll probably be on top and shout "OH FUCK!!!" a lot during her multiple orgasms.

100% female. 100% hot. I'm not even gay. I swear. Okay maybe a little. I want to have her babies.

>sex
your procreative biological designation
>gender
your sex
>"gender"
a meaningless term pushed by ivory tower morons that basically amounts to "mental sex" but is really just an ad-hoc idea to pretend transexuals are not necessarily mentally ill

Sex is biological while gender is a made up concept by Jewish Bolsheviks to disrupt the moral sanity of nations and decrease the birth rates in these nations. Pretty much trojan war horse tactics to destroy the nation domestically.

Attached: downloadfile-7.jpg (240x228, 11K)

based and redilled

>2. removing a limb is INCREDIBLY invasive and dangerous even in ideal circumstances, with a high risk for complication, infection, etc.

"Do no harm" simply doesn't allow for weighting differing amounts of harm. The proper procedure is to allow the patient to cope with their suffering (sedate them) and DO NO HARM. So in other words removing a limb is not sensible even if it "reduces suffering" in a subjective sense. It is not objectively reasonable to do so, it is actively DOING HARM without need.

A limb can be removed when the life or well-being of the patient is at risk.

In situations concerning quality of life this remains ethically questionable... it is simply not reasonable to remove a limb in order to improve quality of life without making a subjective judgement.

If we allow our ethics to be modified to allow for such procedures we need to also support assisted suicide: the suffering from living may be greater than the benefit of any subjective quality of life.

The problem is IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE SUCH SUBJECTIVE QUALIFICATIONS IN ANY OBJECTIVE MANNER.

Failure rate = 100%.

Some goys on here are just too blind and need to know the truth. My heart aches in pain to see someone so ignorant.

>Failure rate = 100%.
See here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy

What? Yes it does. Absolutely yes it does. But it's also down to the individual to address the level of risk and decide whether it's necessary given the circumstances. For example, my mother has had a multitude of ovarian problems for years, and of course she's just wanted to get her ovaries out, they tried every type of recourse available which caused further complications until finally deciding it was more feasible to simply remove them and monitor her further. The same goes for women who are high risk for breast cancer and get mastectomies. But this is why at the end of the day, the best recourse is to follow the same medical practice we've had for years. You work steadily up the rungs of potential treatements, escalating where necessary.

In 1948 Norbert Wiener, the author of Cybernetics: Or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, said: "[P]refrontal lobotomy ... has recently been having a certain vogue, probably not unconnected with the fact that it makes the custodial care of many patients easier. Let me remark in passing that killing them makes their custodial care still easier."

Attached: izana_3.png (1100x1100, 749K)

You're talking about risk to physical well-being. Without acting to "do harm" a greater harm will result. So the choice becomes CHOOSING THE LESSER EVIL.

In cases of sexual disfigurement and mental illness this is NOT THE CASE.

There is no objective benefit. It is not possible to quantify the cost vs. benefit.

>But it's also down to the individual to address the level of risk and decide whether it's necessary given the circumstances.
>escalating where necessary.
So you're suggesting we should allow anyone who seeks death to receive medical assistance in suicide?

Except there IS an objective benefit, we can SHOW less worse outcomes in transitioning individuals compared to those who attempt(and usually fail) to repress these feelings, because despite knowing exactly what body dysphoria is, and how to treat it, we're sitting around politicizing it. We understand, pretty fucking well actually, that this kind of mental image of the body not matching up with the body is a problem that can be solved through a combination of elective modification and psychology. Obviously they wont look like women in most cases, but the point is to get them closer to their perceived body image and counsel away the rest.
Obviously not because that's the worst possible outcome, it's the outcome we're trying to avoid in the first place.

You're right gender isn't real all that matters is chromosomes. That's why you're just as much of a man as a lisping pink wearing hairless faggot that only cares about fashion and sucking off dudes.

You're are both 100% men and 100% manly in the exact same way. Yeah totally.

Sex reductionism is stupid bullshit and has caused modern "men" to think they're just as much of a man as anyone else despite being weak faggots. In the 50's you were called a girl if you cried at after your dog died or couldn't throw a baseball straight. But now everyone wants to claim that dudes who chop their dicks off and are on female hormones and actually act like women are still 100% men. It's bullshit.

Here's the deal everyone is a woman until deemed otherwise. Small children of both sexes basically function as women and most modern made are pretty much women as well. Masculinity and the title of "man" is something that you have to earn and jealously guard not something handed to you at birth just because you have a dick.

This is the traditional view you modernist degenerates

>Except there IS an objective benefit, we can SHOW less worse outcomes
That's not objective. It's subjective both from the reporter (the subject) and the interpreter (those interpreting the reports, themselves also subjects.)

So there is significant bias at play and no reasonable objective measure of anything beyond the length of time a person lives.

Do you know how most people die? We put them to death in intensive care by opiate overdose. These deaths are misreported and attributed to underlying factors... but the fact is doctors inject patients that have no reasonable prognosis with fatal doses of medicine to end their lives before their quality of life crosses zero.

So you may not realize but we already do take such things into account... however, the only objective measure you have in cases of mental illness is the length of time the patient survives.

Look again at the history of lobotomy. Who is more likely to survive? An active mentally ill patient, or one lobotomized to the point of being in a permanent stuper?

The lobotomized patient will survive longer and will be easier to care for.

Does that make the treatment "right" ?

>Obviously not because that's the worst possible outcome, it's the outcome we're trying to avoid in the first place.
Now you're being completely contradictory.

Attached: slurpslurp.png (795x795, 487K)

They are the same thing user, it's like saying whats the difference between a square and a geometric shape with 4 sides of equal length.

It's objective in that we have pretty clearly lower rates of worst case outcomes. Obviously there's some margin for error, but at the end of the day if the end result is a lower instance of self harm? Its our best bet for now. We dont really have enough data to know how this will work out long term, especially with folks who's transitions may have gone well in their youth but who's looks will start to fade. But none of what you're saying seems to actually be arguing against my point that it's better to let the patients in question make the changes they want to their bodies if it helps their overall mental health. You're saying we should execute them before they have a chance to make the "wrong decision"?

>This is the traditional view you modernist degenerates
It's the sexist view. Too bad we don't have a time machine or we could ship you back to the 1950s to live in squalor where you belong.

>worst case outcomes

You're playing an arbitrary subjective value on "life". Someone like myself has the opposite view: I believe the less life the better. If I could throw a switch and eliminate all life in the universe instantly I would.

In fact if I could act to begin killing off all human beings regardless of the pain or suffering, I would do so.

You might question "OMG WHY? THIS GUY IS TOTALLY SICK!"

My question to you is: why not?

You're a child who has yet to come to terms with objective reality.

sex is the thing I have with your mom, and gender is the junk you're born with

>squalor
In the 50's a man could pay for a 5 member household with a job he got out of high school and have a wife that could keep the house clean and cook all his meals.

Did you confuse the 50's with the 20's? I'm guessing history probably wasn't your best subject in school.

>You're saying we should execute them before they have a chance to make the "wrong decision"?

No, you're the one being contradictory here. You're saying you want to allow harm to be done to these patients in order to prevent them from taking their own lives. At the same time you insist they ought to be making their decisions for themselves about whether to have harm done to them, including whether to live or not. Then you go on to say that we must enslave the patient and force them to live regardless of their subjective state or harm because we are trying to avoid their death.

Yet you are unable to extend that back to the beginning where you started in suggesting we allow the patient to decide whether to harm themselves?

Circular reasoning much?

Then clearly that's where we differ. You're cynical to a fault, and assume that because you couldn't turn your life around no one else can, no one else should try. If that's how you want to think, i can't stop you, no one can. But dont project your misguided notions on life onto other people.

>I'm guessing history probably wasn't your best subject in school.
I'm guessing you went to a public school and didn't learn anything.

Attached: akkotually_pp.png (700x700, 36K)

There isnt any but because it cant be argued that people with dicks belong to one group and people with vaginas to another, lgbt had to resort to changing definitions to try and say that a man can be a woman and vice versa. Which does not make sense. Even if humor you and say that gender is identity and sex is physical characteristics, that doesnt mean that one actually BECOMES or can become a woman or man from the other side. Look at it like this, an identity is just that, what we choose to associate ourselves as. Identity covers many aspects. Like your job, hobbies, financial status, etc. However your status is not so fluid, you will always have specific dna, you will always have your conscious, until you die. Your body will always have a propensity to exhibit certain traits. Anyways, the general vs sex thing is retarded. If a cow was dressed up, scented like, and treated like lettuce, would vegans eat it? No, because meat is still meat, no matter how it thinks or looks like.

gender is whether you have a banana or a donut. sex is when the boy pees in the girls bellybutton.

>But dont project your misguided notions on life onto other people.
Backing out of your circular reasoning argument by tossing your hands in the air only shows you're a coward.

You never stood a chance from the start. Get your thoughts in order before you profess them.

so you all are just gonna scroll past my diNOMITE joke fuck yall

Yes, too bad I didn't go to your private school that apparently taught you the great depression happened right after WW2.

lmao shut up tranny take your empty rhetoric to downtown queens where you can get fucked in the ass and get aids

>Yes, too bad I didn't go to your private school
Did you go to any school? You're straight out of the trailor park.

In the 1950s you probably would have died of some infection we're immunized against today, like measles.

Well GOOD NEWS!

You're going to have a second chance soon.

>that apparently taught you
youtu.be/aEtm69mLK6w

Nothing, but some retards with nothing better to do and no actual problems are trying to change the definition and make gender some fantasy label. Don't give them an inch, always ignore morons.

Incredibly based and undeniably redpilled.

Cringe. Medical advancement has nothing to do with economics. He is right and you are wrong. The 50s were an economic boom and people then were a lot richer than they are now. Suck it up and move on.

>>gender
>your sex
Just FYI: "gender" never meant "sex". Ever. Not even once, ever, for anyone at any time.

These are separate things. "Gender" is pure subjective. "Sex" is part subjective (interpretive) but also entirely objective in its two other senses.

The subjective portion doesn't discount the objective, nor vice versa. "Gender" is a valid concept although wholly subjective... just like the color of magic.

"Interpretive sex" is real, it's how people interpret your objective sex using their subjective perceptions, but it does not replace the objective facts.

Objective sex (reproductive and genetic) are wholly objective just like basic math. There are simple true or false (Boolean) conditions.

Gender was always another name for sexist cultural biases related to interpretive sex. ALWAYS. That has never changed.

The ones who want to change it to make gender == sex are the sexist retards who belong back in 1950s... or russia or something.

>Cringe post.
Nuff said. Who spoke of economics? I mentioned squalor. Like what's inside your mind. The hole beneath a shitter.

>color of magic
It was octarine, the colour of magic. It was alive and glowing and vibrant and it was the undisputed pigment of the imagination, because wherever it appeared it was a sign that mere matter was a servant of the powers of the magical mind. It was enchantment itself.
But Rincewind always thought it looked a sort of greenish-purple.

>Who spoke of economics? I mentioned squalor.
'avin a laff m8?

Attached: 10583736161.jpg (224x225, 6K)

>humans can exhibit seven or more genetic sexes
Wrong. There can be deviation from the standard XX and XY but this does NOT create a new gender. It's simply a medical condition and the person affected is still either male or female.

>Go back to highschool and take 7th grade biology
Ironic coming from someone who doesn't even understand it himself

Yikes... have sex, inceI.

>"Interpretive sex" is real, it's how people interpret your objective sex using their subjective perceptions, but it does not replace the objective facts.
Like that tranny you had suck your dick that night, then you smashed the lamp over "it's" head, then you spent three months in prison for assault and the tranny who "raped" you got off scot-free!

I'M TELLING YOU GUYS SOCIETY IS JUST FUCKED WITH RAPIST FAGGOT TRANNIES WHO DESERVE TO BE BEATEN TO DEATH ALLOWED TO WALK FREE WHILE I'M IN PRISON

>denying science
no wonder the right became a meme

>Wrong.
Repeat the same sentences you just said over and over until you realize you just contradicted yourself. Then take your head out of your ass and go on with your life as a human being rather than a dumb shite.

Lol I did not contradict myself anywhere. Sex is not intrinsically determined by chromosomes they're just strongly related. You're the retard who thinks there's more than 2 sexes (FYI nobody in the scientific world thinks this)

>Sex is not intrinsically determined by chromosomes they're just strongly related.
You're saying... okay, let me just get this straight...

That chromosomal sex is NOT determined by chromosomes.

Is that correct?

That wasn't even in my original post
Anyway yes, a female can have XY chromosomes and a male can have XX chromosomes.
Do you still think there are 7 sexes?

> a female can have XY chromosomes and a male can have XX chromosomes.
no

>Do you still think there are 7 sexes?
As I said I'm not sure of the extent of possible chromosomal sexes, but yes.

There are a lot more than two chromosomal sexes. There are actually around seven definitions of "sex" which is an abstract label applied to the combination at the top of a hierarchical tree of definitions.

Do you know what these words mean? I'm going to guess no.

Look up the SRY gene

>no
Being backward I wouldn't even point out, but you took the liberty so... but it hardly matters. I mean if I were a female I'd just be hunting for some hot cock and man hips with my big, meaty, veiny throbbing vagina.

>Look up the SRY gene
That's not chromosomal sex, that's endocrinological sex.

>chromosomal sexes
Stop with this bullshit. There's no "chromosomal sex", there's just sex. And there are only 2 that are recognised in the medical world.
>Do you know what these words mean
Do you study social sciences or some bullshit? You clearly don't study anything related to biology, if anything at all. I'm studying medicine and they've never sex out to be anything but the straightforward concept that it is.

>Stop with this bullshit. There's no "chromosomal sex", there's just sex. And there are only 2 that are recognised in the medical world.
Okay doc! I'll hafta take yer word for that while I pour meself a pint!

>chromosomal sex
>endocrinological sex
You can't just use an adjective and follow it with the word sex and expect it to be a serious scientific term.

>serious scientific
Forgive me I thought we were focused on being silly, I hadn't realized we'd become serious.

Attached: bpoop4.jpg (637x637, 51K)

>I'm studying medicine and
>...
>the straightforward concept that it is.

Please, just promise me, you will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever have anything to do with medical care for myself, my loved ones or really anyone or anything, ever, until you take medicine a bit more seriously.

Gender is a social construct that tends to be based on your biological sex.
Your biological sex is based on your chromosomes.

Attached: IMG_3217.jpg (4032x3024, 721K)

Not even that user but you are literally too stupid to even understand his argument, yet you think you know better than he does about medicine.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
No wonder why you can't find a gf

Sex is a very simple concept if you compare it to basically anything else in medicine. The idea of there being more than 2 sexes is complicating it for no reason.
When a person walks in they are either
>male
>female
>have a genetic disease and therefore can't be considered as belonging to a typical "sex"
Easy

If you just make up terms up and expect people to debate you on those terms real discussion becomes impossible. I don't know why you'd even want to argue about something scientific if you're not willing to use scientific terms

>>male
>>female
>>have a genetic disease and therefore can't be considered as belonging to a typical "sex"
So you're saying there are three sexes? ... just not four or more.

>If you just make up terms up
Check your books mate.

Attached: salty_sauce.jpg (600x608, 205K)

I can feed you the definitions:
Chromosomal = related to chromosomes
Endocrinologic-al = related to endocrinology, to greatly simplify: hormones

For example I might say:
>I do not like red or other low temperature hued houses.
Here is how you sound when you reply:
>There is no such thing as "hued" houses, there are only brick houses and wooden houses and brick houses are the best but wooden houses are fine if you're poor I guess.

If you don't understand a word that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or carry valid meaning. It just means you're a dolt.

Sex is what people obsessed with gender aren't having

None they're both spooks.

The third is not a sex. It is the equivalent of putting down N/A in a survey.

Please refer to Also learn the difference between term and word

Based and truthpilled
This guy is correct

chromosome related disorders arent genders retard

Attached: 1540637923879.png (645x729, 77K)

>chromosome related disorders arent genders retard
Do I have to put my handcuffs on your mama?

i have a gender but i dont have sex

sex is a biological term
gender are the roles/traits associated with a sex

Get a course in anthropology and, ofc, have sex

I've got this, and I've got a little bit more comedic take on it in a webm that's too big for /wsg/ and crossposting.

Attached: Origin of Transexuals.png (2191x3925, 1.44M)

Gender is if your female or male
sex is what incels don't have

Sex is ones intrinsic, biologically determined position on a binary.
Gender is the extrinsic expression of ones personality as informed by their sex, essentially various groupings of personality traits which generally coincide with the masculine/feminine dichotamy.

There isn't any. The idea that they are separate came from a psychiatrist who sexually and mentally abused two twins, both twins ended up committing suicide from the abuse.

Attached: David Reimer.jpg (468x550, 118K)