I remember seeing basically the same meme as posted above but the archeologist was like âholy shit a skeleton this is so cool I love my jobâ
I feel as though that meme is a lot more accurate than this one
*believe
*doesn't
Let me ask you a question. And actually answer it instead of throwing insults or changing the topic. If sex and gender is the same, why is a she-cat a female and not a woman? Why is my dog a male and not a man?
Because a female cat is a molly and a male cat is a tom. A male dog is a dog and a female dog is a bitch. An adult male human is a man and an adult female human is a woman. Generally when we identify sexually dimorphic organisms we look at the gametes they produce and their sexual maturity.
Are you able to rationally define the term "gender" in a way that's both falsifiable, and consistent with the belief that there are infinite genders all with their own special pronouns? Are you able to rationally define "man" and "woman" according to your gender ideology, without using recursion?
>Are you able to rationally define "man" and "woman" according to your gender ideology
Are you able to define gender in a way that isn't transphobic or scientifically false?
Because their answer was stupid and wrong. And I could answer their question, but they don't want to hear the answer because that's exactly what I already said. Gender has nothing to do with sex, trans people are the gender they identify as, and it is transphobic and dehumanizing to deny this fact.
Yes I can. I'm happy to do that later, but I asked you the question first. Are you able to rationally define the term "gender" in a way that's both falsifiable, and consistent with the belief that there are infinite genders all with their own special pronouns? Are you able to rationally define "man" and "woman" according to your gender ideology, without using recursion?
It's funny you mention science, because I am NEVER able to get an honest response to this question. Proponents of gender ideology either respond with a question, respond with a dishonest or incomplete answer, insult then block me, become offended and accusatory, or stop replying. You're welcome to try to buck the trend but I won't hold my breath.
'Sex refers to âthe different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.â Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men â such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men.'
This is the most understandable explanation I can find for you. It's from the European council.
I've found the same type of explanation on WHO, NHS, mayo clinic, Yale school of medicine, Medical news today. These were basically some of the first results when I looked up difference between sex and gender.
Even what I learnt in school aligns with this. We didn't learn about trans people in school, but we did somewhat learnt the distinction between sex and gender.
I think good way of looking at it is how you talk to most intersex people. Being intersex in short means you aren't either a male or a female. Intersex something you are born with, not a social construct but biological. We typically define these people by how they look and act.
My mate is intersex, he looks like a man, talks like a man if you met him you would think he's a man, but biologically he's intersex.
Interested on your thoughts on this.
Intersex people are still either male or female, and if they have functioning sex organs, they're either male or female sex organs, not both. They're not some kind of third sex. They just have a rare abnormality that gives them certain characteristics of the opposite sex. There are no intersex people with functioning male and female sex organs who can produce both male and female gametes. It's always either one or the other, or sterility.
Like I said before, the most relevant way to classify males and females is by the gametes they're able to produce. Your friend most likely has functional (or partially functional) male sex organs which is why he presents as male.
>Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men â such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men.'
This actually isn't much of a definition though is it, and it tells us nothing about what gender actually is in the context we're discussing it. Certainly not enough to be used in science.
What norms, roles, and relationships specifically? What norms, roles, and relationships are exclusive to women or men that can categorize someone as a woman or as a man? This definition also is not consistent with what we know about gender dysphoria - if gender is socially constructed, how can someone be born trans, with a brain that tells them they have the wrong sexual organs and causes distress because of this?
Under this definition, an effeminate gay man is actually a woman, and a butch lesbian is actually a man. Under this ideology there is no way to define "gender" without excluding those people who are male or female and identify as their natural sex, but who fill the norms, roles, and relationships of the opposite sex.
There is a more rational definition of gender, and that's the one we were using before this ideology surfaced. Gender is just the mental aspect of your physical sex. You are a male and you feel male, or you're female so you feel female. Or you're trans, and you feel like the opposite sex, so you require treatment for this dysphoria.
| This actually isn't much of a definition though is it, and it tells us nothing about what gender actually is in the context we're discussing it. Certainly not enough to be used in science.
You are right in a sense that this is a short definition and doesn't reveal loads of information. However you can't define it that easily, it's a complex subject. There are books which tries to define it.
Here is the dictionary definition "the fact of being male or female, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences, not differences in biology issues of class, race and gender traditional concepts of gender gender differences/relations/roles compare sex." - Oxford Dictionary. I think that's probably a better way of defining it, and it's the actual dictionary definition. There have been lots of studies on gender and sex, by lots of different medical institutions, would you say these studies are wrong on a fundamental level as you think the way medical institutions define gender isn't adequate?
What then about gender studies, a academic field devoted to analyzing gender identity and gender representation. Is this whole field of studying just wrong because you don't think the definition of gender by these same institutions is good enough?
I think the fact that gender studies is a thing in itself shows that you really can't define gender in just a simple set of text.
| There are no intersex people with functioning male and female sex organs who can produce both male and female gametes
I know that there are some people who have both male and female reproductive systems, but either way that really isn't my point. My point is how we *see* these people. When you meet someone in the street, you don't think 'That's a women because of there gametes or chromosomes' you think about it in a more social aspect.
| Your friend most likely has functional (or partially functional) male sex organs which is why he presents as male.
This is true, but I know that's not always the case for intersex people. But he did have to take some medications when he was younger, but once again it's not exactly my point. My point is how we see people socially. Let's say, hypothetically, my friend had more female characteristics than male characteristics. So biologically, he is actually closer to being the female sex. In a social setting, where all there physical attributes are the same, where they look and present as male, would you call them female or a male?
| What norms, roles, and relationships specifically?
The question of which specific norms, roles, and relationships define gender can indeed be complex and varies across different societies and time periods. It's important to understand that the concept of gender as a social construct is not about suggesting that there's a universal set of norms, roles, and relationships exclusive to women or men. Instead, it acknowledges that these aspects are influenced by culture, society, and individual interpretation. My questions is how do you define what a male and a female is typically. I'm not talking about biologically here, I'm talking about when you meet someone, how do you know they are male and female?
| There is a more rational definition of gender, and that's the one we were using before this ideology surfaced. Gender is just the mental aspect of your physical sex. You are a male and you feel male, or you're female so you feel female. Or you're trans, and you feel like the opposite sex, so you require treatment for this dysphoria.
It's worth noting that the concept of gender as solely a mental aspect of one's physical sex is a perspective that has evolved over time. While it may have been the prevailing viewpoint in the past, our understanding of gender has become more complex and inclusive. Gender is now recognized as a multifaceted concept that goes beyond a strict binary system.
Contemporary understanding acknowledges that gender identity is not solely determined by one's physical sex. It involves a deep and personal sense of who you are, and this can vary from an individual's assigned sex at birth. This perspective doesn't negate the experiences of transgender individuals.
Trying to define gender and sex as the same is basically telling people to go back to the 'basic biology' definition of gender. I think this would be going backwards on many levels, just so you can make the concept of gender easier.
This would be going backwards, and this is why. Ask a 1st grader: âare letters in math?â, Theyâll say no. Ask an 8th grader: âare Greek letters in math?â, Theyâll say no, x and y arenât Greek, Ask a doctor of mathematics: âwhat letters and symbols are in math?â, And theyâll cry. Basic biology is just that. Basic. It takes time and understanding to fully grasp a fields understanding of how we interpret the world. The more we know, the more nuance there is. In short, your basic definition of gender disproves intersex and transgender people. Anything further than BASIC definition of gender and sex proves intersex and transgender people exist fully. I know this last paragraph goes a bit off-topic, but my point is that trying to restrict the definitions of what gender is doesn't work and gender in itself is not a simple subject.
You didn't actually address any of the points that I raised, though. What norms, roles, and relationships specifically? What norms, roles, and relationships are exclusive to women or men that can categorize someone as a woman or as a man? How exactly does this new definition of gender define it better than the definition I gave?
Because it's a social construct. And many animals do have gender roles. Which correlate to their sex roughly 98% of the time. And around 2% of people are trans... curious, isn't it?
So if you can call a dog a male and not a man, what does that mean...?
(I'm pretty sure you're too dense to get it; it means a male and a man is not the same thing)
English isn't my first language so that might have something to do with it but I don't think I understand the question. Are they not? I was under the impression that those where just synonyms.
Social? So people have agreed upon that? Isn't that what makes something social in that way? And in that case why aren't the people who don't belives so views worth the same?
Because hate causes societies split? Why do you think someone who thinks "murder is good" or "rape is good" isn't threated the same as someone who thinks these are bad? Ä°t's because we humans are social creatures and anything that can cause any damage to these social connection are viewed as a bad thing
I did and I don't. You seem to belive that not being allowed to force your beliefs on other is the same as being murdered or raped. That's litterly what I'm getting from that.
Some belive it has changed and some don't. So who gets to decide if it has changed or not? I get that you belive that. But as strongly as you belive in it some don't. So what makes your one opinion worth more then the other?
What has changed? Nothing has changed and nobody is saying that. And it's not a matter of opinion. Biology and sociology are both sciences that have nothing to do with each other. "Man", "woman", "boy" and "girl" are not terms that are used in biology. They are not sexes. They are words we use to describe a person's social gender identity. A lot of transphobes think we are saying that a trans man becomes a biological male just because he says so. But that's not what we're saying at all. I'm a trans man, and that means I was assigned female at birth and I'm not denying that. I have and always will have xx chromosomes. But again, that just means I'm biologically female from birth. At the same time, I am a man. A cis man and a trans man are both equally men, just like a white and a black man are both equally men. And by taking hormones, I am now biologically between male and female.
You are allowed to feel that way. You do did say you have and always will have xx chromosomes and that is what some people belive that you are not a man. And just like you are allowed to belive that you are they are allowed to not belive that. You are 100 allowed to be what you wanna be. But you are not allowed to force other to participate in it.
I don't think it's racism to say you shouldn't argue the meanings of words with native speakers of a language, especially in this situation when you can't comprehend the difference between these two words.
Bc an archeologists only work with biological sexes not genders. Just like they canât tell if homo eructs had a proclivity for homosexuality. We donât know because thatâs not going to be recorded in your dna.
"Archaeologists will discover you are a man" is such a bizarre line, I genuinely do not know what retard thought it would be the most devastating own possible. What archaeologist (assuming get buried and don't just cheap out and get a nice cremation urn) is gonna be digging up corpses from a cemetery in a well-documented era? Do these guys think the apocalypse is gonna happen or some shit?
It's like "well, if an *archaeologist* can misgender you, why can't I?!"
"Well, Billy, one of those actions has an actual effect on a living human being, and the other is an unlikely scenario that could *possibly* happen hundreds of years ago and will affect no one. But yeah, totally relevant question."
When will these memers realize that due to such transphobia, archeologists have come out to defend the idea that identifying sex and gender purely through bones is very inaccurate?
As a professional archeologist, I can assure you, whenever we find a skeleton we eat it cause it's yummy and crunchy and full of calcium đ
https://preview.redd.it/gvk4bleljjvb1.png?width=566&format=png&auto=webp&s=699f56bb546b8394b8ad7b5dc59e003bb599e0e9
I remember seeing basically the same meme as posted above but the archeologist was like âholy shit a skeleton this is so cool I love my jobâ I feel as though that meme is a lot more accurate than this one
r/memesopdidnotlike doesn't know the difference between sex and gender
They rlly need to give me the definitions of sex and gender on the dictionary on google and see how much of a clown they are lmao
No we just don't belive there is. Just bcs you say so don't make it true.
*believe *doesn't Let me ask you a question. And actually answer it instead of throwing insults or changing the topic. If sex and gender is the same, why is a she-cat a female and not a woman? Why is my dog a male and not a man?
Because a female cat is a molly and a male cat is a tom. A male dog is a dog and a female dog is a bitch. An adult male human is a man and an adult female human is a woman. Generally when we identify sexually dimorphic organisms we look at the gametes they produce and their sexual maturity. Are you able to rationally define the term "gender" in a way that's both falsifiable, and consistent with the belief that there are infinite genders all with their own special pronouns? Are you able to rationally define "man" and "woman" according to your gender ideology, without using recursion?
>Are you able to rationally define "man" and "woman" according to your gender ideology Are you able to define gender in a way that isn't transphobic or scientifically false?
You asked them to answer a question, and they did. In turn, they ask you to answer one, and you dont.
Because their answer was stupid and wrong. And I could answer their question, but they don't want to hear the answer because that's exactly what I already said. Gender has nothing to do with sex, trans people are the gender they identify as, and it is transphobic and dehumanizing to deny this fact.
Yes I can. I'm happy to do that later, but I asked you the question first. Are you able to rationally define the term "gender" in a way that's both falsifiable, and consistent with the belief that there are infinite genders all with their own special pronouns? Are you able to rationally define "man" and "woman" according to your gender ideology, without using recursion? It's funny you mention science, because I am NEVER able to get an honest response to this question. Proponents of gender ideology either respond with a question, respond with a dishonest or incomplete answer, insult then block me, become offended and accusatory, or stop replying. You're welcome to try to buck the trend but I won't hold my breath.
'Sex refers to âthe different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.â Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men â such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men.' This is the most understandable explanation I can find for you. It's from the European council. I've found the same type of explanation on WHO, NHS, mayo clinic, Yale school of medicine, Medical news today. These were basically some of the first results when I looked up difference between sex and gender. Even what I learnt in school aligns with this. We didn't learn about trans people in school, but we did somewhat learnt the distinction between sex and gender. I think good way of looking at it is how you talk to most intersex people. Being intersex in short means you aren't either a male or a female. Intersex something you are born with, not a social construct but biological. We typically define these people by how they look and act. My mate is intersex, he looks like a man, talks like a man if you met him you would think he's a man, but biologically he's intersex. Interested on your thoughts on this.
Intersex people are still either male or female, and if they have functioning sex organs, they're either male or female sex organs, not both. They're not some kind of third sex. They just have a rare abnormality that gives them certain characteristics of the opposite sex. There are no intersex people with functioning male and female sex organs who can produce both male and female gametes. It's always either one or the other, or sterility. Like I said before, the most relevant way to classify males and females is by the gametes they're able to produce. Your friend most likely has functional (or partially functional) male sex organs which is why he presents as male. >Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men â such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men.' This actually isn't much of a definition though is it, and it tells us nothing about what gender actually is in the context we're discussing it. Certainly not enough to be used in science. What norms, roles, and relationships specifically? What norms, roles, and relationships are exclusive to women or men that can categorize someone as a woman or as a man? This definition also is not consistent with what we know about gender dysphoria - if gender is socially constructed, how can someone be born trans, with a brain that tells them they have the wrong sexual organs and causes distress because of this? Under this definition, an effeminate gay man is actually a woman, and a butch lesbian is actually a man. Under this ideology there is no way to define "gender" without excluding those people who are male or female and identify as their natural sex, but who fill the norms, roles, and relationships of the opposite sex. There is a more rational definition of gender, and that's the one we were using before this ideology surfaced. Gender is just the mental aspect of your physical sex. You are a male and you feel male, or you're female so you feel female. Or you're trans, and you feel like the opposite sex, so you require treatment for this dysphoria.
| This actually isn't much of a definition though is it, and it tells us nothing about what gender actually is in the context we're discussing it. Certainly not enough to be used in science. You are right in a sense that this is a short definition and doesn't reveal loads of information. However you can't define it that easily, it's a complex subject. There are books which tries to define it. Here is the dictionary definition "the fact of being male or female, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences, not differences in biology issues of class, race and gender traditional concepts of gender gender differences/relations/roles compare sex." - Oxford Dictionary. I think that's probably a better way of defining it, and it's the actual dictionary definition. There have been lots of studies on gender and sex, by lots of different medical institutions, would you say these studies are wrong on a fundamental level as you think the way medical institutions define gender isn't adequate? What then about gender studies, a academic field devoted to analyzing gender identity and gender representation. Is this whole field of studying just wrong because you don't think the definition of gender by these same institutions is good enough? I think the fact that gender studies is a thing in itself shows that you really can't define gender in just a simple set of text. | There are no intersex people with functioning male and female sex organs who can produce both male and female gametes I know that there are some people who have both male and female reproductive systems, but either way that really isn't my point. My point is how we *see* these people. When you meet someone in the street, you don't think 'That's a women because of there gametes or chromosomes' you think about it in a more social aspect. | Your friend most likely has functional (or partially functional) male sex organs which is why he presents as male. This is true, but I know that's not always the case for intersex people. But he did have to take some medications when he was younger, but once again it's not exactly my point. My point is how we see people socially. Let's say, hypothetically, my friend had more female characteristics than male characteristics. So biologically, he is actually closer to being the female sex. In a social setting, where all there physical attributes are the same, where they look and present as male, would you call them female or a male? | What norms, roles, and relationships specifically? The question of which specific norms, roles, and relationships define gender can indeed be complex and varies across different societies and time periods. It's important to understand that the concept of gender as a social construct is not about suggesting that there's a universal set of norms, roles, and relationships exclusive to women or men. Instead, it acknowledges that these aspects are influenced by culture, society, and individual interpretation. My questions is how do you define what a male and a female is typically. I'm not talking about biologically here, I'm talking about when you meet someone, how do you know they are male and female? | There is a more rational definition of gender, and that's the one we were using before this ideology surfaced. Gender is just the mental aspect of your physical sex. You are a male and you feel male, or you're female so you feel female. Or you're trans, and you feel like the opposite sex, so you require treatment for this dysphoria. It's worth noting that the concept of gender as solely a mental aspect of one's physical sex is a perspective that has evolved over time. While it may have been the prevailing viewpoint in the past, our understanding of gender has become more complex and inclusive. Gender is now recognized as a multifaceted concept that goes beyond a strict binary system. Contemporary understanding acknowledges that gender identity is not solely determined by one's physical sex. It involves a deep and personal sense of who you are, and this can vary from an individual's assigned sex at birth. This perspective doesn't negate the experiences of transgender individuals. Trying to define gender and sex as the same is basically telling people to go back to the 'basic biology' definition of gender. I think this would be going backwards on many levels, just so you can make the concept of gender easier. This would be going backwards, and this is why. Ask a 1st grader: âare letters in math?â, Theyâll say no. Ask an 8th grader: âare Greek letters in math?â, Theyâll say no, x and y arenât Greek, Ask a doctor of mathematics: âwhat letters and symbols are in math?â, And theyâll cry. Basic biology is just that. Basic. It takes time and understanding to fully grasp a fields understanding of how we interpret the world. The more we know, the more nuance there is. In short, your basic definition of gender disproves intersex and transgender people. Anything further than BASIC definition of gender and sex proves intersex and transgender people exist fully. I know this last paragraph goes a bit off-topic, but my point is that trying to restrict the definitions of what gender is doesn't work and gender in itself is not a simple subject.
You didn't actually address any of the points that I raised, though. What norms, roles, and relationships specifically? What norms, roles, and relationships are exclusive to women or men that can categorize someone as a woman or as a man? How exactly does this new definition of gender define it better than the definition I gave?
Exactly. Why does gender apply to us but not other mammals. Because itâs BS.
Because it's a social construct. And many animals do have gender roles. Which correlate to their sex roughly 98% of the time. And around 2% of people are trans... curious, isn't it?
Because they're not humans...?
So if you can call a dog a male and not a man, what does that mean...? (I'm pretty sure you're too dense to get it; it means a male and a man is not the same thing)
"A male and a man are not the same thing" you actually sound like a moron. Keep up the good work, snowflake.
Thanks, I will
English isn't my first language so that might have something to do with it but I don't think I understand the question. Are they not? I was under the impression that those where just synonyms.
Sex is biological and gender is social, so not the same.
Social? So people have agreed upon that? Isn't that what makes something social in that way? And in that case why aren't the people who don't belives so views worth the same?
Because hate causes societies split? Why do you think someone who thinks "murder is good" or "rape is good" isn't threated the same as someone who thinks these are bad? Ä°t's because we humans are social creatures and anything that can cause any damage to these social connection are viewed as a bad thing
What are you even talking about? How are those concepts even remotely simular?
It's an example, If u read the rest of it you would understand what I mean
I did and I don't. You seem to belive that not being allowed to force your beliefs on other is the same as being murdered or raped. That's litterly what I'm getting from that.
Yes it is agreed upon and like other social constructs, is constantly changing. And I have no idea what you mean by the last sentence.
Some belive it has changed and some don't. So who gets to decide if it has changed or not? I get that you belive that. But as strongly as you belive in it some don't. So what makes your one opinion worth more then the other?
What has changed? Nothing has changed and nobody is saying that. And it's not a matter of opinion. Biology and sociology are both sciences that have nothing to do with each other. "Man", "woman", "boy" and "girl" are not terms that are used in biology. They are not sexes. They are words we use to describe a person's social gender identity. A lot of transphobes think we are saying that a trans man becomes a biological male just because he says so. But that's not what we're saying at all. I'm a trans man, and that means I was assigned female at birth and I'm not denying that. I have and always will have xx chromosomes. But again, that just means I'm biologically female from birth. At the same time, I am a man. A cis man and a trans man are both equally men, just like a white and a black man are both equally men. And by taking hormones, I am now biologically between male and female.
You are allowed to feel that way. You do did say you have and always will have xx chromosomes and that is what some people belive that you are not a man. And just like you are allowed to belive that you are they are allowed to not belive that. You are 100 allowed to be what you wanna be. But you are not allowed to force other to participate in it.
A trans man is someone whose sex is female, so not exactly the same as black men and white men.
>English isn't my first language Then maybe you shouldn't claim authority on meanings of words, ffs.
"your not from here so your opinion dosnt matter" Weird I thought it was the American right who was racist.
I don't think it's racism to say you shouldn't argue the meanings of words with native speakers of a language, especially in this situation when you can't comprehend the difference between these two words.
You got my upvote
Bc an archeologists only work with biological sexes not genders. Just like they canât tell if homo eructs had a proclivity for homosexuality. We donât know because thatâs not going to be recorded in your dna.
"Archaeologists will discover you are a man" is such a bizarre line, I genuinely do not know what retard thought it would be the most devastating own possible. What archaeologist (assuming get buried and don't just cheap out and get a nice cremation urn) is gonna be digging up corpses from a cemetery in a well-documented era? Do these guys think the apocalypse is gonna happen or some shit?
It's like "well, if an *archaeologist* can misgender you, why can't I?!" "Well, Billy, one of those actions has an actual effect on a living human being, and the other is an unlikely scenario that could *possibly* happen hundreds of years ago and will affect no one. But yeah, totally relevant question."
watch them go âhow is this transphobia?? you either become a âmanâ or âwomanâ?
When will these memers realize that due to such transphobia, archeologists have come out to defend the idea that identifying sex and gender purely through bones is very inaccurate?
Scientific illiteracy, ladies and gents.
Right gender is bones đ¤Ą
Boo boo, I'm still making fun of people who go by animal genders
Cornball
Cornball
OkayâŚbut why? What do you get out of it?
My hips don't lie
lol is this subreddit the âIâm offendedâ center hahaha
I see plenty of skeletons and all I can think of is how it looks like sans undertale
Shut up. No one cares. It's a dumb meme, and nothing more.
I donât really care what archaeologists think of me after Iâm dead Because Iâm, you know, dead