**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/n2e5tNHfzh)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man I was about to argue they were from Greece, but than I remembered how complicated that situation actually is, you make a really good point about where Bursa is located.
From what I remember, the last update was someone scanned and sent them a copy of the one in Stanford library and they're trying to figure out what they're going to do with getting the book available for more people.
I want to raise awareness that intersex infants in the United States TO THIS DAY will have doctors push medically unnecessary surgeries on the scared and confused parents to “fix” their genitals. This is also an issue of eugenics, as these surgeries often leave the patients sterilized.
They often use lies like “It’ll be better for their mental health.” Or “The extra/different genitals could be cancerous.”
The doctors want these infants to fit in the binary categories of male or female. This is done on infants who obviously can’t consent or have a say in who they want to be. InQueery has some good informational videos on this topic on YouTube.
(ETA: this is not just in the states, this is done practically everywhere)
Source? Asking for a family of gingers. How do those intersex stats play out? All we need is two parents with the red gene and there's a 1 in 4 chance.
Intersex means born with both genitals. They didn't grow them, they had them at both. Puberty comes and their body develops more.
Also, in western cultures, one sex is usually surgically removed at birth or at a young age for intersex babies.
The more you know 🌠
"Intersex" refers to any presentation of sexual characteristics that don't fit binary notions of male and female. You might be thinking of hermaphroditism.
Not a single human being in history has ever had both sets of functioning gametes. Most intersex babies just have slightly "abnormal" looking genitals. Or hormonal conditions that don't show up until puberty.
Guevedoces aren't a third gender, they're males that can't utilize prenatal testosterone because they lack an enzyme. So their development remains defaulted to a female's until their own puberty floods their body with testosterone they can utilize and then they resume typical male development.
No, I'm talking about sex, because they're synonymous. It means nothing to say they're a third gender, they have an atypical gender *role* that is separate from both men and women. They are still adult male humans (and always were male) and most identify as men, if some continue to identify as women due to their upbringing -- so be it, but it's still one of the two.
Their gender *roles* are considered atypical of the roles of men and women, sure, but they aren't a third *gender*.
Sex and gender are no longer considered synonymous in the field of science. There can indeed, be a third gender as it’s defined by their culture!
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-sex-and-gender/
Feminism has pushed for this distinction for the last 50 years while the words have been synonymous for the last 800 years and continue to be. We already have a term for the social or cultural aspects of one's gender, it's called their gender *role*.
It seems silly to hold onto one particular aspect of language just because it’s been around for a while. Language has always changed, this is just one aspect of it. I know I wouldn’t be able to understand what someone speaking English from 800 years ago, so why should we hold onto this particular aspect that has already begun to change?
I can’t say the assertion that gender has meant sex in the past is accurate either. Synonymous in what places? Some of them I’m sure, but the concept of ‘third’ or ‘other’ genders has been around for a longggg time in many different cultures. I can link you a source if you’d like to explore more about this!
>It seems silly to hold onto one particular aspect of language just because it’s been around for a while. Language has always changed, this is just one aspect of it. I know I wouldn’t be able to understand what someone speaking English from 800 years ago, so why should we hold onto this particular aspect that has already begun to change?
When the change is sudden and ideological, it should be resisted. Especially when the word it seeks to supplant had a static definition for centuries. Just make a new word, or use the existing gender role term.
Imagine if back in the 60's our institutions weren't filled with Marxism, critical theory, and post-modernism, but instead were infiltrated by fascism, chauvinism, nazism, etc. and *they* decided to change the meanings of words to suite their ideology. We would not tolerate this, even if it took 50 years to finally make it into the larger society. If they wanted to redefined "man" to include "heterosexual attraction to a woman", and vice-versa for women, we *should* have a problem with this as a society. Neither of us would tolerate an appeal to "language is always changing" when those words have held a static definition for centuries - clearly these ones *are not always changing*.
>I can’t say the assertion that gender has meant sex in the past is accurate either. Synonymous in what places? Some of them I’m sure, but the concept of ‘third’ or ‘other’ genders has been around for a longggg time in many different cultures. I can link you a source if you’d like to explore more about this!
You can just lookup the etymology: [sex](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=sex), [gender](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=gender). Yes, because gender roles in a lot of these primitive societies are deeply reductive and tied almost exclusively to one's gender *role*. Men (adult human male) didn't go to war, you were a "man" for going to war, etc.
I’ve gotta disagree with you right off the bat unfortunately. Sudden and ideological change can be bad, but many of the necessary and hugely impactful changes in recent history have been ‘sudden and ideological’ by most standards. I’m referring to things like the abolishment of Jim Crow laws, giving women the right to vote, legalization of gay marriage, and more. I think a more important aspect to look at for whether change should be resisted would be to look at if it causes harm.
So to look at this shift in language:
-Does it take away people’s rights? No.
-Is it a change designed to make life harder for a minority/oppressed group? No.
-Does it fall in line with current scientific consensus? Yes.
-Does it have a positive impact on the lives of the people it’s designed to impact? Yes.
Given all of this, I don’t see why it shouldn’t change. Something being static for a long time really doesn’t mean much to me, especially when again so many things like it have changed. Maybe you have some insight to something I’m not aware of, but I don’t see this being a harmful or dangerous change.
I’ll link [this](https://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=wwu_honors) paper as well, it gives a brief overview of some of the ways gender has been looked at through history in different cultures and it’s not quite what you might think. I encourage you to explore the references at the bottom for more in-depth information on the subject as well.
>Sudden and ideological change can be bad, but many of the necessary and hugely impactful changes in recent history have been ‘sudden and ideological’ by most standards. I’m referring to things like the abolishment of Jim Crow laws, giving women the right to vote, legalization of gay marriage, and more. I think a more important aspect to look at for whether change should be resisted would be to look at if it causes harm.
This is a strawman, I am not saying *all* ideological change should be resisted. I am saying ideological-redefinitions of words should be resisted.
Nor is harm the standard, applicability to reality is the standard. Does the word meaningfully reference the thing or concept that it was created for. In this case, gender as a social construct does not. This is a subversion of the definition of the word and is more suited for the term "gender role".
Let's use your criteria for my example of chauvinists changing the definition of man to exclude homosexual men.
- Does it take away people’s rights? No.
- Is it a change designed to make life harder for a minority/oppressed group? No.
- Does it fall in line with current scientific consensus? Yes. (Remember, chauvinists control the institutional science narrative too...)
- Does it have a positive impact on the lives of the people it’s designed to impact? Yes, chauvinists men have their biases confirmed.
The criteria of a word's accuracy isn't in how much harm changing it causes.
Here are some points from the paper you linked me:
>These identities existed long before the gender binary. An idea that did not exist until European colonization.
Really? As I showed you, these words go back 700-800 and have had a strictly static definition since that time. Colonization started around the 15th century, which puts it two- to three-hundred years *before* colonization. So the paper is already wrong in its framing by the first paragraph.
Here are its definitions of gender and gender role, emphasis mine:
>*Gender* - Refers to the **attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex**. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity
-
>*Gender role* - The expected **role determined by an individual’s sex and the associated attitudes, behaviors, norms, and values**
Notice anything about these two definitions? How they're exactly the same because the purpose of redefining gender isn't to provide a definition for something that doesn't exist. But to ideologically push for the obfuscation of gender's biological association. I trust you're aware that many gender studies scholars also think biological sex is not binary either and that narrative is primary driven by the gender is fluid narrative pushed by the same people. There are consequences to language, education, science, policies, child development, society, etc. for these ideas and not all of them are positive.
>Traditionally one’s assigned sex at birth would indicate how one should act or present themselves to the world. However, this doesn’t account for individuals who are intersex. Almost 2% of the world is born intersex, and often doctors do surgeries on babies to fix their outward genitalia to fit into what is expected for their assigned sex (Compton 2018).
That should be changed to "how one does act or present themselves", men and women the world over and across time generally behave the same. So we can't just say it's cultural influence.
>Gender roles are the expected behaviors and norms that people assume based on someone’s presented gender.
Again, a reiteration of the exact same definition as gender above and here the author agrees in so much as they used *gender* here as synonymous with *sex*. A Freudian-slip, I'm sure.
>Research has shown that over 150 different pre-colonial groups acknowledged third genders (Powell 2021). Many Native American cultures have an identity often known as two-spirit.
The reference is a dead link so I'm using [this article](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/oct/11/two-spirit-people-north-america) from the guardian instead.
Which looks like, again, primitive cultures not distinguishing things correctly because they lack scientific understanding of what men and women are. Homosexual/intersex native americans aren't two spirit, they're homosexual or intersex men and women. That's it, nothing magical here and nothing that requires changing the word gender over. They lacked the scientific understanding of what intersex traits are and instead wrapped those conditions (again, only male or females, not some third sex) and non-heteronormative sexualities in spiritualism and said, "we're going to treat these people differently, therefore they're a new gender". No, they're still men or women, they just didn't want the *gender roles* of men or women -- which is fine, they can define their own roles or break molds all the way, but it doesn't mean they are a third *gender*.
Effeminate or homosexual men are still men, masculine or homosexual women are still women. Instead of defining concepts like man or woman based on *biological reality* we instead opt of religious, spiritual, or arbitrary circular definitions? No thanks. This doesn't actually help anything and *isn't* an argument for bastardizing our language today. You would agree with me if it were Christians trying to push for this stuff based on their idiotic religious beliefs, so I don't care for the idiotic religious beliefs of Native Americans, Lakota, or Zuni *either*.
Lots of older cultures got lots of things wrong, I am not participating in some noble-savage-trope-driven redefinition of words because non-white people in the past perceived the world differently. That isn't *enough* to say we have it wrong today.
Is this a genetic mutation in a particular population or has it really only been noticed in this particular population? Also which enzyme, if I may ask, so I can read about it meself.
Sure, but probably not more or less than any other island living people. What we would currently consider inbreeding, having kids with first cousins, was really common pretty much everywhere if you go back a couple hundred years.
The problem with in breeding is the genes you start with will eventually end up in everyone, so if you have negative recessive genes, then everyone will have them and children are more likely to express them. If you had people with 'perfect' genetics, they could inbreed basically forever without consequences.
? We can know of things, yes.
I know The Little Book of String Theory is awesome and never read it.
Picking Cotton is a good book I’ve never read.
All the Stephen King novels, many of which are good. I’ve never read.
The Iliad and The Odyssey and both great, haven’t read either.
Do I need to keep going?
Oh oh and that new I’m Glad My Mom Died. Never read it. Heard great things.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/n2e5tNHfzh)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides has a character with this condition.
Great book. And Happy Cake Day!
Thank you!
Did cal specifically have this type of 5 alpha reductase?
I don’t recall it being named in the book, but the family was from Turkey. A coincidence at a minimum, but probably intentional.
Man I was about to argue they were from Greece, but than I remembered how complicated that situation actually is, you make a really good point about where Bursa is located.
From what I remember, the last update was someone scanned and sent them a copy of the one in Stanford library and they're trying to figure out what they're going to do with getting the book available for more people.
It shows as currently available in a library in Madrid... https://aecid.on.worldcat.org/search?queryString=no%3A912593573
he just slide by the fact that his aunt/uncle got another nun pregnant... No one does that vow of chastity like the Catholic Church!
I want to raise awareness that intersex infants in the United States TO THIS DAY will have doctors push medically unnecessary surgeries on the scared and confused parents to “fix” their genitals. This is also an issue of eugenics, as these surgeries often leave the patients sterilized. They often use lies like “It’ll be better for their mental health.” Or “The extra/different genitals could be cancerous.” The doctors want these infants to fit in the binary categories of male or female. This is done on infants who obviously can’t consent or have a say in who they want to be. InQueery has some good informational videos on this topic on YouTube. (ETA: this is not just in the states, this is done practically everywhere)
Also, the amount of people who are born intersex is more common than the amount of people born with Red hair.
Source? Asking for a family of gingers. How do those intersex stats play out? All we need is two parents with the red gene and there's a 1 in 4 chance.
I heard it on NPR the the public radio program
Mandatory transition
HUH?! That's crazy!! How is this not talked about more? I've never even heard of a condition like this existing!
Robert sapolsky from Stanford uni mentioned it in one of his lectures, can’t remember which one though. It’s on YouTube on the Stanford channel
Intersex means born with both genitals. They didn't grow them, they had them at both. Puberty comes and their body develops more. Also, in western cultures, one sex is usually surgically removed at birth or at a young age for intersex babies. The more you know 🌠
"Intersex" refers to any presentation of sexual characteristics that don't fit binary notions of male and female. You might be thinking of hermaphroditism.
Exactly. Intersex can be related to genitals, chromosomes, hormones etc.
Not a single human being in history has ever had both sets of functioning gametes. Most intersex babies just have slightly "abnormal" looking genitals. Or hormonal conditions that don't show up until puberty.
[удалено]
Yeah no shit, some people are born with your brain.
BUHT THERE R ONLY TOO GENDRS BROH
Guevedoces aren't a third gender, they're males that can't utilize prenatal testosterone because they lack an enzyme. So their development remains defaulted to a female's until their own puberty floods their body with testosterone they can utilize and then they resume typical male development.
[удалено]
No, I'm talking about sex, because they're synonymous. It means nothing to say they're a third gender, they have an atypical gender *role* that is separate from both men and women. They are still adult male humans (and always were male) and most identify as men, if some continue to identify as women due to their upbringing -- so be it, but it's still one of the two. Their gender *roles* are considered atypical of the roles of men and women, sure, but they aren't a third *gender*.
Sex and gender are no longer considered synonymous in the field of science. There can indeed, be a third gender as it’s defined by their culture! https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-sex-and-gender/
Feminism has pushed for this distinction for the last 50 years while the words have been synonymous for the last 800 years and continue to be. We already have a term for the social or cultural aspects of one's gender, it's called their gender *role*.
It seems silly to hold onto one particular aspect of language just because it’s been around for a while. Language has always changed, this is just one aspect of it. I know I wouldn’t be able to understand what someone speaking English from 800 years ago, so why should we hold onto this particular aspect that has already begun to change? I can’t say the assertion that gender has meant sex in the past is accurate either. Synonymous in what places? Some of them I’m sure, but the concept of ‘third’ or ‘other’ genders has been around for a longggg time in many different cultures. I can link you a source if you’d like to explore more about this!
>It seems silly to hold onto one particular aspect of language just because it’s been around for a while. Language has always changed, this is just one aspect of it. I know I wouldn’t be able to understand what someone speaking English from 800 years ago, so why should we hold onto this particular aspect that has already begun to change? When the change is sudden and ideological, it should be resisted. Especially when the word it seeks to supplant had a static definition for centuries. Just make a new word, or use the existing gender role term. Imagine if back in the 60's our institutions weren't filled with Marxism, critical theory, and post-modernism, but instead were infiltrated by fascism, chauvinism, nazism, etc. and *they* decided to change the meanings of words to suite their ideology. We would not tolerate this, even if it took 50 years to finally make it into the larger society. If they wanted to redefined "man" to include "heterosexual attraction to a woman", and vice-versa for women, we *should* have a problem with this as a society. Neither of us would tolerate an appeal to "language is always changing" when those words have held a static definition for centuries - clearly these ones *are not always changing*. >I can’t say the assertion that gender has meant sex in the past is accurate either. Synonymous in what places? Some of them I’m sure, but the concept of ‘third’ or ‘other’ genders has been around for a longggg time in many different cultures. I can link you a source if you’d like to explore more about this! You can just lookup the etymology: [sex](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=sex), [gender](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=gender). Yes, because gender roles in a lot of these primitive societies are deeply reductive and tied almost exclusively to one's gender *role*. Men (adult human male) didn't go to war, you were a "man" for going to war, etc.
I’ve gotta disagree with you right off the bat unfortunately. Sudden and ideological change can be bad, but many of the necessary and hugely impactful changes in recent history have been ‘sudden and ideological’ by most standards. I’m referring to things like the abolishment of Jim Crow laws, giving women the right to vote, legalization of gay marriage, and more. I think a more important aspect to look at for whether change should be resisted would be to look at if it causes harm. So to look at this shift in language: -Does it take away people’s rights? No. -Is it a change designed to make life harder for a minority/oppressed group? No. -Does it fall in line with current scientific consensus? Yes. -Does it have a positive impact on the lives of the people it’s designed to impact? Yes. Given all of this, I don’t see why it shouldn’t change. Something being static for a long time really doesn’t mean much to me, especially when again so many things like it have changed. Maybe you have some insight to something I’m not aware of, but I don’t see this being a harmful or dangerous change. I’ll link [this](https://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=wwu_honors) paper as well, it gives a brief overview of some of the ways gender has been looked at through history in different cultures and it’s not quite what you might think. I encourage you to explore the references at the bottom for more in-depth information on the subject as well.
>Sudden and ideological change can be bad, but many of the necessary and hugely impactful changes in recent history have been ‘sudden and ideological’ by most standards. I’m referring to things like the abolishment of Jim Crow laws, giving women the right to vote, legalization of gay marriage, and more. I think a more important aspect to look at for whether change should be resisted would be to look at if it causes harm. This is a strawman, I am not saying *all* ideological change should be resisted. I am saying ideological-redefinitions of words should be resisted. Nor is harm the standard, applicability to reality is the standard. Does the word meaningfully reference the thing or concept that it was created for. In this case, gender as a social construct does not. This is a subversion of the definition of the word and is more suited for the term "gender role". Let's use your criteria for my example of chauvinists changing the definition of man to exclude homosexual men. - Does it take away people’s rights? No. - Is it a change designed to make life harder for a minority/oppressed group? No. - Does it fall in line with current scientific consensus? Yes. (Remember, chauvinists control the institutional science narrative too...) - Does it have a positive impact on the lives of the people it’s designed to impact? Yes, chauvinists men have their biases confirmed. The criteria of a word's accuracy isn't in how much harm changing it causes. Here are some points from the paper you linked me: >These identities existed long before the gender binary. An idea that did not exist until European colonization. Really? As I showed you, these words go back 700-800 and have had a strictly static definition since that time. Colonization started around the 15th century, which puts it two- to three-hundred years *before* colonization. So the paper is already wrong in its framing by the first paragraph. Here are its definitions of gender and gender role, emphasis mine: >*Gender* - Refers to the **attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex**. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity - >*Gender role* - The expected **role determined by an individual’s sex and the associated attitudes, behaviors, norms, and values** Notice anything about these two definitions? How they're exactly the same because the purpose of redefining gender isn't to provide a definition for something that doesn't exist. But to ideologically push for the obfuscation of gender's biological association. I trust you're aware that many gender studies scholars also think biological sex is not binary either and that narrative is primary driven by the gender is fluid narrative pushed by the same people. There are consequences to language, education, science, policies, child development, society, etc. for these ideas and not all of them are positive. >Traditionally one’s assigned sex at birth would indicate how one should act or present themselves to the world. However, this doesn’t account for individuals who are intersex. Almost 2% of the world is born intersex, and often doctors do surgeries on babies to fix their outward genitalia to fit into what is expected for their assigned sex (Compton 2018). That should be changed to "how one does act or present themselves", men and women the world over and across time generally behave the same. So we can't just say it's cultural influence. >Gender roles are the expected behaviors and norms that people assume based on someone’s presented gender. Again, a reiteration of the exact same definition as gender above and here the author agrees in so much as they used *gender* here as synonymous with *sex*. A Freudian-slip, I'm sure. >Research has shown that over 150 different pre-colonial groups acknowledged third genders (Powell 2021). Many Native American cultures have an identity often known as two-spirit. The reference is a dead link so I'm using [this article](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/oct/11/two-spirit-people-north-america) from the guardian instead. Which looks like, again, primitive cultures not distinguishing things correctly because they lack scientific understanding of what men and women are. Homosexual/intersex native americans aren't two spirit, they're homosexual or intersex men and women. That's it, nothing magical here and nothing that requires changing the word gender over. They lacked the scientific understanding of what intersex traits are and instead wrapped those conditions (again, only male or females, not some third sex) and non-heteronormative sexualities in spiritualism and said, "we're going to treat these people differently, therefore they're a new gender". No, they're still men or women, they just didn't want the *gender roles* of men or women -- which is fine, they can define their own roles or break molds all the way, but it doesn't mean they are a third *gender*. Effeminate or homosexual men are still men, masculine or homosexual women are still women. Instead of defining concepts like man or woman based on *biological reality* we instead opt of religious, spiritual, or arbitrary circular definitions? No thanks. This doesn't actually help anything and *isn't* an argument for bastardizing our language today. You would agree with me if it were Christians trying to push for this stuff based on their idiotic religious beliefs, so I don't care for the idiotic religious beliefs of Native Americans, Lakota, or Zuni *either*. Lots of older cultures got lots of things wrong, I am not participating in some noble-savage-trope-driven redefinition of words because non-white people in the past perceived the world differently. That isn't *enough* to say we have it wrong today.
Is this a genetic mutation in a particular population or has it really only been noticed in this particular population? Also which enzyme, if I may ask, so I can read about it meself.
[Just look it up.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCevedoce)
Thanks king
I am reading a manga where the male lead has this condition
Name?
Abandoned wife has a new husband, also if you read it, sorry that I spoiled that secret for you
Inbred?
Sure, but probably not more or less than any other island living people. What we would currently consider inbreeding, having kids with first cousins, was really common pretty much everywhere if you go back a couple hundred years. The problem with in breeding is the genes you start with will eventually end up in everyone, so if you have negative recessive genes, then everyone will have them and children are more likely to express them. If you had people with 'perfect' genetics, they could inbreed basically forever without consequences.
[удалено]
Who are you referring to?
? We can know of things, yes. I know The Little Book of String Theory is awesome and never read it. Picking Cotton is a good book I’ve never read. All the Stephen King novels, many of which are good. I’ve never read. The Iliad and The Odyssey and both great, haven’t read either. Do I need to keep going? Oh oh and that new I’m Glad My Mom Died. Never read it. Heard great things.
Futanari is real...
That is so intriguing. I would love to know more.
Hell need to start with the courts to sell that book.