All these mentally ill losers have some variation of a definition whose filiation goes through time all the way to the king daddy creep of them all, dr money.
What have I said that is not in good faith? And why can’t you give me a definition?
Your initial post was reductive bullshit. Not a great start.
It's not my job to educate you. Go back and read the thread, or don't.
How was it reductive?
Lol how was it not?
I mean is it? Unless you’re arguing that self identification is what makes someone a man or woman then you’re arguing that gender, which is just stereotypes of each sex, is the way you see someone, not their sex which is a biological fact.Yeah that's not reductive at all.
Yes, it really is. Laughably so.
That's not what it means, at all. No wonder you're so confused.
lol, you don’t want to debate because you’d prefer to be snarky and not stick to any one definition so you can’t be criticised for it. Have a good day, buddy
Guys a mental patient. I wouldn't entertain him. He doesn't believe his own BS.
Gender and sex have always been synonymous with one another until activists started redefining it. It's a flat out lie to say that sex and gender are separate. There are men that are more feminine and women who are more masculine, it doesn't mean they are the opposite gender/sex. Being a man or woman is not a feeling, it is a state of being. You are what you are. Learn to live with it and stop trying to force your ridiculous queer cult onto people.That's all made up nonsense?
Here is the Yale School of Medicine, reporting on the Institute of Medicine Convention from 2001:
What Do We Mean By Sex and Gender?
As we pursue our work at Women's Health Research at Yale, it is particularly important to use language that captures the different concepts of sex and gender somedicine.yale.edu
The IOM, now embedded within the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), concluded there was more than sufficient evidence that, beyond reproductive biology, there were major differences in the biology of women and men that greatly affected their health and influenced treatment and prevention strategies.
Importantly, the committee emphasized that neither the health of women nor men is simply a product of biology but is also influenced by sociocultural and psychological experience. To differentiate between these broad areas of investigation, the members created working definitions of “sex” — when referring to biology — and “gender” — when referring to self-representation influenced by social, cultural, and personal experience.
The committee advised that scientists use these definitions in the following ways:
- In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement [generally XX for female and XY for male].
- In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual's gender presentation.
- In most studies of nonhuman animals, the term sex should be used.
These working definitions were a good start in recognizing the value of studying sex and gender and their interactions, yet they were always meant to evolve. Now, we are learning more about ourselves and so must adapt our terminology to be inclusive, respectful, and more accurate.
This is on the confusion between sex and gender and the implications:
The hilarious part is that you claimed that "science" was on your side. But of course when you are shown otherwise you say.
wah wah I just don't care
Which proves my point. It is not about being true to 'scientific fact' or common sense. It's about you being a malcontent, pathetic, uneducated snowflake who thinks using pronouns to refer to people is an infringement on their liberty.
Nail on the head. Most of the "gender" papers are ideological horseshit written by actual queers that have a direct interest in the validation of their made-up conclusions, and they camouflage it under the veneer of science. and since a lot of the scientific funding came with the diversity tag, people chose not to make a fuss about it and just ignore how unimpeachembly horseshit these papers are, so their careers don't suffer.
That's a weird weird statement
short sighted, Objectively wrong
philia and bestiality, that your community wants to make more acceptable? Like referring to philes as minor attracted persons so as to not offend them......Is your community white nationalists and neo-Nazis?Why'd you leave off the +? Is it because it represents things like
