- Joined
- Jun 1, 2002
- Messages
- 21,145
- Reaction score
- 12,635
This is a long winded way of telling us that you are confusing gender and gender roles. You're just merely using a wide vocabulary to not only make people think you're intellectual, but to also distort the fact that you're spouting nonsense here on a topic that is already set in stone. The rest of us logical people see right through the bullshit.
Your second to last paragraph is a shining example of the activists version of the definition of a woman. Everything after "or" is outright nonsensical.
I have folded laundry, done the dishes, cooked dinner and done plenty of other things that the stereotypical gender role for women would be. That does not make me a woman. If my wife changes the oil or mows the lawn, she is not a man. All we've done is merely do the work of the typical role of the other gender. That does not change our gender.
I'll spare you the pseudo intellectual psycho babble and let you know what the definition of a woman is, it's an adult female. A female is the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, which require the fertilization from a male. Doing the dishes does not make a man produce eggs. I can't believe you wrote all that out and didn't even think more than a half step ahead on this.
If you want to blatantly ignore everything that was said, including the literature that you asked for, and throw strawmen like "doing the dishes does not make me a woman", and say "you're just saying nonsense on what is a closed topic of debate" then don't bother trying to argue with someone.
Social roles define social identities, like properties define kinds. Being something one sits on is a property of being a chair. It doesn't follow that being something one sits on makes one a chair. Cooking is a necessary property of a chef, that doesn't mean that everyone who cooks is a chef.
You don't even realize that you have, unwittingly, granted the point. You recognize that there are such things as gender roles, and that these are correlated in different ways to biological sex. The set of such roles and their correlations to other factors, such as biology, are what people (including the scientific establishment, and people who do not agree with non-gender binarism) define as gender. That's it. Like I said, like the literature reflects, and like the proof I provided shows. That's the way the concept works. That's not to confuse gender and gender roles, that's simply to state that the latter are intrinsic to the definition of the former.
This obviously doesn't mean that playing a given role associated with a given gender makes one a member of that gender, anymore than being something one sits on is necessary and sufficient for being a chair, anymore than being a biped is sufficient for being a human, or cooking sufficient for being a chef.
This is the concept of gender that scientific literature, and even dictionaries use. You don't get to decide how words are defined or what concepts exist for the rest of humanity. The meaning of a word is its use. You can argue that the use given to it is nefarious, incoherent, or whatever. But you are denying something undeniable, which is that there is a difference between the two concepts. The concepts are not synonymous. You can't brute force a concept out of existence because you are too stubborn to understand it.
You will never actually learn anything because you don't only willfully ignore information, but you don't understand how language works.
Last edited: