Social Gender ideology is dying, common sense prevailing

[krelianx]

there aren't any coherent scientific measurements of "gender" as in being different from sex. ZERO. if there were you'd be posting them. a bunch of people getting together and deciding on an issue while using "self-identification" as a deciding factor is NOT a scientific grouping at all, it's just ideology.
and as i said, if you're one that believes that "gender is a social construct" it means you can't bring in biological arguments for it, because it would contradict the very "social construct" part of the argument. If you think it's a biological aspect, there's ZERO proof that it's different in any way from sex.

it certainly does demolish the argument of it being different from sex if it's just biological measurements. especially since there's no biological measurements of "gender" that are distinct from sex. NONE.

if you think there are biological measurements of gender that are distinct from sex i'd like to see them. All that exists is discourse about developmental anomalies that are within the "sex" realm anyway, all of which are catalogued neatly.

I know you'll rush to try to find some "studies", but as long as it's not a study that EXPLICITY offers proof of biological measurements for "gender" that are developmentally distinct from sexual development, it's just horseshit.


this is the core of the issue- you don't appear to be able to comprehend the difference between provable fact and opinion. people that have different opinions are not a new biological category. can't believe you came up with this analogy.

anomaly does not create a separate genus. it's the same genus, but with anomalies. people with three hands aren't a different "gender". they're just anomalies.

It's worse than that. you're arguing for something that isn't even scientifically pinpointed.
you're literally quoting things that you can't explain or argue for with your own words besides "look here, some studies!!"

You are actually blowing my mind as far as stupidity goes.

What would even count as a "scientific measurement for gender as in being different from sex"?

Here are a bunch of measurements concerning gender that are not about biological sex.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK578625/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK578625.pdf

If you think these measurements are redundant or false, perfectly reducible to biological facts, then go. Show us.

If you want measurements of gender, we have plenty: correlations between self-identification and neurophysiology vs. physiological endowment. I actually cited studies to that very point. That you choose to ignore them is a different matter.

You ask about "biological measurements of gender that are distinct from sex" when the entire point is that science draws a distinction between biological and social determinations. It is the equivalent of asking about physical measurements of electoral decision polls. There is a physical basis, but it is not an equivalent level of description. Gender is not a biological category even if there are biological correlates to gender, just like electoral tendencies are grounded in physical bodies without them being reducible or explainable by physics.

I can discuss any specific point of any of the studies I pointed. You have provided absolutely no reference to any single experiment, data point, method, or result cited in these studies. You have not even read the abstracts.

I will repeat my point, and I wait for an answer:

"What is your take on the findings of fMRI and DTI data that show that transgender individuals have a neurophysiology that aligns more to gender than sex? Which is not to deny biological difference. Kreukels Guillamon found that white matter microstructure in transgender individuals falls between cisgender male and female reference points. Zhou showed that transgender women (AMAB, assigned male at birth) have a BSTc volume similar to cisgender women rather than men."

I've honestly had enough wasting my time with you. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

You are actually blowing my mind as far as stupidity goes.

What would even count as a "scientific measurement for gender as in being different from sex"?

Here are a bunch of measurements concerning gender that are not about biological sex.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK578625/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK578625.pdf

Have you even read this 200 page study lol? you just rushed to google and used "measure and gender" as prompts and you posted the first thing that came up without checking it.

Cause what i asked for is proof of biological measurements for "gender" that are developmentally distinct from sexual development, it's just horseshit.

Key point is "biological". this study offers no proof of that. it just talks about "inclusiveness", and "affirming identity" and other horseshit like that. it even talks about two-spririt gender for fucks sake.

TWO-SPIRIT gender! do you even listen to yourself?

If you think these measurements are redundant or false, perfectly reducible to biological facts, then go. Show us.

If you want measurements of gender, we have plenty: correlations between self-identification and neurophysiology vs. physiological endowment. I actually cited studies to that very point. That you choose to ignore them is a different matter.

you cited a study that shows an anomalous brain development in certain individuals. you think it's valid for ALL trans? and if not, what's the use of it then?

You ask about "biological measurements of gender that are distinct from sex" when the entire point is that science draws a distinction between biological and social determinations. It is the equivalent of asking about physical measurements of electoral decision polls. There is a physical basis, but it is not an equivalent level of description. Gender is not a biological category even if there are biological correlates to gender, just like electoral tendencies are grounded in physical bodies without them being reducible or explainable by physics.

yeah, that's the point, science draws the line. that's why you can't bring in biological measurements for social constructs. and if as you say gender is not a biological category, why bother bringing in supposed biological correlations?

you idiots can't even understand how illogical all your horseshit is.

"What is your take on the findings of fMRI and DTI data that show that transgender individuals have a neurophysiology that aligns more to gender than sex? Which is not to deny biological difference. Kreukels Guillamon found that white matter microstructure in transgender individuals falls between cisgender male and female reference points. Zhou showed that transgender women (AMAB, assigned male at birth) have a BSTc volume similar to cisgender women rather than men."

i already stated it two times so far and you act like i didn't cause you have no response to it.
- developmental anomalies cannot be proof for social constructs. you literally said before gender is not a biological category and now are saying look, there's biological proof for gender. completely clowned yourself.

You are so fucking stupid it's hilarious to me.

 

[krelianx]

Have you even read this 200 page study lol? you just rushed to google and used "measure and gender" as prompts and you posted the first thing that came up without checking it.

Cause what i asked for is proof of biological measurements for "gender" that are developmentally distinct from sexual development, it's just horseshit.

Key point is "biological". this study offers no proof of that. it just talks about "inclusiveness", and "affirming identity" and other horseshit like that. it even talks about two-spririt gender for fucks sake.

TWO-SPIRIT gender! do you even listen to yourself?


you cited a study that shows an anomalous brain development in certain individuals. you think it's valid for ALL trans? and if not, what's the use of it then?


yeah, that's the point, science draws the line. that's why you can't bring in biological measurements for social constructs. and if as you say gender is not a biological category, why bother bringing in supposed biological correlations?

you idiots can't even understand how illogical all your horseshit is.

i already stated it two times so far and you act like i didn't cause you have no response to it.
- developmental anomalies cannot be proof for social constructs. you literally said before gender is not a biological category and now are saying look, there's biological proof for gender. completely clowned yourself.

You are so fucking stupid it's hilarious to me.

No buddy, the one being pretty funny here is you.

I'll just limit myself to one little point, since wasting my time with an illiterate nimrod is clearly not paying off.

"- developmental anomalies cannot be proof for social constructs. you literally said before gender is not a biological category and now are saying look, there's biological proof for gender. completely clowned yourself."

"if as you say gender is not a biological category, why bother bringing in supposed biological correlations?"

It is not "biological correlations" but correlations between biological factors and social factors that are in question.

Why bring those up?

Because the fact that gender and sex are different, and that social determinations are not reducible to biological ones, does not mean they are uncorrelated. In fact, science has and continues to study them. Which was the entire point of the study.

Example: chemistry cannot predict electoral results, which is why sociologists and economists work with different methods, models, and data than chemists.

Are elections and biochemistry uncorrelated? No, obviously. Every voter has a biochemical structure, and biochemistry determines things like psychology, decision making, and so on. This doesn't mean that sociological markers are explainable by or reducible to biology or chemistry, anymore than table manners are explainable by physics.

Is sex the same as gender? No, one is a biological category, the latter a social and psychological one. Are they correlated? Yes, obviously. How does one measure gender? On the basis of statistical data, behavioral reports, psychological states, physiological correlations, historical analysis, and so on.

The studies I cited show data that shows a correlation between neurophysiological structure, gender identity, and biological sex. And it shows that the neurophysiology of the individual aligns more with gender than with their biological sex, where the latter is defined chromosomally and phenotypically.

Also, someone who identifies as "two spirit" might qualify as insane or not. That's a matter of medical typology and diagnosis.

Should we not study what's going on at the level of relations between that kind of identity relation and other factors? I think science should. And they do. Just like they do examine the relation between gender attributions and self-atrributions, and other factors.

Grow up.

 

[UberHere]

You are actually blowing my mind as far as stupidity goes.

What would even count as a "scientific measurement for gender as in being different from sex"?

Here are a bunch of measurements concerning gender that are not about biological sex.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK578625/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK578625.pdf

If you think these measurements are redundant or false, perfectly reducible to biological facts, then go. Show us.

If you want measurements of gender, we have plenty: correlations between self-identification and neurophysiology vs. physiological endowment. I actually cited studies to that very point. That you choose to ignore them is a different matter.

You ask about "biological measurements of gender that are distinct from sex" when the entire point is that science draws a distinction between biological and social determinations. It is the equivalent of asking about physical measurements of electoral decision polls. There is a physical basis, but it is not an equivalent level of description. Gender is not a biological category even if there are biological correlates to gender, just like electoral tendencies are grounded in physical bodies without them being reducible or explainable by physics.

I can discuss any specific point of any of the studies I pointed. You have provided absolutely no reference to any single experiment, data point, method, or result cited in these studies. You have not even read the abstracts.

I will repeat my point, and I wait for an answer:

"What is your take on the findings of fMRI and DTI data that show that transgender individuals have a neurophysiology that aligns more to gender than sex? Which is not to deny biological difference. Kreukels Guillamon found that white matter microstructure in transgender individuals falls between cisgender male and female reference points. Zhou showed that transgender women (AMAB, assigned male at birth) have a BSTc volume similar to cisgender women rather than men."

I've honestly had enough wasting my time with you. You don't know what you're talking about.

That is not a scientific study.

 

[krelianx]

That is not a scientific study.

You are not a human being.

 

[UberHere]

This whole thing is stupid anyway. If people want to be trans that’s fine. I respect their pronouns out of politeness and treat them as I’d treat anyone else. Thats not the issue, and the retards itt arguing otherwise know it.

What you don’t get to do is compete against biological women and you don’t get to invade women’s bathrooms while you have a penis.

And leave the fucking kids alone.

 

[UberHere]

You are not a human being.

Good argument numbskull. Are you a coauthor on that paper?

 

[krelianx]

Good argument numbskull. Are you a coauthor on that paper?

The sky is made of rubber.

 

[UberHere]

The sky is made of rubber.

this bot is broken

You have it a really good try though.

 

[krelianx]

This whole thing is stupid anyway. If people want to be trans that’s fine. I respect their pronouns out of politeness and treat them as I’d treat anyone else. Thats not the issue, and the retards itt arguing otherwise know it.

What you don’t get to do is compete against biological women and you don’t get to invade women’s bathrooms while you have a penis.

And leave the fucking kids alone.

I also don't think that biological males should be allowed to compete in women leagues, and that minors should not be exposed to therapies that have irreversible physiological effects. That's a subsidiary issue.

 

[krelianx]

You have it a really good try though.

That is not a grammatical sentence, but thanks regardless!

You are still human, even if your linguistic abilities do not abide by the norms of grammar expected of a functional adult.

 

[UberHere]

I also don't think that biological males should be allowed to compete in women leagues, and that minors should not be exposed to therapies that have irreversible physiological effects. That's a subsidiary issue.

That’s really the crux of the issue. Must people aren’t upset that “trans people exist”. You’re always going to have haters, but that’s not what’s driving the backlash

 

[b-hop]

This whole thing is stupid anyway. If people want to be trans that’s fine. I respect their pronouns out of politeness and treat them as I’d treat anyone else. Thats not the issue, and the retards itt arguing otherwise know it.

What you don’t get to do is compete against biological women and you don’t get to invade women’s bathrooms while you have a penis.

And leave the fucking kids alone.

But even that, no one should oblige to call a man a women's name, and vice-versa. That would be being subject to other people, if i've to lie to myself in order to please someone.

 

[UberHere]

But even that, no one should oblige to call a man a women's name, and vice-versa. That would be being subject to other people, if i've to lie to myself in order to please someone.

No one should be obliged by government force to do so. That’s just a matter of decency

 

[Fox by the Sea]

No buddy, the one being pretty funny here is you.

I'll just limit myself to one little point, since wasting my time with an illiterate nimrod is clearly not paying off.

"- developmental anomalies cannot be proof for social constructs. you literally said before gender is not a biological category and now are saying look, there's biological proof for gender. completely clowned yourself."

"if as you say gender is not a biological category, why bother bringing in supposed biological correlations?"

It is not "biological correlations" but correlations between biological factors and social factors that are in question.

Correlations between biological factors and social factors literally collapse to the sexual binary. there's not one correlation between social factors and biological factors that is distinct for this so-called "gender" that doesn't also refer to sex. no a single one.

Why bring those up?

Because the fact that gender and sex are different, and that social determinations are not reducible to biological ones, does not mean they are uncorrelated. In fact, science has and continues to study them. Which was the entire point of the study.

Example: chemistry cannot predict electoral results, which is why sociologists and economists work with different methods, models, and data than chemists.

Are elections and biochemistry uncorrelated? No, obviously. Every voter has a biochemical structure, and biochemistry determines things like psychology, decision making, and so on. This doesn't mean that sociological markers are explainable by or reducible to biology or chemistry, anymore than table manners are explainable by physics.

you're proving my point. science cannot invent a category outside immutable ones.
which is my point above. you cannot create a fake category (gender) that supposedly exists when all the correlations one could make to that category also 100% relate to another supposedly unrelated category.
your whole point is illogical and you're not mentally equipped to understand it.

Is sex the same as gender? No, one is a biological category, the latter a social and psychological one. Are they correlated? Yes, obviously. How does one measure gender? On the basis of statistical data, behavioral reports, psychological states, physiological correlations, historical analysis, and so on.

All these grow from the sexual genus. there not one of the data you mention that isn't reducible to the sexual development category or it's anomalies. so your argument is stupid.

The studies I cited show data that shows a correlation between neurophysiological structure, gender identity, and biological sex. And it shows that the neurophysiology of the individual aligns more with gender than with their biological sex, where the latter is defined chromosomally and phenotypically.

you didn't read those studies, just copy pasted them from google. it's very visible you did not read them cause neurophysiology, which is a biological marker, cannot align with gender, which is as social construct. at most it aligns with hormonal equilibriums inside the make-up of the brain which, as many of the retarded progressives claim do not represent what a "woman" is. you idiots can't even coordinate your horseshit.

Also, someone who identifies as "two spirit" might qualify as insane or not. That's a matter of medical typology and diagnosis.

if it qualifies as insane why is it part of the studies you mentioned as a valid data point?

you're literally arguing for the situation that a guy who thinks is Napoleon should be swiftly given command of the French army because his neurophysiology deems his belief is valid.

just insane shit. it falls like a house of cards at the slightest push. your only argument in favor is "they are studies done by scientist!!!". yeah, sorry, science if filled with quacks. any studies that take self-identification and "two spirit gender" as serious data points are just ideological bullshit and you're falling for it because you don't even understand how the study works.

Should we not study what's going on at the level of relations between that kind of identity relation and other factors? I think science should. And they do. Just like they do examine the relation between gender attributions and self-atrributions, and other factors.

That's quackery. self-identifications are horseshit. people can self-identify as a cat. if anyone takes them seriously it means they're just stupid.

Grow up.

This is how i ended a message to you a few posts back.
What do they say about imitation?

flattery, all that, etc.

 

[b-hop]

No one should be obliged by government force to do so. That’s just a matter of decency

Maybe but that's a personal choice, you've the same right to refuse calling a women's name to a person who's clearly a guy. Otherwise would be someone imposing their willing upon others.

 

[oldshadow]

You can call yourself whatever you want including a name that is female even if you are male. I don't mind calling that name but if you have a dick I'm not going to believe you are a woman and you do not have the right to invade the privacy of woman.

Also I'm not going to call you mam or them or those or whatever crazy shit. I will do my best to treat you with respect the best I can but I'm not going to play stupid games.

 

[NoSmilez]

I honestly don't care. Trannies are such a small group of people. I see them once or twice a month at the gym. I have zero interactions with them outside of giggling inside and going on sherdog to tell my sherhomies about it.

 

[RoastBeast]

I think you have a mental illness called obsession. Maybe you are trans and it's really hard for you to deal with that. Lots of people struggle with their sexuality. You should talk to a professional, maybe get you started some some hormone blockers or whatever they do

Its funny how you guys simultaneously claim to protect these people but you also use them as a club to insult people.

Libs do this with gay people as well. All about gay rights but also all about calling people gay to try and insult them.

The fact that you guys don't even realize that this shows your true colors and feelings towards gay and trans people is pretty funny from those of us on the side of logic and decency.

 

[Koro_11]

I honestly don't care. Trannies are such a small group of people. I see them once or twice a month at the gym. I have zero interactions with them outside of giggling inside and going on sherdog to tell my sherhomies about it.

So your argument is “but but but why do you care soooo much?”

Very original.