If gender isn't at least partially determinable by biology(brain chemistry maybe, or even the influence of hormones on in utero brain developement) how is it that you get individuals with gender dysphoria?

That's like asking if fire is hot, why does it burn shit? Like... come the fuck on.

Which is a completely unwarranted assumption. How many academic studies have you actually tried to find which confirms this explanation of gender you've been given your whole life?

Numerous. Probably one of the most famous is Doing Gender—the link itself contains numerous other studies that cite it as a source.

Couple more:
Article discussing parental influence of gender.
Second chapter of a sociology textbook discussing the social construction of gender.

The reason why you never really see me cite anything during arguments is because, frankly, I just prefer to argue for myself a priori. I think this sort of issue is tautological. Not to mention, it's easy as hell to accuse people of cherrypicking. I could cite as many sources as I want, and people would still find problems with them, just as I have problems with theirs. It's a fruitless and time-consuming practice.

Nobody's conflating anything.

Sex = A purely biological, chromosomal configuration.

Gender = Self-perception with regards to either masculine or feminine traits.

The question is how much, if at all, the latter is driven by biology.

Positing that the latter is driven by biology would be conflation of the two things. If it's driven by biology, it is a characteristic of sex, period.

But hey, it just hit me—you're arguing that gender itself is a sex characteristic. It's within the sex blanket.

I don't see any real use for that, but whatever. I can't really disagree with it, but I don't hold that point of view at all. Gender is the footprint that sex leaves on the zeitgeist. It's the water in the pitcher—it's not the pitcher itself. The water just takes its shape. Footprints aren't a part of you—they're just what you leave in your wake.

You have to admit though that biology does have a certain degree of influence on how most people portray gender.

Sure.

Quote

One potential reason for this difficulty may be that our evolutionary history has shaped the human mind in ways that tend to perpetuate intergroup conflict. The male warrior hypothesis argues that, for men, intergroup conflict represents an opportunity to gain access to mates, territory and increased status, and this may have created selection pressures for psychological mechanisms to initiate and display acts of intergroup aggression.

>potential
>may
>hypothesis

These words should not inspire a particularly high degree of confidence within you. If it compels you, fine--but it doesn't compel me, and I'll try to dive into it further as soon as I'm out of class. To cite this article as truth in its current state would be disingenuous.

Honestly it doesn't seem as if you've read them at all.

What, just because I don't accept it, that means I didn't read them? I don't automatically accept everything that I read on the Internet, and neither should you. Especially when it conflicts with what I've been taught over... basically my whole life. This basic idea that there's more to sex than just penises and vaginas, and that gender is something else entirely.

I'd like to just point out, too, that this argument is pure semantics. I find my definition of gender better and more useful than yours.

There isn't a single thing about the definition of gender that precludes biological explanations, at all.

Under the shittiest and most out-dated of definitions, perhaps.

I see no purpose in conflating biological sex and gender identity. It only serves to muddy the waters further.

If you could again highlight relevant passages, that would be super. I read the first two articles and found that the first one helped me more than it helped you, and likewise with the second article. Social gravity leads to the divvying up of the sexes into genders. You can blame biology in the same way that I can blame Karl Benz for the last car accident I was in, but that doesn't seem logical to me.

You call it "reductionist"; I call it knowing what the fuck gender means. And it has fuck all to do with biology.

Irrelevant; the study has literally nothing to do with probability.

I'm not talking about probabilities--I'm talking about coincidences.

The fact that more baby girls (out of a mere 50) paid more attention to a face than they did a mobile doesn't mean anything. It's a shitty outdated study; never use it again.

Biology is the reason men are innately more violent; it's the reason women tend to go into work in jobs which are more "people-oriented"; it's the reason why we see more auto-segregation in more equal countries and it's the reason we see greater personality differences in more equal countries.

Prove it. I don't accept any of this.

Venom Snake must be superhumanly fast if he can kill several dudes, like six or seven fucking dudes, in the maybe two seconds that reflex mode actually lasts.

you say that like it's unbelievable or something

in a universe where psychic powers exist

You haven't looked hard enough then.

>neuroanatomical differences associated with gender identity.
>neuroanatomical
>anatomical

Sex, not gender.

We've observed gendered behaviour in humans just one day old.

>"Sex differences in human neonatal social perception"
>Sex

The word "gender" isn't even used once in the entire article.

Mega Bidoof when

not even mega bibarel

mega bidoof

Fuck that.

MUST MAINTAIN STATUS QUO

I've yet to see compelling evidence to suggest that gender identity has any type of biological ties whatsoever.

And that's because there isn't any, because... "gender" refers specifically to those characteristics that aren't biological. It's like trying to find water that isn't composed of H2O.

Is that Newspeak?

nah

seems like it though

No.

Did you just fucking spoil the game for me!?

define the word "nonplussed"

Quote from: Verbatim on September 09, 2015, 05:46:52 PM

Quote from: Punished Snake on September 09, 2015, 05:04:24 PM

Neither do I. But the realism here adds to the gameplay by making it less of a gimmicky "stealth" game (like the previous games were, let's be honest) and more of a stealth simulator.

What are you trying to say? Genres are gimmicks?

wat

I quoted the post... I'm assuming that's not what you were saying, then.