Quote from: Groot on June 03, 2015, 04:04:17 PM

Gender (as in the mind and not the body [sex]) is at least partly biological, if not completely. It's innate and can't really be changed, as demonstrated in that example that was quoted with the boy with the botched surgery who was raised as a girl.

It can easily be changed. Caitlyn Jenner much?

It stops being social and becomes biolocical when it requires fucking surgery to influence. Are you going to tell me cancer is a social construct too?

Are you going to tell me cancer is a social construct too?

What a godawful analogy.

Quote from: Majestic Star Dragon on June 03, 2015, 04:10:44 PM

There sre of course outliers and those who diviate from the norm

And it's these outliers that disprove the entire notion that gender is biological. Because it isn't.

The only thing that's biological is testosterone and estrogen (and whatever other hormones may be more prevalent in men/women than the opposite sex--I feel like it might be more than just those two). Neither of which are strictly male or female hormones.

If outliars disprove the entire notion, then do intersexed people make sex a social construct?

Did you read my post with all the links?

I really couldn't care to if all they're going to make is arguments from biology. If they don't, I'll happily read them, but I have a sharp suspicion that they do.

Except that is an argument and you haven't refuted it. If gender is behavioural, and there are obvious behavioural differences as a result of underlying biological causes then the behaviour is a result of biology to some extent.

Only arbitrarily.

All you're doing is literally defining biology out of gender altogether, despite the fact that there is no basis for this. The fact that the thing in question may be behavioural or socially influenced to some degree doesn't preclude it from having biological causes.

It does, considering that the hormones associated with "maleness" aren't written in stone somewhere saying, "men act like this."

]That doesn't hold; the point is that there is a correlation between levels of testosterone and the male sex.

Which is, again, arbitrary.

But they don't; biological abnormalities don't refute the causal relationship we see. I honestly don't really know how you came to this conclusion. If a female is behaving in a masculine way because of testosterone, that is still a behavioural trait being influenced by biology. What makes it masculine is the correlation between certain traits and the male sex.

I don't contest that there's correlation--I'm only saying that there's no causation (actually, maybe the other way around). What we call masculine is an arbitrary distinction constructed by social norms. If all men were born "girly" and all women were born "manly" from this point forward, our perception of the binary would shift, after we got used to it. "Manly" traits wouldn't be so "manly" anymore.

What was historically considered "manly" is now considered womanly by our biology. The paradigm would shift.

So forget the label "manly" or "masculine".

I mean, I'd love to, philosophically, but in this argument, the ideas of masculinity and femininity are sort of intrinsically intertwined with the very definition of gender.

It has no bearing on whether or not the behavioural things we see are the result of biological causes; nobody is saying that there is something about men that makes them necessarily manly, we're just saying that whatever gendered behaviour we see, it has some biological foundation and just happens to correlate with the sexes.

Now you're speaking my language, and you see, that's exactly what I've been saying. That's the social construct argument. "There is nothing about men that makes them necessarily manly." Precisely what I've been saying. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, perhaps I didn't argue it well enough, but that's all I've been saying.

"Whatever gendered behavior we see..."

Right. So it's defined by us. That's the definition of a social construct.

I would agree.

There is indeed biological basis for it--but biology does not dictate everything.
I know that's not really what you were arguing, but you seemed to be flirting with the idea a bit...

Ehhhhh no, but whatever. I don't wanna get into THAT argument again.

If it really was a disease, it's the least harmful disease, ever, so.

What? I'm saying they still end up killing themselves because they're stuck with having gender dysphoria.

and i'm saying that's an incredibly stupid fucking reason to kill yourself

i would assume if it was a disease, then the dysphoria itself would kill you
THEN it would be a problem

but seeing as how it doesn't, it's not a problem

Penis = Male
Vagina = Female

That has nothing to do with anything.

Quote from: Groot on June 03, 2015, 04:48:02 PM

Quote from: challengerX on June 03, 2015, 04:45:58 PM

Gender and sex are synonyms.

No offense, but if you think you're the other sex, you have a mental disease which needs to be cured. Not treated as an equal rights issue.

What would you propose for treatment, oh wise challenger?

Well Kiyo, I propose we start to view it in the manner it needs to be viewed in. Scientifically.

Many transgendered that change sex with operations and such still commit suicide. Clearly, playing along with their illness isn't doing them any favors.

We need to find a way to treat this problem. Maybe there's a way to alter hormones or something in the brain. I don't know. What I do know is that there's nothing good about transsexuality. It's a problem that needs to be solved.

That doesn't mean I disrespect transgenders or anything, just that I don't accept their cry of it being an equal rights issue. It isn't.

A stupidly-high percentage of trans people who get treatment improve, so I don't get where you're going when you say it isn't doing any favors. Shock therapy and hormone treatments (testosterone for MTF and estrogen for FTM) doesn't work. People have tried.

I'm also not Kiyo, but I don't expect you to really change your mind about that