Expecting anyone, even people who did not grow up in such an environment, to know all the ins and outs of very complicated gender structures sounds reasonable to you?
Sometimes the zeal to be progressive can actually flip over to the other side and become intolerant, or not aware enough of the struggles of people outside of a progressive bubble.

It is what we're dealing with: 'everyone outside of your group'. The majority of people will not be malignant, just ignorant, even in my experience as a target for that kind of intolerance. Holland is relatively progressive of course, but even jn other places many people will mean well.
And even in progressive bubbles it seems like some people assert there are hundreds of genders. Expecting people to keep track of all of that without stumbling is unreasonable.

Woke AI goes bleep

But anyway, the point I was trying to make is simply that humanity and empathy is way more important than wokeness, and wokeness can get in the way of that when it's ill-considered.

it's not the exact same but some attributes are more universal than others. There are fairly broad generalizations you can make about gender that apply regardless of the culture you are referring to.

This is what I mean by social construct being a misleading term. There's no one definition of life or what makes an entity a form of life. There are multiple competing definitions. There's no one definition of species or what differentiates one species from another. But life is still a natural phenomenon. So is speciation. The fact that it's complicated doesn't make it any less concrete a description of some underlying reality.

As WWWP said, people hate grey areas. To me, the gender abolitionist approach seems like they seize on the grey areas and then conclude that the category is invalid because it's not clear cut black and white. I'm perfectly willing to accept the grey areas and that doesn't make me think the category itself is problematic.

Does life or speciation have only a loose biological basis?

Or is it that categories only lack a biological basis when they deal specifically with humans. How curious.

that's just it. I'm not seeing any such evaporation of the category I'm seeing people who were previously miscategorized correcting the record and identifying with what they see as the proper category. The idea that this is just a transitional phase to removing the category altogether is just pure conjecture mixed with wishful thinking. Nothing more.

please do address it

Because I think you draw a sort of distinction between what is biological and what is socially constructed that in reality is far less distinct than you realize

please... Name 10 major genders and try describing the functional differences between them

We're shifting from a binary distinction to a bimodal distribution i.e. a "spectrum". That isn't undermining the category. It's just adding contextual nuance

What?

Yeah I don't necessarily disagree, I was teasing about the fact that your comment just came out of nowhere

We definitely have different perspectives, I think in Holland the intolerance is less aggressive than in the south of the US, and more caustic below the surface (even though it can be pretty ****ing aggressive here too). I do think that even with many of the worst people it's still best to just stay mature and not descend to their level of hostility

nah, they're pretty distinguishable lol. We're a sexually dimorphic species. Learn to biology.

In the not so distant future reproduction through sexual fertilization and pregnancy will be obsolete. Not long after that people will probably stop using gender specific pronouns and even identifying as male or female. And like everything else people do that will be 100% biological because humans cannot escape biology. Even if we transfer our consciousness onto a microchip that microchip will be our biology.

This and also painfully fake Hillary fandom coming from the guy who's obsessed with "girls".

OK Casper

She is a woman.

Is that why you love women? To not be queer?

What’s happened outside your consciousness that you’re aware of?

Hint: The answer is nothing. You wouldn’t know about it if you weren’t aware of it therefore it has to be happening in your consciousness. No sociologist knows anything that’s outside of what they know and everything they know is a part of their consciousness and a person’s consciousness is made up of atoms arranged into neurons and synapses and other physical manifestations that all exist inside your body. Therefore, everything is biological. There’s no thought, emotion, idea, or understanding that you have or ever will have or ever can have that isn’t physical and biological.

actually not all species are sexually dimorphic but humans are. That's the distinction you don't seem to get.

There are physiological differences beyond sex organs as well. Pointing to anomalies doesn't change that. There's a reason beyond social conditioning why men and women compete in separate sports leagues.

Earthworms **** themselves and get pregnant.

You should give that a shot.

Averages are all there ever are though. Once again pointing out anomalies is not a refutation of a trend.

No it's not. Men and women are visibly distinguishable the vast majority of the time. In terms of physiological differences, the fact that some women are taller than some men or more athletic that some men is just a function of the fact that there's also a spectrum within each sex based on these categories... So the high end of the female spectrum overlaps with the low end of the male spectrum.

Humans are smart, except when they have an extra chromosome

Elph is in extra chromosome mode

Isn't sexually dimorphic that there are discrete differences instead of a continuous scale, like the colour of ducks? That doesn't apply to humans, apart from sexual organs.
I don't see what the point is though. What does it matter whether male and female sex are distinguishable or not?
Well of course. I'm a cis girl but its not like that has ever mattered to anyone who is intending to discriminate. What point is that supposed to prove though, it just means that the hostility depends on how people perceive you instead of who you are, and it sets in as soon as you don't conform to gender norms.

As opposed to where?

not necessarily. All it means is this:

distinct difference in size or appearance between the sexes of an animal in addition to difference between the sexual organs themselves.

Some instances of sexual dimorphism are more obvious than others but there are often scales within the sexes of sexually dimorphic species. Male lions are bigger on average than female lions but also some m male lions are bigger than other males and the same with females. Birds with distinct color patterns in the males can vary from male to male etc.

As for whether it applies to humans, we have lower levels of sexual dimorphism compared to some other species but still pronounced enough to be both recognizable and relevant:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...same%20species.

Oh sure in that case it's fair to say humans are dimorphic

Which exists outside of nature apparently

Are beehives and ant colonies unnatural? Cause they cooperate on a level we could hardly dream of.

lol I also said bees

It's true though. Social organization is part of nature.

Nah lobsters weren't made in the image of god like apparently you think humans were.

It seems like you have basic platitudes you will just repeat instead of trying to explain the logic behind them

You might be right but explain to me where the distinction lies and why. You can mock it all you want but it is a fact that there are species that are actually more socially oriented than humans, including some insects already mentioned and iirc some species of moles or whatever. The term for these species is eusocial, which though we are socially oriented we are not eusocial.

omfg can we have less lobsters and more queer **** here please

Now you know how I feel with all astrology ****.

yeah I know, astrology should have its own thread too if the topic flares up again

You know I'm sure there's an entire Subreddit full of stoners and grifters for that.

there's probably a subreddit for every single topic on this forum, yet here we are

Reddit is a miserable medium. I can’t even stand to try to read it. I think it’s because of the up button. Plus, like Facebook it’s cumbersome and inconvenient. Twitter is even worse. It seems the more worthless the medium is the more popular it becomes.

Um well. As for on-topic things. I think Taylor Swift is a deeply closeted/repressed bisexual (she hardly makes any sense as a human being otherwise) cosplaying as a Relatable Straight Girl due to terrifying levels of fame-induced neurosis/image obsession and also, ofc, desire to retain her homophobic normie fanbase because $$$. I have been saying this for years and years and I am correct.
Also some of her songs are just extremely gay. Will elaborate later if anyone wishes.