If gender is a social construct, there are only 2-3 genders.

Author: Kritikal

Posts

Total: 64
Kritikal
Kritikal's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 76
0
1
7
Kritikal's avatar
Kritikal
0
1
7
The main claim put forth by those in favor of accepting an infinite amount of genders is that gender is simply a social construct, so therefore there are an infinite amount of genders. This claim seems illogical because if gender is a social construct, it follows that the only valid genders are those which have been socially constructed. 

The only genders which seem to be accepted by society are men and women, and at this point it might also be correct to include non-binary in that list. By this logic, the only pronouns that are valid are: he/she/they.

Furthermore, if gender is a social contract this means that you do not simply get to pick and choose your own gender. Society deems what gender you are because gender is a social construct in the first place. I do not think many would admit this, but I think that this is how most people who accept trans-genderism as a concept actually operate. Trans-people who look like the gender they claim to be are believed by many to be that gender, but no one believes a 6’ 2” guy with a mustache and giant muscles is actually a woman even if he says he is.

This is also proven by the fact that to be accepted as trans by even the left wing, people must first change the way they dress, go on to hormones, and are even encouraged to get a “gender affirming” surgery when gender apparently has nothing to do with physical attributes, but it clearly does because the social construct of gender draws from customs and physical sex. With the understanding that gender is a social construct, a man must be masculine, a woman must be feminine, and if non-binary is a socially acceptable identity they must have a certain level of androgynity to be non-binary. 

This is what the social construct argument actually says, but it seems like many on the left have drawn conclusions from this argument that are illogical.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Kritikal
when gender apparently has nothing to do with physical attributes,
great point
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I actually am of the opposite mentality.

I am not sure looks are to do with gender at all and resent the hormones and genital disfigurement going on. I completely support crossdressing and being true to who one is deep down, whether their masculinity or femininity matches their sex's norm.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,116
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Kritikal

How do you explain  Robert Crimo III ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
How do you explain  Robert Crimo III ?
how many crimes are committed with automobiles ?

don't you think it's time for us to require background checks and mental health evaluations and waiting periods before selling someone a one-ton plus death machine ?
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
Can someone help me understand why I should get worked up about what pronoun someone wants to use to refer to themselves? FOr the life of me, I can't find it, and so much time and energy is dedicated to it apparently. 
Kritikal
Kritikal's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 76
0
1
7
Kritikal's avatar
Kritikal
0
1
7
-->
@RationalMadman
I am not sure looks are to do with gender at all and resent the hormones and genital disfigurement going on. I completely support crossdressing and being true to who one is deep down, whether their masculinity or femininity matches their sex's norm.
I agree with you that looks have nothing to do with gender, and here I was just trying to examine the logical conclusion of the social construct theory. My beleif is similar to yours in the sense that I do not belive you can change your sex, but that it is possible to become more feminine/masculine.

Kritikal
Kritikal's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 76
0
1
7
Kritikal's avatar
Kritikal
0
1
7
-->
@FLRW
How do you explain  Robert Crimo III ?
Sorry, I am not sure what this is reffering to. Who is Robert Crimo?

Kritikal
Kritikal's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 76
0
1
7
Kritikal's avatar
Kritikal
0
1
7
-->
@ludofl3x
I think there are several reasons that it is important. 

It is inherently wrong to use pronouns like zee, ziz, tee, and ter. These make you sound ridiculous, and saying words like that will actually discredit you in the public. You most certainly should not be forced to use improper pronouns that you and others think are wrong simply because of fear from backlash.

Etymology and rhetoric are also important. The words we use have effects on our beliefs. More importantly, they have an effect on the beliefs of little children and ultimately the new generation. This say it even though you don't believe it thing might work for those born before gender ideology took hold, but by the time those who grew up with it will actually buy into it. The effect of it is having more people who are trans, and as such more people who are going on hormones and even mutilating themselves. This is not good for them, but by using the wrong pronouns it affirms and encourages it. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Kritikal
and as such more people who are going on hormones and even mutilating themselves.
are you in favor of restricting all elective body-modifications ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Kritikal
they have an effect on the beliefs of little children
are these pronouns more dangerous than teaching children religion ?
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Kritikal
It is inherently wrong to use pronouns like zee, ziz, tee, and ter. These make you sound ridiculous, and saying words like that will actually discredit you in the public. You most certainly should not be forced to use improper pronouns that you and others think are wrong simply because of fear from backlash.
I don't think "inherently wrong" is the same as "make you sound ridiculous." What happens, effectively, if you use one of these pronouns at someone's request? What's the public reaction if you did it in a Starbucks, for example? I guess I don't understand what the 'backlash' for using them is. Can you explain further, with like specific examples? 

he effect of it is having more people who are trans, and as such more people who are going on hormones and even mutilating themselves. This is not good for them, but by using the wrong pronouns it affirms and encourages it. 
So pronouns lead to people mutilating themselves and going on hormones. What about the people who genuinely want to pursue their happiness without conforming to birth gender, who then live in the shadows, hide those instincts, then end up in years of therapy, on all sorts of pharmaceuticals, etc., plus all the other effects on lives like depression, suicides, families estranging their own, etc.? 

Your reasons here do not seem to be commensurate with the level of ire about it in certain circles, honestly. I still don't see how it affects anyone but the person who's using the pronouns. In my view, those people have to give the rest of us just a little time to get used to using them, that's all. 
Kritikal
Kritikal's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 76
0
1
7
Kritikal's avatar
Kritikal
0
1
7
-->
@3RU7AL
are you in favor of restricting all elective body-modifications ?
I am not in favor of restricting any body modifications, but I do not think we should be encouraging it. If some random guy wants to inject himself with CRISPR, that is probably not a good thing. If some guy wants to cut off his organs I can't stop him, but I also would not encourage it. Doctors also take the hippocratic oath meaning they are not supposed to hurt people, so they probably should not preform a transgender surgery either.

are these pronouns more dangerous than teaching children religion ?
It depends on the religion. Is the religion true, does it have good values, or does it teach children to mutilate themselves? 
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
 Doctors also take the hippocratic oath meaning they are not supposed to hurt people, so they probably should not preform a transgender surgery either.
THat's not the hippocratic oath. It's first do no harm. Not don't hurt people. Ever had surgery? They all hurt.

 Is the religion true, does it have good values, or does it teach children to mutilate themselves? 
All religions claim yes, yes, and some, yes, respectively. Circumcision, for example. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Kritikal
but I do not think we should be encouraging it
ok, so no more images of movie stars with fake bodies [**]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Kritikal
does it teach children to mutilate themselves
there are a few that strongly encourage circumcision
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Kritikal
Is the religion true, does it have good values
um, have you looked at crime rates for populations of "religious people" versus "non-religious people" ?

and how exactly do you expect to determine the "truth value" of unfalsifiable claims ?
Kritikal
Kritikal's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 76
0
1
7
Kritikal's avatar
Kritikal
0
1
7
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't think "inherently wrong" is the same as "make you sound ridiculous." What happens, effectively, if you use one of these pronouns at someone's request? What's the public reaction if you did it in a Starbucks, for example? I guess I don't understand what the 'backlash' for using them is. Can you explain further, with like specific examples? 
The reason that it makes you sound ridiculous is because it is inherently wrong. The vast majority in most areas do not buy into this ideology, and they will not take you seriously if you use zee as a pronoun. There is backlash either way, if you use them people will not take you seriously, but if you do not the woke will call you a bigot. 

What about the people who genuinely want to pursue their happiness without conforming to birth gender, who then live in the shadows, hide those instincts, then end up in years of therapy, on all sorts of pharmaceuticals, etc., plus all the other effects on lives like depression, suicides, families estranging their own, etc.? 
This really depends on how we define gender. With the identify as whatever you would like argument, your physical biology should not even matter in the first place as long as you call yourself whatever gender you want to be. With the physical sex argument, you can not actually change your gender at all. With the social construct argument, you do not pick your own gender and their is no point in trying to influence your own gender beyond convicing others that you are part of that gender which does not solve the mental health concerns because it relies on the rest of society buying in to the new identity which in many cases does not even exist as a social concept. Any way you cut it, mutliation is not the answer. 

The vast majority of gender identity either stem from abuse or the new culture of 'acceptance'. The former can ussually be solved through therapy and addressing the root cause of the trauma, but simply endulging the new identity is not healthy because it traps the victim with their coping mechanism. As for the latter, it is usually solved very quickly by contradicting the person and explaining why they are whatever gender they were born with. 

Actual gender dysphoria is extremely rare, but can be solved with psychiatric treatments. This is similar to xenomelia (wanting to cut ones own limbs off). We should not simply go along with xenomelia, and cut off arms and legs whenever someone would like. It is more important to tell that person the truth that it is wrong to cut off your own legs and arms. 

I still don't see how it affects anyone but the person who's using the pronouns.
Ovbiously it does affect the person using the pronouns, but it is not healthy to use the pronouns for them either. It 'affirms' their identity and prevents actual care that would help them, but it changes the entire culture as well. This is why the predominance of transgenderism has increased 100 fold in the 21st century, especially in young children.
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Kritikal
The vast majority of gender identity either stem from abuse or the new culture of 'acceptance'. 
Is there data backing up this claim? Also, 'acceptance' is what freedom requires. 

 As for the latter, it is usually solved very quickly by contradicting the person and explaining why they are whatever gender they were born with. 
Can you explain why they are whatever gender they were born with to, let's say, a 9 year old boy who feels more like his feminine classmates than his masculine ones? "You are not what you claim to be, rather you are a member of the male gender BECAUSE _______." I just want to see what the quick explanation is. I think it has something to do with a person's genitals, which honestly, not my business. 

This is why the predominance of transgenderism has increased 100 fold in the 21st century, especially in young children.
You don't think this has anything to do with the more wide acceptance of transgenderism in general, that the ratio is likely around the same but because we are on the whole more accepting of transgenderism that more people, including children, are comfortable identifying as such, but rather that there are in fact more transgenders and gay people because of this pronoun issue?

ETA:

Ovbiously it does affect the person using the pronouns, but it is not healthy to use the pronouns for them either. 
How does it affect YOU, the person who doesn't want to use the pronouns, though? I mean besides you're worried someone thinks you're a dick for not doing something so simple (aka backlash).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Kritikal
The reason that it makes you sound ridiculous is because it is inherently wrong.
are you suggesting that "moon-beam" is a ridiculous sounding legal name because it is (somehow) "inherently wrong" ?
Kritikal
Kritikal's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 76
0
1
7
Kritikal's avatar
Kritikal
0
1
7
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, so no more images of movie stars with fake bodies [**]
Ovbiously this is less harmful than actual mutliation, but it is certainly unhealthy and I do not think that we should encourage cosmetic body modification either.'

there are a few that strongly encourage circumcision
First, circumcision is ritualistic and as such has an actual pourpose. Beyond this, it has many scientific benefits as well.

 um, have you looked at crime rates for populations of "religious people" versus "non-religious people" ?

and how exactly do you expect to determine the "truth value" of unfalsifiable claims ?
I have, and from the rates I have seen relgious people tend to be less violent than non-religious people. 

As for the truth value, this really only matters if you are relgious yourself. If you are not religious what does it matter if someone belives in relgion to you. It is not like they are being drawn away from some other god that does not exist according to those who do not belive in religion. 

I would also contest that relgions are unfalsifiable. Look at greek, roman, or egyption mythology all religions that at one point were taken seriously but were prooven to be impossible. Christianity also makes many claims, and yet it has not been prooven false. For example, Christianity makes many historical claims about Jesus that could be disprooven quite easily if they were untrue, but the bible is regarded as the most historically acurate book by most historians. 

Kritikal
Kritikal's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 76
0
1
7
Kritikal's avatar
Kritikal
0
1
7
-->
@ludofl3x
The vast majority of gender identity either stem from abuse or the new culture of 'acceptance'. 
Is there data backing up this claim? Also, 'acceptance' is what freedom requires. 
Yes, the dsm gives an estimate around 0.005% I belive to gender dysphoria. I am not entirely sure what you mean by "acceptance is what freedom requires". It seems like freedom would allow me to disapprove of whatever I like.

Can you explain why they are whatever gender they were born with to, let's say, a 9 year old boy who feels more like his feminine classmates than his masculine ones? "You are not what you claim to be, rather you are a member of the male gender BECAUSE _______."

"You are not what you claim to be, rather you are a member of the male gender BECAUSE you are a biological male. Gender has nothing to do with how masculine or feminine you are. There are masculine woman, and feminine men. This does not mean that your gender has changed."

3. Transgenderism has always been there and we just see it now because of greater acceptance.
I seriously doubt this claim becuase "transphobia" has not always been a thing. Fifteen years agon 99% of the population would not have even known what transgenderism was, and as such there was no movement against it. Yet, fifteen years ago nobodty was coming out as transgender. Furthermore, multiple studies have shown that transgenderism primarly spreads as a social contagion (which would of course be true if it were true that gender was just a social construct as well). Here is one: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330

How does it affect YOU, the person who doesn't want to use the pronouns, though? I mean besides you're worried someone thinks you're a dick for not doing something so simple (aka backlash).
Yes the backlash is a concern as I do not want to be percieved as "a dick for not doing something so simple," but I also want to maintain credibility with the non-woke crowd plus I would rather not be cancled for speaking the truth. Beyond this, my main concern is not about myself, but about the rest of society and the future generations that will be more affected.
Kritikal
Kritikal's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 76
0
1
7
Kritikal's avatar
Kritikal
0
1
7
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting that "moon-beam" is a ridiculous sounding legal name because it is (somehow) "inherently wrong" ?
No, that is something that is etymologically wrong. I am not sure what your point is here, it is entirely possible to change your name and it always has been because your name is completly abitrary (other the limits of any given language).
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,949
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Males rape females. 
Let that sink in
5
4
3
2
1

more so then females rape males. 
Alottttttttt more so. 
This has to be taken into consideration. 

What i am trying to say is.   Females don't want man to be able to be known as females. 
Actually thats some big implications.   Over time.  

Maybe females can be " gender nute "  .      I'm cool with that. 

If we let anyone be anyone history stats will blurr.  Actually i need to think more about that. 

Maybe this gender business does not come into play until you are standing at a piss trough next to a lady.

I suspect Transgender people might not use public toilets.  Orrrrrrr the opposite of that. 

I'm  gonna Pass. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Kritikal
First, circumcision [...] has an actual pourpose. Beyond this, it has many scientific benefits as well.
citation please
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Kritikal
If you are not religious what does it matter if someone belives in relgion to you.
If you are not LGBTQ+ what does it matter if someone believes in LGBTQ+ to you.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Kritikal
No, that is something that is etymologically wrong. I am not sure what your point is here, it is entirely possible to change your name and it always has been because your name is completly abitrary (other the limits of any given language).
a pronoun is a placeholder for YOUR NAME

they are the same thing
Kritikal
Kritikal's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 76
0
1
7
Kritikal's avatar
Kritikal
0
1
7
citation please

If you are not religious what does it matter if someone belives in relgion to you.
If you are not LGBTQ+ what does it matter if someone believes in LGBTQ+ to you.
Well I am religious. But that is probably the short and easy answer. 

Religion is an essential part of society, not that there have never been any harms, but overally relgion tends to increase societal cohesion and decrease crime. Transgenderism is an individual phenomenon where people tend to actively harm themselves. It is also probably not fair to say all religions are important to society and any more valid than transgederism. 

For example in ancient aztec civilization sacrifice was a common problem. Humans were put to death not only by excision of the heart  followed by decapitation) but also by decapitation ( followed by heart extraction), having the throat cut, being thrown into fire  followed by heart extraction), being scratched, followed by heart extraction and flaying  being shot with arrows  followed by heart extraction), drowning. being buried alive, and being hurled down from the top of a pole or a pyramid.  bludgeon strokes, stoning, impaling, tearing out the entrails, having the roof of a house falling down on victims, and squeezing them in a net.

I would not be in favor of the Aztec religion in the same way that I am not in favor of transgenderism because of the practices and values that it condones. I would not be in favor of Christian practices that do similar things to the Aztec festivals or to modern day trans-gender ideology, but I do support it becuase Christianity has different core values and practices.

a pronoun is a placeholder for YOUR NAME

they are the same thing
Yes, and it is a place holder for your name no matter what your name is. It is possible to have a name that is inherently wrong as well. For example, a woman named James. This is because even though the name itself is abitrary, there are 3 sets of names which are not arbitrary. Male, Female, and neutral names.

Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@3RU7AL
are you in favor of restricting all elective body-modifications ?
There's a difference between elective body modification and elective reality modification. 
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Kritikal
but no one believes a 6’ 2” guy with a mustache and giant muscles is actually a woman even if he says he is.
A strong buff biological woman wearing a moustache is indeed a woman. That is literally the counterpoint of:
when gender apparently has nothing to do with physical attributes,
Unless I am misunderstanding, you are using an example of physical attributes hinting the gender identity when in reality it does not.

As for what I think, what if there is spectrum of male and female, with 100% male at one side and 100% female on the other(most people are in these two categories, or so it is being classified now), and true non-binary is at 50% male and 50% female retaining balance. What if we class our genders in such fashion? What downside would there be, aside from slight about inconvenience?