Anonymous #1 3d

They are trying to re define the word gender as not a synonym for sex

-4

Anonymous #2 3d

That has been the universally accepted definition for like 80 years

11

Anonymous #3 2d

Find a single pre 2000 source for that claim

-2

Anonymous #2 2d

All of them? Find me a scholarly work from that span that doesn’t make a distinction? Do you think that prehistoric humans had the exact same gender roles and expectations as us? Because newsflash they didn’t, yet they still had two main sexes. Therefore whatever man and woman are, it isn’t intrinsic or 1:1 with sex.

3

Anonymous #3 2d

Im not saying gender roles dont exist or that men and women dont have behaviors on a spectrum, im just saying that historically the terms "gender" "man" "woman" and "sex" all refered to the same two binary catagories. I think you are trying to change our historical defentions of words instead of just calling "trans women" feminine men or something

-2

Anonymous #2 2d

But they aren’t men? They do not adhere to the gender roles or expectations of men. Again, sex and gender have been considered as separate concepts scientifically since the mid 20th century. This isn’t an opinion this is a historical fact. Regardless, it doesn’t really matter what terminology you use to describe them because what is undeniable is that there are two distinct phenomena at work here, and that only one of them is biologically based due to the wealth of examples in differences and

5

Anonymous #2 2d

separately, this only works if by “historically” you mean from a strictly western, christian perspective. you’re implying that every culture everywhere ever has universally agreed with your claim… which is comically wrong.

10

Anonymous #3 2d

And i am asking for any pre 2000 source that says gender and sex are not synonyms. Also i am western, why would i approach this with any perspective other than the western one.

-2

Anonymous #2 2d

because you’re making an ontological claim, that sex=gender is universally how it is, when the fact that it isn’t in other places and cultures entirely debunks your claim. again, find literally anything relating to sex and gender. lay off the right wing garbage on whatever your social media of choice is, the idea that you think sex and gender as separate concepts is a post 2000 idea shows you have zero clue why you’re talking about

6

Anonymous #3 2d

i AM western. I do not care what words exist in other languages or cultures to describe gender roles. I speak ENGLISH. It is a western language. In ENGLISH the words "sex" and "gender" have meant the same thing until a group of people very recently have tried to change that. I do not understand why they feel the need to re define existing words. Related: i think things like restrooms and sports should be divided by sex, not by ones gender identity. Simply be a feminine man in the mens room.

-2

Anonymous #2 2d

My source for this is go find any english dictionary pre 2000. You fill find that sex and gender are listed as synonyms. Again this push to change this is modern.

-2

Anonymous #2 2d

Most dictionaries and textbooks are different now than in 2000. That's how things work... Language evolves and we make new discoveries

7

Anonymous #2 1d

Is 80 years ago your definition of “very recently”? Prior to that gender was mostly used for grammatical purposes.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Dictionaries aren’t actually the arbiters of truth… they’re regularly inconsistent with the current state of science, often for political reasons. For another example, look up the definitions of political ideologies in a dictionary, it’s comical.

1

Anonymous #3 1d

You’re making a normative argument about language that is kind of irrelevant because I’m concerned with scientific truth, not what words people use for things. Until “very recently” while people called black people the n word and gay people the f word, your argument is fallaciousz

1

Anonymous #3 1d

What is this so called science you speak of. That biological men who want to wear dresses exist? If course they do. No one is denying their existence. This ENTIRE DEBATE boils down to "are they women". The debate is literally based around the defention of words. What else is there to argue about.

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

The fact that claiming this is some newfangled modern phenomenon is false? History/Sociology, psychology and neuroscience all disagree on independent empirical bases.

1