Support NeoGAF

[brap]

Hmm interesting. I did some digging and it seems that even social-focused psychologists believe there's a give and take when it comes to what defines gender, neither entirely biological nor social. One referenced that particular study as flawed and sad. They held out to the idea that the psychologist in question pushed femininity too hard on the boy. Without going as far to admit it, they seemed to imply it's a strong warning sign that gender traits should not be forced at such a tender age. My knowledge on this subject is too weak to offer further perspective but it feels relevant to consider in this day and age; let gender flow naturally and then consider what to do.



I wouldn't dare. What if I caught the gay?!!!?!?!

Real talk though, I met my first proper girlfriend at a gay bar. It's a crazy world out there.

Wait wtf? I don't wanna derail the thread but not gay people go to gay bars?

 

[Hudo]

Anyone can be whatever they want as long as they shut the fuck up about and just be it without having to annoy everyone else.

No one gives a shit who or what you think you are except you and maybe 4 other people. The other 7+ billion people in the world do not care about you. I really wish people would learn this.

Thank you, good Sir. One of the wisest statements ever put on the internet.

 

[ROMhack]

Wait wtf? I don't wanna derail the thread but not gay people go to gay bars?

Unsure if it's a thing these days because this was 7 years ago but straight girls apparently go to gay bars because they don't like being hassled by brutish alpha men like yourself Matt. Friendlier atmosphere, as you can imagine.

Probably not men but I got dragged there for a birthday thing with some people from work.

 

[CyberPanda]

Unsure if it's a thing these days because this was 7 years ago but straight girls apparently go to gay bars because they don't like being hassled by brutish alpha men like yourself Matt. Friendlier atmosphere, as you can imagine.

Probably not men but I got dragged there for a birthday thing with some people from work.

Naw, girls go there to turn gay men straight.

 

[GymWolf]

It may take a lifetime to decide whether you are a pitcher or a catcher.

Is this another american baseball sex analogy like achieving second or third base with a woman?

 

[CyberPanda]

Is this another american baseball sex analogy like achieving second or third base with a woman?

Pitcher and catcher means top or bottom, I think.

 

[GymWolf]

Pitcher and catcher means top or bottom, I think.

I was thinking about pitcher who gives dicks and catcher who take dicks, so i was wrong??

 

[buizel]

I was thinking about pitcher who gives dicks and catcher who take dicks, so i was wrong??

This is the definition of pitcher and catcher, its not a top/bottom thing.

 

[GymWolf]

This is the definition of pitcher and catcher, its not a top/bottom thing.

Good, i only know baseball because i watch ace of diamonds anime

 

[Papa]

I'm going to agree but I always thought the difference was 'sex' and 'gender'. The former being innate, with the latter being a quick term for gender expression, and hence cultural.

Am I wrong? I always thought that's the basis of the argument people try to make.

You are wrong, yes. Gender was always synonymous with sex, albeit it from different root languages, until John Money began his grotesque experiments on David Reimer. The results run completely counter to current_year dogma. Reimer was ‘reassigned’ as an infant after a botched circumcision. Growing up, he always knew that there was something wrong — that his body didn’t match his brain. No amount of social reinforcement could convince him that he was a girl and he ended up killing himself when he found out what happened. His situation demonstrated that gender is biological, not social. It showed the exact opposite of what gender social constructionists claim. The Scandinavian gender equality paradox (the more ‘equal’ a society’s opportunity becomes along gender variables, the more disparate the outcomes) reinforces this but is all but ignored by the gender ideologues.

The next logical question is what motive could someone have for separating the terms ‘gender’ and ‘sex’, and the answer is that the goal of feminism has always been to dismantle gender structures in western society. If they can establish that gender expressions are inherited socially rather than biologically then they can assert that they are mutable (can be changed). Implanting this cancerous idea in the public’s collective mind has been like taking a sledgehammer to the social fabric. The hypothesis of Money provided a convenient starting point, but it required the results of his experiments to be ignored and significant amounts of cognitive dissonance, if not just straight up lies. We have since had decades upon decades of illegitimate pseudo-religious doctrine published under the facade of science via academic feminism. It has been gradually leaking into the mainstream over the last decade, give or take, and accelerated by the Obama presidency in which he frequently and publicly pushed feminist dogma such as the wage gap.

Ignore the feminist PR front. It is not about ‘equality’, as nebulous and ill-defined a term as that is. It is about dismantling social structures for their own benefit. Establishing gender as a social construct is a necessary part of this because otherwise they are attempting to change something we have no control over — biology and nature itself. Patriarchy theory is the other critical part — the idea that the history of western gender roles has been about men oppressing and exploiting women like chattel slaves for their benefit. This is a lie — the role of the male in western society (and every other successful society for that matter) has been as the provider and protector of women and children. Traditional gender roles (nurture) are designed to exaggerate the intrinsic biological attributes (nature) and establish incentives for males to play the protector and provider role for the good of society as a whole. The biological and social aspects are not mutually exclusive.

Feminists can only get away with this scam when the need for gender roles is not readily apparent. We are currently living in one of the longest and most prosperous periods of peace since Ancient Rome. The US and its allies haven’t had to enact a draft in a very long time. Occupational health and safety is more advanced than it ever has been and has made the workplace a more attractive place to be. Technology has automated away much of the traditional household work like washing, cleaning and meal preparation. Meanwhile, birth control has given women complete reproductive agency and released them from the ‘shackles’ of womanhood (the effect on fertility and the macrosocial psychological effects is another can of worms I won’t open here).

Western women are complacent. Life has been made so easy for them that they no longer appreciate their prosperity which has largely been built for them upon a foundation of male disposability. What do I mean by this? To be the most prosperous society, you need to win wars. To win wars, you need the strongest army. To have the strongest army, you need to dehumanise (notice how this word has been co-opted by intersectional feminism?) a portion of your male population to eliminate cowardice that is (rightly) afforded to women and children and instill a greater appetite for risk. How else do you convince them to fight and die on a battlefield? You need to raise ruthless killing machines who are not afraid to dispose of their own self for the greater good. It should be obvious why this is limited to the male gender.

Another effect of war is that, assuming parity of male and female births during peacetime, it reduces the proportion of males to females such that females have to compete for a mate. During peacetime, this inverts and women no longer have to compete for a mate. This results in sex-starved males thirsting for the stankest crumb and women no longer have to exaggerate their natural feminine attributes. No pink haired, unwashed wildebeest is getting laid during wartime. There just isn’t the supply of thirsty betas available for them. So they are forced to compete. But competition inherently produces winners and losers. What happens to the losers of female mating competition? They flock to feminism. Like the losers of any social hierarchy, they seek to tear it down so that they can better compete. This is where patriarchy theory (lie) comes from. This is where the motive to separate ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ (lie) comes from.

What do we do about it? I don’t have a solution. I don’t approve of authoritarian measures, so I oppose direct government intervention (though I would support limiting funding of public academic institutions to only productive subjects like STEM and health). Other cultures, e.g. Islam, allow polygamy. Whether this is deliberate to prevent the above, I don’t know, but there’s no feminism in Islamic culture. I believe that monogamous heterosexual relationships are the backbone of society (get fucked Pocahontas) so the polygamy solution doesn’t work for me. This leaves us with war as an existential thread to prevent cultural complacency (WAR IS PEACE). However, I’ve been anti-war my entire life, so I’m completely conflicted here. But then I think: what happens in 10 years when the US is still bogged down by intersectionality and China is about to overtake it as the world’s largest economy and therefore most influential trade partner? Seems to me that war is inevitable in that instance. Another fun side tangent to think about is climate change as an existential threat — it is obviously acting as one for a subset of the population, but it’s a corrupted one because the enemy — the ‘other’ that must be defeated — is the society itself.

TL;DR
When there is no existential threat (e.g. war, but also famine, pestilence, etc.), the need for male disposability is no longer apparent and the society as a whole becomes complacent. It allows gender roles to be unraveled thread by thread until all you have left is a tangled mess of what used to be a functional sweater strewn all over the floor. Separating ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ is the first thread to be pulled on because it then exposes all of the others.

 

[CyberPanda]

You are wrong, yes. Gender was always synonymous with sex, albeit it from different root languages, until John Money began his grotesque experiments on David Reimer. The results run completely counter to current_year dogma. Reimer was ‘reassigned’ as an infant after a botched circumcision. Growing up, he always knew that there was something wrong — that his body didn’t match his brain. No amount of social reinforcement could convince him that he was a girl and he ended up killing himself when he found out what happened. His situation demonstrated that gender is biological, not social. It showed the exact opposite of what gender social constructionists claim. The Scandinavian gender equality paradox (the more ‘equal’ a society’s opportunity becomes along gender variables, the more disparate the outcomes) reinforces this but is all but ignored by the gender ideologues.

The next logical question is what motive could someone have for separating the terms ‘gender’ and ‘sex’, and the answer is that the goal of feminism has always been to dismantle gender structures in western society. If they can establish that gender expressions are inherited socially rather than biologically then they can assert that they are mutable (can be changed). Implanting this cancerous idea in the public’s collective mind has been like taking a sledgehammer to the social fabric. The hypothesis of Money provided a convenient starting point, but it required the results of his experiments to be ignored and significant amounts of cognitive dissonance, if not just straight up lies. We have since had decades upon decades of illegitimate pseudo-religious doctrine published under the facade of science via academic feminism. It has been gradually leaking into the mainstream over the last decade, give or take, and accelerated by the Obama presidency in which he frequently and publicly pushed feminist dogma such as the wage gap.

Ignore the feminist PR front. It is not about ‘equality’, as nebulous and ill-defined a term as that is. It is about dismantling social structures for their own benefit. Establishing gender as a social construct is a necessary part of this because otherwise they are attempting to change something we have no control over — biology and nature itself. Patriarchy theory is the other critical part — the idea that the history of western gender roles has been about men oppressing and exploiting women like chattel slaves for their benefit. This is a lie — the role of the male in western society (and every other successful society for that matter) has been as the provider and protector of women and children. Traditional gender roles (nurture) are designed to exaggerate the intrinsic biological attributes (nature) and establish incentives for males to play the protector and provider role for the good of society as a whole. The biological and social aspects are not mutually exclusive.

Feminists can only get away with this scam when the need for gender roles is not readily apparent. We are currently living in one of the longest and most prosperous periods of peace since Ancient Rome. The US and its allies haven’t had to enact a draft in a very long time. Occupational health and safety is more advanced than it ever has been and has made the workplace a more attractive place to be. Technology has automated away much of the traditional household work like washing, cleaning and meal preparation. Meanwhile, birth control has given women complete reproductive agency and released them from the ‘shackles’ of womanhood (the effect on fertility and the macrosocial psychological effects is another can of worms I won’t open here).

Western women are complacent. Life has been made so easy for them that they no longer appreciate their prosperity which has largely been built for them upon a foundation of male disposability. What do I mean by this? To be the most prosperous society, you need to win wars. To win wars, you need the strongest army. To have the strongest army, you need to dehumanise (notice how this word has been co-opted by intersectional feminism?) a portion of your male population to eliminate cowardice that is (rightly) afforded to women and children and instill a greater appetite for risk. How else do you convince them to fight and die on a battlefield? You need to raise ruthless killing machines who are not afraid to dispose of their own self for the greater good. It should be obvious why this is limited to the male gender.

Another effect of war is that, assuming parity of male and female births during peacetime, it reduces the proportion of males to females such that females have to compete for a mate. During peacetime, this inverts and women no longer have to compete for a mate. This results in sex-starved males thirsting for the stankest crumb and women no longer have to exaggerate their natural feminine attributes. No pink haired, unwashed wildebeest is getting laid during wartime. There just isn’t the supply of thirsty betas available for them. So they are forced to compete. But competition inherently produces winners and losers. What happens to the losers of female mating competition? They flock to feminism. Like the losers of any social hierarchy, they seek to tear it down so that they can better compete. This is where patriarchy theory (lie) comes from. This is where the motive to separate ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ (lie) comes from.

What do we do about it? I don’t have a solution. I don’t approve of authoritarian measures, so I oppose direct government intervention (though I would support limiting funding of public academic institutions to only productive subjects like STEM and health). Other cultures, e.g. Islam, allow polygamy. Whether this is deliberate to prevent the above, I don’t know, but there’s no feminism in Islamic culture. I believe that monogamous heterosexual relationships are the backbone of society (get fucked Pocahontas) so the polygamy solution doesn’t work for me. This leaves us with war as an existential thread to prevent cultural complacency (WAR IS PEACE). However, I’ve been anti-war my entire life, so I’m completely conflicted here. But then I think: what happens in 10 years when the US is still bogged down by intersectionality and China is about to overtake it as the world’s largest economy and therefore most influential trade partner? Seems to me that war is inevitable in that instance. Another fun side tangent to think about is climate change as an existential threat — it is obviously acting as one for a subset of the population, but it’s a corrupted one because the enemy — the ‘other’ that must be defeated — is the society itself.

TL;DR
When there is no existential threat (e.g. war, but also famine, pestilence, etc.), the need for male disposability is no longer apparent and the society as a whole becomes complacent. It allows gender roles to be unraveled thread by thread until all you have left is a tangled mess of what used to be a functional sweater strewn all over the floor. Separating ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ is the first thread to be pulled on because it then exposes all of the others.

Jfc Matthew. You love writing essays. I’m going to call you Professor Matt from now on.

 

[Papa]

You clearly haven't been to a gay bar. It's the wild west when it comes to the bathroom.

r u gay?

bro I didn’t know

 

[Papa]

Jfc Matthew. You love writing essays. I’m going to call you Professor Matt from now on.

Did you even read it shithead

I typed that on my phone while watching Always Sunny with the wife

Just my thoughts on the topic, take them or leave them

 

[CyberPanda]

I was thinking about pitcher who gives dicks and catcher who take dicks, so i was wrong??

Urban Dictionary: catcher or pitcher

Term used by homosexual men to ask other men whether they are a "top" or a "bottom" during sexual activities. Catcher refers to the "bottom," while pitcher refers to the "top."

www.urbandictionary.com

 

[CyberPanda]

Did you even read it shithead

I typed that on my phone while watching Always Sunny with the wife

Just my thoughts on the topic, take them or leave them

I wasn’t insulting you. And I did read it.

 

[buizel]

Good, i only know baseball because i watch ace of diamonds anime

I dont know baseball, but people use the pitcher/catcher phrase in IRL jokey conversations

 

[buizel]

Urban Dictionary: catcher or pitcher

Term used by homosexual men to ask other men whether they are a "top" or a "bottom" during sexual activities. Catcher refers to the "bottom," while pitcher refers to the "top."

www.urbandictionary.com

That definition is weird because it uses Top and Bottom in quotations, instead of using the literal meaning. 'Top' in this case means the one who is putting the dick in, and 'Bottom' is the one receiving dick. It doesnt literally mean the position of the person.

 

[GymWolf]

I dont know baseball, but people use the pitcher/catcher phrase in IRL jokey conversations

I'm italian so i'm not familiar with all the american slang for these things, in italy we just use passive or active to determine who take and who gives dicks

 

[CyberPanda]

I'm italian so i'm not familiar with all the american slang for these things, in italy we just use passive or active to determine who take and who gives dicks

You Italians are so simple. It’s nice.

 

[buizel]

I'm italian so i'm not familiar with all the american slang for these things, in italy we just use passive or active to determine who take and who gives dicks

im scottish so im also not familiar with american slang. in scotland we just throw bottles of irn bru at the gays

 

[GymWolf]

You Italians are so simple. It’s nice.

But we have like 383573847274 words to calls gay people...

 

[CyberPanda]

But we have like 383573847274 words to calls gay people...

Lol

 

[ROMhack]

All that shit you just wrote...

You make a compelling argument. I tend to agree with the idea of power being a driver of behaviour, which I think along with economics, is generally what makes the world go round. People acting on self-interest, etc.

I don't wanna be a wuss though and let it slide without a good response so let me ask... As much of your argument stems from the female side—which you argue is compelled to act in its own interest—I wonder what you think about men who side with women in the debate about gender/sex being social?

Do you think they actually believe that, or are they just acting that way as a type of self-interest act?

 

[Papa]

Btw EviLore this is the only place on the internet that I feel comfortable exploring ideas like this. You have something special here. Cherish it and continue to nurture it. The broader culture is very gradually swinging back — I can see it in the genuine comedy like the latest season of Always Sunny (it would make PC babies’ heads explode if they actually watched it, though I suspect it’s not diverse enough for them). GAF is in pole position for when it happens — at that point we will be the culture creators because right now we’re actually tackling controversial and complex ideas and debating one another all while fostering a local culture of light-hearted shitposting and meme generation to fall back on when debate gets heated. The Rees and Reddits of the world will be left behind as they refuse to engage unapproved thoughts and rely on recycled memes.

 

[Papa]

You make a compelling argument. I tend to agree with the idea of power being a driver of behaviour, which I think along with economics, is generally what makes the world go round. People acting on self-interest, etc.

I don't wanna be a wuss though and let it slide without a good response so let me ask... As much of your argument stems from the female side—which you argue is compelled to act in its own interest—I wonder what you think about men who side with women in the debate about gender/sex being social?

Do you think they actually believe that, or are they just acting that way as a type of self-interest act?

I did address that towards the end. They are typically weasels selling out their gender for a chance at stank crumb. That is how weak males compete. It is purely self-interest.

 

[ROMhack]

I did address that towards the end. They are typically weasels selling out their gender for a chance at stank crumb. That is how weak males compete. It is purely self-interest.

Ah alright then. Did read the whole thing but I missed it.

Bit harsh to call out Brap like that though...

 

[Papa]

Ah alright then. Did read the whole thing but I missed it.

Bit harsh to call out Brap like that though...

Brappy is loyal as fuck and accepts only the finest tranny backpussy anyway.

I don’t need to name names but you all know who I think is a good example of a weasel on GAF.

 

[Anki]

Problem arises because you have two words for basically same thing, gender and sex, in my language we only have one word for that, its gender and thats it. You could be male or female how you feel doesn't change the fact you are born as a male or female.

 

[King of Foxes]

Yes, what if that thing you said was

 

[BigBooper]

If I masturbate and feel bad about it afterwards, did I rape myself? Which manager can I speak to about this?

You have to talk to the manager in the sky, my being.

 

[BigBooper]

The biggest problem is that even if gender and sex were different things and even if gender was purely a social construct, people are trying to push that view of gender into things that are defined by sex.

If sex is different from gender and if gender is just a social construct, why on earth would you want to have public toilets be used based on gender and not sex, or to have people compete in sports based on gender and not sex?

The jump from "girls can like playing with toy cars too" to "boys can have periods and become pregnant" is insane. It shows that these people don't really think sex and gender are different things or that gender is just a social construct but they actively want to change the definition of sex.

Public toilets are a frequent component of the dating scene though. Something about tapping your foot and putting your mouth in a hole in the wall.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

To have the strongest army, you need to dehumanise ... a portion of your male population to eliminate cowardice that is (rightly) afforded to women and children and instill a greater appetite for risk. How else do you convince them to fight and die on a battlefield?

Fighting for life and civilization doesn't necessarily require dehumanization. It may require detachment from certain principles about taking life by deconstructing and prioritizing those principles, but that doesn't necessitate dehumanization. To convince reluctant people to want to start war and fight and die on a battlefield over questionable causes requires dehumanization and demonization.

 

[MetalAlien]

Is this another american baseball sex analogy like achieving second or third base with a woman?

 

[GymWolf]

Wtf did i just watch

 

[DESTROYA]

Wtf did i just watch

A classic .

 

[GymWolf]

A classic .

I'm still laughing

 

[DeepEnigma]

Forgot how vulgar our cartoons were back in the day.

 

[H4ze]

We are going full circle here

 

[GymWolf]

Forgot how vulgar our cartoons were back in the day.

I know a lot of modern cartoon with that vulgar language even in today sjw reality...

 

[DeepEnigma]

I know a lot of modern cartoon with that vulgar language even in today sjw reality...

But do they have uvulas eating ass tho? On Nickelodeon?

 

[GAMETA]

Ask the government. They'll tell you what is right.

 

[GymWolf]

But do they have uvulas eating ass tho? On Nickelodeon?

Paradise police and brickleberry are pretty nasty...
Also that show on netflix with the adolescent and the ugly artstyle, i don't remember the name...
Not familiar with nicklodeon...i knly remember the rugrats cartoon from that channel...

 

[Super Mario]

I have a huge penis. However, I've been pondering on if I know for sure if it's a male or female penis.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Paradise police and brickleberry are pretty nasty...
Also that show on netflix with the adolescent and the ugly artstyle, i don't remember the name...

I get that as far as paid services, but this was on Nickelodeon, a children’s channel, lol.

 

[GymWolf]

I have a huge penis. However, I've been pondering on if I know for sure if it's a male or female penis.

Does it get erected watching nude princess or nude giant anthropomorph turtles?

 

[DESTROYA]

I have a huge penis. However, I've been pondering on if I know for sure if it's a male or female penis.

If it’s huge it’s a female penis.

 

[haxan7]

I get that as far as paid services, but this was on Nickelodeon, a children’s channel, lol.

I hate to be a killjoy but I think that’s from one of the episodes that aired on SpikeTV in the early 2000s. There was a brief reboot IIRC

 

[Papa]

Fighting for life and civilization doesn't necessarily require dehumanization. It may require detachment from certain principles about taking life by deconstructing and prioritizing those principles, but that doesn't necessitate dehumanization. To convince reluctant people to want to start war and fight and die on a battlefield over questionable causes requires dehumanization and demonization.

Humans are soft and squishy by default. Women and children are the baseline. The transition from boyhood to manhood involves at least partial dehumanization because it requires one to give up the benefits of being a woman or child and taking on a willingness to self-sacrifice for the greater good. This has been the male role throughout all of history across every successful society (the ones that stray from this fail). Sometimes that self-sacrifice involves fighting on a battlefield to play the protector role. For a pop culture example, consider the Unsullied from Game of Thrones. Extreme masculine dehumanization breeds a ruthless army with no fear for the self.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Humans are soft and squishy by default. Women and children are the baseline. The transition from boyhood to manhood involves at least partial dehumanization because it requires one to give up the benefits of being a woman or child and taking on a willingness to self-sacrifice for the greater good. This has been the male role throughout all of history across every successful society (the ones that stray from this fail). Sometimes that self-sacrifice involves fighting on a battlefield to play the protector role. For a pop culture example, consider the Unsullied from Game of Thrones. Extreme masculine dehumanization breeds a ruthless army with no fear for the self.

They were also castrated. Like the (intersectional) society is trying to do socially with straight (mainly white) men.

Careful not to embolden an army. The pushback would be relentless.

 

[Papa]

They were also castrated. Like the (intersectional) society is trying to do socially with straight (mainly white) men.

Careful not to embolden an army. The pushback would be relentless.

Some very foolish smoothbrains think that men start wars for fun, to express their toxic masculinity or some such. They do not understand people, either at the individual or societal level. Wars are not fought for fun — they are fought to establish dominance and hierarchies at the societal level. Not all wars are legitimate. Some are started by big fish solely to take resources from small fish. I don’t approve of this kind of war, but it is still being done for the greater good of the society, albeit at the expense of the other.

War in general has been a necessity throughout our entire evolutionary history. To think otherwise requires one to think that current_year humans are some kind of special being completely detached, both in terms of psychology and social structures, from our ancestors. This couldn’t be more wrong. Wartime is dormant, not extinct, and we need to be ready to re-establish societal dominance in the near future due to the China problem (thanks Bill Clinton). Hopefully it can be done first through economic means, but if Hillary were president instead of Trump I guarantee it would’ve been straight to war.