The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God

[TECSHARE]

That gender is a social construction has been a widely accepted fact for over fifty years in the social sciences. Today there is growing mountain of scientific evidence that gender is deeply harmful to young developing minds. All that knowledge is available to you, if you were genuinely interested in getting to the truth of this issue you'd be on google learning about it, but we both know you're not.  

"That gender is a social construction has been a widely accepted fact for over fifty years in the social sciences."

First of all who taught you English? Nice sentence structure.

It's official, you're a tedious pedant.  Half to two thirds of my posts are from my (not so) smart phone,  there's a limit to how much I struggle with this thing, as long as the idea is conveyed IDGAF if it's perfect English.

Second of all just because you believe it is "a widely accepted fact" among the handful of political ideologues willing to confirm your biases for you does not make it fact. Furthermore "social sciences" are not hard sciences, there can not be true empirical data collected for these studies conducted within this field of study. There are far too many variables, and real scientists know that social sciences are not based on fact but observation (...)

It's official,  you don't understand how science works. No surprise there,  if you did you'd be forced to reject all god claims for lack of evidence.

You were saying something about me not understanding science?




"Scientific Method. The collection of the data on which a conclusion is based must conform to a scientific method. A scientist’s observations (data) about a phenomenon prompt the scientist to pose a question about the phenomenon. Next, the scientist reformulates the question as a hypothesis. Hypotheses then make predictions and data are collected and analyzed to test the prediction. A determination is then made about the likelihood that the result was due to chance and whether the result is scientifically important.

Measuring a difference in data that is gathered does not necessarily mean that a hypothesis is correct or incorrect. The scientist must first determine whether a difference in results is due to chance. Once statistical significance has been established, the scientist must decide whether the results are of scientific significance. The answer lies in the proportion of the total variation (statistically, variance) explained by the phenomenon. A phenomenon that has devastating effects on individuals or society may be important, even if it is unlikely.

Objectivity in execution is the second standard of good science. The procedure of science must be executed in a way that does not influence the results. Methods such as double blind, randomization, variable matching, and analysis of variance, are aimed at eliminating bias and are particularly important when dealing with phenomena that directly impinge upon human beings.

The third standard of good science requires that the result be repeatable. For a scientific conclusion to be acceptable, other scientists must be able to repeat it in other locations at other times employing the same methods. The fourth standard of good science requires that the results be published in a scientific journal or other publication that is peer reviewed. Passing the hurdle of peer-reviewed publication is an assurance that quality control has been exercised in communicating the results to other scientists and meets a type of reliability norm on which decision-makers can rely.

Any "science" that does not meet all four of the standards (procedure, performance, duplication, and peer scrutiny) is not good science.

Scientific Practice. Scientists have a general consensus about what constitutes good experimental design. It is that consensus about good experimental design that inherently tests a null hypothesis. The single most important aspect of good experimental design that tests a null hypothesis is the requirement that the experimenter’s hypothesis be capable of being disproved by the experiment. To allow a hypothesis of causation to be disproved, the scientist must allow an equal opportunity for the truly opposite, or null, hypothesis to be proven."

https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/mcnaughton.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

The vast majority of "social sciences" do not meet the above listed criteria requisite for studies to truly be called scientific.
I never said anything about God, there you go again projecting your prejudices and biases upon me. Just because I disagree with you and I don't like seeing religious people be harassed with your insane ideologies must mean I am a religious nut right?

I am still waiting for you to cite any scientific studies proving your arguments. I have presented studies to support my argument, why can't you? Is it perhaps because they don't exist and your ideology is based completely upon your beliefs, making you no different than the religious nuts you so eagerly despise?

I don't care about the majority and how their affected, if even one person is affected negatively the majority in a way that's out of their control, such as being discriminated against for being homosexual, then the majority has to change.

Wise words, our founding fathers shared this sentiment, they called it the "tyranny of the majority". This is what you get with a population that doesn't know their own history, even history as recent as a few hundred years ago.

Ok, lets come back to reality here for a moment. People of ALL TYPES are affected negatively in ways that are outside of their control many times on a daily basis. So you are telling me that we can legislate our way to utopia, and that doing so will not just do far more damage to society than it does to help it? You can feel that way all day if you want, but that is not how the law works sorry. The law does not exist to enforce emotions, feelings, and desires. Like science, the law is based on hard demonstrable facts. Subjective things like emotions, feelings, and desires are not quantifiable therefore are not provable in a court of law other than by some one's word. In effect anyone can simply claim offense and use the law as a weapon against others and there is no way to prove one way or the other.

Again, I challenge you as well to provide actual scientific evidence that there is no biological basis to gender identity and behavior. Furthermore can you prove to me that forcing children with hetero-normative gender identities to change their gender identity to meet what you believe to be ideal gender identities is not harmful to those children? Can you prove to me that children will not be harmed by removing their natural gender identity from them?

Why is this any different than trying to condition a gay person into being heterosexual and adopting hetero-normative gender roles? Aren't you just forcing the same but polar opposite gender roles upon people who naturally feel a different way? If it is wrong to try to recondition a gay person into being hetero-normative, why is it acceptable to condition hetero-normative children into something other than what they were born as?

I'm not sure if you'e trolling or just stupid, but the definition of gender: noun
1.
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

The links you provided have nothing to do with gender, they are the biological differences in males and females, yes males tend to be more masculine and females more feminine because of biological differences, but gender encompasses a much wider range than  that. It encompasses aesthetics, behavior, personality all designated by that specific soceity. What you're describing is "sex" and the various attributes that come with it between males and females, not gender. Gender is classified a social construct because different societies have different roles that they assign to each sex(male/female).

Don't get confused on gender and sex, I suggest you go read more about them or go take a basic sociology class, because you sound very stupid.

I get the feeling that you rather just be a sheep and go with the flow for the supposed "betterment of society" based on your statements. Unfortunately many societies around the world are just wrong in their beliefs, laws, etc. Very basic thinking you have there... I don't care about the majority and how their affected, if even one person is affected negatively the majority in a way that's out of their control, such as being discriminated against for being homosexual, then the majority has to change.

No, the links I provided have everything to do with gender. They demonstrate that children and even animals have innate biological gender roles before society even has an opportunity to condition them. Men are more thing oriented, women are more people oriented. Even when extreme measures have been undertaken to create a gender balanced workforce, even with more choices, the fields dominated by one sex or the other grows EVEN MORE segregated by gender. This demonstrates that certain genders gravitate to certain fields more than others NATURALLY not just because society tricked or coerced them to some how via some mythical oppressive gender police.

Gender is NOT JUST A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT no matter how many times you repeat it. Additionally there is a lot of scientific evidence suggesting biology plays a large part in creating gender roles. You can make up whatever meanings you want for the words to convince yourself we aren't talking about the same thing, but we are. Gender roles have biological sources as well as social sources. Ignoring biology in order to recondition them into some supposedly ideal state can be disastrous for a person's well being.

I am a sheep now because I don't agree with you? Silly me deciding that what is best for the majority will most likely result in more people overall being happy and successful. What insanity. Society is not always right, but neither are utopian ideologues looking to recondition the gender roles of all of society. It is very clear you don't care about the majority, just like most social justice warriors. Your ideology is always more important than the rights of others. The majority doesn't have to change, and this kind of attitude is what puts people off from your supposed message of equality.

[1715567085]

1715567085

[1715567085]

1715567085

[1715567085]

1715567085

[1715567085]

1715567085

[Beliathon]

You were saying something about me not understanding science?

Yes, your inability to distinguish science from pseudo-science has been made crystal clear to me by your posts in this thread and others.

[TECSHARE]

You were saying something about me not understanding science?

Yes, your inability to distinguish science from pseudo-science has been made crystal clear to me by your posts in this thread and others.

Coming from some one who has yet to provide a single peer reviewed study to support his arguments, that means pretty much nothing. I am very well educated in the scientific method, and your accusations of ignorance are little more than projections of your own failures in this realm. Social sciences are not hard sciences. It is a fact. You can not produce scientific studies supporting your argument BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST and you are operating completely on your beliefs.

Again, I challenge you as well to provide actual scientific evidence that there is no biological basis to gender identity and behavior. Furthermore can you prove to me that forcing children with hetero-normative gender identities to change their gender identity to meet what you believe to be ideal gender identities is not harmful to those children? Can you prove to me that children will not be harmed by removing their natural gender identity from them?

Why is this any different than trying to condition a gay person into being heterosexual and adopting hetero-normative gender roles? Aren't you just forcing the same but polar opposite gender roles upon people who naturally feel a different way? If it is wrong to try to recondition a gay person into being hetero-normative, why is it acceptable to condition hetero-normative children into something other than what they were born as?

[BADecker]

Like the title of this thread and the opening post have anything to do with God.

God created the whole universe. The only thing sinning might do is destroy the sinners, if they remain in it without acknowledging the forgiveness God offers through Jesus.

The impetus of this thread is irrelevant to God. It is stupid. The best it does is to bring out some discussion among forum members.

[practicaldreamer]

Its possible that the distinction between hard and soft sciences is a bit of a false dichotomy.

Social science is able to employ the scientific method also. And in empirically testing falsifiable theories, using various social research methods, it is able to arrive at valid and reliable conclusions.

It has been said of the "natural" (hard) sciences that at best they only ever attain a verisimilitude  - that is, an approximation to truth (or falsity) - and so, in this sense are not so far removed from the social sciences as might first appear to be the case.


Re. the gender debate at hand, all I will say is that it will take more than the contraceptive pill to do away with thousands of years of evolution. What I mean is, it might well suit me personally to have multiple partners/orgasms on a regular basis. Indeed, it did suit me, down to the ground, not so many years ago. But I'm not so sure it would have suited Mrs. Dreamer quite to the same extent to have herself potentially impregnated by a frigate full of drunken Russian sailors on a regular basis.

Or so she tells me ...?

[celestio]

That gender is a social construction has been a widely accepted fact for over fifty years in the social sciences. Today there is growing mountain of scientific evidence that gender is deeply harmful to young developing minds. All that knowledge is available to you, if you were genuinely interested in getting to the truth of this issue you'd be on google learning about it, but we both know you're not.  

"That gender is a social construction has been a widely accepted fact for over fifty years in the social sciences."

First of all who taught you English? Nice sentence structure.

It's official, you're a tedious pedant.  Half to two thirds of my posts are from my (not so) smart phone,  there's a limit to how much I struggle with this thing, as long as the idea is conveyed IDGAF if it's perfect English.

Second of all just because you believe it is "a widely accepted fact" among the handful of political ideologues willing to confirm your biases for you does not make it fact. Furthermore "social sciences" are not hard sciences, there can not be true empirical data collected for these studies conducted within this field of study. There are far too many variables, and real scientists know that social sciences are not based on fact but observation (...)

It's official,  you don't understand how science works. No surprise there,  if you did you'd be forced to reject all god claims for lack of evidence.

You were saying something about me not understanding science?




"Scientific Method. The collection of the data on which a conclusion is based must conform to a scientific method. A scientist’s observations (data) about a phenomenon prompt the scientist to pose a question about the phenomenon. Next, the scientist reformulates the question as a hypothesis. Hypotheses then make predictions and data are collected and analyzed to test the prediction. A determination is then made about the likelihood that the result was due to chance and whether the result is scientifically important.

Measuring a difference in data that is gathered does not necessarily mean that a hypothesis is correct or incorrect. The scientist must first determine whether a difference in results is due to chance. Once statistical significance has been established, the scientist must decide whether the results are of scientific significance. The answer lies in the proportion of the total variation (statistically, variance) explained by the phenomenon. A phenomenon that has devastating effects on individuals or society may be important, even if it is unlikely.

Objectivity in execution is the second standard of good science. The procedure of science must be executed in a way that does not influence the results. Methods such as double blind, randomization, variable matching, and analysis of variance, are aimed at eliminating bias and are particularly important when dealing with phenomena that directly impinge upon human beings.

The third standard of good science requires that the result be repeatable. For a scientific conclusion to be acceptable, other scientists must be able to repeat it in other locations at other times employing the same methods. The fourth standard of good science requires that the results be published in a scientific journal or other publication that is peer reviewed. Passing the hurdle of peer-reviewed publication is an assurance that quality control has been exercised in communicating the results to other scientists and meets a type of reliability norm on which decision-makers can rely.

Any "science" that does not meet all four of the standards (procedure, performance, duplication, and peer scrutiny) is not good science.

Scientific Practice. Scientists have a general consensus about what constitutes good experimental design. It is that consensus about good experimental design that inherently tests a null hypothesis. The single most important aspect of good experimental design that tests a null hypothesis is the requirement that the experimenter’s hypothesis be capable of being disproved by the experiment. To allow a hypothesis of causation to be disproved, the scientist must allow an equal opportunity for the truly opposite, or null, hypothesis to be proven."

https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/mcnaughton.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

The vast majority of "social sciences" do not meet the above listed criteria requisite for studies to truly be called scientific.
I never said anything about God, there you go again projecting your prejudices and biases upon me. Just because I disagree with you and I don't like seeing religious people be harassed with your insane ideologies must mean I am a religious nut right?

I am still waiting for you to cite any scientific studies proving your arguments. I have presented studies to support my argument, why can't you? Is it perhaps because they don't exist and your ideology is based completely upon your beliefs, making you no different than the religious nuts you so eagerly despise?

I don't care about the majority and how their affected, if even one person is affected negatively the majority in a way that's out of their control, such as being discriminated against for being homosexual, then the majority has to change.

Wise words, our founding fathers shared this sentiment, they called it the "tyranny of the majority". This is what you get with a population that doesn't know their own history, even history as recent as a few hundred years ago.

Ok, lets come back to reality here for a moment. People of ALL TYPES are affected negatively in ways that are outside of their control many times on a daily basis. So you are telling me that we can legislate our way to utopia, and that doing so will not just do far more damage to society than it does to help it? You can feel that way all day if you want, but that is not how the law works sorry. The law does not exist to enforce emotions, feelings, and desires. Like science, the law is based on hard demonstrable facts. Subjective things like emotions, feelings, and desires are not quantifiable therefore are not provable in a court of law other than by some one's word. In effect anyone can simply claim offense and use the law as a weapon against others and there is no way to prove one way or the other.

Again, I challenge you as well to provide actual scientific evidence that there is no biological basis to gender identity and behavior. Furthermore can you prove to me that forcing children with hetero-normative gender identities to change their gender identity to meet what you believe to be ideal gender identities is not harmful to those children? Can you prove to me that children will not be harmed by removing their natural gender identity from them?

Why is this any different than trying to condition a gay person into being heterosexual and adopting hetero-normative gender roles? Aren't you just forcing the same but polar opposite gender roles upon people who naturally feel a different way? If it is wrong to try to recondition a gay person into being hetero-normative, why is it acceptable to condition hetero-normative children into something other than what they were born as?

I'm not sure if you'e trolling or just stupid, but the definition of gender: noun
1.
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

The links you provided have nothing to do with gender, they are the biological differences in males and females, yes males tend to be more masculine and females more feminine because of biological differences, but gender encompasses a much wider range than  that. It encompasses aesthetics, behavior, personality all designated by that specific soceity. What you're describing is "sex" and the various attributes that come with it between males and females, not gender. Gender is classified a social construct because different societies have different roles that they assign to each sex(male/female).

Don't get confused on gender and sex, I suggest you go read more about them or go take a basic sociology class, because you sound very stupid.

I get the feeling that you rather just be a sheep and go with the flow for the supposed "betterment of society" based on your statements. Unfortunately many societies around the world are just wrong in their beliefs, laws, etc. Very basic thinking you have there... I don't care about the majority and how their affected, if even one person is affected negatively the majority in a way that's out of their control, such as being discriminated against for being homosexual, then the majority has to change.

No, the links I provided have everything to do with gender. They demonstrate that children and even animals have innate biological gender roles before society even has an opportunity to condition them. Men are more thing oriented, women are more people oriented. Even when extreme measures have been undertaken to create a gender balanced workforce, even with more choices, the fields dominated by one sex or the other grows EVEN MORE segregated by gender. This demonstrates that certain genders gravitate to certain fields more than others NATURALLY not just because society tricked or coerced them to some how via some mythical oppressive gender police.

Gender is NOT JUST A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT no matter how many times you repeat it. Additionally there is a lot of scientific evidence suggesting biology plays a large part in creating gender roles. You can make up whatever meanings you want for the words to convince yourself we aren't talking about the same thing, but we are. Gender roles have biological sources as well as social sources. Ignoring biology in order to recondition them into some supposedly ideal state can be disastrous for a person's well being.

I am a sheep now because I don't agree with you? Silly me deciding that what is best for the majority will most likely result in more people overall being happy and successful. What insanity. Society is not always right, but neither are utopian ideologues looking to recondition the gender roles of all of society. It is very clear you don't care about the majority, just like most social justice warriors. Your ideology is always more important than the rights of others. The majority doesn't have to change, and this kind of attitude is what puts people off from your supposed message of equality.

And there goes your argument. Innate gender roles has nothing to do with socially enacted gender roles. Every society has different gender roles for males and females. As I said before, it is true that males tend to gravitate towards being more masculine and women towards being more feminine, but the various "extras" imposed upon each sex by societies is the problem. Get it? The point of this is because societies forcing down socially defined gender roles on male/females may leave negative results. Such as males being afraid to show their emotions for fear of being viewed as "weak", or females afraid to stand for their rights in a male dominated society(Look at India).

Again, I highly, enormously, advise that you go search up the words "gender" and "sex" in your local dictionary. What you're describing, for the millionth time, is Sex. Sex is the biological factor, gender the social one. You're talking about somewhat predefined roles based on the person's Sex, not gender.

I rather that society change to at least accommodate to help all of the people, than stick to the "majority" and ignore everyone else. Of course you don't care, because well, you're a sheep.

Please, if you're gonna continue typing, at least know what you're typing about. This is honestly disappointing. Ugh.

[Beliathon]

Its possible that the distinction between hard and soft sciences is a bit of a false dichotomy.

Social science is able to employ the scientific method also. And in empirically testing falsifiable theories, using various social research methods, it is able to arrive at valid and reliable conclusions.

It has been said of the "natural" (hard) sciences that at best they only ever attain a verisimilitude  - that is, an approximation to truth (or falsity) - and so, in this sense are not so far removed from the social sciences as might first appear to be the case.

The difference is that in today's world the softer sciences can (and often are) warped and corrupted by the profit motive, that's what Feynman is warning those CalTech students about.

Verisimilitudes or not, raw mathematics is wholly incorruptible by virtue of transparency (see Bitcoin). Contrast that with statistics, or other weaker methods commonly used in the social sciences.

[practicaldreamer]

Its possible that the distinction between hard and soft sciences is a bit of a false dichotomy.

Social science is able to employ the scientific method also. And in empirically testing falsifiable theories, using various social research methods, it is able to arrive at valid and reliable conclusions.

It has been said of the "natural" (hard) sciences that at best they only ever attain a verisimilitude  - that is, an approximation to truth (or falsity) - and so, in this sense are not so far removed from the social sciences as might first appear to be the case.

The difference is that in today's world the softer sciences can (and often are) warped and corrupted by the profit motive, that's what Feynman is warning those CalTech students about.

Verisimilitudes or not, raw mathematics is wholly incorruptible by virtue of transparency (see Bitcoin). Contrast that with statistics, or other weaker methods commonly used in the social sciences.

I agree, but then maths doesn't employ the scientific method.

Bitcoin is corruptible however. Purely by virtue of the route its taken down - and that which it isn't. This is political - nothing to do with maths. I guess it comes down to ethics.

[Beliathon]

Bitcoin is corruptible however.

Please elaborate, Jeff Garzik has me convinced that it isn't.

[practicaldreamer]

Bitcoin is corruptible however.

Please elaborate, Jeff Garzik has me convinced that it isn't.

Well, I guess what I mean is that it can be co-opted. Look at the current debate around the blocksize limit (and its implications for centralisation) - the arguments within the community around regulation, anonymity etc.

These debates will not be settled on the grounds of scientific certainty or mathematics - they will (potentially) be settled according to the values, norms and beliefs of insecure, flawed and self interested individuals. And the protocol will develop along the tracks laid down by their consensus.
I know everyone thinks they want a saviour, a Jesus Christ, a Satoshi Nakamoto, Nelson Mandela etc etc - but look around you at the constituent members of this forum Beliathon - even a good percentage of those that appear to be legit are in fact, in one form or another, the basest type of amoral, self interested scammer, on nothing more than an ego driven pump and dump trip .
Whilst the worst are immoral pimpin parasites who would gladly rip off their own grandmothers to get in front.

  Is there a consensus on what bitcoin is actually for would you say ? I know what I think its for - I know why I'm here - but this most certainly doesn't correspond with that of most members residing herein.


  Bitcoin doesn't exist in a pure vacuum of algorithms and elliptic curves - and how it develops over time is something that remains to be seen. But to my mind it will be cultural values (and culture itself is an industry) rather than scientific values, that are its primary determinants.


Gone a bit off topic here - apologies.

[TECSHARE]

And there goes your argument. Innate gender roles has nothing to do with socially enacted gender roles. Every society has different gender roles for males and females. As I said before, it is true that males tend to gravitate towards being more masculine and women towards being more feminine, but the various "extras" imposed upon each sex by societies is the problem. Get it? The point of this is because societies forcing down socially defined gender roles on male/females may leave negative results. Such as males being afraid to show their emotions for fear of being viewed as "weak", or females afraid to stand for their rights in a male dominated society(Look at India).

Again, I highly, enormously, advise that you go search up the words "gender" and "sex" in your local dictionary. What you're describing, for the millionth time, is Sex. Sex is the biological factor, gender the social one. You're talking about somewhat predefined roles based on the person's Sex, not gender.

I rather that society change to at least accommodate to help all of the people, than stick to the "majority" and ignore everyone else. Of course you don't care, because well, you're a sheep.

Please, if you're gonna continue typing, at least know what you're typing about. This is honestly disappointing. Ugh.

If only you could simply declare my argument over for me, that would make everything so simple for you wouldn't it? My very argument is that biological sex and gender behavior are inextricably linked regardless of your denial of this fact. They are different, but very closely interrelated things, and forcing some one to go against their natural biological tendencies can be extremely harmful. You wouldn't advocate reconditioning of a gay boy into the gender norms of a heterosexual boy would you? So why is it appropriate to strip children of their natural gender identity to appease some mythical utopian gender standards that you believe are superior, having no proof of this fact? Robbing children of their gender identities to play out some sick social experiment based on beliefs is beyond abuse. 

I understand what you are trying to tell me. I reject your premise. Get it?

So I looked up the definitions of gender and sex for you, since you obviously haven't bothered.

gender

noun gen·der \ˈjen-dər\
: the state of being male or female
grammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages

Full Definition of GENDER
1
a :  a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b :  membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
c :  an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
2
a :  sex <the feminine gender>
b :  the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender


sex
noun \ˈseks\

: the state of being male or female

: men or male animals as a group or women or female animals as a group

: physical activity in which people touch each other's bodies, kiss each other, etc. : physical activity that is related to and often includes sexual intercourse

Full Definition of SEX
1
:  either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
2
:  the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females
3
a :  sexually motivated phenomena or behavior
b :  sexual intercourse
4
:  genitalia
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex

Gee, interesting, the first definition of both words are EXACTLY THE SAME, meaning that in some circumstances the words are completely interchangeable. Gender is even directly defined as sex! Turns out I was using the words correctly, too bad the dictionary doesn't have revisionist social justice warrior foot notes in there for you.

Accommodating people and making most living humans suffer for the satisfaction of a small number is not justice, sorry. I don't care what mental gymnastics you use to justify it or how much blame and shame you throw around like so many shit slinging monkeys. The world is harsh. We should work on changing that, but disabling others in order to feed the self esteem of people who feel victimized regardless of it being true or not is pretty much sociopathic, and you are unknowingly enabling this behavior (at least I would hope unknowingly).

Call me a sheep a few more times. Clearly you are above the mainsteam and anyone who disagrees with you must me a mainstream mindless sheep right? What do you have to learn from anyone? You are smarter than the rest!

Its possible that the distinction between hard and soft sciences is a bit of a false dichotomy.

Social science is able to employ the scientific method also. And in empirically testing falsifiable theories, using various social research methods, it is able to arrive at valid and reliable conclusions.

It has been said of the "natural" (hard) sciences that at best they only ever attain a verisimilitude  - that is, an approximation to truth (or falsity) - and so, in this sense are not so far removed from the social sciences as might first appear to be the case.

What you say is true to a degree, but the main factor people forget is that social sciences are first of all based (mostly) on human behavior, thoughts, feelings, and emotions, all things which are not physically quantifiable and are measured in very unreliable ways as opposed to something like chemistry or engineering. If you read in my post previous, most social sciences studies do not meet the requisite standards for truly being defined as a scientific study.

Requirements: procedure, performance, duplication, and peer scrutiny

The procedure must obey scientific method. The test needs to be set up in a way as to eliminate human error or influence. When studying human behavior, how do you remove that element? The experiment must be repeatable with predictable results. Then finally the study must be peer reviewed. These are the bare bones basics that are required before you can call something science. We can debate about hard vs soft science all day, but the fact of the matter is the op has not bothered to present ANY studies which support his hypotheses, yet he claims the backing of the scientific community.

[celestio]

And there goes your argument. Innate gender roles has nothing to do with socially enacted gender roles. Every society has different gender roles for males and females. As I said before, it is true that males tend to gravitate towards being more masculine and women towards being more feminine, but the various "extras" imposed upon each sex by societies is the problem. Get it? The point of this is because societies forcing down socially defined gender roles on male/females may leave negative results. Such as males being afraid to show their emotions for fear of being viewed as "weak", or females afraid to stand for their rights in a male dominated society(Look at India).

Again, I highly, enormously, advise that you go search up the words "gender" and "sex" in your local dictionary. What you're describing, for the millionth time, is Sex. Sex is the biological factor, gender the social one. You're talking about somewhat predefined roles based on the person's Sex, not gender.

I rather that society change to at least accommodate to help all of the people, than stick to the "majority" and ignore everyone else. Of course you don't care, because well, you're a sheep.

Please, if you're gonna continue typing, at least know what you're typing about. This is honestly disappointing. Ugh.

If only you could simply declare my argument over for me, that would make everything so simple for you wouldn't it? My very argument is that biological sex and gender behavior are inextricably linked regardless of your denial of this fact. They are different, but very closely interrelated things, and forcing some one to go against their natural biological tendencies can be extremely harmful. You wouldn't advocate reconditioning of a gay boy into the gender norms of a heterosexual boy would you? So why is it appropriate to strip children of their natural gender identity to appease some mythical utopian gender standards that you believe are superior, having no proof of this fact? Robbing children of their gender identities to play out some sick social experiment based on beliefs is beyond abuse.  

I understand what you are trying to tell me. I reject your premise. Get it?

So I looked up the definitions of gender and sex for you, since you obviously haven't bothered.

gender

noun gen·der \ˈjen-dər\
: the state of being male or female
grammar : one of the categories (masculine, feminine, and neuter) into which words (such as nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) are divided in many languages

Full Definition of GENDER
1
a :  a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b :  membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
c :  an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
2
a :  sex <the feminine gender>
b :  the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender


sex
noun \ˈseks\

: the state of being male or female

: men or male animals as a group or women or female animals as a group

: physical activity in which people touch each other's bodies, kiss each other, etc. : physical activity that is related to and often includes sexual intercourse

Full Definition of SEX
1
:  either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
2
:  the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females
3
a :  sexually motivated phenomena or behavior
b :  sexual intercourse
4
:  genitalia
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex

Gee, interesting, the first definition of both words are EXACTLY THE SAME, meaning that in some circumstances the words are completely interchangeable. Gender is even directly defined as sex! Turns out I was using the words correctly, too bad the dictionary doesn't have revisionist social justice warrior foot notes in there for you.

Accommodating people and making most living humans suffer for the satisfaction of a small number is not justice, sorry. I don't care what mental gymnastics you use to justify it or how much blame and shame you throw around like so many shit slinging monkeys. The world is harsh. We should work on changing that, but disabling others in order to feed the self esteem of people who feel victimized regardless of it being true or not is pretty much sociopathic, and you are unknowingly enabling this behavior (at least I would hope unknowingly).

Call me a sheep a few more times. Clearly you are above the mainsteam and anyone who disagrees with you must me a mainstream mindless sheep right? What do you have to learn from anyone? You are smarter than the rest!

Its possible that the distinction between hard and soft sciences is a bit of a false dichotomy.

Social science is able to employ the scientific method also. And in empirically testing falsifiable theories, using various social research methods, it is able to arrive at valid and reliable conclusions.

It has been said of the "natural" (hard) sciences that at best they only ever attain a verisimilitude  - that is, an approximation to truth (or falsity) - and so, in this sense are not so far removed from the social sciences as might first appear to be the case.

What you say is true to a degree, but the main factor people forget is that social sciences are first of all based (mostly) on human behavior, thoughts, feelings, and emotions, all things which are not physically quantifiable and are measured in very unreliable ways as opposed to something like chemistry or engineering. If you read in my post previous, most social sciences studies do not meet the requisite standards for truly being defined as a scientific study.

Requirements: procedure, performance, duplication, and peer scrutiny

The procedure must obey scientific method. The test needs to be set up in a way as to eliminate human error or influence. When studying human behavior, how do you remove that element? The experiment must be repeatable with predictable results. Then finally the study must be peer reviewed. These are the bare bones basics that are required before you can call something science. We can debate about hard vs soft science all day, but the fact of the matter is the op has not bothered to present ANY studies which support his hypotheses, yet he claims the backing of the scientific community.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gender

Gender:
The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones):
traditional concepts of gender


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sex
Sex:

Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions:


The two words are similar but in different context. Gender in relation to things such as aesthetics, paralanguage, manner of speech, etc, sex in relation to the biology, anatomy, genitalia. Gender is given based on the sex of the person, but is not synonymous with the sex of the person.


Also, while where at it, I think you should go search up the definition of "robbing". Because what I advocate isn't "Robbing children of their gender identities", it's not giving children gender roles in the first place. Society is the one that pushes gender roles from the moment of birth(Blue blankets for boys, pink for girls). Your saying "natural biological tendencies", yet haven't mentioned that various societies throughout the past and present that have/have had differing gender roles. Get it? There is no universal standard of how males and females should act as shown throughout history, various societies had gender different roles for each sex. The most you can say is boys have a tendency to be more aggressive and act "masculine", and girls "feminine", but pushing roles on them is not the way to do it. They should come into the decision to act however they choose without fear of prejudice for going against the norm.

Do you like things being forced on you? So then why would you want for people, from birth, to have predefined societal gender roles forced on them. Having to align to a certain behavior without room to maneuver for fear of rejection, that's what gender roles do.

[Beliathon]

I know everyone thinks they want a saviour, a Jesus Christ, a Satoshi Nakamoto, Nelson Mandela etc etc - but look around you at the constituent members of this forum Beliathon - even a good percentage of those that appear to be legit are in fact, in one form or another, the basest type of amoral, self interested scammer, on nothing more than an ego driven pump and dump trip .

Yes, I know there is some truth to what you're saying, but the sickness that is greed is the product of ever-evolving human Culture, not human nature. In the grand scheme human culture is arcing dramatically toward a perfect parallel with human nature (infinite compassion / promiscuity / hyper-sexuality). That's mostly thanks to the fact that science is constantly improving the lens with which we view the world, allowing us to more deeply and accurately understand our own nature. This moment - post-industrial capitalism - seems like all that ever was or ever will be to most of us, trapped in our brief 100-or-so year lifespans. But when we measure the lifespan of capitalism - the last four hundred years - against even the modest length of human history - 10,000 years or so, one cannot come away with any other conclusion than this too shall pass, and I believe it shall pass soon. Anyone plugged into world politics can feel it, we're approaching another late sixties moment here.

[TECSHARE]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gender

Gender:
The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones):
traditional concepts of gender


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sex
Sex:

Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions:


The two words are similar but in different context. Gender in relation to things such as aesthetics, paralanguage, manner of speech, etc, sex in relation to the biology, anatomy, genitalia. Gender is given based on the sex of the person, but is not synonymous with the sex of the person.


Also, while where at it, I think you should go search up the definition of "robbing". Because what I advocate isn't "Robbing children of their gender identities", it's not giving children gender roles in the first place. Society is the one that pushes gender roles from the moment of birth(Blue blankets for boys, pink for girls). Your saying "natural biological tendencies", yet haven't mentioned that various societies throughout the past and present that have/have had differing gender roles. Get it? There is no universal standard of how males and females should act as shown throughout history, various societies had gender different roles for each sex. The most you can say is boys have a tendency to be more aggressive and act "masculine", and girls "feminine", but pushing roles on them is not the way to do it. They should come into the decision to act however they choose without fear of prejudice for going against the norm.

Do you like things being forced on you? So then why would you want for people, from birth, to have predefined societal gender roles forced on them. Having to align to a certain behavior without room to maneuver for fear of rejection, that's what gender roles do.

I like how you conveniently edited the parts out of the definition that don't fit your argument.

"Synonyms: sex"

Sorry but you don't get to rewrite the dictionary to fit your arguments. The word gender does not have that context, you are applying context to the word. Words have many contexts, in this case you are pretending that some of the dictionary definitions of the word don't exist. Additionally you don't get to tell me in what context I am using words sorry. Also you forgot that in all definitions the word TYPICALLY prefaces the idea of gender in the way you describe it. That word is put there to clarify that there are MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS OF GENDER, and just because you want to push your pet definition and ignore the rest doesn't change the fact that it means many things.

Because what I advocate isn't "Robbing children of their gender identities", it's not giving children gender roles in the first place. Society is the one that pushes gender roles from the moment of birth(Blue blankets for boys, pink for girls). Your saying "natural biological tendencies", yet haven't mentioned that various societies throughout the past and present that have/have had differing gender roles. Get it?

Really? Well your theory hinges upon the idea that gender identity has no biological basis. Because the fact that gender identities have a biological basis means your theories about society being the sole provider of gender identities is false. Just because societies in the past have managed to condition people against their natural biological states does not some how mean gender is only a social construct. Some parts of gender identity are a social construct, and some parts are not.

Denying the biological basis for gender identity IS IN FACT robbing children of the sense of self that is not a social construct but an innate part of their being and self. You denying them the ability to have that for themselves is nothing but a disgusting social experiment with no scientific backing that treats children as guinea pigs. Just because I reject your premise does not mean I am incapable of understanding your words. Get it?

There is no universal standard of how males and females should act as shown throughout history, various societies had gender different roles for each sex. The most you can say is boys have a tendency to be more aggressive and act "masculine", and girls "feminine", but pushing roles on them is not the way to do it. They should come into the decision to act however they choose without fear of prejudice for going against the norm.

You are right, there are no universal standards for how men or women should act, but that does not mean that there are not biological drivers pushing individuals in certain directions. Hormones play a large role in emotions and behavior for one, and males and females clearly share different hormone profiles. The most I can say is much more than that, because there are scientific studies showing that gender has biological basis, as demonstrated in the sources I provided.

Your entire premise relies on the idea that there is not only no biological basis for gender identity, and that gender identity is implanted completely by society via conditioning. The fact is that humans have TWO SEPARATE GENDERS as defined by nature and biology, not only by society. Because you believe that society is the only source of gender identity, you then abuse this premise to permit the behavior of stripping people with hetero-normative gender identities of the natural state they fall into because of BIOLOGY, not conditioning.

You believe that it is possible to have no gender identity, but I argue that is patently false, and proceeding with such a mindset in order to try to condition natural gender identities out of children is destructive and abusive and will serve no one. Some people may feel like they do not belong in either gender, and that is fine, they have the right to be whatever they want to be. This however does not grant permission for you to recondition all of society to supposedly solve the unease of these people where they exist as a minority. Not just because they are a minority, but because you have zero scientific evidence backing your premises.

I keep asking for scientific studies to back this argument, but no one seems to be able to provide them. Until there is some fact based reasoning behind trying to recondition the children of the world into some idealist utopian idea of a genderless society, it is pretty reckless to move forward with these ideas and just kind of see what results.

Do you like things being forced on you? So then why would you want for people, from birth, to have predefined societal gender roles forced on them. Having to align to a certain behavior without room to maneuver for fear of rejection, that's what gender roles do.

Yet you wish to force people who naturally have gender identities to not have them any longer. I am not arguing that because you are born with a certain set of genitals that you can only act along with your default gender role. I am arguing that gender roles, for the most part, are based upon biological factors that directly influence our behavior, emotions, and sexual drives. I am not advocating that people "have to to align to certain behavior", but on the other hand by demanding that no one be allowed to have a gender role very clearly is telling people that they have to align to certain behavior. I would hope you could see the conflict in your logic, but like most social justice warriors, ideology usually trumps logic.

[Beliathon]

Rejoice, denizens of the internet, for religion is one day closer to extinction than it was yesterday.

[celestio]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gender

Gender:
The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones):
traditional concepts of gender


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sex
Sex:

Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions:


The two words are similar but in different context. Gender in relation to things such as aesthetics, paralanguage, manner of speech, etc, sex in relation to the biology, anatomy, genitalia. Gender is given based on the sex of the person, but is not synonymous with the sex of the person.


Also, while where at it, I think you should go search up the definition of "robbing". Because what I advocate isn't "Robbing children of their gender identities", it's not giving children gender roles in the first place. Society is the one that pushes gender roles from the moment of birth(Blue blankets for boys, pink for girls). Your saying "natural biological tendencies", yet haven't mentioned that various societies throughout the past and present that have/have had differing gender roles. Get it? There is no universal standard of how males and females should act as shown throughout history, various societies had gender different roles for each sex. The most you can say is boys have a tendency to be more aggressive and act "masculine", and girls "feminine", but pushing roles on them is not the way to do it. They should come into the decision to act however they choose without fear of prejudice for going against the norm.

Do you like things being forced on you? So then why would you want for people, from birth, to have predefined societal gender roles forced on them. Having to align to a certain behavior without room to maneuver for fear of rejection, that's what gender roles do.

I like how you conveniently edited the parts out of the definition that don't fit your argument.

"Synonyms: sex"

Sorry but you don't get to rewrite the dictionary to fit your arguments. The word gender does not have that context, you are applying context to the word. Words have many contexts, in this case you are pretending that some of the dictionary definitions of the word don't exist. Additionally you don't get to tell me in what context I am using words sorry. Also you forgot that in all definitions the word TYPICALLY prefaces the idea of gender in the way you describe it. That word is put there to clarify that there are MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS OF GENDER, and just because you want to push your pet definition and ignore the rest doesn't change the fact that it means many things.

Because what I advocate isn't "Robbing children of their gender identities", it's not giving children gender roles in the first place. Society is the one that pushes gender roles from the moment of birth(Blue blankets for boys, pink for girls). Your saying "natural biological tendencies", yet haven't mentioned that various societies throughout the past and present that have/have had differing gender roles. Get it?

Really? Well your theory hinges upon the idea that gender identity has no biological basis. Because the fact that gender identities have a biological basis means your theories about society being the sole provider of gender identities is false. Just because societies in the past have managed to condition people against their natural biological states does not some how mean gender is only a social construct. Some parts of gender identity are a social construct, and some parts are not.

Denying the biological basis for gender identity IS IN FACT robbing children of the sense of self that is not a social construct but an innate part of their being and self. You denying them the ability to have that for themselves is nothing but a disgusting social experiment with no scientific backing that treats children as guinea pigs. Just because I reject your premise does not mean I am incapable of understanding your words. Get it?

There is no universal standard of how males and females should act as shown throughout history, various societies had gender different roles for each sex. The most you can say is boys have a tendency to be more aggressive and act "masculine", and girls "feminine", but pushing roles on them is not the way to do it. They should come into the decision to act however they choose without fear of prejudice for going against the norm.

You are right, there are no universal standards for how men or women should act, but that does not mean that there are not biological drivers pushing individuals in certain directions. Hormones play a large role in emotions and behavior for one, and males and females clearly share different hormone profiles. The most I can say is much more than that, because there are scientific studies showing that gender has biological basis, as demonstrated in the sources I provided.

Your entire premise relies on the idea that there is not only no biological basis for gender identity, and that gender identity is implanted completely by society via conditioning. The fact is that humans have TWO SEPARATE GENDERS as defined by nature and biology, not only by society. Because you believe that society is the only source of gender identity, you then abuse this premise to permit the behavior of stripping people with hetero-normative gender identities of the natural state they fall into because of BIOLOGY, not conditioning.

You believe that it is possible to have no gender identity, but I argue that is patently false, and proceeding with such a mindset in order to try to condition natural gender identities out of children is destructive and abusive and will serve no one. Some people may feel like they do not belong in either gender, and that is fine, they have the right to be whatever they want to be. This however does not grant permission for you to recondition all of society to supposedly solve the unease of these people where they exist as a minority. Not just because they are a minority, but because you have zero scientific evidence backing your premises.

I keep asking for scientific studies to back this argument, but no one seems to be able to provide them. Until there is some fact based reasoning behind trying to recondition the children of the world into some idealist utopian idea of a genderless society, it is pretty reckless to move forward with these ideas and just kind of see what results.

Do you like things being forced on you? So then why would you want for people, from birth, to have predefined societal gender roles forced on them. Having to align to a certain behavior without room to maneuver for fear of rejection, that's what gender roles do.

Yet you wish to force people who naturally have gender identities to not have them any longer. I am not arguing that because you are born with a certain set of genitals that you can only act along with your default gender role. I am arguing that gender roles, for the most part, are based upon biological factors that directly influence our behavior, emotions, and sexual drives. I am not advocating that people "have to to align to certain behavior", but on the other hand by demanding that no one be allowed to have a gender role very clearly is telling people that they have to align to certain behavior. I would hope you could see the conflict in your logic, but like most social justice warriors, ideology usually trumps logic.

So essentially what you're saying, is that gender is biological as well as cultural/social and that gender roles are also biological. Let's look here, as you can see Gender and Gender Identity are not Biological. Hormones, genitalia, etc as you described all fall under "Sex" and not "Gender". Every single thing you've said is in relation to "Sex", not "Gender".


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gender-role


Definition of gender role in English:
noun

The role or behavior learned by a person as appropriate to their gender, determined by the prevailing cultural norms:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/gender%20identity

Medical Dictionary

gender identity
  
  noun
Medical Definition of GENDER IDENTITY

:  the totality of physical and behavioral traits that are designated by a culture as masculine or feminine


"Your entire premise relies on the idea that there is not only no biological basis for gender identity, and that gender identity is implanted completely by society via conditioning. The fact is that humans have TWO SEPARATE GENDERS as defined by nature and biology, not only by society. Because you believe that society is the only source of gender identity, you then abuse this premise to permit the behavior of stripping people with hetero-normative gender identities of the natural state they fall into because of BIOLOGY, not conditioning."


Except that there are more "two separate genders". Humans are not confined to having XX and XY chromosomes, there are those with less and more. There are those with both or no genitalia. And guess what? That is all biological and has nothing to do with "Gender".

Gender roles are not based upon biological factors, they are based upon societal factors.

This should be common knowledge. Go take a sociology and psychology class, maybe dabble in neurology as well, because what you're describing is all based on "sex", not "gender".

http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/575/Sex-Roles.html
https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/gender-and-sexuality-15/gender-414/gender-and-sociology-296-12831/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131694/

[BADecker]

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender?s=t:

gender¹
[jen-der]

noun
1. Grammar.

    (in many languages) a set of classes that together include all nouns, membership in a particular class being shown by the form of the noun itself or by the form or choice of words that modify, replace, or otherwise refer to the noun, as, in English, the choice of he to replace the man, of she to replace the woman, of it to replace the table, of it or she to replace the ship. The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20; often the classification correlates in part with sex or animateness. The most familiar sets of genders are of three classes (as masculine, feminine, and neuter in Latin and German) or of two (as common and neuter in Dutch, or masculine and feminine in French and Spanish).
    one class of such a set.
    such classes or sets collectively or in general.
    membership of a word or grammatical form, or an inflectional form showing membership, in such a class.

2. either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior:
the feminine gender.
Compare sex (def 1).

3. Archaic. kind, sort, or class.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sex?s=t:

sex
[seks]

noun
1. either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.
2. the sum of the structural and functional differences by which the male and female are distinguished, or the phenomena or behavior dependent on these differences.
3. the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another, or its manifestation in life and conduct.
4. coitus.
5. genitalia.
verb (used with object)
6. to ascertain the sex of, especially of newly-hatched chicks.

Verb phrases
7. sex up, Informal.

    to arouse sexually:
    The only intent of that show was to sex up the audience.
    to increase the appeal of; to make more interesting, attractive, or exciting:
    We've decided to sex up the movie with some battle scenes.

Idioms
8. to have sex, to engage in sexual intercourse.

Also from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender?s=t:

Usage note

Although it is possible to define gender as “sex,” indicating that the term can be used when differentiating male creatures from female ones biologically, the concept of gender, a word primarily applied to human beings, has additional connotations—more rich and more amorphous—having to do with general behavior, social interactions, and most importantly, one's fundamental sense of self.

Until recently, most people assumed that acknowledging one's gender, or sex, was easy. You just checked the appropriate box on a standard form, choosing either “male” or “female,” according to the gender you had been assigned at birth based on visible anatomical evidence. But some people's internal sense of who they are does not correspond with their assigned gender. And in fact, we now recognize that a complex spectrum between male and female exists not only mentally, psychologically, and behaviorally, but anatomically; there have always been biologically intersex people.

Gender identity is complicated. Some people, perhaps most, do not question their assigned gender. But others perceive themselves as belonging to the opposite sex. Still others, some of whom identify themselves as genderqueer, see themselves as neither male nor female, or perhaps as both, or as rotating between genders, or even as not belonging to any gender categorization at all.

Those who clearly see themselves as the opposite sex may or may not want to transition to it in some measure. Of those who do, some may complete that transition, but others may be happy to stop partway on a path that can include dressing and behaving like the opposite sex, although the desire to cross-dress can exist quite apart from issues of gender identity. Somewhere along the transitional path, people may want to change their given names and adopt linguistic terms of their own choosing, including a variety of pronouns, as designations of themselves and others. Some will have hormone treatments and opt for various kinds of surgery—perhaps facial, perhaps on their bodies, perhaps ultimately including sex “reassignment” surgery (genital reconstruction). At any point, they may welcome or reject a “transsexual” or “transgender” label.

This array of life experiences has resulted in a veritable explosion of new, or newly adapted, vocabulary. Particularly striking and useful is the word cis or prefix cis-, as in cis male, cis female, and cisgender, designating those whose sense of self matches their assigned gender. Using cis is a way to refer to these individuals without implying that “cis” people are the norm and all others a deviation from “normal.” It is notable that choices of gender beyond male and female are even appearing on social media sites. Clearly, gender is no longer a simple binary concept, if it ever was.

When you examine the whole thing, it seems that the word "gender" can be used as a division for almost anything. In addition, people can create new genders on the fly if it makes them feel better. Because of this, I now declare that those who think that "Sex will kill God" are of a gender that is extremely different from the gender of those who know that "God will judge those of the gender that think that 'Sex will kill God.'"

[Beliathon]

I now declare that those who think that "Sex will kill God" [Beliathon] are of a gender that is extremely different from the gender of those who know that "God will judge those of the gender that think that 'Sex will kill God.'

Excepting the religious dogma, you're actually not far from the truth here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bem_Sex-Role_Inventory

I'm neutral when I take one of these, almost smack dab in the middle of masculine and feminine. For people born with exceptional intellectual acuity, the gender roles don't have enough logical traction to stick for very long after puberty and first sexual experiences. Pretense has no substance, so we forget.

I'm a 0 (total heterosexual) on the kinsey scale, to be clear that gender roles and sexuality are two separate measures.

[BADecker]

Are there any honest polls that are not designed to elicit certain responses and results?

Are there any honest polls that show what people generally think when they hear the word "gender?"

Personally, I would immediately upon hearing the word "gender" think of masculine, feminine, neuter. If I were brought into some discussion like the immediately previous few posts in this thread, it is only then that I would consider gender to mean other than sex in addition to sex. What do other people think? Maybe we should start a poll.

[Beliathon]

Are there any honest polls that are not designed to elicit certain responses and results?

Are there any honest polls that show what people generally think when they hear the word "gender?"

No, every poll ever created either has a pure gay agenda or a total anti-gay agenda. The world is black and white.

Simplicity is comforting, is it not?

In my opinion, people who fuss so much about gender and sexuality need to have more, or perhaps better, sex.