Is gender a social construct? What is the difference between sex and gender?

This seems like more Kantianism.

Some gender roles change drastically, some stay the same or at least recognizably similar

Does this work for race as well?

Again you can just say "roles of the sexes" and mean the same shit

>Gender is german.
Nah it's not

>natural dignity

Attached: giphy.gif (500x252, 492K)

Race is social, ethnicity is biological

Ok youre right.

Other way around. Although specific racial categories are social, just look at burgers arguing about who's "truly white"

Ethnic groups are biological with measurable genetic variations. But most of the behavior associated with races is cultural indeed.

These cultures are often locally tied to physical areas which in turn have a predominance of certain ethnic groups. And since that is the case, the biological features of the ethnic groups in that area will play into the culture. Perceived ethnicity is often used as an in-group signifier for these cultures for this reason.

So saying it is just one or the other, social or biological, is wrong.

>quote
Feminism didn't do that. Lesbian co-opted feminism did. James Bond and every other "womanizer" in fiction and in history have all been feminists, i.e., they have been staunch supporters and lovers of THEIR concept of femininity (which is the true concept of it). The lesbian's concept of what the feminine entails is different from what the heterosexual man's concept of it is and feminism for lesbians means supporting the death of the man's concept.

The difference between sex and gender is the difference between body and spirit.

It's a bit of both. You cannot look at race/ethnicity as entirely social without also looking at the biological, for example: if a Congoid phenotype were to magically adopy a society identical to 19th white Christian Europeans, the society would not be as functional because of the low IQ etc

Xenofeminism is truly based as it has not been commercialised by the liquid death machine Capital like the Third Wave

It seems to me that sex and sex roles are often considered, to a larger extent in the anglosphere than elsewhere in the world, to have a strange combination of ontological independence and primacy. In this view sex roles are neither considered deterministically tied to sex (which would be a conservative standpoint), nor arbitrary and dismissible (which would be a radical standpoint). In my view the negation of the former would entail the latter. I often wonder if the fact that "sex" and "gender" are both in the English language is what part of what enables the circumvention of this deadlock.
Do you know of any other language that has a word for sex roles that is etymologically distinct from the word for sex?

this applies to a lot of things as well. i think its because english (and all germanic languages, especially at least danish as well) hold a degenerate quality to them. its why anglos think in terms of an ontic dual (is/is not) etc. more than other races. there is a reason why the logos and light and vision and linear time and Utopianism and industrialism and Cartesianism and voyeurism reign supreme in the west.

People started saying "gender" instead of "sex" because "sex" became a dirty word. 99% literally meant them to mean the same thing and yes the modern habit of conflating and separating the two at will is very manipulative.
If gender is essentially just your personality and style of dress then no one fucking cares.

And in reality no one would accept me saying that someone wasn't really a woman because of the way they acted or dressed.
The same people would also reject me saying that a tranny wasn't a woman because of their biological sex.
So you're left in a state where the definition of a "woman" is in a constant state of flux. That is the kind of thing "gender" is used for, to attempt to obfuscate contradictions.

Is it the roles we play? If so, then let’s say that for example, cleaning the house is a stereotypical role for women, or at least has been in the past. Does this mean that a man who cleans the house is a woman? What if he also takes care of the kids? Drives the kids to soccer practice? Makes breakfast lunch and dinner for the family? Does doing all this make him a woman? I don’t agree with this, because I don’t think these are “woman” roles, I think that’s incredibly sexist. So if gender is defined by its roles, what roles make you a man or a woman?

If it’s not the roles, is it something to do with the things we like? Is it something to do with our sexual preference? Is it something to do with trivial things like bathrooms? No, of course not. None of those arguments make any sense. So what defines gender if it is a social construct?

And if it is a social construct, why don’t we get rid of gender altogether? What purpose does it have?

go back...

judith butler sounds like a dumb retard desu

if you call working around kant retarded sure

reddit

No you actually can’t unless you think dogs also have what we call gender and that “ladyboy” is a sex.

Abitrary taxonomical distinctions only get in the way of your ability to perceive reality

Attached: 7B82E75B-454A-4B70-AA03-A94ABCA30963.png (381x378, 222K)

Dogs are nowhere near as sexually dimorphous as we are and they still have gender roles.

Gender is unironically a rhizome. Sex is useless.

Yes. Gender is sentient.

The only sex is capital.

Attached: Stefonknee.jpg (646x1200, 109K)

Don't gender my dog.

gender accelerationism is based

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO

Attached: 8B1496AF-9376-4096-B55F-4C7D27A08476.png (1409x4759, 404K)

mental illness is not real, oppressive. vile deceit

>two yockey threads up
NazBol has awoken

what

Every aspect of socialization is simply a construct. Money is a construct. Industry. Religion. Deconstructing something isn’t smart simply for the sake of it, milquetoast midwits think that pointing that out is somehow poignant. The deeper down this hole you go the less likely these people can articulate their ideas. The ones that can will say that gender was constructed with the express purpose to hold women down. This is quite a reductionist viewpoint to put it generously. Indeed, women have had roles to play in society that were often profligated by men. This view however takes no account of historical conditions. The desperate need to “end gender” is frivolous both on its face and in its intellect. Constructs are an organic consequence of simply being alive, and are often quite literally evolving alongside human psychology and works with our natural order as human beings. Detractors will tell you this is part of the dreaded biological determinism, which is only scratching at the surface of that concept. Like most thing coming out of the reactionary left it only seeks to deconstruct and to destroy things it sees as unjust but with no idea on how to rebuild or conception of the future, or atleast ones that are yet to work in any capacity ( large or small ). All of this is a combination of modernity, technology, and the overall disruption of nature.

tedpilled?

Daily reminder that uncle ted's whole critique of modern world was ultimately reducible to "i'm not happy".

Attached: 9960D8BB-87D3-4F91-87E4-726707BB7931.jpg (386x419, 55K)

Ted is on my reading list, from my cursory knowledge of him he seems to be pretty enlightened on the issues of society and it’s consequences on the natural world. I don’t endorse his methods and find his propensity for violence distasteful albeit, done with the immediacy and fully realized vision that I’d like for the rest of society. My views on technology remain extremely skeptical, but it seems cowardly to hide in the forest and believe that we can go back. We can’t, and if we’re to be saved it’ll be with technology. I’m mainly referencing the natural world and the basic health of humanity, which is to say nothing of socialization. The issues of feminism are temporary and fashionable and society can work them out gradually. I’m much more concerned with technology as a form of oppression on massive populations.

Dogs don't have gender; neither do humans. "Ladyboy" is neither a sex, nor a gender; it's a diagnostic.

What's dilation?

For once I agree with you. He’s so romanticized as an uberman willing to overstep the bounds of good taste, but you can’t say he was wrong about everything. There’s something about his resolute and determined nature that’s admirable when we’re all living in the spectacle. The truth is many others have expressed his ideas more clearly. That being said I suspect you felt the need to knock him down as some extremist that’s feeding right wing hysteria and social terrorists (himself being lionized) and that strikes me as shortsighted and pigheaded. I’m sure you’ll respond with flippancy and an image macro as is standard for you, but just realize that doing so you invalidate any good will or weight your own ideas carry. I know you’ll maybe shrug it off that as another pointless shitpost. Yet you continue to comment and fight. I just feel bad for you on some level.

I’m glad you asked.

Attached: E86A1CAE-02F7-4DE7-A198-4B99ABE0D063.jpg (1969x893, 564K)

Sex: biology
Gender: commodification

everything is a social construct if you stretch things enough, don't see many progressives arguing how "global warming", "being hit in the face by a cop", "being nuked" or "being exploited" are just social constructs

not saying that you can't make interesting theoretical work taking the "it's a social construct" route, but more often than not the "social construct" meme is just used as a tactic to direct and attack whatever you don't like, while your real motivation remains hidden but clearly guides all your steps

so it's almost never an honest intellectually pursuit and most of the times it's just a gimmick/trick

i guess Foucault (not his successors) came close to being intellectually honest at times, but that's just because he was self-destructive enough to not be too attached to anything except for getting fucked in the ass

Attached: wekwek.jpg (480x360, 13K)

>Gender: How you perform your role in society as a person with either testes or ovaries, or as a third option (for example Thai ladyboys).
so gender means personality?

>Gender is german.
Geschlecht, gender flows too nicely to be german

Y tho.
I mean, It's hard for me to believe that there's no procedure in modern medicine to make their cavity permanent. I'm actually more amazed that it's trying to close\heal.

I'm obviously not an expert but I can think of at least two possible solutions:
1. put some kind of a plug for an extended period of time until scar tissue forms.
2. pad the cavity walls with skin tissue from your nutsack or idunno, turn your penis skin inside-out.

Sex used to mean gender. Gender used to mean sex.

It has now been coopted as a term to forward the concept that there are particular social constructs that cause men and women to behave certain ways that are not inherent. It is absolutely true in this form but it is often used to make ridiculous points, such as men and women are equal and there's no reason why a woman would wear a bar and a man wouldn't.

The sleight of hand with the terms sex and gender is incredibly duplicitous. Imagine if someone went out tomorrow and said
>there is a biological truth that some people are male but these people are not men. Not only do these terms have colloquial differences but they have absolutely separate meanings. With this fact, balding does not necessarily belong to men but instead some males identify as men and they are predisposed to balding.

Do you mean the word itself is German? It’s from Latin “genus” through the Old French “gendre” which became “gender” in English and “genre” in French.

Is that why "genre" is pronounced "janra"? It always struck me as stupid.

Oui.

>has not been commercialised by the liquid death machine Capital
isn't xenofeminism literally about physically merging with the liquid death machine Capital?

based that this pic exists

>the society would not be as functional because of the low IQ etc

oh yes, god knows the christian european civilization requires high iq, almost as high as my favorite show rick and morty

Attached: Rey_Carlos_II.jpg (509x599, 62K)

the body constantly regenerates and doesn't like having random holes where they don't belong

Gender was a grammatical term until John Money appropriated it. All modern "gender theory" has its origin in John Money and his failed experiments on young boys. Gender in the modern usage is the terminology of a perverted quack, taught as an example of the worst malpractice in Bioethics but lionized as the "father of gender" in sociology and other Jewish sciences. It's funny how language can be so malleable yet so binding, any books for that feel?

if you have a solid established aristocracy it doesn't matter if the king is a retarded

i mean it obviously matters but it's not the end of the world

well it didnt arise in subsaharan africa did it

Tell it to the folk like these

Attached: earholes.jpg (1250x1500, 139K)

ear holes do heal, yes if you make them big enough they won't close, but they will still get smaller with time if you stop hanging things on them

Attached: 5-DP297456r4_61A-1-1-600x343.jpg (600x343, 28K)

Why do people respond to bait-threads? Am I the only one who sees this is /pol/ posting?

Back to rebbit, tourist.

>it's problematic to discuss progressive orthodoxy
t. radical centrist

Every thing you have you owe to Europe. You’re just another non-white filled with resentiment and resentment. It’s all so tiring. Whites are the least inbred group of people by the way.

So what's the problem with making holes similar to ear holes?

What's the point in making a pussy that can't even function properly as a fuckhole.

and don't tell me "they're just crazy lol", that would be lazy.

I feel like some important information is intentionally left out.

what other sciences are jewish?

i guess you could make a hole big enough on your crotch so that the skin walls didn't touch each other and didn't try to heal, but then it wouldn't work as a neo-pussy

once the skin is touching and there's pressure from the surrounding organs and structures the body will try to heal the hole if it doesn't belong there

>just lemme redefine gender real quick

If you leave it for several month undisturbed, I can believe it.

But the "4 hours per day or it closes" sounds like bullshit to me.

it probably begins to heal and the inner flesh begins to harden which would make it extremely painful the next time you did it, i'm sure there's some wiggle room (kek) but probably not a good idea not doing it every day

if you have a solid established aristocracy it doesn't matter if the aristocracy is inbred and retarded either, which it was. none of these power structures require high or even average levels of mental functioning from the individuals participating in them. pretending these niece-fucking banana people were titans of the intellect is some "we wuz kings"-level idpol fantasy shit.

established autocracy because whites are high iq retard

>if the aristocracy is inbred and retarded either, which it was.
it wasn't european aristocracy was probably 20-40 IQ points above the population in average

this
the enlightenment was an iq shredder

Every single point is wrong

both are both social and biological.

sex = ontology

gender = epistemology

"establishing an aristocracy" is just tribal warlords killing each other until it settled enough that the winners could pursue moral decadence full-time. it did not require intelligence and happened all over the world.

didn't happen in africa for some reason

this except reversed. sex is learned organically, gender is a ontological castle in the sky

>"establishing an aristocracy" is just tribal warlords killing each other until it settled enough that the winners could pursue moral decadence full-time
>it did not require intelligence and happened all over the world.
ehrr, getting to the top of a battle of forming social alliances and strength literally requires intelligence, what the fuck do you think intelligence is if it doesn't get you to the top in a competition with no rules like that?

citation needed. nothing about how they bred would have selected for intelligence and whatever they gained with better diet and living conditions they would have lost with inbreeding and FAS.

See, I’m also skeptical about technology and think it can lead to greater social ills of misused, but at the same time seeing how Xenofeminism aims to actually adapt the formless nature of identity in the digital age into a something resembling a social structure has given me food for thought.

Gender has become a more malleable concept in recent years. You can see that in the rise in popularity of traps and how people are attracted to the femininity in them rather than their biological status as female. Your gender can also be whatever you decide when you’re in a digital space without a physical body to define you. On top of that, Xenofeminism seems to offer a more realistic way of combating patriarchy than any other variant of feminism. You can’t have a patriarchy if gender isn’t clear cut to begin with.

Given the way human society is evolving, I can’t help but wonder if a Xenofeminist society is inevitable.

its just sick

Psychology.

too much inbreeding started in late decadent times, and aristocracy had good selection mechanism like getting overthrown by newer houses if you were too retarded or roman emperors choosing their successors from the aristocracy instead of strict lineage succession

abiding too close to the letter of christianity ruined things, though christianity had good features for a while

getting people to fight your battles for you is a matter primarily of social skills and determination, not intelligence. the boy that emerges as a leader on the playground is not normally the one that would score the highest on an iq test.

it's inevitable in the sense that fluidity fits the current form of global capital better, it's basically gender commodification, but it won't produce any kind of "real" liberation beyond whatever markets points towards

epistemology relies on violence, IQ tests favour those who killed all smarter than them to secure their place

>social skills and determination
>social skills
and what do social skills require? bigger muscles according to you or what? could intelligence make you better at reading and forming new social bonds i wonder
>and determination
may not be literally intelligence but it's still a good mark of better people

basically yeah, a masculine or feminine personality, though you have feminine boys etc because there is more to it than just masculine and feminine

what those other people said, but aristocrats of many eras literally fought too, not just stayed behind and watched

its been floating around since the 50s i wish there was a better way to describe it but i dont see a problem with there being a seperation between the biological sex difference and the societal roles that are typically performed by those people of that sex

Will it really though? The kind of gender commodification you see day to day is reliant on the existence of physical forms (sexual reassignment surgery, gendered clothing etc.). If anything, having truly fluid gender without the influence of nature would result in a massive blow against capital.

just get your fleshlight stuffed with man meat every night

what, tribal warlords never fought each other in africa? rich aristocracies never emerged in africa? no absurdly rich subsaharan emperors ever ruined the economy of the whole mediterranean by giving away piles of gold on a pilgrimage to mecca?

how? gender fluidity creates rootless individualistic cosmopolitan interchangeable cogs that capital can shuffle around the world and re-purpose as it sees fit

nothing that you wrote justifies the "40 iq points above the general populaiton" claim in any way.

it's not a stretch that the people who would rise to the time on a time of strife would be above average, not the village retards

propertarianism.com/2010/07/11/higher-social-classes-have-a-significantly-higher-average-iq-than-lower-social-classes/

again, look at any analogous modern examples. was the most popular person at your school the highest iq one? are gang leaders the highest iq people in their ghettos? was pablo escobar the highest iq criminal in columbia? actually high (>120) iq has been shown to hinder leadership. so your victorious tribal warlord would be a 110 iq charming bully and a few generations later any pressure for even above average iq would disappear. you control the land, the land yields money and troops that maintain control of the land. you can be literally retarded and stay in power as demonstrated by the spanish habsburgs.

>was the most popular person at your school the highest iq one?
i'm sure he was above average
>are gang leaders the highest iq people in their ghettos?
i'm sure they are above average
>was pablo escobar the highest iq criminal in columbia?
i'm sure he was above average
>o your victorious tribal warlord would be a 110 iq charming bully and a few generations later any pressure for even above average iq would disappear.
you have been memed by watching too many nerds vs chads american movies, you don't maintain power for hundreds of years through "charm"
>you can be literally retarded and stay in power as demonstrated by the spanish habsburgs.
again, the king can be retarded as long as there's a healthy aristocracy around

that's modern day. you'd need to demonstrate that the mechanisms that produce this today applied to european aristocracy, and you can't show that because it's not true.

like, of course there's a 25 iq gap between the average doctor and the average construction worker because medicine has a barrier to entry based on academic performance. if the doctor's son is a moron he's not going to be another doctor. but the aristocratic landowner's son is going to be an aristocratic landowner purely because of his birth no matter how much of a moron he is.

at this point you're just contradicting yourself. apparently maintaining power for hundreds of years requires intelligence except literal retards can do it too as long as they have a support structure. if a kingdom can be run by a bloodline of royal retards as long as they have smart aristocrats then a kingdom can also be run by retarded aristocrats as long as they have clever butlers. they're all only there because they're the previous ones' kids and not because of any merit, which means some of them are going to be morons, which means the whole structure is going to adapt to functioning around their stupidity.

>except literal retards can do it too as long as they have a support structure.
the retard has no power

>the retard has no power
that's what i mean by "functioning around their stupidity". since heredity does not reliably produce people capable of ruling, the success of any royal or aristocratic bloodline is going to depend on making irrelevant the individual failings of their family members, whether it's stupidity or laziness or whatever else. the only requirement that can't be worked around is that of a functioning dick/womb which is why the spanish habsburgs failed not when they became retarded but when they became infertile.

yes, it only requires the aristocracy being statistically superior as a group, not every single member has to be
>the spanish habsburgs failed not when they became retarded but when they became infertile.
is that a bug or a feature? when a lineage becomes too bad it has to be replaced, which means instability for a time, but it's necessary for the long term

The conflation between sex and gender stems from a confusion not dissimilar from the idea of the map and the territory. They sexed body is the landscape, while ideas of gender are located within a grid that catalogues sexual difference. Of course, it isn’t as simple as that - biological sex is just as much a discursive category as it is a scientific (physical) one. A perfect example of this is the pseudo-scientific myth that a woman’s vagina will resemble roast beef after penetrative sex with multiple partners, but not repeated sex with a single partner. The same idea can be applied to the aids scare in the 20th century, explicitly targeting the homosexual community because their bodies were deemed transgressive, impure or degenerate at the time. It’s very easy to turn a neutral scientific discourse into a prescription for what sex SHOULD be, which is more often than not an ideological judgement bound to their own static definitions.

you need to have many assumptions about what's the correct way to approach sex already to think like this, this is not neutral in the slightest

Well yes gender is still a societal role even if someone in Yea Forums is intentionally obtuse and oversimplifies things to make a point.

>the need to “end gender”
Is a bogeyman position I’ve never heard someone espouse in my life despite spending time in places that are household words for “progressive.”. “Deconstructing” constructs and language is done so you can talk about them in clinical and precise terms. You’re just complaining that you like comfy assumptions and how dare someone make them not seem as obvious as you thought.

>Thailand isn’t like my hometown in Alabama so it’s a mental disease
How trite.

>I agree with you but you’re probably a libtard so I’m going to lecture you anyway

Again
>I agree but someone might get the wrong idea if we have precise language so get rid of it
Absolutely anti-intellectual.

Gender in the grammatical sense is closely tied to gender in the societal sense. Once you start applying gendered language to someone or something, a whole pile of baggage gets attached.

no, there's no requirement for intellectual superiority for aristocrats, neither individually or as a group. merchants have to be able to count to function as merchants but an aristocrat only has to be born with a functioning penis so he can pass the wealth he inherited to the next generation. the habsburgs didn't outsmart anyone to become an european powerhouse, they just outbred them, a lot of kids and a lot of marriages and a lot more kids to keep the snowball of hereditary wealth going. why do you think old aristocratic power melted away after the industrial revolution? why was there even "new money" at all, shouldn't this elite group of aristocratic overmen have dominated this new field as well considering the power of their carefully bred and honed intellects? but they didn't because they were actually useless decadent clowns that coasted for generations on hereditary land ownership and could not handle competition when land ownership stopped being the only game in town.

>Gender in the grammatical sense is closely tied to gender in the societal sense
Not it is not. Not in German. How is a turnip feminine while a teen girl is not?

Absolutely fucking not :3

>12845459
mods ban this fucker. He annoys me to no end.

What's the difference between construct and construction

Sex informs gender. That's all there is to say here, it's not complicated.

What are some good books on the topic? It’s all really interesting.

Wew lad. Or should I say lass? Does it make a difference? I think it does.

Gender Trouble
Xenofeminism: A Politics For Alienation

Those are some of the big ones.

Then disprove it, faggot.

I accept transgenderism on the condition that transracialism, transagism, transheightism, transspeciesism, transintellect, etc are also all accepted. Transgenderism is the stratification of sex into a physical, measurable component (biological sex) and an almost spiritual, subjective, identity-based one (gender). There is nothing logically wrong with this on the condition that all other objective measures of one's individuality undergo the same stratification. Ethnic makeup/racial identity, age/mental age, species/identified species, height/mental height, IQ/intellectual identity, and so on. There's no argument I've ever heard for the sex/gender divide that doesn't also apply to those.

If those stratifications aren't accepted (there are some pretty good practical reasons they shouldn't be), none of them can be. This is simple. It's time for progressives to prove they mean what they say by going balls-to-the-wall, or else the time to retract the claim has come.

whether something exists or is just a social construct depends on whether it is tactically convenient for progressives or not

Facts don't care about your feelings.

You keep shilling xenofeminism for some reason are you the author?

>There is nothing logically wrong with this
The problem is sex and gender don't exist in separate universes.
Humans did not just separate into two camps with different roles on a whim. They did it because of biological differences between male and female. And the division of labor along those lines turned out to be beneficial enough to stay around.

Imperium was great. Spengler at times can be a fucking snoozefest when he goes on about mathematics n shieettt. I wonder how Yockey would revise his book in today's post-soviet EU era

No, but it's all about this idea that gender is a construct and it's also fairly recent, so it's relevant.

Neither the book, the ideology nor the author have a wikipedia page. The author's twitter page has like 5k followers. It's not exactly mainstream literature on the subject of gender.

Maybe I would suggest it as a case study in nutty internet feminism, but not as an introduction to gender theory or the criticism of it.

Gender literally is a degenerate term (in a sense that it lost all meaning).
It used to mean sex (dick or cunt) but now it doesn't.
Sex is pretty fucking tangible, you can touch it.
Gender right now is often is defined as how you feel right now, what's your sense of fashion, what's your sense of humor, are you hungry and how do you want to feel special about yourself.

Therefore gender is a meaningless characteristic that should be discarded from the conversation entirely
>my gentder is a non binary semi-demi-quasi-halflood-drogo...
>I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR GINGER, DO YOU HAVE A DICK? YES OR NO?!
>but i'm so special and...
>THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS ABOUT YOUR ENTIRE BEING IS A HOLE FOR MY DICK!

Gender has been expanded so wide it now encompasses everything and therefore means nothing.
I refuse to acknowledge it as a concept.

Attached: 8bn8fvgj2ji21.jpg (620x767, 145K)

>homosexuals are attracted to the same sex
>but if youre not attracted to transmen you're a bigot
Aaaaaaaaaaaa

Human sexuality is a reproduction engine.
Doesn't matter if you just want to have 5 minutes of fun, your brain is programmed to screen the women as potential mothers for your children.
Pretty woman - good genes, good health, youth - she could give you a strong healthy child, that's why the dick gets hard.
Trans-men are just ugly women.
Ugly women means bad genetics, poor health therefore bad offspring so your brain doesn't want to fuck them and the dick doesn't go up.

The dick has a mind of it's own, it's wisdom evolved over millions of years, when your brain is looking to get drunk and have fun your dick is looking to secure and improve the future of your species by tapping the youngest healthiest chick you can find.

Literally who?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Sources?

>surgery done by a doctor in thailand
Do you have a similar story-time image of someone who lives in a western country? My "racism" is getting in the way of my "transphobia" with this one, essentially

Common sense retard

Explain how half-witted slampigs manage to get one night stands with men far out of their league all the time then?
Male standards are far lower than you are giving crediting them to be.

Sorce on what? An observation that the men want the youngest and healthiest women?

Behavioral psychology and Paleopsychology.
Especially the latter since it explores the reasons humans evolved with the instincts and subconscious behaviors that they have, how millions of years of development and evolution formed the low-level "hard-wired" behaviors of people.

Why did people evolve lazy and greedy and tend to get fat?
Because it increases rate survival during famine.
Why do people want to fuck young girls and not the old hags?
Those who wanted to fuck old hags had sick offsprings and didn't survive in the long run.

/his/ is where the retards are supposed to post, user. Move along

Of course not.
t. 200 IQ

>Explain how
With suppressed disgust and determination.

Ok but post some sources. I dont care about your personal observations and the assumptions you made based on them.

Human Paleopsychology, now go read it.

Gender is the synonym for “soul” in the cult of intersectionality. This is literally the thinking that has started every religion. When we die Christianity, Islam, and capitalism will form new disparate religions with sects regarding mythical consciousness with form and spirit based on gender politics.

>>the need to “end gender”
>Is a bogeyman position I’ve never heard someone espouse in my life despite spending time in places that are household words for “progressive.”
They just want to undo it, and that's totally different.

Attached: 41B5-0ZQOfL._SX352_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (354x499, 21K)

Read all of Foucault's work to know why thats wrong

Be warned that this a heavily ideological topic dominated by activist researchers. Take everything with a pinch of salt.

Gender Trouble by Butler
Delusions of Gender by Fine
Undoing Gender by Butler
And generally Foucault is the basis of the entire field

For counter arguments read a biology text book or watch the discovery channel

Interesting how you ascribe Intent and make bad faith arguments. I feel debased even typing the words “strawman” into any part of the internet but you’re making me do it. Not to mention you’re using a ton of anecdotal evidence. Even outside of proper debate etiquette your arguments are so I’ll fathomed I can’t even take you seriously. The thing is, I WANT you to defend your position as inteectually as possible because it’s fun for me. But you just parrot mass media and it’s so tiring and stupid. I hope you get AIDS and die soon faggot.

No you fucking autistic faggots. Darwinian truth. End of story.