Isn't pansuxual basically just being bi-sexual you're attracted to both genders

And what kind of contact do you have with wider society other than your safe-space inner circle of self loathing faggots who label any kind of contradictory opinons as hate speech?

University, sixth form college, having a job, being a normal social person, etc. Just by talking to people in general really. Not really sure what you mean by an inner circle? Agreed there are loads of intolerant and millitant left wing people but they're also looked down on by most sensible left wing people as well, making the stereotype you're referring to a minority.

If it had been a sensible answer it would have advised you to get some therapy and learn to count to 2.

Why are you such a reactionary just like /them/? You think you're different cause you spit out the same "sjw snowflake blah blah buzzword buzzword" every time you can? Stop giving /them/ replies / fuel if you want to establish yourself as "better than /them".

Attached: 1556476410113.jpg (850x600, 252K)

+1500 years of european civilization built on the pillars of christian faith, family and natural law, and you buy the first shit that comes out of the Frankfurt school roughly 40 years ago through cultural marxist jew subversive agents.

I beg to differ but your concept of 'wide society' is nothing but the degeneracy infecting it, and I seriously doubt the vast majority of your local community thinks like you anyway.

It's a war on free speech. A cultural battle. You either pick up your weapons and fight or just sit by and watch the cancer spread. Your choice

What kind of contact do you have with wider society when everyone who disagrees with you is labeled a snowflake or a libtard or whatever virtue signaling word the right uses now?

Pansexual = bisexual attention whore
The only real, non-Tumblr sexualities are heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality.

How is it a war on free speech when one side is asking to be called something and you are free to say no?

And squirrelsexual

That's a prediliction, not a gender.
A preference, an attraction, a part of your nature.
Not a gender.
And screaming shrilly about it won't make it more true.
Pic is another female, one of the two genders.

Attached: 1562191888292.jpg (645x908, 47K)

You're kind of right, but just don't let it infringe on your culture? This shit is bound to die down in a few years. What good is there to "fight" when they label you the same as you label them. You wouldn't listen to some 20 something handicapped autistic arts graduate would you? You're inflating the problem by caring in the first place lol

yes

No one said pansexual was a gender. Different user

It's not about disagreeing, it's about defending the fundamental base of our civilization. Basically, continuing the secular struggle that elevated mankind to the highest peaks of cultural splendor and enlightment.

>calls pan-sexuality a gender
I guess your gender is homosexual now retard

Why do you give a shit what someone chooses to call themselves? Do you get mad at all the nicks, sams, robs, and ally’s and insist they go by Nicholas, Samantha, Robert and Allison?

You clearly can't read.

I'm not allowed to say no on facebook, twitter, youtube... Etc. And it's only the beginning. This board doesn't need to be censored, porn has had its way with it and its influence is ridicule compared to a decade ago.

I agree. Secularism is what gave us all that is good. So stop bringing religion into this.

So a private company denies you their service because they disagree with you and you have a problem with that? So you were for making that baker make a gay wedding cake?

>That's a prediliction, not a gender.
A preference, an attraction, a part of your nature.
Not a gender.
>And screaming shrilly about it won't make it more true.
You're implying that /they/ think pan-sexuality is a gender, although it's a fucking sexuality. You don't even have a fundamental understanding of how this all works so why are you replying? Anti virtue-signaling I guess gets to your head huh?

Why would you doubt that? I'm a young person living in a city, even the least PC of my friends still accept transgenderism and detest discrimination.

Your points are ridiculous as well, showing signs of someone who has no circle of friends, little contact with society, and at best a limited understanding of modern academic thought. Industrialism has killed religion, changed the conventional structure of families from extended to nuclear, and 'natural law' is so subjective to a time periods milleau of values that it essentially doesn't exist, or at least the idea of it being 'natural'. Also, Frankfurt School 'roughly 40 years ago', yeah mate, roughly, so rough you missed the mark by a good couple decades.

The old order changeth and beginneth anew. You may think immigration, changing sexual identities, and the current wave of left wing thought are signs of growing degeneracy, but are natural changes in our social world. Learn to be more accepting of changes happening in our world and try understand the reasons why they're happening rather than label them as 'degenerate'. Also, for all the time you spend inside, please read a single book at least because fuck me, you're absurdly thick.

It's a fancy label for bisexuality. They make it sound like they have no preferences but that's a lie as everyone does who isn't asexual.

Lol someone doesn't know how to read. Try re-doing the fifth grade before replying to people who are literate please.

I think you're completely mistaken.

I was like you, at first, I used to think this bullshit would just wear off like gamgsta rap or any other stupid Emo fad.

Wrong. This is way more than a fad, it's an attack lanched by cultural marxism, it's infiltrated the schools, universities, the media, the law systems, and every single social network.

Trust me, gender ideology is here to stay, just like 3rd wave feminism. The seed was planted in the 50's and now they're starting to pick up the harve

To be frank, I normally choose wisely when to speak up but honestly, the more one speaks openly and takes up an active attitude against this agenda, the better.

Good day to you.

I'm saying it's a war on free speech. Not saying they're infringing the law in any way.

Cultural marxism has essentially no power. People label it an 'agenda' to make it sound conspiring and scary but there really is no money behind these ideas to give them any sense of power or make their agendas actual agendas.

Left wing ideas don't seek to exploit the people, meaning that being left wing is bad for business! Why, when the world is controlled by big business, would the so called left wing agenda have any sort of power or pose any sort of threat?

Slippery slope fallacy.

You can neither read, nor think.
I pity you.

Are you for allowing banning blacks from bars? No? Than you're for guys wedding cakes, congratulations.

There's literally no difference. Get over yourself, snowflake.

We will meet again maybe, but the world we dream of is incompatible.

Only one will see the light of tomorrow.

CULTURAL MARXISTS PUT FLORIDE IN THE CHEM-TRAILS! IT'S A PLOT TO MAKE OUR DONGS SOFT!

>asexuality
is not a sexuality, it's the absence of sexuality (and arguably a mental illness, just like trannyism)
I bet you think atheism is a religion don't you?

retard giving me (you)s and just calling me illiterate. you're a reactionary retard just like /them/. go back to /pol/ and fucking lurk moar you pretentious nigger

Self-awareness about who needs to get over themselves: 0

It's literally just bi for people who want extra attention

Thanks

Pansexual and omnisexual are not necessarily bisexual. I'm attracted to objects not just genders. Like a tree for example, or a 1968 Chevelle. those are bad examples, I'm just throwing them out there. By the way, there are only two genders. There are many lifestyles, but when you get down to it there isn't but an x chromosome and a y chromosome.

I don't give a fuck left,
I don't give a fuck right,
Just do your own shit, no one is special. Dr.Suess was wrong motherfuckers.

Only those with mental and physical disabilities need special treatment. Be whatever religion you want, fuck who you want, hate who you want. Just don't anyone push your shit onto another.

Some churches say no to gay weddings? Okay.
Some private businesses say no to something against their ideology? Okay.
LGBTQ only apartments? Fine with me.
If it's public it can't discriminate or make special rules for anyone, bar none.

based and only correct response

Attached: D934eQ5UYAEug5g.jpg (1200x1200, 166K)

And 0 is not a number.

>trannyism
I love Yea Forums intelligence on display. The word you're looking for is 'sexual dysphoria'.

I don't frequent Yea Forums a lot, but it's really appalling to see how the gender bullshit has contamined this board.

It was always a degenerate board anyway, so it's not surprising, but I expected more self awareness and contra-culture.

Either way, at least there is some ressistance from some users.

With that being said you should also learn how to read a comment section.

Attached: two genders.png (1280x720, 167K)

Is everyone under 30 actually mental?

Go for a little walk in nature and count the genders of all other species.

Strange that it's always two right?

But yes, pander to your fragile ego, if it makes you feel special when you know deep down you're not. Why bother with objective reality?

Joke's on you, you pedantic faggot. The medical term for trannyism is "gender dysphoria."
"Sexual dysphoria" literally means discomfort during sex. Learn to fucking English.

Attached: 19789999.jpg (600x518, 51K)

I'm going 'mental' that you're unable to read

so you're telling me that pansexual's don't get sexual attraction from sexual organs or male or female traits? fuck off

>Isn't pansuxual basically just being bi-sexual you're attracted to both genders.

Actually it's a new PC term for try-sexual (try anything with a hole in it animal, mineral, or vegetable.) That means old man, 9 year old girl, dog, vacuum cleaner, hot pocket, tree, or goat. If it feels good, you just do it! Basically a faggot with no standards.

Attached: pastytastey.jpg (1010x1022, 894K)

You're either very naive or completely retarded.

Leftwing ideas like welfare are fleecing middle to pay the poor so rich don't have to pay. Simple example is walmart. Gov pays half the wage through the welfare program supporting low wage earners using your money from taxes so walmart can pay them less.

>Strange that it's always two right?
How can you count the genders in animals? Gender is a social construct, and understanding the social norms in the animal wildlife is really fucking hard (because we can't talk to them). Maybe you are confusing it with sex, where there is, for mamals, mostly only two. But as you might have guessed from my formulation, this doesn't hold for most other species. E.g. many non mamals actually have only one sex, like worms. And even within mamals, there are some times (seldom) genetic mutations that result in some exemplar being neither male or female (on a genetic level)

Even with your tiny brain unable to comprehend the difference between sex and gender, you are wrong talking about either of those

>Leftwing ideas like welfare

You my friend have absolutely no idea about politics. Do you remember the part where marx wrote about increasing welfare? Me neither, because in a communistic society there wouldn't be any need for welfare.

Welfare is a neoliberal/capitalistic idea for the government to keep the workforce stable without the companies having to invest. As you correctly pointed out, it's basically wealth redistribution from the middle income earners to the low income earners. But thats not a Left idea, most lefties are actually opposed to this. Thats why most lefties wan't to increase taxes on the rich and lower the taxes on the middle income earners, in order to shift the burden to those who have the most money (as this is the best we can do within a capitalistic framework). In a true communist/socialist society, everyone could live from their work (which is the key part about socialism)

Gender is not a social construct.
Fuck off with your 1984 style double think.

Yeah, yeah... war is peace, freedom is slavery, diversity is our strength etc.

If anything gender is the emergent behavioural properties of physical sexual characteristics and chemistry.

What you're doing is confusing "gender stereotypes", which is the classification and observation of common gender traits, with gender - which I outlined above.

Even those undergoing transgender treatement will testify to the strength of hormones on their personality and behaviours.

Fuck this backwards anti-scientific nonsense.

And clutching at biological oddities and genetic outliers in nature is just the shittest argument ever. That's like arguing humans don't have two legs because rare injured or freak humans don't.

Sorry, but you can live in la-la land if you want, but the rest of us are going to just accept the judgment of millions of years of nature - rather than the fashionable fad of a bunch of degenerate 20 somethings.

>I'm going 'mental' that you're unable to read

I'm going 'mental' because you're incapable of constructing a comprehensible sentence! Not sure what side of the argument you're on because of this. Either English is your 2nd or 3rd language, or you're a product of the "no child left behind" agenda.

Attached: 1537690433196.jpg (300x218, 13K)

Okay....?

>leftwing politics is marx
...

That aside your communist society is a welfare society as it seeks to give resources to people who provide no value.

>emergent behavioural properties
Bro I'm no SJW or anything, but that is basically the definition of a social construct.

Wild data scientist here, think of gears. Alone the form does nothing, only put together they can create machinery. That's a emergent property of a system -a feature that only arises in the system that is not intrinsic to it's parts. Emergent property has nothing to do with people / social shit.

No it really isn't.

The sound of a heartbeat is an emergent property of the contractions of the heart.

Emergent behavioral properties are the opposite of a social construct, they are the traits that emerge from the biological conditions that underpin them.

For example, purchasing sanitary towels (or other products) is an emergent behavioural propertly of the biological condition of a bleeding vagina.

Or, more subtle, the presence of high levels of estrogen in a females (or males taking estrogen for cancer or gender reassignment) results in a higher incidence of tearfulness and emotional fluctuations.

These are not traits that society dictates, they are traits that biology dictates, society notices, and then society builds "gender stereotypes" as a short-hand way to differentiate the sexes.

As with any short-hand definition or stereotype, there will always be exceptions to the rules, but that is irrelevant and not the point of a stereotype. The point is to find common traits to make social interactions and assumptions less cumbersome.

You haven't identified the difference between gender identity and biological sex though have you? Feeling like you're a man or a woman is akin to feeling like you're from America. The American national identity is constructed similar to how gender behaviours are arbitrarily constructed. Women are taught different behaviours than men; they're socialised in accordance with their gender. If you happen to be born and/or raised in America, you'll be taught in accordance with the national identity at that moment in time.

I'm saying, if you were born in America, but not taught mainstream American values, would the national spirit be strong in you? Similarly, if women and men were taught to behave and think the same way, the only thing left to differentiate them would be biological sex right? Which would be as coincidental as hair colour. Should I be socialised to think I'm different because I have black hair, I might start ACTING differently, got me?

Equal gender socialisation cannot be achieved within a generation as wide sexual dimorphism in humans is the result of hundreds of millions of years of socially-informed evolution, but the idea still stands: your identity isn't based on anything 'real', apart from what you feel yourself as being.

>leftwing politics is marx
Well sorry for using the most common idea of left politics which stands for over 200 years, rather than the republican redefinition, by which everyone who's not far right is a leftist.
If you wan't to argue that neo liberals like andrew yang or so are left because they share social politics, than sorry, this is a very new, and almost exclusively american point of view towards politics. For anyone else the term left refers to economic policies, which is the case for multiple decades.

>That aside your communist society is a welfare society as it seeks to give resources to people who provide no value.
Well... no. You either haven't read marx, or you where to stupid to understand him, but you recall the line: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen (engl: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.)
This contains two parts, first "From each according to his abilities", which basically refers to the idea, that everyone should be able to do what he can do best. If you are really good at cooking, there should nothing be stopping you from becoming a cook. The second part is "to each according to his needs", which says everyone should have enough for living. In conjunction this means, everyone can work what he is best at, and everyone who works shall have enough to live.

If you don't work, i.e. you don't provide value, the first part doesn't hold so why should the second?

In fact in capitalism it's right the other way around. If you are a capitalist, i.e. a shareholder in a big company, you get your dividend no matter what you do.

E.g. Stefan and Susanne quandt earn a Billion (together) with their inherited BMW stocks per year. They never worked a day for BMW, but still get the money the workers at BMW produce.

So in fact capitalism a system which
>seeks to give resources to people who provide no value.

In short.

Sex = Biological differences.

Gender = Emergent behaviors and traits that are the result of these biological differences.

Gender Stereotype = The classification of the gender differences that society chooses to deem relevant.

There are exceptions to these at each level, however, the point is to classify based on the most common traits, as this is a practical way to navigate reality (if not perfect in every situation).

Do you not see any relation between Gender and Gender stereotype via your definitions? Where do you think 'emergent behaviours' come from? Do you think they emerge from the fucking aether? No, they are taught in accordance with the acknowledgement that you are either male or female, and in accordance with whatever gender stereotypes are prevalent in that one place and time.

>For example, purchasing sanitary towels (or other products) is an emergent behavioural propertly of the biological condition of a bleeding vagina.
Damn you are a moron. Then tell me, why are these women buying sanitary towels rather than just lying in a bathtub for the whole day and washing themself? Maybe because humans are socially conditioned to take part in social life, which includes working, going out, etc. Things you can't do while lying in a bathtub. Thats why the usage of sanitary towels is a reaction to the societal norms, and the best choice for women w.r.t. other possible behaviors.
Or to rephrase it, buying sanitary towls is one of many possible behaviours that could emerge from the bleeding vagina, but it is selected by the women as it is the one most complient with social norms

I haven't differentiated between gender identity and biological sex, because the former is entirely ephemeral.

What you call "gender identity", I would call "personality". If someone's personality has issues with not conforming to gender stereotypes, does that mean they should reinforce those gender stereotypes?

For example, as a Male I'm a big fan of plants and flowers - something which is often considered a female interest. Do I assume that I am therefore "more female", or simply that the stereoptypes are not universal?

To assume you are a different gender because the stereotypes are not universal and do not apply to you, is just playing by the very system that you claim to have an issue with. You're reinforcing the concept that certain traits are gendered.

The American metaphor you put forward is useful but flawed. It would only work if being American came with certain biological traits that influenced personality.

For example, if all Americans were physically were 6 foot, Blonde, and had a very specific hormonal bio-chemistry, then the non-socialized American would still have plenty in common with socialized Americans, more than they would with socialized or unsocalized Chinese (assuming their biological basis was different).

I don't think you understand the concept of emergent behaviour.

Does a clock tick because it was designed to make a ticking noise? Or is it an emergent behaviour based on the design?

It certainly isn't because society decided clocks should tick.

As a male, I don't buy sanitary products, not because society told me I shouldn't, but because that emergent behaviour is not present because I lack the biological conditions for it to emerge from.

Jesus, it's not rocket science.

>Gender = Emergent behaviors and traits that are the result of these biological differences.
So just a technical question. So I wan't to research this. How do I measure gender in the way you describe it to be?
Because yes, you could define gender this way, but it's completely impractical, because the only way to measure gender would than be estimating the genetic differences between brother and sister (around 50%), and use this to extrapolate the differences in behaviour patterns between those two, while correcting your calculation by the differences between the social environment of brother and sister (even the parents treat sister and brother differently). Also they should be twins.

Have fun doing this. Thats why your definition of gender, even though it could be used, is scientifically completely useless. Thats why no paper (at least from those I read) uses your definition but rather includes social norms within the definition of gender.

If you disagree feel free to cite any paper that does use your definitions.

yep

who comes up with this shit?

The most sensible definition of the leftwing is the leftwing party. Not what they say but what they do.

Left & Right work in tandem in essence. Right makes regulations to keep wealth. Left makes regulations to distribute wealth from middle to lower class which finances the rights regulations that would otherwise cause unrest in lower class.

It's true that you can earn in capitalism without lifting a finger from investments and it's the only way to escape being a wageslave but your interpretation of the communist case ignores that not every job is equally valuable. A man who does what he wants will provide less value than someone who does whats needs to be done. I.E. my job as a programmer is providing more value than if i went and became a figure painter just cause i'm good at it and like doing it. So following that system it would have to pay me still equal despite providing less value which means I would get welfare subsidization.

>As a male, I don't buy sanitary products, not because society told me I shouldn't, but because that emergent behaviour is not present because I lack the biological conditions for it to emerge from.
This sounds really interesting, please cite the paper you have this from

Is that the only behaviour you can think of? Buying tampons? Are you kidding me user?

Literally the only differences in naturally emergent behaviours would be pissing standing up, not buying tampons, walking and sitting differently because of hip structure, and not having to support your breasts.

That's about it. Almost everything else is taught.

Oh fuck off, that's just retarded.

Of course, other emergent behaviors could occur in that instance.

However, most women are choosing behaviors that are the most favorable and most convinient.

Your argument is completely void of meaning. Yes, of course, we live in a social world and society influences behavior - but to argue that ALL behavior is generated from society is just ignorant.

Let's take a non-gendered approach. We all shit.
Wiping our arse is an emergent behavior of shitting.

This process varies from culture to culture (in india they use their left hand and water), depending on what is available. However, the baseline emergent behavior (the urge to not have a shitty arse) remains, from the physical discomfort and potential infections one would experience.

You're claim that ALL gendered behaviours are social constructs is as idiotic as saying that wanting to have a clean arse is a social construct rather than the result of our biological need to shit.

I don't think anyone writes papers on why I don't buy sanitary towels. Why? Because it's fucking obvious that you don't buy something you can't use.

There are many (and read all of these as "on average")...

Women blink twice as often as men.
Women experience temperature differently to men.
Women cry more often than men.
Women consistently score differently on personality tests to men.
Women and men are both prone to different diseases (not many women with prostate cancer for example).
Women have less upper body strength than men.
Men die younger than women.
Women do not experience baldness with aging.
Men sweat more than women.

I could continue for hours if you want?

Each of these biological conditions will lead to emergent behaviors in the behaviour and personality of those who experience them.

Yes.

You're right about Americans not having biologically different features as opposed to genders, but my point was that ones mental state is a result of constructed socialisation, and made the comparison on that basis.

I agree that transgender people are often reinforcing the gender binary. I also understand that if more than half of your interests are deemed 'female' then it wouldn't transform you into a woman. Traits are gendered and thats the world we live in. Feeling that you're a certain gender is of course playing into the gender binary, but who are we to say that someone shouldn't feel that way? Especially considering the extreme differences in gender socialisation that we've been discussing, would it not make sense for a small minority of the population to feel like their gender socialisation doesn't mirror their personal identity? If male and female are the only options they are given, then surely you can understand why some people would want to switch.

Non-binarism is an identity which seems ancient and expressed in most aboriginal societies, which conforms to neither gender identity. Perhaps reading on that might interest you? (See the two-spirit people of Native American cultures)

>The most sensible definition of the leftwing is the leftwing party. Not what they say but what they do.
Well... no.
First you can't go by what they do rather than what they say. Because the left and the right try to archive fundamentally different systems. The left want's to establish socialism, but as we are currently in a capitalistic framework, every action has to be within the constraints of this framework. Meaning the actions, are influenced by the underlying ideology, as well as the respective framework. To talk a little bit maths, if the actions are the posterior, than it's dependent on the execution as well as the prior (i.e. the framework).

So as the framework is given to judge the actions you need to remove the prior, i.e. look at the intention and ideology.

Similar, in a communistic framework like China, their right wing actions are totally different from our right wing actions as they operate on a completely different framework, even though the ideology is the same.

>Left & Right work in tandem in essence. Right makes regulations to keep wealth. Left makes regulations to distribute wealth from middle to lower class which finances the rights regulations that would otherwise cause unrest in lower class.
And this is the point where your analysis fails due to the reasons pointed out above. The right wing tries to preserve hierarchical power structures, which in the framework of capitalism means preserving corporate infrastructures, while the left tries to establish horizontal power structures, which in a capitalistc framework means wealth redistribution.
In a marxian comunistic framework this would be reversed, there the right wing would try to establish hierachichal (e.g. coorparte, or facistic) structures, while the left would try to preserve the current system.

You can't argue about politics without taking the current framework into account.

"pan-sexual" means you are sexually attracted to all 47 genders, not just two like "bi-sexuals".

Jheez you think you're well smarr hahah

Baldness, strength, early death, sweat, and blinking wont directly lead to different behaviours. Unless these things are seen as valuable in a society, in which case will then become part of socialisation, otherwise it will become a matter of coincidence. Upper body strength would matter a lot in hunter gatherer societies, but nowadays? You can be a quadruple paraplegic and still live an alright life. You'd probably live longer than a lot of people. The point being, as these traits are becoming less valuable, so will the idea of a gender that separates them.

Why do you think women cry more? Because all women are pussies? Or because maybe women aren't taught that crying is 'unladylike' and do less to repress their emotions?

Why do you think women score differently on personality tests? Because their biology mystically alters their personality? Or because women and men are taught to behave in different ways?

You think you're smart because you spend all your time on the internet but you have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. Must be an Americunt thing.

Samefag as >but your interpretation of the communist case ignores that not every job is equally valuable
No this is where you get completely lost because you don't understand that we want to change the framework.

Value is completely arbitrary. For example I as a computer scientist earn 70$ an hour, a plumber earns minimum wage (10$/hour in my country). If all computer scientists stop working our society would probably collapse (as everything is digital nowerdays), if all plumbers would stop working, our society would defenetly collapse. So they result of these works are equaly valuable for society.
Now you could argue that it is harder to become a computer scientist than a plumber, which might be true, I mean I did 8 years of Uni. But during these 8 years the plumber already plumbed, while I smoked weed and did party all night long (yep uni is easy). So did I really do more?

To tie that into the communist framework, if now everyone does what he can do best, we are working at maximum productivity, meaning if the plumber becomes a computer scientist or I become a plumber, the overall productivity would fall. So logically follows that both jobs have to be equally valuable, within the communistic framework

the difference is that while being bisexual you can be averse to trans or some other abominations, while a pansexual don't give a shit.

People here are arguing about gender.. And despite feminism being a completly autistic ideology, I don't really see the point of these gender talk.
Human biological sex and gender are not the same thing by the definition.
Some forms of genetic mistakes aside, biological sex is devided by two groups on the base of their procreational functions.
Gender is a social phenomena that describes some forms of behavioural groupings and sexual outlets. Two major groups are correlated with biological sex and defined as cisgender by feminists.
How many other forms of behaviour and self-descriptive practices may be there? As much as human dirty imagination can produce. Because there are no actual limits of sexual behavioural variation. Culture can easily link being a banker or a gang-member with some form of bestiality and produce a new gender that way.
What genders are norm and what aren't is a question of conventional acceptance. Feminists actually think that any form should be tolerated and socially accepted. But try to imagine people who are describing themselves as being kids in an adult body and arguing that they shouldn't be prosecuted for penetrating children's dry narrow vaginas.

Attached: 1502032051886.png (635x593, 493K)

It's another mental illness like all lgbtqqqd idiots.

Sorry my bad, I've only read your post and assumed by sanitary products you mean sanitary products in general (i.e. the fact that women use more sanitary products like different shampoos, soaps, etc.) compared to man.
Now in the context of sanitary towels this ofcourse is stupid

Just say sexual deviants.

It's also fascinating that you think that "pissing standing up" is some kind of major difference yet completely ignore...

Pregnancy, giving birth, child feeding and rearing, and all of the immensely important behaviours that nature has hardwired into women to do that job well (the single most important job in our species).

This belittles the huge importance and value of women.

It also ignores fundemental differences in how men and women approach sex.

It also ignores observable issues such as almost all rapists being male.

You're saying all those things are caused by society?

Yeah... I'll stick with the more reasonable assumption that nature created a binary system and assigned roles to each gender in a way that increased our chances of survival and reproduction in an unforgiving environment.

>sensible left wing people
Doesn't exist

The right doesn't virtue signal.

>However, most women are choosing behaviors that are the most favorable and most convinient.
favorable in which context? Maybe in a sociatal context?
> but to argue that ALL behavior is generated from society is just ignorant.
Im arguing that you can't measure any behavior without a social component. or to rephrase, everything is dependent on sociatal norms. So defining gender as something without a sociatal component just doesn't make sense, because we can't measure it.

that's racist

Transgenderism is a mental illness and not based on science just psychological pseudoscience.

>Transgenderism is a mental illness and not based on science just psychological pseudoscience
>Science supports my view, and if it doesn't its not science

Women cry more because of the biological influences of estrogen on psychology.

This is well documented and has absolutely nothing to do with society.

Prepubescent children cry roughly at roughly the same rate until puberty. When hormones come into play, boys stop crying, girls continue to cry at roughly the same rate.

Ask any male who has had estrogen therapy to treat prostate cancer (I have witnessed this first hand with friends) and they will confirm, as is well documented, that they experienced dramatic shifts in emotions and started to cry far more easily.

If you want to deny biology in order to fit some strange idea that "society is out to get you", that's fine, but it's not true and is easy to demonstrate as false.

Because that side is demanding their own reality. They expect us to conform to their delusion.

True

Nah, it's frying pan sexual nigga

They use "gender" specifically because the term can be manipulates, it's not a scientifically backed term.

It's not completely arbitrary. You give the example yourself. It's based on demand.

Whether the coder or the plumber is valued higher is merely a supply&demand question. A system that doesn't adjust to the demand can't produce maximum productivity.

>Even with your tiny brain unable to comprehend the difference between sex and gender, you are wrong talking about either of those
Sex is biology gender is nonsense. Where way I'm humans there are only two sexes and you can't change them. Gender is nonsense and should leave the vocabulary as it's irrelevant.

For the record, ending your factually incorrect argument by being a cunt, is rarely a good tactic to win a debate.

Just face it, you don't have even the slightest grasp on the facts of the things you're talking about. You're going on "feels" and assumptions.

Every argument you're putting forward has huge amounts of data to contradict it.

If you spent more time reading science and less on gender studies, you might actually have a more balanced view.

The stupid thing is, I agree that society does need to adapt and be more flexible for gender roles. However, people like you with entirely false and, frankly, crazily misinformed opinions, don't do your cause any good at all.

>Left wing ideas don't seek to exploit the people,
Of course they do. The seek to exploit the "rich".

I don’t know or care. I’m only attracted to girls & traps that look like girls, but would fuck girls & would getfucked by girls with strains, guys, traps, donkeys, attack helicopters, & anything else that can plow my ass while I splork into a middle class suburban republican housewife’s asshole in the 3rd floor bathroom at our 10th high school class reunion. Idgaf what you can any of it, keep your labels to yourself.

Not an argument.

You know what, not gonna lie I completely forgot about childrearing. Have no idea how but my bad. Either way, back in day it mightve been important for the birthgiver to stay tending for the baby, but nowadays it holds a lot less importance. Think about the past 100 years. Women can work now, women have less kids, childcare is more widespread, and less children are dying meaning that the work of the mother is a lot less necessary than before.

I agree that gender binary was at one point useful to our environment and our survival, yes, thats obvious. But now? Is our environment that unforgiving now, user? Do you think natural selection is still an important phenomenon in humankind?

Here's a challenge, find the link between growing gender equality, rising standards of living, and prevalence of transgenderism in areas where such phenomenons occur. What do you think the link is?

One easy way to bait yourself out as having no normal friends, or any friends at all for that matter, or better than that, never actually leaving your house! Good work user

I can’t wait to hunt you.

>fallacy
It's not a fallacy.
It's being proven daily. The argument was made even gays were pushing for their agenda. Those fears are being proven correct.

>Are you for allowing banning blacks from bars
Yes

Not the same thing. Those gays weren't denied any service. They could have bought a normal wedding cake like everyone else. Either way the point is moot as the scotus decided.

A mental illness

I think it's too early to find a link. It could easily be a temporary cultural fashion.

It could be an increase in environmental estrogens interfering with our bodies.

It could be that society has become feminized to the point where insecure men would rather be women than male in order to have a more meaningful life, and to fit the cultural trends.

It could be all of the above and more.

Equally, in cultures where gender equality is most deeply entrenched in the law (Sweden for example), you see a greater difference between the career and lifestyle choices the genders make - which contradicts that society is the driving factor in gender differences.

It's because of the /LGBT/ cross posters most are tranny's.

Word parts are essential. Pan is a prefix that means 'everything'. Pansexual then implies you could be turned on by a toaster, some leaves on the ground, or a child. That and there are only two genders so bi encapsulates everyone.

t. Bisexual man

Interesting fact: The link is actually a reverse correlation. Rich countries have bigger gender gaps in job choice. Reason is simple imo- you need that money in a poor shithole. You can however to choose whatever you like in a rich socialist country without worrying about surviving.

Thought this was only true in the context of PMS. Didn't know there was any direct link between having oestrogen and crying.

I'll accept that hormones inform gendered behaviour, because its objectively true, but you gotta acknowledge that gender socialisation is informing our responses to our hormones. I guarantee if women were taught not to cry, it would be uncommon for women to do so, regardless of oestrogen levels.

That's bullshit. Pansexual is just the faggots' way to kick out bisexuals because our sexuality supports the 2 sexes model (read: facts)

You would lose

If you're gonna shit on me and say I'm wrong at least give me some reasons why hahaha. Dont mind being wrong about stuff as long as I learn from it.

Hahah this made me kek, you made this thread for me user good job

No I actually get out and that's how I know there are little to know sensible lefties. Especially in 2019.

It's up to 53 now

So if gender and sex are different and one is biological and can't be changed and one is a "social construct" then why do trannies mutilate their bodies in an attemp to change the biological they themselves admit can't ever be changed?

Not being a cunt here but what did he say in that comment that has huge amounts of data to contradict it?

I’d be interested to see data that shows the traits he listed are biological rather than social.

Basically it's just a way to clarify that you're into trans people and nonbonaries too

i knew someone who was pan but wound up just lying and only going for guys who were in bands.

That's a famous tranny dumbass.

It's not hard to understand, it just means gender doesn't matter when it comes to sexual attraction. So whereas bi is only male and female, pan can have attraction to melt, female, trans people, herms, and any other intersex people

I think the implication with pan is for trans. People that claim to be pan are throwing a pretty serious red flag in my book.

Must be tough wanting to bone nonbonaries. Can’t imagine they’d be into it.

Anyone with an outdated pre 2005 education got the 1800s version of psychology and sexuality, and as such must either get up to speed on a century of (almost all) that we now know about these subjects, or lazily recoil and reject it all out of hand and choose to remain ignorant as fuck and hope time will reverse and the world will go back to the dumb past they prefer, to when they were relevant. Good fuckin luck Etc...

Yeah, /b is a left wing degenerate cesspool that needs more fucking retarded simpleton right wing shitheels from pol to represent their hostile stupidity. Sure.

I disagree, That's like saying "if society told people that being drunk made you behave exactly the same as being sober, I guarantee no one would ever appear drunk".

You can't deny the powerful impact of drugs and hormones on the human body and mind.

You know, it's okay that men and women are different. That doesn't make one better than the other.

It's not a problem that women cry more, or men cry less. It's just different.

Differences are not inherently bad.

I mean, FFS the same people who want men and women to be identical also shout about how "diversity is our strength".

Can we not accept the natural diversity between the sexes, because YES that is why nature made us different, because the diversity of our sexes made the human race stronger, more adaptable.

Men and women are different on multiple levels. This fluctuates on an individual level, with extremes at each end.

But on average, men and women are different.

It's not bad, it's not even bad that society reflects and respects this.

I'd rather live in a diverse world where we celebrate our differences and worth together with them. Than to ignore reality and to try and make everything some bland grey world where we're all the same.

The problem with diversity is that it is essentially antithetical to equality.

You can't be different and the same.

But, that doesn't matter. It keeps life interesting.

Most important is that we respect each other and do not constantly battle over bullshit.

NB is not asexual, my man

The argument was focused on the effects of estrogen on crying and emotional states.

Look into research into prostate treatements, gender transitioning, and just basic biology and you'll find plenty of data that proves estrogen is the smoking gun for this behaviour - not societal norms.

Shouldn’t be long. This election cycle, when they attack, we’re engaging this time. And now thanks to their mascot encouraging them, we have 4 years of the shittiest people in the country proudly announcing themselves, who they are and where we can find them.

Isn't that where you exclusively fuck cook ware?

Re-read the spelling in the comment I replied to, my man

Why are right wing Americans so hilariously retarded? They always march around saying how much they love the amount of freedom they get in their country, but then their values don't reflect it. Why do you care if someone wants to change their gender or say they're some stupid fucking gender?

Gender is a social construct, which means there are as many genders as people want there to be

Yes you are

There's two wedding cake cases, one of which the bakers denied service explicitly because it was women getting married, then they doxxed the couple. They got the shit sued out of them, and rightfully so

Hahahahaha youre such a retarded nigger hahaha. A small minority of degenerate entitied children grow up sheltered with no real hardships at all so they invent their own by making up genders and wonder why people reject their horseshit. Such a western first world issue its pathetic.

Attached: 54E0AFAA-B050-41B8-9793-3FD12554F4B4.jpg (400x400, 15K)

Sure buddy

I'm all for non-government companies being allowed to refuse service for any reason aside for the individual being a protected class

The worst for me is "demisexual", it pretty much only mean that you don't like having sex with random people, which most people don't

It's not a war on free speech, it's capitalism you stupid cunt. You see the thing is these companies want their websites to be as user friendly as possible. If they were to let you talk about how much you hate niggers, what do you think all the black people who use the site are going to think? That's right they'll think the company is okay with this, so naturally they stop you as to keep as many users possibly

No

there are probably millions of genders

I know Yea Forums loves the ‘X genders’ meme but at this point is isn’t it widely seen as a spectrum and the ‘genders’ are just shorthand for areas of the spectrum?

Genuinely curious since I don’t really know shit about where the consensus is right now

Ok, so basically there are two types of people:
-those that say things like 'gender is a spectrum', 'there are XX genders' etc., and
-those that say gender is determined by your genitals (2 types of genitals therefore 2 genders)
Now because for whatever reason some people decided to change the definition of gender which (was a synonym of sex) to the way you feel in your head about what you are the aforementioned people fight over which definition (old or new) should be the correct one

This shit is a ridicilous debate. I dont believe that theres stuff like more than 2 genders. We have males and females. If you were born as a male but want to transition to a girl, sure go ahead. Snip off your dick and keep thinking that you are 100% a girl. But this is a bit off the theme. Pansexual is bein bisexual. Full stop.

You must be joking. You are saying
> bi is attracted to both male and female
> pan is different, you are attracted to everyone

that is exactly the same

I got baited/10

Would you describe somebody as bisexual if they were attracted to, say, a person who presents male and female simultaneously. Like a feminine drag queen with a beard? Or a masculine woman who presents male but paints her nails too?

I feel like bisexuality implies an attraction to male OR female, and those people wouldn’t fit in that range but that’s just my interpretation.

Lemme first clarify that i aint a homophob if people think that. But look. Drag queens dont run around in their fancy costumes and make up. There are even straight drag queens that i know personally. It really depends on what the person sees himsepf as. Me for example i identify as a female being. If people think they could mock me by calling me a boy they can fuck off but theres no thing as pansexual its only made up by brainlets that have nothing else to do in live and base their homosexuality around their life. So keep this in mind: There are ONLY male and females and if you like both youre bisexual.

Attached: IMG_20190630_012411.jpg (3120x4160, 1.01M)

There are only 2

You can identify however you want, just don't expect the rest of us to agree.

You can identify as a "female being", whatever fucked up sci-fi twaddle that means. But if you've got a dick, smell like a man, and can't have babies, I'm sorry but most men aren't going to identify you as a female being, they'll see you as a guy in a costume with a mental disorder.

Some of the more desperate guys might fuck you, or some closet gays might. But, you're still a guy in a costume.

Attached: two gendersb.png (1280x720, 170K)

I do understand that kind of mindset but i dont really bother too much about it. But at least youre not being a degenerate and reply with facts and not with shitposting.

Sorry for answering so late, had a meeting.

>It's based on demand.
But thats essentially what I am saying. There is no value difference in jobs, because all jobs are equaly valuable, there is value in demand. Given any job with demand X, if the demand is fullfilled this job works at maximum efficiency, meaning if the demand is overshot, or undershot it is worth less. But you can substitute any job for this.
Let's take a look from a capitalistic framework: Its strictly harder to get a job as a comp scientist than it is as to get one as a plumber, as not everyone can afford going to Uni. This reduces the demand of programmers w.r.t. plumbers (to rephrase it, it increses the supply of plumbers relative to the supply of comp scientists). Thereby in a capitalistic framework the job of a comp scientist is strictly worth more than the one of a plumber.
In a communistic framework this doesn't hold true, as everyone can do what he is best fitted for (the idea behind most marxist theories is that there are more than enough people to meet demand, even if everyone only does what he is best at. The fact that there are currently more unemployed people than jobs shows, at least statistically this could hold true), there is no inherent worth in the job.

...no, that's bisexual.
Pansexual is made up.

Same as post was getting to long...

To look at it from another angle, lets say every person has skills that are a random variable similar distributed as the demand (currently this still holds true, most jobs are average jobs, and we can consider the sum of skills of a person a gaussian distribution, which would map well. In the future this can change due to automatisation). Than if everyone act according to his skills demand is met. Now in capitalism you add hierarchical boundaries. E.g. You can't study at Uni if you don't have enough money. This shifts the supply distribution around, (in case of wealth via multiplying it with another gaussian distribution, which boosts average supply and minimizes the specialized supply, i.e. less university graduates, more average joes). This creates an inherent supply and demand difference, the difference between those two distributions, which creates an inherent value difference.

But, you might argue that the demand might not represent a gaussian distribution, but I would argue against this. Demand is the sum of the demand of the people, and the central limit theorem tells us that the sum over any distribution forms a gaussian distribution, similar for the supply of work which is also just the sum over the work of each individual

Yes
/thread

>would you describe someone as bi if they like masculine and female features
Yeah

>I feel like bisexuality implies an attraction to male OR female
Really splitting hairs there. It's AND regardless not OR

pansexual is just bi-sexual with extra steps

>I dont believe that theres stuff like more than 2 genders
It doesn't matter what you believe, you are not important. I just searched for gender on Nature, the most reputable scientific journal on the planet (with respect to medicine and biology). Guess what, every paper there describes gender as a spectrum thats not directly linked to sex.

I know many people are uncomfortable with the thought, but in scientific terms gender and sex are different things

I though pansexuals were sexually attracted to cook and bakeware.

Well they were told to take the cash and change it or get refunded so yeah. Look at bill Nye the bought off guy.

Just because some moron says there are 56 genders! SCIENCE!! Doesnt make it true.

There are 2. Male and female.

That's not how sexuality is defined. Sexual orientations are divided into groups characterized by degrees of androphilia and gynephilia. As such, there are four extremes: heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality. Any additional attractive salience is predilection/fetishism (eg traps, artists, gamer girls, band boys, etc etc), unless you're willing to admit that lolicon is a sexual orientation distinct from heterosexuality...
Consequently, bisexuality and pansexuality essentially describe the same thing. One is bisexuality and the other is virtue-signalling bisexuality + an affinity for cookware.

Could you wear your most flamboyant bad dragon hat while "hunting" people, it'll make it even more sad

hah you are the minority and the weak fags. It would be like the Spanish civil war again.