The point of the argument is that the terminology used for gender now is new.
It never meant what the left has defined it to be. The referencing of Darwins time is just to pin point as to how long in time that i can reference of the word gender being binary.. or another word for sex.
Its only to counter the claim that gender being associated with a spectrum is false.
Again, you're misrepresenting the argument in the first place: it not meaning the distinct notion of identity as masculine or feminine psychologically back then is like saying that gay didn't mean homosexual in the past, thus it never meant homosexual. You're failing to understand the basic fact that language changes, it's not just based on a whim (unless particular memes are involved, maybe)
Gender is associated with a spectrum now, it may not have been back in the day, but that doesn't invalidate the present definition merely because you can point to a time when it wasn't, almost certain that's faulty reasoning
This is false because ive already posted links to videos of Sam Harris and Joe Rogan. Neither of them are far right.
I know the research of it and i have read the arguments against it. The problem is really the politics that the left has made towards this that fully rejects science.
We have never disregarded biology over any psychological based views. We dont even do that with animals.
Again, who's disregarding biology? You're advocating what sounds like biological essentialism, as if all psychological aspects must be biologically connected, when that's utterly false even apart from gender identity, but you've failed to show the causal connection that necessarily exists between me having a penis and identifying as a man (as distinct from a male in the biological terminology that isn't synonymous with man)
We can see how invalid the progressives are with their sociology on this just by experiment. Which is sports. In sports we see the absolute difference between the evolution of males and females regardless of whatever beliefs they have of themselves.
Absolute differences in particulars, but not in terms of skills that can be acquired apart from those limitations. Are you suggesting someone who's short cannot best someone who is tall? Sports is as much about skill as it is those physical traits that have an upper limit through training
But this is how other animals identify the genders of their young..
You realize animals don't have human concepts in their minds, right? They likely generally don't have the ability to conceptualize anyway, this is an absurd comparison, because you can't actually talk to animals and understand them in terms of such things, anymore than you can charge an elephant with murder when they gore someone.
I understand what social constructs are but there are social constructs that are just based on fact. Psychology is an important study to visual designers study because making products or media that sells to a target audience is what keeps us employed.
The statistical observations are not hard facts or absolute in that they are not representative of a whole, just a representative sample at best, methinks you're exaggerating how predictive statistics can be when we're talking about a fluctuating system in societal norms on gender
So what? Its all self identification either way. If the person feels that way then why should any biological factors be a trump card?
Because identifying as a non human animal implies vastly different things than merely presenting and behaving as the opposite gender, which doesn't have implications that create dysfunction apart from antiquated stereotypes and restrictive norms about how men and women ought to behave without substantive basis beyond tradition
No. Lego now has had different teams that handle different target audience and its the department that deals with children who work more when it comes to female products in comparison to boys. How it started is meaningless. Go search Lego Friends. Look at how diverse its items are and how the girls are shown playing with it.Then go to something such as Lego Starwars. How do the
Items look? What are the boys usually doing in the commercials? How many light sabers, a hero and villain, combat looking stuff are in these sets? .
You can scapegoat society and say “well its because society influences boys this way..” but why why hasn’t Lego (or any kids product) tried to influence boys to have a wider role playing imagination. Reason why is it because it doesn't work. We go where the money is
You realize marketing can just be lazy and go with trends instead of actually innovating right? It's not like people don't make bad decisions in regards to social pressures or their misunderstanding of such things for whatever reason
Also, finally found the functionality to quote like years ago (interface just changed since I took a break)
