Is gender a social construct?
No.
Wow this is the worst straw man I have ever seen. Please tell me it is fake.
>>5289150
if you're a woman without a penis you should kill yourself.
Biological Gender (sex) includes physical attributes such as external genitalia, sex chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, and internal reproductive structures. At birth, it is used to assign sex, that is, to identify individuals as male or female.
>tfw in five years the definition will be 'whatever u feel like, lol'
>>5289170
>wrong
>>5289150
Society and gender are manifestations of biological and racial realities. The liberals have it backwards.
>>5289229
>Mr. Owl, how many replies until angry transgendy replies?
>Let's find out... a-one, two, three, four....
>Four
>>5289229
>>>/tumblr/
>>5289241
That doesn't make any sense as tumblr believes gender is real like in OPs pic. Have you always been such a retard?
>>5289244
Lel what? Tumblr is one of the biggest net communities to claim gender is a social construct. It's trannies who say it's not.
>Is gender a social construct?
No. Also, gender isn't binary. Stop failing biology.
>Are gender roles a social construct?
Yes.
Jesus Christ, why the fuck do people struggle with this.
>gender
Social construct based on biology
>sex
Biological fact based on biology
>>5289260
One minute tumblr is said to be sjw heaven, next apparently its conservative hell. I hope your change your underwear as often as you change your piss poor arguments.
>>5289239
Five...
>>5289310
Friend, I think you are seriously confused.
>>5289224
Technically, "biological gender" refers to the biological component of gender identity, namely whether you have a "male" or "female" brain. What you're referring to is biological sex.
>>5289150
>Is gender a social construct?
As I always say, gender IS a social construct.
Just like women's rights.
>>5290481
Or rights in general.
>>5290496
Precisely.
Something being a Social Construct doesn't mean it's bad, as many seem to think.
>>5289150
Wearing a stack of gold rings around your neck is considered pretty in one culture. Wearing pink dress is pretty in another culture. These fashions are constructs. The instinct of feminine people to be pretty is not.
>>5289150
this picture is fucking retarded
its literally I'M NOT LIKE OTHER GIRLS
>OTHER GIRLS
>ME
>>5289270
>Also, gender isn't binary
[citation needed]
>>5289150
Is. Is this a real thing? This person isn't kidding around? She's not jerking our chains? She's not yanking our funny bones? She's really for real about this? She's not having a funny jest? A silly chuckle? She drew this for real?
>>5290728
cis people always feel the unquenchable need to offer their cutting edge opinions and biting commentary on shit where its unwarranted
>>5289224
Gender is a social construct, You can be like gO BAKC TO TUMBLR, but if you dont think about it ur fucking retarded. Gender, what is considered feminine and masculine varies between cultures. In Japan it is more feminine for a woman to have a high pitched voice and people find it more attractive there, they'll even take voice classed to make it higher pitched. But in America, high pitch voices are cringe. People here like a woman with a silky, medium tone(about alto), where they arent all squeaky and shit compared to something like you would hear in Jpop. I can give other examples how gender is constructed by a society
>>5289150
OP, here's the original from several months ago, it originally had nothing to do with tumblr.
>>5290674
But in this case she literally is not like other girls, to the extent that many would say she actually isn't a girl.
>>5290802
>Gender is a social construct
No.
>>5290834
>being in denial
Wow this board is full of the biggest faggots ever
I literally gave scientific evidence that gender is constructed by its society
>>5290849
>scientific evidence
No you just stated that some cultures value certain traits more than others, but that has nothing to do with gender being a social construct.
>>5290855
Yeah and those traits are based on gender, society constructs what traits they find masculine and feminine. Another example, in the west it is viewed as feminine to have long hair, so men are usually harassed about it. But in Asian countries, at least in older times. Having short hair meant you were banished, so guys had long hair and it wasnt seen as feminine
>>5290872
It's gender expression, stereotypes of gender
>>5290890
Hair length is not gender.
>>5290899
It's gender expression, I am giving evidence that gender and differ expression differs between society, Like "if you donnt do -, you're not a real man"
>>5290905
How people of certain genders typically express themselves is not equivalent to gender.
>>5290872
>kek'd
>using the most faggotory meme of all time became retarded years ago
>>5290905
I know, but say wearing a skirt, is a feminine gender expression. But it doesnt make them a feminine gender
>>5290921
>being this pwn'd
>>5290496
Rights aren't a construct though, at least not your god given rights.
For example, your inalienable rights are the ones that you are born with that will persist until someone removes them from you, such as how you can speak until silenced, you are free until enslaved, and can live until someone kills you.
The existence of said rights are not social constructs, the only construct being the recognition of said rights, but they would still persist if governments and society collapsed.
If anyone tries to claim that education or health care is a right, then those are actual constructs, and retarded to boot.
>>5290938
>Rights aren't a construct though, at least not your god given rights.
God isn't real. Rights aren't real either and can be taken by force.
>>5290950
Yes anon, those rights need to be taken by force, hence a violation of your rights by birth as a human being.
>D-g doesn't real
Prove it :^)
>>5290957
Human rights are a made up concept that have no real basis in nature. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but let's not pretend these are real things that would stick around after society is long gone.
>>5290938
>>5290957
Your definition doesn't seem really meaningful. It basically sounds like you're saying "inalienable rights are the rights you have until someone takes them away from you." How can that be a useful definition? Couldn't anything be considered an inalienable right under that definition? Would it really be that hard to argue that people are born with an right to murder that persists until someone takes that right away from me?
>>5289234
so despite huge and constant changes in society occuring over hundreds of years, biological and racial realities remained constant?
I think the human brain is more adaptable than what we give it credit for. Nurture>nature.
>>5290981
Rights that violate other rights don't exist.
Like, you can't argue that people have a right to kill each other because that violates people's rights to not be killed for no reason.
People have a right to live, and they have a right to defend themselves against people that would infringe on that right.
If your rights somehow infringe on another's ability to exist freely, then guess what, it isn't a right.
>>5290964
People would still band together after society and defend themselves from slavery and murder, anon, yes.
Just because the ability to guard your rights is imperiled by the fragmentation of society does not mean your rights vanish, as people will continue to defend them until the world ends.
>>5291007
>evolution happens over hundreds of years
Nikka most of the world still can't even tolerate lactose
>>5291012
>People would still band together after society and defend themselves from slavery and murder, anon, yes.
Out of self interest, but that doesn't mean rights exist.
>>5291018
They said changes in society, not evolution.
>>5291037
The self interest to defend their lives and freedom, which are their rights.
You can call it whatever you want, but you're born with certain things that can't be taken away unless done so by an outside party. Those are rights, dummy.
>>5291041
The fact that people can take them away means the whole concept of "inalienable" rights is bullshit.
Rights are purely a social construct that have zero basis in physical reality. It's something people came up with because it is useful. A baby born has no rights unless society tells him that he/she does. Not the other way around.
>>5291012
But when it comes to things like murder and the right to life, how do you determine which one takes precedence? Sure, it's easy to say that a right to murder violates the right to life - but doesn't the right to life violate the right to murder?
Obviously I'm not seriously trying to say murder should be okay or anything, but that you can't really say life is a right and murder isn't, just based on the definition "a right is something you can do until someone stops you from doing it", you have to bring in some additional rule, like:
>If your rights somehow infringe on another's ability to exist freely, then guess what, it isn't a right.
Which means that the above definition isn't really complete or consistent.
And in some cases you'd have to accept that the "right to life" ISN'T a right, since in some situations exercising one's right to life is infringing someone else's right to life. Like say there's two people on a sinking ship, but the lifeboat can only hold one person. Neither person can exercise their right to life (by getting on the lifeboat) without infringing on someone's else's right. Thus, in situations like that, a right to life does not exist, by your reasoning.
>>5291041
>You can call it whatever you want, but you're born with certain things that can't be taken away unless done so by an outside party.
How can something be taken away other than by an outside party? "can't be taken away unless done so by an outside party" is basically a meaningless statement, how ELSE could they be taken away? And again, by that reasoning, robbery and murder are rights - you can do them until someone stops you from doing them.
>>5291067
>Rights are constructed atop inherent human instincts of justice. Watch some chimps get mad when you steal their juice box. Therefore not pure construct. Instict of social primates.
Right, but that's just based on instinctive desire to possess things. Has nothing to do with "inalienable rights" that "can't be taken away unless someone takes them away".
>>5291067
>instincts
This doesn't mean rights are a real thing. It's all just self-interest and self-preservation that more advanced animals use to form social rules to help preserve their species.
>>5291050
God damn son, how difficult is this to understand.
RIGHTS ARE THINGS YOU'RE BORN WITH THAT REQUIRE A PERSON OR PARTY THAT IS NOT YOURSELF TO REMOVE IN ORDER TO LOSE ACCESS TO THEM.
PEOPLE CAN ATTEMPT, SUCCESSFULLY OR NOT, TO INFRINGE ON THOSE RIGHTS, AND YOU IN TURN CAN DEFEND THEM WITH FORCE, AS IS ALSO YOUR RIGHT.
THE BASIS IN ACTUAL MEASURABLE PHYSICAL REALITY IS AGAIN, THESE BEING THINGS THAT REQUIRE ANOTHER PERSON OR CREATURE TO STEP IN AND PLACE OUTSIDE RESTRICTIONS UPON YOU IN ORDER TO REMOVE ACCESS TO THEM.
Are you German or something? Jesus.
>>5291060
You have a right to life, and should someone attempt to take that right by moving to take your life, then you have the right to use force, potentially lethal, to defend it.
You can't just go out and kill people, obviously, because that violates their right to life, but once someone moves to take your own life then you have the right to defend it.
It's really simple.
>>5291080
I don't know what's so hard for you to understand.
>RIGHTS ARE THINGS YOU'RE BORN WITH
That's your argument. I am saying that you are not actually born with any inherent rights. Rights are given and taken by society. That's it.
>>5291080
>RIGHTS ARE THINGS YOU'RE BORN WITH THAT REQUIRE A PERSON OR PARTY THAT IS NOT YOURSELF TO REMOVE IN ORDER TO LOSE ACCESS TO THEM.
So then, there is no right to life (unless you count nature as a "party") since not all death is murder. You can lose your life as a result of disease, old age, accident, etc.
>>5291070
Please don't be retarded.
In order to argue the double negative that people both have a right to murder wantonly and live freely then you need to do some real laps of logic to even come close to pretending like you're going to justify that belief.
You have to start at the core, which is the concept that people are born with certain things, such as right to life, and once acts are made to infringe on said rights then that is a violation of their rights.
You aren't born with the right to kill because the first right you're born with is the right to life, so by juxtaposing this right to murder logic then you have to concede that people have no right to life, and can be killed for any and all reasons and nobody should think twice about it.
Your rights begin and end with yourself. If you imagine that you have a right that includes your ability to infringe on another person's actual factual freedom and life, then that isn't a right, because a right is the temple of the body, and it begins and ends with you. Suggesting that you have a right to hold dominion over another person then cancels out the original logic and sets you back to the anarchistic #YOLO concept of pure chaos where you have a right to everything and nothing, which is gay and for fags, and attempt to argue such a thing is basically adding 0+0, the result being 0.
>>5291112
In those instances another person is not taking your life, and thus no infringement is made until you develop a way to sue or murder old age and disease.
>>5291132
Right, but since life can be lost without the action of another person, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to life. This is based on your own definitions.
>>5291139
Rights extend to freedom from the interference of persons or parties of persons.
The natural cycle of the world acts outside the influence of mankind and is not subject to the rules of mankind.
You might as well argue that you don't have a right to not be enslaved because we all have to work for food every day, and are thus slaves of the Earth and our digestive systems.
>>5291124
>You have to start at the core
no you don't
Looking for that core was part of early modern philosophy, which is where the philosophy of rights that you are quoting came from.
But it's been a couple of centuries since then and most contemporary philosophies have rejected essentialism like that and constructed and situated in a time and place.
And this isn't the tumblr crowd. It's Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and Foucault.
>>5291184
Those guys are fags who sucked and died.
People have rights, and a bunch of doomsday poofs with no moral beliefs tested beyond their bedrooms are the philosophical equivalent of a 16 year old emo groupie.
>>5291152
But at that point it's circular reasoning. Is there anything that ISN'T a right?
Let's say my family is starving. Given that they and I have an inalienable right to life, does anyone have the right to refuse giving them food? Refusing would infringe on another's right to life, and so there is no right to refuse.
>>5291192
>doomsday poofs
I'm not sure what you mean by the doomsday bit, the writings of all three are largely positive.
>no moral beliefs tested beyond their bedrooms
Wittgenstein was a forward observer in WW1, a POW, a primary school teacher and much more in his short life. I'm pretty sure he's gone through more moral tests than you have.
Foucaults most famous books were investigations of prisons and insane asylums, which he visited and saw first hand.
2/10 trolling, and that 2 is just because I replied.
>>5291234
>does anyone have the right to refuse giving them food?
Yes
>Refusing would infringe on another's right to life
It wouldn't.
Get yer own damn food.
>>5291269
>Get yer own damn food.
What if all the food is held by someone else? That was supposed to be implied by the above scenario.
>>5289185
It's an edit. The pictures have been swapped and some of the words moved around.
>>5291275
Then you either grow your own or take it from his cold dead hands.
>>5289150
You need to elaborate. Gender is a subject, not a physical attribute. Do you men gender roles? Do you mean gender identity? Do you men gender expression?
>>5291340
>take it from his cold dead hands.
As in deprive him of his rights of life and property?
>>5291386
Did I say "kill him and steal his food"?
You either try and take it, with risk of him shooting you or you grow your own food.
Rights mean nothing when there's nobody protecting them.
>>5291401
>Did I say "kill him and steal his food"?
"Take it from his cold dead hands" sure seems to imply that.
>Rights mean nothing when there's nobody protecting them.
So they really have no meaningful inherent existence. They exist as a meaningful thing only because of society.
>>5291425
>"Take it from his cold dead hands" sure seems to imply that.
That's you reading things between the lines that may or may not be there.
I could easily have meant "wait until he is dead and take it from him."
>They exist as a meaningful thing only because of society.
True.
>>5291445
>I could easily have meant "wait until he is dead and take it from him."
Sure, but that really doesn't seem to be the most probable or straightforward interpretation.
>>5291470
>that really doesn't seem to be the most probable or straightforward interpretation.
That's the danger of reading between the lines.
EVERYTHING whiny entitled brats dont like, is a social construct.
Are you black, and angry about police shootings? RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!!!!
Are you black and angry about how a % of fellow blacks are more violent and rape-happy than other demographics? THAN YOU HAVE POST TRAUMATIC SLAVE DISORDER!!!(which btw, makes the whole argument about race being a social construct complete and utter trash)
Are you a whiny feminist who gets angry when people point to studies that show girls play with dolls and boys play with complex machines? THEN GENDER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!
Are you a boy, and feel you were born into the wrong body? THAN YOU ARE TRANSGENDER, AND YOU DESERVE TO BE IN A FEMALE BODY!!!(which means gender is not a social construct, as your feeling to need a 'female' body disproves that entire theory)
Truth is, common sense does not matter anymore. Its 2015 and the lunatics have taken control of the insane asylum. Identity politics is legitimately one of the most awful things in the world, and the morons who push for it(*EVERYONE in the examples i gave) end up losing in the end, though the ones who lose the most are the idiots who try to argue against common/biological sense.
>>5293760
Someone sounds triggered
I don't care much, I know gender isn't a “social construct”. There's no trans, here, and never been, whereas homosexuality has always been a thing. It's enough of a proof to me and if their faggotry comes here, I'll just beat the shit out of them.
Why does it even matter if it is? Money is a social construct but that doesn't invalidate it
>>5293933
>>5289150
No. gender is based on all those urges that make us do things. It evolved with to to keep us alive, and get us to mate to make the next generation.
>>5294891
What
>>5289150
Sexual dimorphism emphasizes different physical and mental traits in men and women that are suited to their distinct behaviors.
Men and women have naturally different bodies.
Men and women have naturally different minds.
Men and women naturally behave differently.
The fact that men and women have biologically distinct bodies means that also have some measure of distinct mental and behavioral patterns.
Sex and gender are not social constructs but real physical and biological phenomena.
>>5294969
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOxNlmNH7l8
Most of it,probably
>>5289150
There are tangible differences both physical and mental between males and females, and this is what we call gender. Gender roles provide a societal structure based on these differences. Much of what we associate with gender is mostly fluff, and is not an inherent trait of the gender, but is a trait of our upbringing.
>>5303016
youre an idiot
>>5303848
So,
>what tells you to eat?
>what tells you to run from the lion?
>what tells you to drink water?
>what tells you to mate?
>what tells you who to mate with?
they are urges
>>5303937
what the fuck are you even trying to say
>>5303953
Do you know what an urge is?
>>5304172
i have an urge to throw you out of a window
gender means biological sex
tumblr is attempting to redefine it just like how leftists redefined marriage
marriage USED TO BE the union between a man and woman where they become husband and wife and now it's just a meaningless term
gender is going down the same path
>>5304291
>gender means biological sex
no
I don't know, and, frankly, I don't want to guess. All I know is that I have no idea which gender I am and there isn't much I can do about it, no gender clinics in my town, so I just live as the one I was assigned as and suffer occasionally.
>>5290802
a higher pitched voice is still "feminine" though, because women generally have higher pitched voices
>>5304291
Try harder next time.
>>5302105
Sure. Sexual dimorphism is a thing. Men and women have differences, yes. Still, couldn't we stand to shave off some of these stipulations of gender roles? Stupid shit like girls wearing pink and boys wearing blue?
Technology is going to render sex obsolete and useless anyway, may as well get a headstart on building our gender-neutral society. Well, if we make it that far, that is.
society is a social construct
Male and hetero from /pol/ here. Believing in the "social construction of gender" is the only true social construct, in this case, a left-winger brainwashing.
Disregarding genetic anomalies (like hermaphrodites), there's no such thing as male in female body (or vice-versa). There are two options: you're either a man or a woman. I don't give a fuck if you like to grow your hair, put a make-up, or dress up as a woman, you're a free person, but don't think you aren't a gay male with a delusional paranoia or some other kind of mental illness.
We can't eradicate your degeneracy, but keep it to yourself, instead of promoting this disgusting neo-marxist bullshit.
>>5291124
And what if you deny that man is born with the inherent right to life?
According to the natural world, nothing has the right to life. You live because the environment couldn't kill you, or you died because of some reason. Neither of those choices imply a right in any form. Humans feel like they are special in the scheme of nature when they aren't. Humans only have a "right to life" because other humans feel empathy for them but the rules of nature still apply.
