Dos the Left Hate Pride?

[Auvdar]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I didn't I said gender is in the mind and what we call gender is based on cultural or social norms. What may be feminine in one culture wouldnt in another.

From what I can get from this thread, the issue is coming from what people define as "gender". Two points of view. One is "Man = Penis. Women = vagina. Hermaphrodite = gross". The other is the more mental view on gender, how your brain associates yourself.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Auvdar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From what I can get from this thread, the issue is coming from what people define as "gender". Two points of view. One is "Man = Penis. Women = vagina. Hermaphrodite = gross". The other is the more mental view on gender, how your brain associates yourself.

Considering that self identity is largely unique to humans in a full sense, scholars long ago evolved the definition away from organ based identity. People who still define gender based on sex organs typically have a low understanding of science. We know sooo much more about biology, psychology etc to have these people still be stuck in the dark ages.

Sex isn't even defined by the penis and vagina anymore its about the gametes.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Auvdar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From what I can get from this thread, the issue is coming from what people define as "gender". Two points of view. One is "Man = Penis. Women = vagina. Hermaphrodite = gross". The other is the more mental view on gender, how your brain associates yourself.

No, I've been debating that men are not and cannot become women and women are not and cannot become men, whether they assume opposite gender roles or not. Alarti attempted to define the debate as sex vs gender, because what I said was true. Take a look at my arguments and the definitions. My issue is with the promotion of delusion that obstructs happiness.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Considering that self identity is largely unique to humans in a full sense, scholars long ago evolved the definition away from organ based identity. People who still define gender based on sex organs typically have a low understanding of science. We know sooo much more about biology, psychology etc to have these people still be stuck in the dark ages.

Sex isn't even defined by the penis and vagina anymore its about the gametes.

One last time with fingers crossed.

Assuming a male gender role does not make one male because male is a biological term. Get it?

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, I've been debating that men are not and cannot become women and women are not and cannot become men, whether they assume opposite gender roles or not. Alarti attempted to define the debate as sex vs gender, because what I said was true. Take a look at my arguments and the definitions. My issue is with the promotion of delusion that obstructs happiness.

The entire gender identity debate is based on Gender

Either way. A man can not become a woman, okay. My argument is that What you might consider a man becoming a woman.. was always a woman. Your classification is just incorrect.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

One last time with fingers crossed.

Assuming a male gender role does not make one male because male is a biological term. Get it?

Male isn't a gender role. Male is a sex role. You keep making the same mistake.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Male isn't a gender role. Male is a sex role. You keep making the same mistake.

Exactly ^^ And man is defined as an adult human male, so a woman becoming a man ... was not and could not have always been a man.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Exactly ^^ And man is defined as an adult human male, so a woman becoming a man ... was not and could not have always been a man.

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

Gender
Biological factors are not sufficient determinants of whether a person considers themselves a man or is considered a man.

[pickled_heretic]

there's some serious doublethink big brother sophistry shit going on when it comes to trannies and their self labeling

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

Gender
Biological factors are not sufficient determinants of whether a person considers themselves a man or is considered a man.

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Perception clouds a lot of things, perception isn't truth though.

Also, interesting that the fellow who originated this schism in gender/sex is the same Dr. Money referenced earlier in the David Remier case.