Posts by Rachel Stewart36

Joseph Bailey41 said:I can't recall the specific instance, but that's my go-to tactic whenever someone really gets under my skin. On the flip side, you struck me as being somewhat manipulative for some reason, which is something that drives me crazy. See, this is exactly why women can't just be reduced to equations—hormones tend to mess everything up. 😬

Anyway, since we've wandered off on this tangent and you're studying that MBTI stuff... what's your take on the shadow functions 5 through 8? Do you think they're accessible or totally out of reach?

Manipulative? Huh. You caught a glimpse of my secondary function—Fe. It's got this chameleon vibe to it, acting as a solid defence shield to keep people at a polite, refined distance. 🎉

Joseph Bailey41 said:I can't recall the specific instance, but that's my go-to tactic whenever someone really gets under my skin. On the flip side, you struck me as being somewhat manipulative for some reason, which is something that drives me crazy. See, this is exactly why women can't just be reduced to equations—hormones tend to mess everything up. 😬

Anyway, since we've wandered off on this tangent and you're studying that MBTI stuff... what's your take on the shadow functions 5 through 8? Do you think they're accessible or totally out of reach?

If I can pull off convergent intuition, then obviously I can handle divergent too. Same goes for Feeling preference. To me, it just comes down to how much you lean into a specific cognitive style and how good you are at using it.

Like, I'm incredibly sharp at picking up on everyone else's moods, yet I struggle to read my own; it turns out other people are much better at sizing me up than I am at doing the same for myself. For that, I need this whole intuitive-analytical loop just to explain what I'm actually feeling. So, it's not that I lack Fi—it's just that I'm way more focused on Fe. Though, I have noticed I tend to use Fi as a sort of negative projection.

But whatever, I'm not going down this rabbit hole—it's way too complex and totally goes beyond the scope of this thread. Honestly, I just don't feel like burning any more time or energy over-explaining things on social media. Generally speaking, I'm done arguing with people—or digital ghosts for that matter.

Just passing through. 😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:In that case, we should get along famously. So, what's our catch? 🤔

Life rarely follows a predictable script; shit happens. 😁

Maybe I associated your handle with negative vibes because I still remember you calling everyone in that one thread intellectual midgets.

I guess that's why I see you as a bit of a snob. Not necessarily a bad thing, though. 😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:Just give up now. I'm an INTP. 🙂

Check out the revised response. 🤣

Joseph Bailey41 said:To be honest, I've always been a bit put off by the term "perceiving functions" because it's just so ambiguous. It feels much more practical to call them cognitive functions, just so we don't get them mixed up with this.

Besides, they aren't strictly limited to just collecting data; they involve processing that data and ultimately reaching conclusions. That’s why they’re properly referred to as Modes of processing information and making decisions based on Your Myers-Briggs Type, right? ☕

Are you really trying to explain this to me? 😁

No need for the lecture. I've been digging into MBTI for nearly a decade now. For the record—I'm an INFJ according to their system. I know enough. 🥳

Back to topic.

N and S are just data gathering functions, while F and T handle decision making functions.

P and J describe how you deal with the outside world—J being the structured type and P being the more chaotic one; P actually has nothing to do with perception.

Do your own homework. 😛

Joseph Bailey41 said:Actually, those are two distinct functions. At least within the system you're suggesting.

I was only talking about one—perceptual-intuitive—didn't even bring up the other perceptual side or decision making. 😉

Roger Kern16 said:This is probably where my issue lies. It’s highly likely I’m blurring the line between actual thought processes and some kind of dissociation or heavy daydreaming. I haven't dealt with this before—spending this much time stuck inside my own head... it's getting weird. I've been reading up on Jungian active imagination and how creativity works in general, and honestly? I think I might have mixed a few concepts together...

Quinn:

Yeah, I’m running the show now because I actually designed a system that matches how my brain works. Before I figured this out, everything was just pure Chaos... totally unfocused. That's why I used to try and stop my thoughts from drifting all over the place. But look, you’re the one in control here. It isn't some mystical realm existing outside of yourself. It's just you...

Quinn:

I can't really offer much advice beyond this: you just have to see it for yourself. You need to figure out your own internal logic—your own little system, if you will—that helps bridge the gap between linear and non-linear thinking... making them actually play nice together. Once those two sides finally shake hands and become one cohesive way of understanding things, you'll start showing up as your best self. And honestly, when you're firing on all cylinders like that, everyone around you benefits too. But yeah... that's a solo mission. Everyone has to find their own way through it.

So, how does one actually design a principle? It’s not like you just pull it out of thin air and hope for the best... though some people certainly try. You can't just slap a label on a vibe and call it a rule. That’s how you end up with total Chaos. It’s more about finding that core logic... that underlying structure that holds everything together when things start falling apart. You have to strip away the noise. Get down to the bones of it. It’s almost like a Jungian deep dive into your own decision-making process... trying to find that one constant in a sea of variables. But honestly? Most people just wing it. They mistake a fleeting impulse for a foundational value. Big mistake. Huge. If you don't build the framework first, you're just drifting... and trust me, nobody wants to be adrift when the pressure hits. 😬 When you say "before," what exactly are we talking about? You both keep mentioning that this is a process everyone goes through on their own, but you’re being incredibly vague... like some kind of distant echo from a mile away... 😬 Then again, the intuitive side of me kind of gets it...

Quinn:

I wasn't even looking for her, though for a while there, I was doing exactly what you did... trying to force myself into those neat little boxes everyone uses. It’s easier that way, I guess. You get that sense of belonging, that feeling that you finally fit somewhere... but you aren't actually meeting your real self at all. Just chasing a label...

You hit the nail on the head there... even if I still verbally refuse to belong to any specific group. But honestly? Everything I’ve been doing over the last few months has just been one long, exhausting attempt to explain myself through some kind of label or diagnosis...

I’m actually pretty glad so many of you jumped in to weigh in on this. Thanks for all the comments and for sharing what you've been through... it definitely helps dial down the Chaos of the whole situation a bit. 😁
ps. what does any of this actually have to do with being creative? how are we supposed to make the most of it... do you guys paint, write, or just do something else entirely?
P.S. About that suspicion I mentioned... how am I supposed to handle this? It feels like there are at least ten different ways to look at it, and honestly, every single one of them could be right. I have no clue how to wrap my head around this one...

Quantum superposition—the idea that every possible state can exist at once—gets wrecked by actual lived experience. Sure, it works on paper, but the second you’re standing at a crossroads deciding which way to turn, you’ve already killed off all those other paths.

Advice? Get out of your own head and actually live; plans and abstractions are fine as frameworks or guidelines, sure, but most of them just fall apart the moment you hit the real world.

Translation: you don't have any real problems and you've got way too much free time.

Ah, those college days.

Roger Kern16 said:Does anyone else feel like their brain just operates on a completely different frequency than the rest of the population? It’s not like my thought process is a straight line... it’s more like a massive web of associations. I’m constantly spotting patterns and making connections that seem totally nonsensical to everyone else, using this alternative logic that only makes sense in my own head. Plus, I'm a super visual thinker—just constant imagery flashing around in my mind—though I guess maybe that isn't that weird.
And yeah, I often find myself hyper-analyzing the deep, complex layers of a situation while somehow completely missing the obvious, glaringly simple point right in front of me. 😬 My thoughts are incredibly fragmented and abstract... they’re hard to pin down, let alone control.

Does it make sense to link all this to something like bipolar disorder or ADHD, or is it something else entirely?

That intuitive vibe you're describing? That's basically a perceptual psychological function. Just Google MBTI and take a test—might actually help you out.

Edit—I finally managed to organize those jumping, non-linear associations by leaning into systems theory. Everything around us (including ourselves) is just a series of systems, and theoretically, everything can be placed into an interactive relationship. My hand is a system, my laptop is a system, my apartment is a system... they all interact. Once you view things that way, you can navigate that web of connectivity and zoom-in or zoom-out on specific parts.

Lawrence Bailey77 said:Power is nothing more than an illusion—a cocktail of deception, deceit, and outright fraud

.. it strikes me as one of the most glaring symptoms of a psychopath .. 😁

Love, on the other hand, is a genuine feeling .. at least for me ..

🙂No, I think I'll pass .. I prefer to leave that particular pleasure to the individual. I feel no urge to convince anyone else of my specific philosophy or way of life, though I suppose I might offer a critique whenever the opportunity presents itself .. I'm just grateful for the love that kept me tethered to this life long enough to possess that ability and capacity

As for power, it can kiss my ass😁

Respect!

I've spent most of my life chasing "power"—nothing fancy, just so I could finally live life on my own terms. To me, love is about understanding, which is a skill... and you need power to actually be skilled.

Life is way too messy for that. Those rare moments where I feel "real" usually happen when I'm totally alone; the second you step into the social grind—that whole web of human interaction—lacking power is what breaks you down and pushes you toward a total breakdown.

In this frantic hunt for "power," I’ve learned how to be a bit of a ghost—someone who steers the vibe without being obvious. Think of a pro swordsman keeping his blade sheathed, giving just a tiny hint of what he can actually do; some amateur walks around flaunting it, just showing everyone how powerless they really are.

Michael Diaz6 said:For most of my life, I was totally obsessed with perfection. Like, if it wasn't flawless, it wasn't good enough, and I just didn't know how to be anything else.
At the end of the day, you're the one who knows yourself best, including all those messy flaws.
I used to beat myself up over them, honestly. It got to the point where I felt like I didn't even deserve the "perfect" things I was chasing.
So yeah, I wouldn't even dream of getting involved with a guy who seemed perfect to me.
It wasn't about trying to manipulate anyone—I just wanted the freedom to be myself, flaws and all. And the only way to do that was with someone who actually gets it.
The urge to control people completely died after my first boyfriend. I realized it’s just exhausting, and at the end of the day, everyone does their own thing anyway. You can't manipulate me, and you definitely can't change me, so how could I expect to control anyone else when I can't even force myself to be what I want to be?
If I ever stumble upon some magic formula that works on other people, I'll let you know. 🤣

Until then, I'm embracing imperfection. I'm making a conscious effort to fall for the imperfect stuff, because I'm certainly not perfect myself.
That’s not just some cheesy cliché; I mean it. I’m a bit eccentric and don't really fit into a neat little box. I know I *could* fit in—I spent most of my life training myself to be perfect, which helps out in my career and stuff, but in love? It’s a disaster. It leads you straight to guys who don't match your vibe at all. Eventually, you realize that once you're honest about who you are and what you want, very few people actually fit. Honestly, you might have stayed innocent longer if you'd just waited for that one person who fits like a puzzle piece.
Back then, I couldn't figure out why people struggled so much to find a partner when it felt like the world was just overflowing with love...

But once you finally figure out who YOU really are, everything changes. You start seeing your uniqueness. You realize your flaws aren't actually flaws, and that perfection is a myth. If perfection existed, the world would be totally out of whack—you need darkness to define the light, right?
Now, I accept my dark side as part of the whole package. Those shadows are there to highlight my light. My flaws and virtues are all part of the same person.
I don't need perfection anymore because I've realized I'm already perfect in my own weird way. I stopped trying to bend myself to fit things that go against what I actually want. I finally get it now—loving someone's entire being is hard. And loving me? That's not easy either. Loving isn't easy.
It's supposed to be this explosive connection where two whole people just click... that's the only time you can truly say you love and are loved.
How many people can actually say they've experienced that? Who knows. I'm 25... I have no clue.

The world is just crawling with the "illusion" of love. It’s easy to play pretend—mirages don't feel pain, even if they know how to scare you.

Michael Diaz6 said:For most of my life, I was totally obsessed with perfection. Like, if it wasn't flawless, it wasn't good enough, and I just didn't know how to be anything else.
At the end of the day, you're the one who knows yourself best, including all those messy flaws.
I used to beat myself up over them, honestly. It got to the point where I felt like I didn't even deserve the "perfect" things I was chasing.
So yeah, I wouldn't even dream of getting involved with a guy who seemed perfect to me.
It wasn't about trying to manipulate anyone—I just wanted the freedom to be myself, flaws and all. And the only way to do that was with someone who actually gets it.
The urge to control people completely died after my first boyfriend. I realized it’s just exhausting, and at the end of the day, everyone does their own thing anyway. You can't manipulate me, and you definitely can't change me, so how could I expect to control anyone else when I can't even force myself to be what I want to be?
If I ever stumble upon some magic formula that works on other people, I'll let you know. 🤣

Until then, I'm embracing imperfection. I'm making a conscious effort to fall for the imperfect stuff, because I'm certainly not perfect myself.
That’s not just some cheesy cliché; I mean it. I’m a bit eccentric and don't really fit into a neat little box. I know I *could* fit in—I spent most of my life training myself to be perfect, which helps out in my career and stuff, but in love? It’s a disaster. It leads you straight to guys who don't match your vibe at all. Eventually, you realize that once you're honest about who you are and what you want, very few people actually fit. Honestly, you might have stayed innocent longer if you'd just waited for that one person who fits like a puzzle piece.
Back then, I couldn't figure out why people struggled so much to find a partner when it felt like the world was just overflowing with love...

But once you finally figure out who YOU really are, everything changes. You start seeing your uniqueness. You realize your flaws aren't actually flaws, and that perfection is a myth. If perfection existed, the world would be totally out of whack—you need darkness to define the light, right?
Now, I accept my dark side as part of the whole package. Those shadows are there to highlight my light. My flaws and virtues are all part of the same person.
I don't need perfection anymore because I've realized I'm already perfect in my own weird way. I stopped trying to bend myself to fit things that go against what I actually want. I finally get it now—loving someone's entire being is hard. And loving me? That's not easy either. Loving isn't easy.
It's supposed to be this explosive connection where two whole people just click... that's the only time you can truly say you love and are loved.
How many people can actually say they've experienced that? Who knows. I'm 25... I have no clue.

Life is a paradox—and so are people. Even that obsession with being perfect follows the same pattern. While one thing gets "frozen" in place, something else just spills over.

I think the best move is to just "mess up" the clean structures a bit; it makes morality way more complicated, sure, but it also feels a lot more free.

It’s basically the exact same thing—just a different perspective. Think of them as two interactive parts of one big system. Reality is just imagination made manifest, right? The real question is how much we let all the random bullshit we see in the real world—which is really just projected imagination anyway—distract us or paralyze us when we're trying to make decisions to actually bring those ideas to life.

Man, you’re seriously messing around here—either you just don't get my sarcasm, or you're being stubborn just to prove a point. Check the ego at the door, man; stop playing dumb when reading what people actually wrote because you're just making yourself look bad. This whole thread has gone completely off the rails now, so I don't see any point in staying involved.

forum user Lisa Hernandez3: My (rhetorical) question is really just a comment on how people love to toss scientific "tools" around in debates—while totally ignoring the fact that the whole field is pretty damn eclectic.

forum user Keith Lee2: Oh, look at him go. He claims he's being limited, then posts something like this; give yourself more credit man. 😁 As much as I dig your post, it’s a bit far from what I actually meant. And yeah, I make a distinction between a narrow approach and a narrow-minded person. Maybe try reading a little closer instead of jumping to conclusions? 😉

Just jumping in here. Why treat sociality as some separate category from the spiritual or the material? Isn't being social basically an amalgamation of both? Why split things up and isolate them—missing the whole point of how all these components actually interact to form a whole? The goal shouldn't be to deny "nature" or "culture," but to explain "gender identity" by embracing the sheer elasticity and variability of all those moving parts. Insisting that one side takes precedence over the other—or that nothing ever changes—just leads to these narrow, inorganic ways of thinking. Maybe defining "gender identity" should start by viewing a human being as a biological entity embedded in a social system—one woven together by interactions with everything from the physical and biological to the psychological, spiritual, and symbolic. It’s about acknowledging how they all play off each other to build a sense of self. Ignoring that interplay feels like a dangerous kind of reductionism—the kind that just feeds into various "ideological trends."

I've never bought into this "paradigm of separation" thing, though I seem to run into it constantly. Why slice biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, physics, math, philosophy... away from each other? Why divorce nature from culture and settle for such a limited view? Whatever happened to eclecticism?

Good grief, this ad—honestly not even worth a response. As for those differences you brought up, it’s pretty clear you completely missed my point. Look, we could keep dancing this "intellectual waltz" all night if we wanted, but we aren't actually getting anywhere, are we? I'll just say this—I get where everyone else on the forum is coming from on this topic; I follow their logic and the path they took to get there, even if I don't buy their "interpretations." Since you clearly don't buy mine, the real question is: do you actually get what I'm saying? If you do, then we're done here—because the whole point isn't to agree, it's to understand the other side. If my "interpretations" are still flying over your head—which I really hope isn't the case—then I'm out of ways to explain them better. Happy debating. 😉

goldenpuma84 said:Why is there such a drive to deny the natural differences between men and women? We are a biological species, after all. We're part of a nature that's currently at a stage where science still can't fully grasp how we developed the ability to view ourselves as morally autonomous beings capable of symbolic language.

We live in societies as political creatures, learning patterns of behavior that are often gendered through socialization. But doesn't a huge chunk of human psychology deal with those unconscious, unconditioned behaviors inherited from our ancestors? Even those biologically rooted impulses that modern society tries to suppress through upbringing? Doesn't modern psychology point to a clash between the subconscious—that genetically determined stuff that exists before social conditioning—and the societal expectations designed to stifle those deep-seated drives just to create a "civilized" person? Isn't that subconscious drive exactly what exists prior to any social environment?

Reducing a human being to a mere social automaton that can't even receive genetic instructions from the distant past is a bit much. It treats everything as a reaction to a socially stimulated stimulus. The "fix" offered is almost like sociological alchemy (kind of like the attempt to engineer a "new man" under communism): identify the broken social institutions imposing these differences, and the problem is solved. But it just doesn't work like that...

If someone claims "gender" represents socially imposed differences beyond negligible biological ones, then if the goal is a theory of universal humanity, the answer isn't creating a theory of gender centered on social constructs. Instead, the way out is embracing biological differences, which, aside from anatomy, shouldn't cause real differences in social interaction or how we perceive one another. But is that true? Or is this just a way for a certain kind of totalitarianism to hide behind a mask of false humanism (again, reminiscent of communism)?

Theologians say humans are divine creations. Materialists say we're raw natural matter. So, according to gender theory, what is a human? It seems to me they aren't either of those. They're just a social construct. Is that even possible?...

It’s not about denying anything—I’m just sharing a perspective that happens to clash with yours. Why does one view have to be "denial" just because it isn't identical to another? Honestly, if the other users here aren't too busy, maybe someone could actually define what they mean by "natural differences"—just so we're all on the same page. Are we talking basic biology, or some supposed inherent psychological traits? I’m not saying differences don't exist, I'm just questioning how much they actually matter.

Drew Lee7 said:Just one question though: how do you explain the differences between males and females in the animal kingdom then?

Those are psychological traits, not biological ones. But because of certain gender roles, specific psychological traits might be presented or pushed as strictly "male" or strictly "female" depending on the time and place.

Well, humans aren't animals—or at least we have the potential to be more than that. I don't think it's "appropriate" to draw massive analogies from the animal kingdom.
Define what counts as a gendered trait versus a psychological one if you want to establish some kind of "terminological framework." Honestly, my answer to your unstated, yet implied, definition is already buried somewhere in the replies to goldenpuma84. Go "sniff around" there for a bit and you'll find it. I'm out—don't have time to beat my brains out on this keyboard. Gotta head downtown for a drink, and the laundry isn't going to fold itself. 😉 😁

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

I don't really get this whole "masculine vs. feminine" thing—is it even real? From what I can see, most differences in how men and women act just come down to how society expects them to react in any given moment. It feels like we’re all just picking up habits from our surroundings—basically performing whatever role we're "suggested" should fit our gender, right?

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

Look at it this way—watching football is basically just a tool for guys to find themselves. It’s how we learn to value people based on pure grit, whether that’s physical or mental. Players become these avatars of strength and speed—they crush the opposition, which is exactly what little boys are taught "manhood" looks like. And I'm not talking about someone sitting you down for a lecture; it's that subtle, ambient messaging that hits way harder than actual words. You see it everywhere, too—like how differently we raise boys versus girls. I have a little girl at home right now, and the shift in how my parents treat her compared to me is wild. Already, they’re pushing the whole "girls should be pretty, quiet, and well-behaved" trope. Meanwhile, when I was a kid, I just got told I was being too sensitive and needed to toughen up. Sure, parents are only part of the equation—peers, school, and society all chip away at you through these incredibly subtle, almost invisible ways of programming us.

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

I wouldn't say I'm driven by anything but my own traits—I'm super emotional, intuitive, and a total introvert. I live for those deep, one-on-one conversations about big ideas or feelings (anything else is just noise). For me, life is all about harmony with the people around me and finding some sense of "purpose"—whatever that actually means. Honestly? I’m not assertive at all; if anything, I’m pretty timid and easily overwhelmed. Not exactly the "masculine" archetype, right? And yet... my word still carries weight. People respect my opinion—often more than my female colleagues—simply because I'm a man and have hit a certain social status through my career.

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

People obsess way too much over terminology—all this dissecting and "mechanical" defining of terms like they’re just playing with Lego bricks. To me, gender is just one slice of the whole self-awareness pie—it's just a piece of who I am. It's one of countless constructs within my own identity. At the end of the day, it only ties back to sex when you're actually accepting your own physiology.

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

Spot on—that’s exactly how it should be. This whole thing just brings back my old gripe about this "mechanical LEGO stacking" nonsense—you know, that obsession with over-defining everything and obsessing over terminology? Since most people can't wrap their heads around the idea that a biological male might perceive himself differently than what was assigned at birth, they use "gender" as this catch-all term for self-perception. Then, because certain people think they’re the ultimate authorities on what "real" masculine traits look like, they take those different perceptions and label them as feminine. So, we end up with "masculine" and "feminine" gender labels just because certain behaviors are being tagged with specific qualities. It’s all pretty absurd, really—but I guess it’s the only way to try and sidestep biological reality when you're trying to define who you are.

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

I’ve gotta disagree with that. We’re all basically hunting for "high-value" partners—it's just that we're conditioned to define "value" differently based on gender. Guys tend to hunt for aesthetics, while women look for strength—think power, success, or social standing. Honestly, it’s just how we're socialized to weigh those specific traits.

P.S. Random thought: male communication is usually blunt, direct, and almost clinical, whereas female speech tends to be more emotional, indirect, and "collaborative." There’s actually a tribe out in Africa where it’s flipped entirely—where that "indirect" style is considered the masculine norm and a sign of true manhood.

Wait, hold up. Didn't you just give me a definition of gender identity? Now you're suddenly pulling gender roles out of thin air? If you’d actually paid attention to my post, you’d see I already linked your version of gender identity to sex—which basically strips away its "cultural" exclusivity and blurs the lines between them. By overanalyzing and nitpicking everything, you're just throwing out new terms to try and turn them into separate "entities," when all we need to do is view sex through a non-exclusive cultural lens. Honestly, it feels like your definition of culture is totally different from mine—maybe we need a whole new debate about that 🙄. And this whole thing with sexual orientation vs. preference—it's just semantics at this point. You're obsessed with terminology and taking the word "culture" way too literally. 😉

Drew Lee7Look, you’re getting way too lost in your own theories—honestly, I don't even think you grasp your own point at this stage. You're trying to draw this line between sex and gender—though, let's be real, they're totally interconnected—but you're basically just denying the whole concept of gender. Instead, you're pushing this idea that it's all about sex identity, and here's how you define it:

Drew Lee7 said:Well, your condescending attitude is what's "funny."

Let's start with Sigmund. Just because you wrote that "little guy" Sigmund thought something doesn't mean anything to me. For all I know, you didn't even grasp what he actually meant. If you want to play scientist, why don't you provide a specific quote to back up your thesis? Give me the work it came from, the edition, and the page number. Then maybe we can talk about Sigmund. But even in your own interpretation, you're talking about sexual identity, not gender. And where on earth did I say sexual identity is innate? Nowhere! Read more carefully. Sex is innate, but identity isn't. In fact, I said sexual identity depends on time and place. Being a man (or woman) 50,000 years ago, 2,500 years ago, or today is a completely different experience. It’s just like being a woman (or man) today in the US versus being one in Afghanistan. But that doesn't change the fact that whether it's then or now, here or there, we are still talking about men and women—meaning, sexes. Gender, however, can be Joseph's, Peter's, or Mary's; it can be Anne's, Stephen's, or any other variation.

And as for that bolded claim of yours? That’s just hilarious. You're suggesting I "chose" my heterosexuality the same way a homosexual "chooses" theirs. Are you for real? Regardless of the cause—whether it's genetics, hormones, or psychology—if a guy gets turned on by hairy male backsides but stays completely limp for firm female breasts, is that really a "choice"? 😕 Oh my God! Even bisexuality isn't a choice, even if it's somewhat socially conditioned—because either you're turned on, or you aren't. What kind of "choice" is that?!

Look, as far as I'm concerned, homosexuals should have all the same rights as everyone else, just not the ones that don't naturally stem from the nature of their relationships. And that's the crux of the issue. They're asking for exactly those kinds of rights. Because, at least in the West, nobody bothers them anymore except for a few closed-minded idiots. But they also have to realize that most heterosexuals aren't going to grant them things that simply don't align with the nature of their own relationships.

Look, gender identity is basically how a man or a woman perceives themselves, paired with how everyone else—society as a whole, through those "ideal" standards—perceives them. Now, some people will try to tell you that’s the same thing as sex. It isn't! The whole reason an LGBT group needs that distinction is so they can claim: "Hey, it's fine if someone is biologically male but identifies and lives as female (or vice versa), because society's gender roles are just evil impositions." Oh, really? Sure, society imposes stuff, but definitely not in the way they want to spin it. If someone is male but feels female (or the other way around), then we're looking at a much deeper issue that wasn't forced on them by culture or society—it's nature. If a gay person wants kids but can't have them, that limitation wasn't handed to them by society either; it's nature (or maybe just a byproduct of psychological or cultural conflict). Either way, it isn't socially conditioned the way an LGBT group tries to insist it is.

So, you're basically saying that when you talk about gender identity, you’re just referring to what most people call gender. Plus, you’re making this whole distinction between sex and gender identity—which is pretty obvious from this point here:

Drew Lee7 said:It’s not even about the language itself. I can't just scribble whatever random nonsense pops into my head whenever I feel like it; I actually have to follow some basic grammar rules, otherwise, nobody would have any clue what I'm talking about.

And as for that part in bold? I didn't write that, and it’s definitely not what I meant. That's just your own interpretation of what I said. You got it completely wrong.

Where the hell are you even getting these conclusions from? Seriously, what am I supposed to admit or deny about trans people? They exist—that’s just a fact. But their issue isn't some grand debate about gender roles; it's the disconnect between biological sex and gender identity. And look, I’m not the one calling them "sick"—the medical community does. According to the ICD, transsexualism is under F64.0, transvestism is F64.1, and that whole F64 category falls under gender identity disorders. I mean, let's be real: if someone has male anatomy but feels like a woman and wants to be one, that’s a legitimate issue. Same goes for someone with female anatomy who wants to be a man. If we're being honest here, it's a massive deal. So, what now? Modern surgery and pharmacology allow them to "change" their sex to match how they feel. There's a problem, and there's a technical way to "fix" it. Why this happens in the first place is still anyone's guess, so this is really just a technical workaround. The reality is, right now, we can't just transplant ovaries and a uterus into a man, nor can we give a woman a fully functioning prostate and testicles. Sure, maybe some synthetic tissue could work eventually, but let's face it—they’ll never truly become the biological sex they want to be. And don't even get me started on hermaphroditism; that’s a whole other level of complicated.

So, you’re basically arguing there are two distinct categories here—sex and gender identity? And if I'm reading this right, your take on "gender identity" is just the standard definition of gender. You're out here using "sex and gender identity" while everyone else sticks to "sex and gender"—is that really such a big deal?

Everything you just said was already covered by Sandra Barrett4. Brandon Wright54 u sljedećem:

Brandon Wright54 said:High and mighty? That's clearly just your subjective perception based on your own level of knowledge—or lack thereof. Regarding Freud, that's basic theoretical framework; if you aren't familiar with it, there's no point in continuing this discussion. For starters, one book—of many—that touches on this is Toril Moi’s *Sexual/Textual Politics*, published in 1999, pages 24-26.

I am talking about sexual identity as a combination of gender and sex, which is pretty obvious. You, on the other hand, are getting defensive because you feel accused of claiming sexual identity is innate. Good grief, what would it be if you stripped away its social function? Do you even hear yourself? What else is your "change over time and space" besides the social construction of certain roles called GENDER? Sex isn't gender; sex is biologically determined, gender is not. Then you claim sexual identity is "how a man or woman sees themselves and how others see them"—which is nothing more than a psychological representation or the subject's psychological position, as mentioned by Freud. With that statement, you end up denying biological sex while simultaneously failing to acknowledge gender. So what are you left with? Nothing.

When it comes to sexual orientation, we aren't talking about some conscious decision—it’s subconscious stuff. That puts the whole thing squarely in the realm of psychoanalysis, specifically regarding how one identifies sexually with a parent. But honestly, there's no point in me wasting my breath trying to explain that here—this conversation is going nowhere.

We could always throw sexual orientation into the mix to see how those three elements dance together—imagine the chaos. But honestly, looking at how this thread is heading, I think I’ll pass on any moves that feel like self-inflicted torture. Goodnight. 😉