Posts by Brandon Wright54

goldenpuma84 said:Is man a natural being?

Does nature dictate human behavior in any way at all?

Could that distinction happen to be gendered?

Why do two sexes even exist?

Does the material base—the body—impact the spiritual superstructure?

Are there differences between men and women at the material level?

If they exist, could they cause specific differences in the superstructure, even regarding sex?

Is it possible for different material bases to coincide with certain biochemical differentiations between genders?

And honestly, where does this stubborn denial of facts come from?

Look, I haven't argued against the role society plays in installing expected gender roles in a single post. I also stand by my view that biological differences between the sexes predate society.

Let me repeat the question. If humans aren't divine creations nor natural beings—if we set aside idealism and materialism as the two main ways to interpret reality—what's left? Just "sociality" as the only category? Doesn't that degrade humanity by denying its inherent connection to nature? Isn't that just totalitarianism masquerading as humanity? Why this obsession with leveling differences and forcing uniformity, killing off the theoretical possibility of being different?

I’ve debated communists on this forum before, and I noticed some terrifying similarities with feminists. Both groups want to engineer a "new man," regardless of the facts, despite the facts (it all seems to come out of that Hegelian basket). Both are collectivist, even if they claim to strive for individual fulfillment. Both are totalitarian because they try to explain away the subject in its entirety. Both are Enlightenment-minded, believing they can reshape the world through socialization. Both are exclusionary because they deny others the right to the truth. Both are absolutist, thinking they've grasped the undeniable truth beneath a false facade, even when starting from flawed premises.

Both are anti-humanistic. Humans are clever beasts, really... underneath the glamour of this fake civilizational veneer, we retain that primal hunter-predator instinct that a few millennia of civilization hasn't quite managed to tame...

I don't see how those three categories would even function in isolation. Isn't ideology, by definition, a shared system of beliefs within a social group? If that's the case, how can "sociality" exist as some separate, isolated thing? And this "connection to nature" you’re talking about—which you claim is inseparable from being human—might just be another ideological construct, a specific version of social reality being forced on us. Maybe it isn't "man as a natural being" that's under threat here, but rather certain traditional interests hiding behind the dogma of nature. I'm not claiming any theory is immune to ideology, but I don't think the goal is to erase differences—it's more about questioning how those differences function within the systems that shape both individuals and groups.

Drew Lee7 said:Hahahahahahahah...

Sorry if I'm laughing, but seriously, Brandon Wright54,

I haven't seen this much pure insanity or this many half-baked ideas in a long time. 🤣

It’s honestly no wonder you can’t make sense of anything when you’re being haunted by these... let's call them "unique"... thoughts... from these... weird little... creatures...

When a bull mates with a cow, isn't he actually just part bull and part cow? And the cow isn't fully a cow anymore either, since she's now part bull. Or maybe that bull is secretly part horse, and the cow is part mare? Who knows...

Hahahahahahahah...

Look, as far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and believe in little green men for all I care. 😂

Of course it is. Someone just bring out a pig that identifies as a sheep and let's see which idiot starts having an identity crisis. 😂😂 😂

Like I said. With logic like that, you've officially put yourself in the "donkey" category. Congrats. 👏 Papa

What thesis? I’ve already told you my take on your arguments—the same ones you just keep recycling. First off, you keep treating gender like some imaginary social contract. We’re living in an era where gender is a constant, complex discourse; it’s way too nuanced to just lump gender together with culture and sex together with nature.

You’re claiming gender theories argue that gender is merely a byproduct of culture, while culture itself is just a result of innate male and female traits—suggesting gender is just an interpretation of sex. That’s just wrong. Gender actually shapes how we perceive sex as a pre-discursive reality.

There is no such thing as a "natural" gender role. There are only gender roles. You seem to be missing the distinction between gender role and gender identity. Identity is biologically rooted—it’s how a person is perceived as male or female—whereas a gender role is a social construct, something we absorb through socialization. These roles are built on concepts of difference, usually based on myths passed down through generations. They aren't "natural." Even when talking about innate traits, nature isn't that black and white. You can find various chromosomal variations in both women and men, yet society is what sets the "average" criteria to decide which gender someone belongs to. Sex isn't just defined by anatomy; it’s a cocktail of hormones, chromosomes, and reproductive organs. Beyond just XX and XY, there are other combinations, yet Western society treats them as anomalies or illnesses, forcing everything into a binary. Society does that, not nature. As for gender identity, that’s also heavily dictated by society. It’s split between how we see ourselves and how society assigns a label to us. Physical perception alone doesn't dictate it. If the people you call "marginalized" aren't thinking within these imposed categories, then maybe it’s the society that needs changing, rather than discarding everything healthy as "insane." Why shouldn't gay people have the desire to pass on a legacy or start a family? Would I lose that right if, by some misfortune, I lost my reproductive organs or had a different chromosomal makeup but still identified as female? Of course not—I’d have the option to adopt. Would I be diagnosed with a disorder then? Would my needs suddenly be considered "insane"? No. Because despite lacking certain reproductive components, I would still be accepted within the established category that allows people to have children.

Honestly, I’m done going back and forth with you. As much as this is entertaining, there has to be a line somewhere. To wrap up this thing that isn't even really a debate—though we both know we’re acting like it is—I’ll just take the liberty of quoting a few of your own contradictions...

Let's talk about sexual minorities—homosexuals, transvestites, transsexuals.

Drew Lee7 said:1. Glad you finally admit you have no idea what's going on.

2. Oh, I definitely have one. Like a clown or a forum nutcase. Whatever. Just don't forget that a king's jester's "madness" was often nothing more than a mirror held up to the king's own stupidity.

3. It's just like how your belief in something doesn't make it true. Believing in something isn't proof of anything.

4. And what now, am I supposed to run to the library? 🙄 Why don't you just write out the quote you think supports the idea of introducing "gender" as a distinction from "sex"? Let's see if that conclusion can even be drawn from the quote, and only then will I tell you if I agree.

5. "You claim!" Hahahaha... To most people, this is theoretically incomprehensible, let alone something that could be proven or disproven. This isn't the result of a scientific experiment that can be verified in practice. It's a theoretical construct that you can choose to accept or not. I don't accept it. In fact, I think it's incredibly stupid and just pure self-delusion by the group of people who pushed it.

6. Once again, you're missing the point. I disagree with gender theory, not with its terminology. Those terms exist and serve a purpose within that theory. I'm not denying the terms; I'm criticizing the theory itself. But to get that, you actually need to know something about scientific methodology, logic, and argumentation.

7. Linguistic rules are inherent to language. But try explaining that to someone who knows nothing about them. What you're writing has nothing to do with that fact. Honestly, that's just how your "arguments" always work. You simply shift the goalposts and start proving something else entirely. You do it all the time.

8. Why would I? 🤷

What kind of argument is that, really?

I've gone over this plenty of times already.

The whole concept of gender was cooked up just to try and separate social identity from biological reality. It’s impossible. It’s fundamentally impossible. You’d have to be blind to even attempt to argue otherwise. And honestly, that is exactly what gender theory does.

Their stuff. Problem. It all comes down to identity...

Drew Lee7 said:1. Glad you finally admit you have no idea what's going on.

2. Oh, I definitely have one. Like a clown or a forum nutcase. Whatever. Just don't forget that a king's jester's "madness" was often nothing more than a mirror held up to the king's own stupidity.

3. It's just like how your belief in something doesn't make it true. Believing in something isn't proof of anything.

4. And what now, am I supposed to run to the library? 🙄 Why don't you just write out the quote you think supports the idea of introducing "gender" as a distinction from "sex"? Let's see if that conclusion can even be drawn from the quote, and only then will I tell you if I agree.

5. "You claim!" Hahahaha... To most people, this is theoretically incomprehensible, let alone something that could be proven or disproven. This isn't the result of a scientific experiment that can be verified in practice. It's a theoretical construct that you can choose to accept or not. I don't accept it. In fact, I think it's incredibly stupid and just pure self-delusion by the group of people who pushed it.

6. Once again, you're missing the point. I disagree with gender theory, not with its terminology. Those terms exist and serve a purpose within that theory. I'm not denying the terms; I'm criticizing the theory itself. But to get that, you actually need to know something about scientific methodology, logic, and argumentation.

7. Linguistic rules are inherent to language. But try explaining that to someone who knows nothing about them. What you're writing has nothing to do with that fact. Honestly, that's just how your "arguments" always work. You simply shift the goalposts and start proving something else entirely. You do it all the time.

8. Why would I? 🤷

What kind of argument is that, really?

I've gone over this plenty of times already.

The whole concept of gender was cooked up just to try and separate social identity from biological reality. It’s impossible. It’s fundamentally impossible. You’d have to be blind to even attempt to argue otherwise. And honestly, that is exactly what gender theory does.

On social roles...

Drew Lee7 said:1. Glad you finally admit you have no idea what's going on.

2. Oh, I definitely have one. Like a clown or a forum nutcase. Whatever. Just don't forget that a king's jester's "madness" was often nothing more than a mirror held up to the king's own stupidity.

3. It's just like how your belief in something doesn't make it true. Believing in something isn't proof of anything.

4. And what now, am I supposed to run to the library? 🙄 Why don't you just write out the quote you think supports the idea of introducing "gender" as a distinction from "sex"? Let's see if that conclusion can even be drawn from the quote, and only then will I tell you if I agree.

5. "You claim!" Hahahaha... To most people, this is theoretically incomprehensible, let alone something that could be proven or disproven. This isn't the result of a scientific experiment that can be verified in practice. It's a theoretical construct that you can choose to accept or not. I don't accept it. In fact, I think it's incredibly stupid and just pure self-delusion by the group of people who pushed it.

6. Once again, you're missing the point. I disagree with gender theory, not with its terminology. Those terms exist and serve a purpose within that theory. I'm not denying the terms; I'm criticizing the theory itself. But to get that, you actually need to know something about scientific methodology, logic, and argumentation.

7. Linguistic rules are inherent to language. But try explaining that to someone who knows nothing about them. What you're writing has nothing to do with that fact. Honestly, that's just how your "arguments" always work. You simply shift the goalposts and start proving something else entirely. You do it all the time.

8. Why would I? 🤷

What kind of argument is that, really?

I've gone over this plenty of times already.

The whole concept of gender was cooked up just to try and separate social identity from biological reality. It’s impossible. It’s fundamentally impossible. You’d have to be blind to even attempt to argue otherwise. And honestly, that is exactly what gender theory does.

And finally, regarding gender and gender theory...

Drew Lee7 said:1. Glad you finally admit you have no idea what's going on.

2. Oh, I definitely have one. Like a clown or a forum nutcase. Whatever. Just don't forget that a king's jester's "madness" was often nothing more than a mirror held up to the king's own stupidity.

3. It's just like how your belief in something doesn't make it true. Believing in something isn't proof of anything.

4. And what now, am I supposed to run to the library? 🙄 Why don't you just write out the quote you think supports the idea of introducing "gender" as a distinction from "sex"? Let's see if that conclusion can even be drawn from the quote, and only then will I tell you if I agree.

5. "You claim!" Hahahaha... To most people, this is theoretically incomprehensible, let alone something that could be proven or disproven. This isn't the result of a scientific experiment that can be verified in practice. It's a theoretical construct that you can choose to accept or not. I don't accept it. In fact, I think it's incredibly stupid and just pure self-delusion by the group of people who pushed it.

6. Once again, you're missing the point. I disagree with gender theory, not with its terminology. Those terms exist and serve a purpose within that theory. I'm not denying the terms; I'm criticizing the theory itself. But to get that, you actually need to know something about scientific methodology, logic, and argumentation.

7. Linguistic rules are inherent to language. But try explaining that to someone who knows nothing about them. What you're writing has nothing to do with that fact. Honestly, that's just how your "arguments" always work. You simply shift the goalposts and start proving something else entirely. You do it all the time.

8. Why would I? 🤷

What kind of argument is that, really?

I've gone over this plenty of times already.

The whole concept of gender was cooked up just to try and separate social identity from biological reality. It’s impossible. It’s fundamentally impossible. You’d have to be blind to even attempt to argue otherwise. And honestly, that is exactly what gender theory does.

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

Your "facts" have already been picked apart by others; I’m not wasting my breath repeating them. The reality is you’ve just rattled off a bunch of nonsense you think is valid, purely because you disagree with gender studies. You’re contradicting yourself constantly, and when we call out the lack of logic, you just lash out and call us parrots or nerds.😂 Look, plenty of people disagree with you. So, let me ask: do you actually have a real argument, or is this just going to be more elementary insults and a total misunderstanding of the subject matter?

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

Hahaha, this is just too much😂. Oh, I'm sure you've had plenty of little arguments. I'm far too grown up to be bickering over my role in those circles—that's playground stuff. Word of advice: stop embarrassing yourself. It's clear you have no idea how you're coming across on this forum.

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

Just because you, the "Great Expert," refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't recognized. You're free to hold whatever isolated beliefs you want in your own head, but if you're going to jump into a debate, try bringing actual substance to the table instead of making claims that blame women for being frustrated because they won't accept forced social roles.😂😂

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

So, you’re out here pushing a Sigmund Freud quote—only to turn around and preemptively deny that any of his theories actually hold water. Real smooth.😂This is honestly way too good.

Look, regarding Sigmund Freud—I’ve never been a fan of his take on female sexuality myself—but that specific idea I brought up, where gender identity isn't some biological destiny but rather an undefined subject position formed once a person enters society and the world of symbols... that’s pure psychoanalytic theory. It just got repurposed for gender identity later on. If you’re out here hunting for a specific quote to back up a concept like that, it honestly suggests you don't grasp the fundamentals of what you're trying to argue about. Ever heard of the Oedipus complex? No? How about identifying with a parent through the choice of a love interest? Or even Lacan’s updates to those ideas? It’s a bit much to demand a "gotcha" quote when you clearly haven't even brushed up on the basic theories. 😁 If you’re actually looking for answers, go pick up Sigmund Freud’s "On Female Sexuality"—look for that 1991 edition out of a US university press—specifically pages 23 through 39. That's where the real info is.

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

I’m not claiming that it is—I haven't said that once in this entire thread—so that's your own conclusion right there. What I am saying is that you can't just brush off the existence of gender categories that easily, especially not using the kind of logic you're trying to pull here...

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

What kind of agreement are we even talking about here? You’re out here trying to convince everyone that gender categories don't exist—or rather, you just refuse to acknowledge the concept and scream about some "difference" that you somehow equate with gender. I definitely don't buy that, so how exactly are we supposed to be in agreement? It's pure illogic...

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

Look, you argued that language isn't just some lump of clay we mold however we want. But sometimes you don't need to say something explicitly for the intent to be obvious. You did exactly that with your choice of words. "Has its own rules"? For someone throwing around accusations that I don't understand linguistics, that's a pretty weak (anti)argument on your part. Language is a system, and the social order reproduces itself through speech. Rules evolve—otherwise, we'd all still be using the same linguistic patterns from 200 years ago, perpetuating outdated notions of masculinity or femininity. We are all speaking subjects who gain our subjectivity by entering into a linguistic system. It becomes a massive problem when such a fundamental social code starts reproducing stereotypes—or are you denying their existence too?—and begins framing certain perspectives as absolute truths.

As far as I can remember, you haven't actually said anything about Butler.☕

vividorca9 said:Yeah, I get it, but honestly, it’s better to just laugh at this stuff than to lose my mind over it. 😁

True. 🙂 But I'm definitely not claiming to be some expert here. I still have a massive amount to learn. 😉

EDIT: besides that, I fell down the cultural theory rabbit hole a long time ago (let's just say I was indoctrinated) and now there's no shaking it off. 🤣

You don't need a PhD to find this stuff interesting🙂. For me, gender studies within visual arts is pretty compelling. I've always been fascinated by the distinction between gender and sex—whether gender is just a social construct or its own entirely separate category. Butler is interesting specifically because of that; she argues sex isn't this passive, fixed thing, while gender is dynamic and fluid. It basically turns into that old "chicken or the egg" dilemma. 🙂

vividorca9 said:No, I seriously cannot believe how stubborn you are, Drew Lee7. 🤣 🤣 😍 🤣

If language is this fixed, monolithic structure that isn't just some dough anyone can knead however they want, then where on earth do you get the right to just invent your own terms? Especially when Judith Butler—a literal authority in the field—wouldn't even agree with you. Where does that leave you, huh? 🙂 🤣

I think this outburst just made you my favorite person on this forum. I have a soft spot for stubborn people. Not that I’m much different myself. 🤣

An adult doesn't have the luxury of throwing a tantrum like a toddler does. 🙂

How deep does your interest in Butler actually go?

Drew Lee7 said:Unbelievable!

I’m actually speechless at this sheer volume of intellectual stupidity and fundamental misunderstanding.

I honestly hope you’re just a product of some mediocre liberal arts degree program, because those modern college reforms seem designed to turn people into mindless, zombie-like idiots.

You clearly don't grasp the basic rules for defining or even proposing scientific theories within the social sciences—and don't even get me started on the linguistics side of things, since you obviously have zero clue about that either. You lack even the slightest understanding required to debate "open" questions. Honestly, you don't even realize how a theoretical discussion is supposed to function.

Look, gender theory is just one of many theories that address certain topics by introducing specific terms and defining relationships between them. There are other theories out there about the exact same subjects. Completely opposite ones! Or did they skip teaching you that? And they all carry the same level of "authority" from the academic elite. That’s how scientific debate works. To me, gender theory is fundamentally flawed at its core, but that doesn't mean everything it discusses or writes about is wrong. And I pointed out exactly where I think it fails.

It’s especially hilarious watching you twist my words to reach totally wrong conclusions. Like, "Oh, but I said that..." No, sweetie, I didn't say that. It’s really not my problem when someone lacks the basic capacity for comprehension and just keeps hitting their head against the same wall. For us to even have a real debate, you actually have to understand what I’m writing so we can find a point of disagreement. But you don't even see the disagreement; you just parrot back, "Well, gender theory says this and that." 🤦

It’s pathetic, truly pathetic, if you can't see where the issue lies based on your own intellectual limits. All you need to do is read. It's not rocket science.

Listen, there is absolutely no shame in saying: "Sorry, but I don't follow you," or "I'm not sure I understood what you meant." Your problem is thinking that it's impossible for you to misinterpret something. Well, newsflash: it is. We all can. Some people are self-aware enough to admit when they're confused, while others—you know, the narcissists—find admitting ignorance completely unacceptable.

You are something else. 😂 😂 This is just pure comedy. I don't think you realize it, but you're the only one here who seems clueless about what you're actually typing🙂. Aside from losing your cool and trying to insult me and several others, you've churned out a mountain of nonsense. You have zero actual arguments—just the kind of ugly insults a child throws out when they feel threatened, because no rational adult would react this way unless their ego was being bruised. 🙂 I'm not going to lower myself to your level because your reaction makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just drowning in your own muddled logic. You try to act like you're taking a "critical approach" to gender theories—though I doubt your presentation even deserves that label—but since you clearly have no clue, why trash something you haven't even bothered to study? We all risk misinterpreting things, which is exactly why we present arguments here. You, however, have nothing but a few nasty insults instead of actual substance.🙂 Look, just pick up the book and quit being so damn bitter at a world that clearly doesn't care—you’re the only one convinced you've got it all figured out anyway.🙂

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

Look, I shouldn't have to overexplain things; the quotes should be enough to make sense of it all;

vividorca9 said:You're insulting me by assuming I haven't already thought about that. That's just how a real debate works. 🤷 I don't know why you even jumped into this if you expect everyone to just bend to your specific worldview. 🤷 Make an actual argument for your position and let people disagree with you. Don't mock me just because I'm standing my ground on a view you don't share. 🤷

I’m just laying out the reasons why I believe sex and gender should be treated as separate categories.

Of course, she's talking about gender as a shifting social category, unlike biological sex, which remains a constant, unchanging category. Language serves a crucial function, yet you write in your post;

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

and then...

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

I think your view on the function of language is pretty clearly laid out in this mess.

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

What a joke... Rachel Stewart36 actually managed to find the right words to clear up this absolute mess of misunderstood terms and categories.

Rachel Stewart36 said: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:

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:

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:

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. 😉

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

Then you write:

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

So, in your first post, you admit culture has an influence, but only as a consequence of biology. You claim gender roles are purely biological results—unchangeable by society—meaning culture follows biology, making gender roles as unchangeable as sex itself. Then, in the next post, you claim gender identity is built from both sex and culture, which is exactly why you lost your mind when I made that very same point:

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

Can't you just come to an agreement with yourself?

Drew Lee7 said:
3. "Motherhood is just one role among many. The real issue starts when society decides it's the only one that matters—the only one that counts."

And who exactly is facing this "problem"? It’s obviously the people who refuse to play the part—people who can't handle the role, so they project their own personal frustrations onto what they claim is some kind of social injustice.

Do you actually believe the stuff you wrote? If not, I have to hand it to you... I admire the persistence.

Drew Lee7 said:Huh? First off, do you even get what I'm actually saying here? Like, do you grasp the difference between how I define gender identity versus how gender theory defines gender, and why I think the whole concept of "gender" is totally useless and wrong? I'm being serious. I'm not trying to talk down to you.

P.S. Oh, and by the way, the English word "sex" and the American term for biological sex are one and the same. So using "sexual" as an adjective is the same thing as saying "sex-based." It applies to sexual or sex-based relationships, sexual or sex-based issues, identities, and all that.

This is purely a semantic headache—I don't see how it's supposed to change your worldview. Even back in the day, women were categorized under the same umbrella as men—man. Does that mean women are men? Hardly.☕

Drew Lee7 said:Hahaha... so that’s not an issue now?! Like, what exactly is it then if not one massive, glaring problem? Everyone knows damn well what linguistic gender actually is. Language isn't some ball of dough that people can just knead and reshape whenever they feel like it. But honestly, what you just wrote is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time: claiming there's a distinction between gender and sex is nothing more than a fantasy cooked up by feminist, queer, and so-called gender theorists on the principle of: "Whatever makes them feel good, makes them feel good."

I couldn't agree more. Honestly, if someone can't even wrap their head around basic reading comprehension, why bother trying to have a deep conversation with them? It's just a waste of breath.

For crying out loud, can you actually step outside that tiny little box of textbook definitions and jargon for once? Honestly, I think this whole obsession with separating gender from sex is just pure nonsense. It’s all part of this manufactured "gender theory" that feels completely made up to me. Why do we even need to overcomplicate things like this? So, people love to talk about how social roles are built around this concept they call "gender," but honestly, I don't buy that distinction for a second. To me, what they’re labeling as gender is nothing more than just gender identity. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? 🤷 Look, just because two people share the same biological sex doesn't mean they have to share the same gender identity. It’s common sense, really. I mean, obviously, a straight guy and a gay guy aren't going to have the exact same identity—they don't see themselves the same way, and let's be real, neither does the rest of the world. It's not that complicated.

So, we finally get to the real question: why do they insist on calling it "gender" instead of just a part of their identity (you know, the minority version)? According to this whole gender theory nonsense, biological sex doesn't actually mean a damn thing—it’s just some physical shell, while "gender" is everything. And since they claim gender is a social construct, then by their own logic, *everything* is a social construct. To them, being a "man" or a "woman" is entirely made up by society. That’s how they justify the idea that we’re somehow "forcing" boys to become men and girls to become women through different upbringing styles—like giving girls dolls and dresses while pushing motherhood, and giving boys cars and tech. This grand "gender theory" claims that's exactly how the concept of gender is constructed. But if you ask me? They’re just talking out of their asses because they can't handle their own sexual identity when compared to the majority. Half the time, these people just have deep-seated issues with themselves. I mean, if some young woman decides that motherhood is this evil social construct being shoved down her throat by some imaginary patriarchy, then honey, you've got some serious personal problems to work through.

P.S. I asked you to give me the actual, original Freudian quote, not whatever some feminist thinks he meant. You really need to get a clue here: if I told you I don't buy into gender theory, then I truly couldn't care less what someone who pushes that exact agenda has to say about it. I already know their arguments inside and out. Besides, even in your interpretation of Freudian thought, there isn't a single thing you're saying that I haven't already pointed out. So, here’s my advice: maybe try reading a little slower next time.

So, what is language then? Some rigid, unmoving relic that hasn't changed since the dawn of time? Please. It's obvious you don't grasp the actual function of language in a debate like this. By saying it isn't dough that anyone can knead however they want, you're basically arguing that language is this monolithic system where every term is frozen in stone. That is pure nonsense. Language is vital because it's the medium through which we enter the culture that defines us along with our sexual identity. Language is a fundamental social code—it's how the ideas of what a man or woman "should" be are baked into our minds. "Feminine" and "female" carry two entirely different weights.

Drew Lee7 said:Hahaha... so that’s not an issue now?! Like, what exactly is it then if not one massive, glaring problem? Everyone knows damn well what linguistic gender actually is. Language isn't some ball of dough that people can just knead and reshape whenever they feel like it. But honestly, what you just wrote is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time: claiming there's a distinction between gender and sex is nothing more than a fantasy cooked up by feminist, queer, and so-called gender theorists on the principle of: "Whatever makes them feel good, makes them feel good."

I couldn't agree more. Honestly, if someone can't even wrap their head around basic reading comprehension, why bother trying to have a deep conversation with them? It's just a waste of breath.

For crying out loud, can you actually step outside that tiny little box of textbook definitions and jargon for once? Honestly, I think this whole obsession with separating gender from sex is just pure nonsense. It’s all part of this manufactured "gender theory" that feels completely made up to me. Why do we even need to overcomplicate things like this? So, people love to talk about how social roles are built around this concept they call "gender," but honestly, I don't buy that distinction for a second. To me, what they’re labeling as gender is nothing more than just gender identity. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? 🤷 Look, just because two people share the same biological sex doesn't mean they have to share the same gender identity. It’s common sense, really. I mean, obviously, a straight guy and a gay guy aren't going to have the exact same identity—they don't see themselves the same way, and let's be real, neither does the rest of the world. It's not that complicated.

So, we finally get to the real question: why do they insist on calling it "gender" instead of just a part of their identity (you know, the minority version)? According to this whole gender theory nonsense, biological sex doesn't actually mean a damn thing—it’s just some physical shell, while "gender" is everything. And since they claim gender is a social construct, then by their own logic, *everything* is a social construct. To them, being a "man" or a "woman" is entirely made up by society. That’s how they justify the idea that we’re somehow "forcing" boys to become men and girls to become women through different upbringing styles—like giving girls dolls and dresses while pushing motherhood, and giving boys cars and tech. This grand "gender theory" claims that's exactly how the concept of gender is constructed. But if you ask me? They’re just talking out of their asses because they can't handle their own sexual identity when compared to the majority. Half the time, these people just have deep-seated issues with themselves. I mean, if some young woman decides that motherhood is this evil social construct being shoved down her throat by some imaginary patriarchy, then honey, you've got some serious personal problems to work through.

P.S. I asked you to give me the actual, original Freudian quote, not whatever some feminist thinks he meant. You really need to get a clue here: if I told you I don't buy into gender theory, then I truly couldn't care less what someone who pushes that exact agenda has to say about it. I already know their arguments inside and out. Besides, even in your interpretation of Freudian thought, there isn't a single thing you're saying that I haven't already pointed out. So, here’s my advice: maybe try reading a little slower next time.

I'm afraid you actually need to understand the basic terminology before jumping into a debate where everyone is using every tool available—short of a picture book—to explain the fundamental differences in how we define things. Just as you call me a nerd, I could call you uneducated, and I'd still be in a better position than you.

Drew Lee7 said:Hahaha... so that’s not an issue now?! Like, what exactly is it then if not one massive, glaring problem? Everyone knows damn well what linguistic gender actually is. Language isn't some ball of dough that people can just knead and reshape whenever they feel like it. But honestly, what you just wrote is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time: claiming there's a distinction between gender and sex is nothing more than a fantasy cooked up by feminist, queer, and so-called gender theorists on the principle of: "Whatever makes them feel good, makes them feel good."

I couldn't agree more. Honestly, if someone can't even wrap their head around basic reading comprehension, why bother trying to have a deep conversation with them? It's just a waste of breath.

For crying out loud, can you actually step outside that tiny little box of textbook definitions and jargon for once? Honestly, I think this whole obsession with separating gender from sex is just pure nonsense. It’s all part of this manufactured "gender theory" that feels completely made up to me. Why do we even need to overcomplicate things like this? So, people love to talk about how social roles are built around this concept they call "gender," but honestly, I don't buy that distinction for a second. To me, what they’re labeling as gender is nothing more than just gender identity. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? 🤷 Look, just because two people share the same biological sex doesn't mean they have to share the same gender identity. It’s common sense, really. I mean, obviously, a straight guy and a gay guy aren't going to have the exact same identity—they don't see themselves the same way, and let's be real, neither does the rest of the world. It's not that complicated.

So, we finally get to the real question: why do they insist on calling it "gender" instead of just a part of their identity (you know, the minority version)? According to this whole gender theory nonsense, biological sex doesn't actually mean a damn thing—it’s just some physical shell, while "gender" is everything. And since they claim gender is a social construct, then by their own logic, *everything* is a social construct. To them, being a "man" or a "woman" is entirely made up by society. That’s how they justify the idea that we’re somehow "forcing" boys to become men and girls to become women through different upbringing styles—like giving girls dolls and dresses while pushing motherhood, and giving boys cars and tech. This grand "gender theory" claims that's exactly how the concept of gender is constructed. But if you ask me? They’re just talking out of their asses because they can't handle their own sexual identity when compared to the majority. Half the time, these people just have deep-seated issues with themselves. I mean, if some young woman decides that motherhood is this evil social construct being shoved down her throat by some imaginary patriarchy, then honey, you've got some serious personal problems to work through.

P.S. I asked you to give me the actual, original Freudian quote, not whatever some feminist thinks he meant. You really need to get a clue here: if I told you I don't buy into gender theory, then I truly couldn't care less what someone who pushes that exact agenda has to say about it. I already know their arguments inside and out. Besides, even in your interpretation of Freudian thought, there isn't a single thing you're saying that I haven't already pointed out. So, here’s my advice: maybe try reading a little slower next time.

It's not a mistake; it's a failure to face reality. To put it bluntly, you acknowledge gender exists, but you're just mad at the academics who gave it that name, so you'd rather just call it sexual identity. It doesn't work that way. Sexual identity is the intersection of both gender and sex—it's formed by what you're born with and what you adopt.

Drew Lee7 said:Hahaha... so that’s not an issue now?! Like, what exactly is it then if not one massive, glaring problem? Everyone knows damn well what linguistic gender actually is. Language isn't some ball of dough that people can just knead and reshape whenever they feel like it. But honestly, what you just wrote is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time: claiming there's a distinction between gender and sex is nothing more than a fantasy cooked up by feminist, queer, and so-called gender theorists on the principle of: "Whatever makes them feel good, makes them feel good."

I couldn't agree more. Honestly, if someone can't even wrap their head around basic reading comprehension, why bother trying to have a deep conversation with them? It's just a waste of breath.

For crying out loud, can you actually step outside that tiny little box of textbook definitions and jargon for once? Honestly, I think this whole obsession with separating gender from sex is just pure nonsense. It’s all part of this manufactured "gender theory" that feels completely made up to me. Why do we even need to overcomplicate things like this? So, people love to talk about how social roles are built around this concept they call "gender," but honestly, I don't buy that distinction for a second. To me, what they’re labeling as gender is nothing more than just gender identity. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? 🤷 Look, just because two people share the same biological sex doesn't mean they have to share the same gender identity. It’s common sense, really. I mean, obviously, a straight guy and a gay guy aren't going to have the exact same identity—they don't see themselves the same way, and let's be real, neither does the rest of the world. It's not that complicated.

So, we finally get to the real question: why do they insist on calling it "gender" instead of just a part of their identity (you know, the minority version)? According to this whole gender theory nonsense, biological sex doesn't actually mean a damn thing—it’s just some physical shell, while "gender" is everything. And since they claim gender is a social construct, then by their own logic, *everything* is a social construct. To them, being a "man" or a "woman" is entirely made up by society. That’s how they justify the idea that we’re somehow "forcing" boys to become men and girls to become women through different upbringing styles—like giving girls dolls and dresses while pushing motherhood, and giving boys cars and tech. This grand "gender theory" claims that's exactly how the concept of gender is constructed. But if you ask me? They’re just talking out of their asses because they can't handle their own sexual identity when compared to the majority. Half the time, these people just have deep-seated issues with themselves. I mean, if some young woman decides that motherhood is this evil social construct being shoved down her throat by some imaginary patriarchy, then honey, you've got some serious personal problems to work through.

P.S. I asked you to give me the actual, original Freudian quote, not whatever some feminist thinks he meant. You really need to get a clue here: if I told you I don't buy into gender theory, then I truly couldn't care less what someone who pushes that exact agenda has to say about it. I already know their arguments inside and out. Besides, even in your interpretation of Freudian thought, there isn't a single thing you're saying that I haven't already pointed out. So, here’s my advice: maybe try reading a little slower next time.

Look, gender is a subset of gender identity. You could call it a slipper to make it easier to digest, but it’s still part of the overall identity.

That second point comes from Judith Butler. The theory is actually pretty fascinating—if you aren't someone who's already completely inoculated against it.

Drew Lee7 said:Hahaha... so that’s not an issue now?! Like, what exactly is it then if not one massive, glaring problem? Everyone knows damn well what linguistic gender actually is. Language isn't some ball of dough that people can just knead and reshape whenever they feel like it. But honestly, what you just wrote is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time: claiming there's a distinction between gender and sex is nothing more than a fantasy cooked up by feminist, queer, and so-called gender theorists on the principle of: "Whatever makes them feel good, makes them feel good."

I couldn't agree more. Honestly, if someone can't even wrap their head around basic reading comprehension, why bother trying to have a deep conversation with them? It's just a waste of breath.

For crying out loud, can you actually step outside that tiny little box of textbook definitions and jargon for once? Honestly, I think this whole obsession with separating gender from sex is just pure nonsense. It’s all part of this manufactured "gender theory" that feels completely made up to me. Why do we even need to overcomplicate things like this? So, people love to talk about how social roles are built around this concept they call "gender," but honestly, I don't buy that distinction for a second. To me, what they’re labeling as gender is nothing more than just gender identity. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? 🤷 Look, just because two people share the same biological sex doesn't mean they have to share the same gender identity. It’s common sense, really. I mean, obviously, a straight guy and a gay guy aren't going to have the exact same identity—they don't see themselves the same way, and let's be real, neither does the rest of the world. It's not that complicated.

So, we finally get to the real question: why do they insist on calling it "gender" instead of just a part of their identity (you know, the minority version)? According to this whole gender theory nonsense, biological sex doesn't actually mean a damn thing—it’s just some physical shell, while "gender" is everything. And since they claim gender is a social construct, then by their own logic, *everything* is a social construct. To them, being a "man" or a "woman" is entirely made up by society. That’s how they justify the idea that we’re somehow "forcing" boys to become men and girls to become women through different upbringing styles—like giving girls dolls and dresses while pushing motherhood, and giving boys cars and tech. This grand "gender theory" claims that's exactly how the concept of gender is constructed. But if you ask me? They’re just talking out of their asses because they can't handle their own sexual identity when compared to the majority. Half the time, these people just have deep-seated issues with themselves. I mean, if some young woman decides that motherhood is this evil social construct being shoved down her throat by some imaginary patriarchy, then honey, you've got some serious personal problems to work through.

P.S. I asked you to give me the actual, original Freudian quote, not whatever some feminist thinks he meant. You really need to get a clue here: if I told you I don't buy into gender theory, then I truly couldn't care less what someone who pushes that exact agenda has to say about it. I already know their arguments inside and out. Besides, even in your interpretation of Freudian thought, there isn't a single thing you're saying that I haven't already pointed out. So, here’s my advice: maybe try reading a little slower next time.

I see someone already pointed out your bit about mothers having "issues." Motherhood is a role—one of many. The problem arises when society tries to shove that single role down your throat as the only important one. That’s where the real issue lies.

Drew Lee7 said:Hahaha... so that’s not an issue now?! Like, what exactly is it then if not one massive, glaring problem? Everyone knows damn well what linguistic gender actually is. Language isn't some ball of dough that people can just knead and reshape whenever they feel like it. But honestly, what you just wrote is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time: claiming there's a distinction between gender and sex is nothing more than a fantasy cooked up by feminist, queer, and so-called gender theorists on the principle of: "Whatever makes them feel good, makes them feel good."

I couldn't agree more. Honestly, if someone can't even wrap their head around basic reading comprehension, why bother trying to have a deep conversation with them? It's just a waste of breath.

For crying out loud, can you actually step outside that tiny little box of textbook definitions and jargon for once? Honestly, I think this whole obsession with separating gender from sex is just pure nonsense. It’s all part of this manufactured "gender theory" that feels completely made up to me. Why do we even need to overcomplicate things like this? So, people love to talk about how social roles are built around this concept they call "gender," but honestly, I don't buy that distinction for a second. To me, what they’re labeling as gender is nothing more than just gender identity. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? 🤷 Look, just because two people share the same biological sex doesn't mean they have to share the same gender identity. It’s common sense, really. I mean, obviously, a straight guy and a gay guy aren't going to have the exact same identity—they don't see themselves the same way, and let's be real, neither does the rest of the world. It's not that complicated.

So, we finally get to the real question: why do they insist on calling it "gender" instead of just a part of their identity (you know, the minority version)? According to this whole gender theory nonsense, biological sex doesn't actually mean a damn thing—it’s just some physical shell, while "gender" is everything. And since they claim gender is a social construct, then by their own logic, *everything* is a social construct. To them, being a "man" or a "woman" is entirely made up by society. That’s how they justify the idea that we’re somehow "forcing" boys to become men and girls to become women through different upbringing styles—like giving girls dolls and dresses while pushing motherhood, and giving boys cars and tech. This grand "gender theory" claims that's exactly how the concept of gender is constructed. But if you ask me? They’re just talking out of their asses because they can't handle their own sexual identity when compared to the majority. Half the time, these people just have deep-seated issues with themselves. I mean, if some young woman decides that motherhood is this evil social construct being shoved down her throat by some imaginary patriarchy, then honey, you've got some serious personal problems to work through.

P.S. I asked you to give me the actual, original Freudian quote, not whatever some feminist thinks he meant. You really need to get a clue here: if I told you I don't buy into gender theory, then I truly couldn't care less what someone who pushes that exact agenda has to say about it. I already know their arguments inside and out. Besides, even in your interpretation of Freudian thought, there isn't a single thing you're saying that I haven't already pointed out. So, here’s my advice: maybe try reading a little slower next time.

No offense, but you clearly don't know the material, and your arguments are hollow. It would be a good idea to actually study the subject before you start spitting words around without understanding them.

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.

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.

Drew Lee7 said:Transgender people are just sick. Honestly, they’re trying to be something they aren't, and it makes no sense. Why even go down that road?

So, let's talk about this whole "gender" debate. It’s basically just a massive argument started by feminists and LGBT groups who refuse to admit they have an identity crisis. They basically cooked up this entire concept of "gender" just to give their own issues a fancy new label and justify them. Isn't that just convenient?

Honestly, your whole take is hilarious. I’ve got nothing to add except my own two cents: the entire concept of gender was basically cooked up by feminists, and nowadays, it’s mostly just being shoved down our throats by the LGBT group.

Look, gender identities haven't exactly been some unique, one-of-a-kind thing throughout history or even in the present day. But just because they've always existed doesn't mean we need to go around reinventing the wheel. Why try to make something new when the reality is already right there?

I don't quite get what's supposed to be funny here. You claim gender identity doesn't exist, yet you argue it's a feminist invention—which I don't buy for a second. Biological sex is hardwired—anatomy, chromosomes, hormones—it's what we're born with (even if people try to change that these days). Gender identity, however, is shaped by culture. By claiming gender doesn't exist, you're basically ignoring how much culture actually influences us. What's your actual argument there? The split between biology and society is most obvious with gay people—they clearly developed a sexual orientation different from what was biologically assigned at birth. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. Plus, by denying gender exists, you're stripping away their right to define their own orientation. As for the title, it hits the nail on the head because gender identity lives exactly in that intersection of biology and society. By moving away from seeing gender as a direct consequence of biological sex, all those "outcasts" you listed finally got a chance to identify themselves and step out without the centuries of stigma following them. So, yeah, your first post was pretty offensive to a lot of people. And feminism? It's not some monolith pushing a single agenda. There are plenty of different branches of feminism that clash with each other—but they all share one thing: breaking the idea that biology is destiny and that gender is as unchangeable as sex.

Regarding your claim that feminists invented the concept of gender; if you don't count Freud as a feminist, then your point falls flat. He was the first to suggest that gender identity isn't purely biological, but rather an undefined state of the subject that emerges as a social and cultural construct once someone enters society...

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I know exactly what I'm talking about here. I've been listening to this same tired script for over 15 years now—all these fake divisions being pushed by the LGBT crowd. But let’s be real, this isn't about mental health. Let's just set aside the whole homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and transsexual thing for a second.

Sex is male or female, and it's determined by your anatomy. 😂

"Gender," on the other hand, is supposedly some imposed social role. Give me a break. Gender is mom, dad, grandma, grandpa, great-grandma, great-grandpa, and so on and so forth.

And sure, gender roles—the stuff men and women actually do—might shift depending on the era or where you live, but those roles are always rooted in biology, which then gets shaped by social dynamics.

Seriously, what even is "gender identity"? The LGBT population doesn't have an issue with gender; they have an issue with biological sex, since in most cases, it's just about having a sexual drive toward the same sex. They'll tell you being a construction worker is a "gendered role"—yeah, right. Since when does anything stop a young woman from being a builder today?

Biological identities evolve as society progresses. As technology advances, jobs that were traditionally held by men become accessible to women. As social circumstances change—like how fewer people are working manual labor in the fields—jobs once seen as "women's work" can be taken up by men, like childcare or housework.

But trying to invent some pointless distinction between gender and sex because of that? That’s just plain stupid.

George Morris2, wearing makeup is absolutely biologically driven. It didn't just appear out of thin air. Women wear makeup to appeal to men—basically to attract as many potential partners as possible—which is driven by basic sexual instinct.

🤦 And you'd just let all those groups slide? How? You'd basically say: if you don't fit into the heterosexual matrix, then get lost, and you don't even have a sexual orientation? Or are you just male, female, or nothing at all? You've lumped everything together and insulted homosexuals and lesbians in the process. To make it simple: there's social sex and biological sex. You're born with the biological one, and you acquire the social one. Now there's this mountain of theories regarding gender identity configuration, starting with Freud himself, who primarily looked at sexual identification through the Eipov complex. Gender identity exists in a psychological sense through identification with one side; if that weren't true, we'd still be treating homosexuals like they were mentally ill.

Interesting topic. Sexuality tied to physical form—though, if we’re really talking about it, I’d probably frame it more as visible versus invisible, kind of like convex vs. concave.

Lisa Morales4 said:It's the same way you'd view Mother Courage by Bertolt Brecht.🙂

Still not following any of this...

Lisa Morales4 said:Those aren't feminists; they're more like "unlucky attractive" lesbians,

A true feminist is more like a femme fatale—someone fully aware of her femininity, someone who enjoys it and values it enough to step outside modern norms just to highlight and truly celebrate it.

In my eyes, feminism has been embodied by figures like Mother Mary, Mother Teresa, Lady Diana, and Joan of Arc.
They were all goddesses of love in their own right through their femininity—strong, standout, original, and avant-garde women who, in their own unique ways, through exceptional spirituality drove unconventional historical shifts in the evolution of human society.

There’s no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" kind of feminist. There are just different schools of thought—liberal, Marxist, radical, trans-feminism, cyber-feminism, and so on. You can't claim one woman is a "real" feminist while another isn't; everyone is acting on their own convictions. It turns out there is no universal archetype for a feminist, nor even for a woman. The whole idea of a "universal female identity" relies on forcing people into a specific mold. Personally, I’m not a fan of the radical approach where they advocate for the entire female population solely based on sex, ignoring the fact that women can unconsciously play into sexist roles themselves.

The strategy I mentioned has been used in feminist circles for years to emphasize the constructive nature of gender—it has nothing to do with being a lesbian or just enjoying one's body. A femme fatale is a siren who uses her appeal like a weapon—think Medusa. Honestly, I’m not even sure how much physical appearance matters in this whole feminism debate; I find the issue of female body representation far more interesting. And I really don't get why you'd see Mother Mary or Princess Diana as "avant-garde" women... that doesn't quite track for me.🤷

dustyskipper3 said:It's true, I think. There is such a thing as militant feminism, and then there is the more "feminine" approach—where women might still choose to be soft and graceful, though I guess that doesn't make them any less 'strong' in the end.

Some feminists even lean into that femininity just to mock it—turning it into this exaggerated caricature to make it look fake...

It’s a shame things went down the way they did—it's a mess, honestly. Most of all, I'm bummed that mistyscout2 won't be part of the discussions anymore; I've always seen them as someone truly exceptional. Consider this my way of sending some support their way since private messages aren't an option now. I just hope the druid moderators don't take offense at me posting this here...

dustyskipper3 said:Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

Look, feminism isn't some single, monolithic entity—it doesn't exist as one unified body. It splits off into all sorts of directions. You've got feminists who are poised and feminine, and then you've got those who aren't. It's not all one thing.