Posts by Drew Lee7

Rachel Stewart36 said: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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Honestly, you answered a ton of my questions in that post. Gender was basically invented just to "mask" the fact that lesbians, gay guys, transvestites, and transsexuals are struggling with their biological sex identity. If someone is born female but doesn't want anything to do with being a woman, then whether you like it or not, they have an identity crisis (which is why "gender" exists—it lets them say they're biologically female but "gendered" as a lesbian). 😂 Try explaining that concept to some horny guy on the street. See how that goes. 🤣 Basically, they're going to get annoyed by guys hitting on them, those thirsty looks, or parents asking about boyfriends and kids. It's the exact same deal for gay men.

The difference between "gender" in the Women's Studies Department and a social gender role is that they claim gender is separate from sex—since sex is a biological fact and gender is just "social" (cultural). To me, that's just a delusion cooked up by people having issues with their own biological identity.

And thank God you don't know what gender is. That means you aren't dealing with an identity crisis, regardless of whether you have what you call "feminine" traits.

Brandon Wright54 said: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.🙂

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.

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. 🤣

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. ☕

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.

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.

Brandon Wright54 said: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh my God! 🤦

I’m honestly not even going to bother giving a point-by-point response to this wordy, nonsensical flood of text. Your entire "argument" basically boils down to you claiming I said something I never actually said, and then trying to prove the exact same thing I'm already saying—except you clearly don't realize the focus of this debate is on an entirely different level.

Here are a few examples for you:

1. According to you, I claimed that language is a monolithic system. Unless you were dreaming, that never happened. Go ahead, quote me where I ever stated that language is a monolithic system. 🤷

2. You say: Gender identity is a combination of gender and sex, formed by what's given and what's adopted. Who's saying that? God? For me, gender identity is the intersection of biological sex (the sum of all biological facts) and various sexual roles. See how we're thinking about the same thing, except there's zero "gender" in my definition? But just to get ahead of you, this isn't just about technical terminology; it's about the fundamental difference between sexual roles, as I see them, and gender roles, as gender theory defines them. Do I really need to draw you a diagram, or are you capable of figuring out the *differentia specifica* on your own?

3. "Motherhood is one of many roles, and when society starts imposing only that single role as the most important, as the only one, then it becomes a huge problem."

And who exactly is having this "problem"? It's obviously the people who refuse to accept that role because they aren't capable of embracing it, so they project their own personal frustrations onto some supposed social injustice.

Look, I don't see where you actually addressed my points. That's why I asked.

I laid out a ton of arguments that nobody even bothered to counter; instead, everyone just keeps parroting gender theory definitions at me like I haven't heard them all before. Honestly, pretty much everything you wrote about gender could just be categorized under gender identity as I see it, so that’s why I brought it up.

I pointed out the distinction—the *differentia specifica*—between my own sense of gender identity and how gender is defined in theory in several spots, but it doesn't look like you really took that into account.

vividorca9 said: That is exactly why we make the distinction between sex and gender. Gendered stereotypes shift depending on when and where you live, whereas biological sex is fixed. You can try to change how you present, but you can't change what you are. The gap between what's natural and what's social is basically the same as the gap between sex and gender. If someone actually agreed to exist solely based on sex (without gender), they’d be letting society dictate exactly how a man (or woman) has to be. You can't allow that, because it's ridiculous to suggest a guy isn't a man just because he doesn't watch football. Raising awareness about gender is an attempt to give every human being total freedom to shape themselves, regardless of their sex. Gender is a double-edged sword. On one hand, corporations exploit it against us (think marketing: "I'm a man, but I'll prove it if I buy this specific aftershave"), but on the other hand, we can use it to our advantage to stay free enough to do whatever we want with ourselves.

The reality is, much like the debates over homosexuality, it comes down to how willing a person is to accept that deviations in gender or sexual identity will always exist, and that they are almost as natural as sex itself.

There’s a reason why the phenomenon of transsexuality wasn't as widespread in the past. It was likely because gender roles were more rigidly defined back then, often woven directly into the law, making it much harder for people to admit they didn't feel comfortable in their own skin. 🤷

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.

Good grief, Apsara Wine!

Look, me saying transgender people and crossdressers deal with gender identity issues isn't some poetic exaggeration or something I just pulled out of thin air. Are you even reading what I'm writing, or just skimming through? I already told you that according to the International Classification of Diseases, under the section for Mental and Behavioral Disorders (aka the ICD), both of these are classified as gender identity disorders. Transgender individuals possess all the physical traits of one sex but identify as another. If they’re male, they don't just want to be a guy with a different gender identity; they want to actually become female with all the biological characteristics that come with it (and vice versa). That's why, in their view, the only way out is through surgical and pharmaceutical "transitioning."

And honestly, homosexuals have gender identity issues too—maybe not quite as extreme, but it's there. Homosexuality was stripped from the ICD and the DSM solely because of intense lobbying. I mean, if other paraphilias (classified as sexual preference disorders) weren't still on the books, what logic would justify removing homosexuality if it wasn't pure political pressure?

Don't get me wrong, though—I'm not saying homosexuals need to be "cured." I really don't think that. If they're happy, I'm happy. The issue arises when we see them demanding certain rights that don't naturally stem from the biology of their relationships. And that's where things get messy.

Sandra Barrett4 said:1. There is a difference between sex and gender roles. Gender identity is innate and biologically determined.
2. Everything is a social construct, except for biological facts.
3. Female sex is determined by physical characteristics, just like male sex.
4. There is a gender gap in upbringing, which society often condemns if ignored. For example, if a woman is a great mechanic or engineer, people—mostly other women—tend to look down on her or judge her for how she managed to pull that off... given that she's a woman.
5. Motherhood exists independently of the patriarchy. The difference is that the patriarchy views women solely through the lens of being mothers; they imply that if you don't have at least five kids, you aren't a "real" woman, imposing the image of motherhood as a woman's only purpose for existing.

Man, you’re just parroting fancy buzzwords like Brandon Wright54 at this point. Seriously, do you really think you need to lecture me on the distinction between sex and gender within gender theory? It’s not like I don’t get the difference; I just think the whole thing is stupid and a complete waste of time. Here’s my take: sex is biological—it's innate and set in stone. Gender identity, on the other hand, isn't just some purely social construct like gender theory tries to claim. It’s a messy, complicated cocktail of biological predispositions mixed with upbringing and culture. That’s the key distinction for me. Gender identity is partially a byproduct of our biology, not just a label society slapped on us. If you still can't see the nuance in that, then honestly, there's no helping you.

Sandra Barrett4 said:social privileges throughout history.

Let’s be real: trying to get an objective handle on "social privilege" through the lens of history is basically impossible. It’s a total moving target. At the end of the day, it's just a subjective concept, isn't it?

vividorca9 said:Gender roles shift constantly. These days, the lines are getting blurrier by the second, which makes talking about them a bit of a headache. But, if we look at some of those old-school stereotypes that were huge back in the day—say, leading up to the 90s—we get stuff like this:

-A real man doesn't cry.
-A real man is always rock solid.
-A real man shouldn't deal with erectile dysfunction when there's a woman right in front of him looking to get intimate.
-A real man doesn't wear skirts.
-A real man doesn't have long hair (though I guess the hippies kind of broke that one down). 🤣
-A real man loves football or some other kind of sport.
-Poets and intellectuals aren't "real men"—they're just physical types.

And so on.

In its simplest terms, a gender role is just how successfully someone follows social imperatives—basically, our collective stereotypes about how men or women "should" act. It’s an incredibly relative concept, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. 🤷
Male gender roles are essentially what the guys over at MK have been making fun of quite effectively (if I may say so myself) for a long time now. 😍

What you’re calling a "real man" is basically just a specific gender identity that some societies happen to push at certain points in history. But honestly? For every single one of those traits or attitudes you mentioned, I could point to a different time or place where they were either considered peak masculinity or just totally neutral.

Sandra Barrett4 said:So the logical conclusion is that men can sleep around without any social consequences or penalties, whereas women aren't allowed to?

Nope.

Sandra Barrett4 said:Yes, this is true. Men are biologically built to be physically stronger, which means they handle the heavy labor, while women take on creative, managerial, and leadership roles. However, history hasn't exactly respected those latter roles.

Are you actually trying to tell me women didn't do the heavy physical labor? 🙄

vividorca9 said:Language is exactly that. 🙂 You weren't born with the specific vocabulary you use now, nor were those terms even trending back when you were a toddler. 🤷 If we’re going to get pedantic and argue about it, then the idea that we define "masculine" and "feminine" solely by biological sex is also a fabrication. We could have just ignored physical differences entirely and never talked about them. We could have ignored—if we're allowing democracy in these matters—what science says about biological traits. That way, if some guy happened to be messing around, he could claim to be female and insist (just to spite everyone) that he'd give birth in nine months. We'd call that absurd. But some things just are the way they are, regardless of whether we want them to be. 😉 Similarly, the fact that you allow for gender identity instead of sex identity comes from the fact that you're prioritizing the physical over the intellectual/mental. You're completely ignoring the mental aspect of a person's identity and reducing everything to pure physicality. It seems to me that rejecting gender identity has a lot to do with how late this topic was even brought up, unlike the obvious biological differences that allowed us to distinguish between men and women pretty early on.

Look, can you please step outside the box of those recycled definitions for a second: for me, making a distinction between gender and sex is nonsense and a myth created by so-called "gender theory." While the social construction of roles is indeed called "gender" within that theory, I don't recognize that distinction because what they call gender is nothing more than sexual identity.

This isn't directed at me, but (with all due respect): if you don't recognize the difference between gender and sex, do you not recognize trans people or crossdressers either? OK, you're entitled to think something is wrong with them (as long as you aren't being verbally or physically abusive), but what does that have to do with their existence? If I close my blinds because I'm in a bad mood and don't feel like looking at the sky today, does that mean the sky doesn't exist for me? It's incredibly solipsistic. 🙂 The existence of gender (where we actually agree) allows for the possibility that people don't feel like who they were born as. If you refuse to acknowledge gender, it won't stop trans people, crossdressers, or anyone else who simply doesn't feel comfortable in their own skin (whether someone shoved it into their head that they aren't masculine or feminine enough, or they just have their own complexes) from existing. How else are we supposed to discuss the duality between what is biological and what is psychological? How else besides using the term "gender"? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just defending my view that gender needs its place in our linguistic, psychological, sociological, anthropological, and even historical toolkit.

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.

vividorca9 said:Language is exactly that. 🙂 You weren't born with the specific vocabulary you use now, nor were those terms even trending back when you were a toddler. 🤷 If we’re going to get pedantic and argue about it, then the idea that we define "masculine" and "feminine" solely by biological sex is also a fabrication. We could have just ignored physical differences entirely and never talked about them. We could have ignored—if we're allowing democracy in these matters—what science says about biological traits. That way, if some guy happened to be messing around, he could claim to be female and insist (just to spite everyone) that he'd give birth in nine months. We'd call that absurd. But some things just are the way they are, regardless of whether we want them to be. 😉 Similarly, the fact that you allow for gender identity instead of sex identity comes from the fact that you're prioritizing the physical over the intellectual/mental. You're completely ignoring the mental aspect of a person's identity and reducing everything to pure physicality. It seems to me that rejecting gender identity has a lot to do with how late this topic was even brought up, unlike the obvious biological differences that allowed us to distinguish between men and women pretty early on.

Look, can you please step outside the box of those recycled definitions for a second: for me, making a distinction between gender and sex is nonsense and a myth created by so-called "gender theory." While the social construction of roles is indeed called "gender" within that theory, I don't recognize that distinction because what they call gender is nothing more than sexual identity.

This isn't directed at me, but (with all due respect): if you don't recognize the difference between gender and sex, do you not recognize trans people or crossdressers either? OK, you're entitled to think something is wrong with them (as long as you aren't being verbally or physically abusive), but what does that have to do with their existence? If I close my blinds because I'm in a bad mood and don't feel like looking at the sky today, does that mean the sky doesn't exist for me? It's incredibly solipsistic. 🙂 The existence of gender (where we actually agree) allows for the possibility that people don't feel like who they were born as. If you refuse to acknowledge gender, it won't stop trans people, crossdressers, or anyone else who simply doesn't feel comfortable in their own skin (whether someone shoved it into their head that they aren't masculine or feminine enough, or they just have their own complexes) from existing. How else are we supposed to discuss the duality between what is biological and what is psychological? How else besides using the term "gender"? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just defending my view that gender needs its place in our linguistic, psychological, sociological, anthropological, and even historical toolkit.

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.

Keith Thomas21 said:Nothing could ever convince me that I could just wake up one morning, decide I want to be a man, and go undergo surgery to have my breasts removed. No matter how hard I’ve tried to adopt a more masculine way of thinking or carry myself, it simply doesn't come naturally to me. I truly believe this is something innate—a primal, biological drive. Just as we deal with various congenital conditions at birth, I view gender identity disorder as another such biological reality.
It stands to reason that if a male child feels a sense of masculinity, he will naturally mirror the masculine behaviors he observes in his environment, even if those men happen to wear bras in that specific social circle. Conversely, if a child does not feel masculine, they will instinctively imitate whatever feminine behavior is present around them.

To put it simply, yeah, I agree. Sexual instinct is at the core of gender identity, and that’s innate. It’s just like how physical sex characteristics are pretty much set in stone on average. Gender theory claims that gender is just a byproduct of culture. But if you ask me, culture is often just a result of innate male and female traits, biology, and stuff like that. Culture can change the framework, sure, but it can’t change the essence. If a man has the biological potential to father thousands of kids, while a woman is capped at maybe 10 or 20, that fact is going to influence male and female behavior somehow. Obviously, culture adds a lot of variables, but certain fundamental values remain. Take this one, for example. And don't even get me started on hormone levels...

Sandra Barrett4 said:1. None of what was listed has anything to do with gender identity.
2. Male gender roles aren't biological; they are likely picked up from the environment rather than being caused by parents.

Are you kidding me right now? 🤣

So, what exactly are these "gender" roles that aren't tied to sex? Let's hear it...

vividorca9 said:I don't buy this at all. An LGBT group didn't just invent some "problem." What actually happened is that feminists and queer theory have spent years doing the intellectual heavy lifting to open a window that used to be slammed shut by our own prejudices. You can't honestly tell me that a woman taking male hormones and prepping for gender reassignment surgery is the exact same thing as a woman using IVF to deal with infertility. And look, a man could undergo gender reassignment surgery, wear heels, and take female hormones—does that mean he still identifies as male? He's male biologically, but his gender leans toward being female. Gender is a heavy, vital linguistic concept because it democratized things; it allowed for the possibility that someone might not want to be the sex nature assigned them at birth. As far as I'm concerned, that's perfectly fine. The LGBT group didn't create a problem (these things like transsexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality have always existed; they aren't modern inventions), they just brought them into the light.

Just a side note: I think people today confuse actual feminism with just being frustrated, man-hating bitter people. The first wave of feminists gave women the right to vote, the right to work, and the freedom to choose their own lives. I don't think we should spit on them or use their name as an insult. So if that makes me a "bitter man-hater" in your eyes—so be it.

*upset🤣

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."

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.

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.

Brandon Wright54 said: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...

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.

Rachel Stewart36 said:Care to elaborate on that little observation? And while you're at it, maybe define what exactly you mean by the whole "gender identity" thing.

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.

vividorca9 said:You're mixing up sex and gender. Sex is determined at birth, whereas gender is more about individual psychology and sociology. Sex is "I am female, I have female reproductive organs, and I produce female hormones," while gender is "I feel female," "I present as female," or "I embrace my femininity." It makes perfect sense. That’s why a transsexual person might be biologically male but identifies with a female gender. While biological sex isn't a socially constructed category, gender definitely is—it's been debated for ages, and more importantly, it's been manipulated by politics and marketing for a very long time.

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?

Brandon Wright54 said:🤦 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.

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.

Rachel Stewart36 said:I wouldn't be so quick to make sweeping claims like that. Looking at people and the world around me, I haven't really seen massive variations in those "facts" based on gender. It feels more like certain groups just have different "modes." Let me complicate things a bit—I'm male (biologically speaking), identify as a man, and I'm straight, yet my default mode is pretty "feminine"—non-aggressive, passive, indirect, and super focused on emotional harmony. That said, I switch to the "male" mode whenever it makes sense—you know, situational awareness. So, how do you explain my passivity given my testosterone levels (which are pretty obvious from my physique)? I think things are a little more nuanced than what you're suggesting. But hey, just my two cents. 😉

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?

David Gomez3 said:I’ve already laid out my thoughts on what gender identity actually entails in my previous posts. If you're looking for a deeper dive, you can always go do some reading online. ☕

It seems you’re conflating gender roles with gender identity. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding, though it technically doesn't matter in cases where biological sex aligns perfectly with identity—like a cisgender man.

Furthermore, sexual orientation isn't an issue of gender identity; being gay simply means men love men, or women love women. You’ve managed to mix up 🤷
completely.
🤷 You’re essentially contradicting yourself here. You seem to admit that at one point in history, it was socially unacceptable for a woman to be a construction worker, yet you simultaneously deny the existence of gender roles and identities? It sounds to me like your only logic is based on 😕 biology.

While it’s certainly commendable that societal norms are evolving, the reality remains that these roles and expectations exist, and they impact people's lives—often for the worse. Just look at parts of the Middle East; you don't see men wearing burqas.

And regarding your argument about the term being unnecessary: quite the opposite is true. In the context of transgender individuals, this concept is essential for explaining the phenomenon and shedding light on the process. Even if you argue that "gender identity" is a term primarily used within transgender discourse, its existence remains entirely justified.

1. Hahaha... do you really think I'm so clueless that I can't find a definition? Also, thanks for the "explanation." But you missed the whole point: I never said those definitions don't exist, I said they're stupid.

2. Nope. Gender identity doesn't exist. It's just a feminist invention.

3. I never said they necessarily have issues. Read it again if you don't believe me. I wrote exactly what you wrote. Though, if you really want to push it, they actually do have massive issues with their biological sex. That's why this fake "gender" thing was invented—to deny that they have a problem.

4. The fact that women weren't (all) construction workers had nothing to do with it being "socially unacceptable"; it was because it's physically grueling work.

5. I never denied that gender roles exist and can change. So what you're saying is completely irrelevant.

6. Transsexuality and so-called "transgenderism" are a sickness.

hiddenhound3 said:That is hardly nonsense or feminist bluster; these are legitimate theories established by cultural and anthropological scholars.

It is an undeniable fact that fundamental biological differences influence gender roles, yet within specific cultures, eras, and circumstances, those roles can vary, whereas sex-based roles remain immutable.

Allow me to illustrate. The gender role of a man involves performing strenuous labor in the fields—which stems from the era when horticulture and agronomy first emerged, where a pregnant woman might manage solely with a hoe while the man handled the plow regardless of the epoch—and this dominance of male physical strength pushed women away from heavy agricultural tasks (an evolution that contributed to the development of patriarchy). Yet, during times of war, when men are deployed, women must step into that masculine role. This is a gender role imposed by biology but accepted by society. Thus, we see clearly how a gender role can shift from one sex to another.

Conversely, a sex-based role is unconditional; a woman can give birth, whereas a man cannot. A man cannot serve as the carrier, the birther, or the lactating parent; that is a female sex role, and it is not transferable to a man.

Do you perceive the distinction between gender and sex roles now? They are entirely real phenomena, and they are partially determined by biology. 🙂

1. "Some people." The point is what certain theorists say. And since when is that even an argument? Are we just supposed to believe that whatever some theorist says can't be stupid? Give me a break!

2. Men working the fields isn't a gender role; it's a sex role tied to a specific era and society. Nowadays, it's perfectly normal for a woman to drive a tractor and work the land, so that's part of her possible sex role today. The emergence of patriarchy has nothing to do with what you're claiming. I'll just give you a few starting points so you can go do your own research: the Iron Age and nomadic tribes.

3. Oh, wow! Thanks for explaining that to me. I feel so much smarter now. 🙄

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.

Megan Nguyen22 said:Gender identity? Absolutely, I'm on board with that; but gender itself is a much more complicated question 😉 (since we tend to view gender roles and social constructs as things shaped by society, whereas biological sex is rooted in our physical reality).

Man, please. This whole distinction between gender and sex is such a joke. Calling gender roles "social constructs" or "culturally conditioned"? Total nonsense. Most of those roles are driven by biology, and everything else is just society reacting to those biological realities based on its own weird dynamics.

As far as I know, we still don't even fully understand the causes behind homosexuality, transsexuality, or being transgender, so... who actually knows?

But honestly, all these feminist theories regarding gender versus sex are just laughable.

Rachel Stewart36 said:I think you’re totally misreading my point. I’m not talking about some "concrete" right to choose; I’m talking about freedom within a static-dynamic social structure. I mean the actual possibility of exercising that freedom while playing by the "rules of the game" the system sets. Your example—saying you can't choose to buy a Ferrari or a Porsche, but you *can* choose what to do with the cash you actually have—is just looking at freedom through a narrow lens. You're missing the "higher order" logic based on the abstract definition of freedom I'm discussing. Donna Garcia42 actually touched on this in post # 172 when she talked about unequal starting positions. Looking at your exchange with her, it seems you're still approaching the concept of choice (which is synonymous with freedom in my terms) from a much lower level of abstraction, so I doubt there's any point in continuing this debate.😉

Chatterbox Quote

And that’s only true by definition; in reality, every single human action is conditioned by emotion or impulse to some degree. Consciousness—the intellect—is inextricably linked to will (which is essentially driven by emotion). Any attempt to mechanically strip that organic unity apart just results in a broken outcome.

I'm not talking about just being aware that choice exists—I'm talking about how messy and difficult it actually is to exercise that freedom.

Man, seriously, stop being so damn intense. It was just cynicism... sarcasm... whatever you want to call it. 😉

brightridge59 said:I think you might have taken my post a bit too literally.

I didn't anticipate needing to clarify, but I suppose I will.

When I say someone "ceases to exist," I'm referring to her sense of self—who she is as an individual. I don't know how many young mothers you've encountered in your life, but I certainly know plenty.

They often lose sight of themselves—their hobbies, their passions, and all those little things that made them who they were before marriage and children came into the picture. To me, that specific version of the person I once knew effectively disappears, replaced by the roles she has stepped into: mother, wife, homemaker.

Fair enough, but those are just certain instances. How do you account for the women who walk away from high-powered careers specifically to focus on their kids? I personally know two such women, and let me tell you, when they left their firms, there was a massive void left in their departments. They were incredibly talented, top-tier professionals. Now, they're home, fully dedicated to raising their little ones, and they are genuinely happy doing it. 🙂

My point is that these women are making a conscious, rational choice. They have the common sense and the agency to ensure that motherhood and marriage aren't their *only* sources of fulfillment. Kudos to them. 👍

However, I still feel that the percentage of women choosing this path could be higher. I can't help but wonder if it's because men aren't stepping up to shoulder half of the parenting and household duties, which forces women to stay home, or if it's just a matter of following the path of least resistance.

It’s actually quite disheartening when I go to visit a friend who has a child; nearly every single thing she talks about revolves around her kid, someone else's kid, or her husband (usually something about his job at a firm like Goldman Sachs or similar).

In those moments, I find myself thinking—honey, where did *you* go?

That’s just how it goes as you get older, sweetie. I mean, what else is a married woman who just gave birth supposed to talk about? Some guys she met at a club the night before? 🙄

Look, honey, maybe grow up a little first before you start complaining. Or don't, I don't really care. 🤷

Rachel Stewart36 said:Maybe read a bit closer and catch the context next time. I never said the right to choose doesn't exist. Of course it does, it's just heavily conditional. A person's actual freedom depends on a mountain of factors: wealth, looks, education, bank account, social circles, family background, soft skills... Just look at the "privileges" handed to a high-end architect versus a local welder; compare what's available to one vs. the other. The first guy has a vastly larger—though still limited—range of freedom to basically engineer his own reality.

Your idea that "choice is the natural state while everything else is an attempt to reduce it" only works if we're talking about how things *should* be. But looking at "how things actually are"? It's just a long history of the masses fighting for the crumbs of freedom that the "oligarchs" deign to toss down—that's pretty much the standard human story. The notion that people were once truly free and now everyone is equally trapped is absurd. Nowadays, we just have total freedom of "consumption." Actually, that freedom is practically mandatory. For most people, "freedom" is nothing more than a well-packaged illusion.

Ironic, sure, but honestly? Often true. This "civilization" we think we're living in is mostly just a polished illusion. We call ourselves a civilization, but really, it's a system built on the rights of the strongest. Rights and freedoms are mostly just convenient words on paper—usually reserved for a tiny, hand-picked minority.

Oh, please, you've got it wrong. Because feminists know they have the right to choose.

Donna Garcia42 said:@Morgan Cook10: I find myself unable to agree with you, primarily because your argument rests on the flawed assumption that everyone begins their journey from the exact same starting line...
Even if we were to brush aside all the obvious environmental pressures—things like systemic poverty or a desperate need for immediate income that might force someone to drop out after just three years of high school when they actually had aspirations for college—there are still those innate, personality-driven factors at play. An extreme extrovert and a deep introvert simply aren't operating from the same baseline, which means that even under identical circumstances, they won't arrive at the same conclusions...

Gender carries its own set of distinct characteristics as well. Since you brought up the issue of domestic violence, you're likely aware of how cycles of abuse tend to perpetuate themselves through generations; men who were victims often grow up to become aggressors, while women who experienced abuse frequently end up marrying them. Furthermore, there's the tendency for men to approach problems through a more pragmatic lens, whereas women lean toward emotional processing. These gender differences, when layered atop all other variables, fundamentally shift one's initial standing in life...

As for your comments regarding rationality, I honestly can't take them seriously. Humans aren't rational creatures by nature; therefore, your own reasoning isn't entirely objective either, as it remains susceptible to various stereotypes and categorizations... including the ones you've presented here, which, at first glance, come across as quite chauvinistic and misogynistic... 😁

Now, this is a woman who knows how to think. 👍

Though getting rid of stereotypes is easy. That's mostly just folklore. People who believe in them actually know they're illusions. But projections... that's the real mess. And that's much harder.