Debates over sex and gender

Matt Walsh is the creator of the documentary What is a Woman?
The film hits screens on June 1st.

If you’re wondering—and it is a bit of a weird question, I guess—what "woman" actually means and why some guy would make a whole movie about it, the answer is pretty straightforward.
Basically, while participating in debates with transgender individuals regarding how they define "woman," Matt Walsh kept getting told that the term can't actually be defined—or rather, that they don't know what a woman is. So, Walsh eventually asked: if people identifying as trans women can't define the term "woman," how do they even know they are trans women? I mean, the phrase "trans woman" is just two words joined together to create a new concept.
To get from "woman" to "trans woman," you really have to understand what both "woman" and "trans" signify first.

Here is the trailer for the Walsh film. A lot of folks in the LGBTQ community have already labeled the doc "transphobic" just based on the trailer alone, even though
the footage shows Walsh interviewing people with all sorts of viewpoints (including members of the LGBTQ community) and getting various responses—like one person saying the term "woman" could mean anything, or that there are women with penises and men with vaginas. There was also one guy who, when asked "How do you know you're a man?", just answered bluntly: "I know because I have a penis."

YouTube Trailer What Is A Woman

IMDB

It's the question you're not allowed to ask. The documentary they don't want you to see.

One woman told him that "only a woman can answer the question of what a woman is." Walsh then asked her: "So, are you perhaps a cat?" She said, "No."
Then Walsh asked: "Well, can you define what a cat is, then?"

Meanwhile, over on Twitter, members of the LGBTQ community are tagging the trailer as "transphobic" and trying to get it taken down—though it hasn't worked so far.

I find it interesting that Walsh gets branded a "transphobe" just for questioning the very premise of the film's title.
Also, if members of the LGBTQ community don't know (or maybe just won't) give an answer to the question of what a woman is, are we all supposed to just accept that view and say starting in 2022:
"The term woman is undefinable; we don't know what it signifies."

Just to be fair and listen to the other side, there have been plenty of critiques and attacks on the Walsh film, so here is one:

Transphobic Ad Asks "What is A Woman?"
YouTube

Right in the first minute, this YouTuber (Jamie) expresses shock at Walsh joining a march and asking the protesters: "What is a woman?"
By the second minute, when the trailer shows someone answering "Because I have a penis" to the question "How do you know you're a man?", Jamie doesn't even comment.
I guess he just didn't like that straightforward answer.

Jamie then goes on to say: "Trans women aren't men who became women; they are women who became trans."
Just a quick thought: how did these trans women become "trans"? We end up right back at the same spot where you need to define "trans" and "woman."

Jamie continues by calling Walsh's questions "bullshit" and repeats that the documentary is transphobic. ☕

Matt Walsh responded to him in his own video:
trans YouTuber Responds to What is a Woman
YouTube MW

Addressing Jamie's question about why "that dude" is asking women at a protest "what a woman is,"...
Walsh asks Jamie how he (Jamie) knows he (Walsh) is—well, a guy. He's like, "I didn't actually say I was a man anywhere in the documentary."
And honestly, that’s the first major contradiction from the LGBTQ crowd—I mean, first they claim "woman" is an undefinable concept, but then they spot Matt Walsh on screen and start lecturing him for being a man leading a march of women. So, the LGBTQ community immediately identifies Walsh as a man—and they clearly recognize he's among the women on the march.
Wait, how does that work—if we aren't allowed to define certain terms?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the term "woman" is easy enough to define, just like "man" or "trans woman." I mean, when we see someone, we don't usually struggle to tell if they're a man or a woman. It feels like the LGBTQ population just blurs the definitions to push a specific agenda.

And Walsh hit them with a point at the end too: "Jamie, in your ten minutes of commentary on my trailer, you didn't even answer the question I asked: What is a woman, how do we actually define that term?"
That's the second big contradiction right there.

Finally, Walsh explains his actual goal with the film: What is a Woman.
Explanation

He says, somewhat ironically, that the documentary will actually be incredibly useful and eye-opening for the LGBTQ+ community, since they insist they can't define what a "woman" is.
Another contradiction!

There's more to it, I guess, but this is just a starting point for the discussion.☕

Jose Edwards16 said:Matt Walsh is the creator of the documentary What is a Woman?
The film hits screens on June 1st.

If you’re wondering—and it is a bit of a weird question, I guess—what "woman" actually means and why some guy would make a whole movie about it, the answer is pretty straightforward.
Basically, while participating in debates with transgender individuals regarding how they define "woman," Matt Walsh kept getting told that the term can't actually be defined—or rather, that they don't know what a woman is. So, Walsh eventually asked: if people identifying as trans women can't define the term "woman," how do they even know they are trans women? I mean, the phrase "trans woman" is just two words joined together to create a new concept.
To get from "woman" to "trans woman," you really have to understand what both "woman" and "trans" signify first.

Here is the trailer for the Walsh film. A lot of folks in the LGBTQ community have already labeled the doc "transphobic" just based on the trailer alone, even though
the footage shows Walsh interviewing people with all sorts of viewpoints (including members of the LGBTQ community) and getting various responses—like one person saying the term "woman" could mean anything, or that there are women with penises and men with vaginas. There was also one guy who, when asked "How do you know you're a man?", just answered bluntly: "I know because I have a penis."

YouTube Trailer What Is A Woman

IMDB

It's the question you're not allowed to ask. The documentary they don't want you to see.

One woman told him that "only a woman can answer the question of what a woman is." Walsh then asked her: "So, are you perhaps a cat?" She said, "No."
Then Walsh asked: "Well, can you define what a cat is, then?"

Meanwhile, over on Twitter, members of the LGBTQ community are tagging the trailer as "transphobic" and trying to get it taken down—though it hasn't worked so far.

I find it interesting that Walsh gets branded a "transphobe" just for questioning the very premise of the film's title.
Also, if members of the LGBTQ community don't know (or maybe just won't) give an answer to the question of what a woman is, are we all supposed to just accept that view and say starting in 2022:
"The term woman is undefinable; we don't know what it signifies."

Just to be fair and listen to the other side, there have been plenty of critiques and attacks on the Walsh film, so here is one:

Transphobic Ad Asks "What is A Woman?"
YouTube

Right in the first minute, this YouTuber (Jamie) expresses shock at Walsh joining a march and asking the protesters: "What is a woman?"
By the second minute, when the trailer shows someone answering "Because I have a penis" to the question "How do you know you're a man?", Jamie doesn't even comment.
I guess he just didn't like that straightforward answer.

Jamie then goes on to say: "Trans women aren't men who became women; they are women who became trans."
Just a quick thought: how did these trans women become "trans"? We end up right back at the same spot where you need to define "trans" and "woman."

Jamie continues by calling Walsh's questions "bullshit" and repeats that the documentary is transphobic. ☕

Matt Walsh responded to him in his own video:
trans YouTuber Responds to What is a Woman
YouTube MW

Addressing Jamie's question about why "that dude" is asking women at a protest "what a woman is,"...
Walsh asks Jamie how he (Jamie) knows he (Walsh) is—well, a guy. He's like, "I didn't actually say I was a man anywhere in the documentary."
And honestly, that’s the first major contradiction from the LGBTQ crowd—I mean, first they claim "woman" is an undefinable concept, but then they spot Matt Walsh on screen and start lecturing him for being a man leading a march of women. So, the LGBTQ community immediately identifies Walsh as a man—and they clearly recognize he's among the women on the march.
Wait, how does that work—if we aren't allowed to define certain terms?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the term "woman" is easy enough to define, just like "man" or "trans woman." I mean, when we see someone, we don't usually struggle to tell if they're a man or a woman. It feels like the LGBTQ population just blurs the definitions to push a specific agenda.

And Walsh hit them with a point at the end too: "Jamie, in your ten minutes of commentary on my trailer, you didn't even answer the question I asked: What is a woman, how do we actually define that term?"
That's the second big contradiction right there.

Finally, Walsh explains his actual goal with the film: What is a Woman.
Explanation

He says, somewhat ironically, that the documentary will actually be incredibly useful and eye-opening for the LGBTQ+ community, since they insist they can't define what a "woman" is.
Another contradiction!

There's more to it, I guess, but this is just a starting point for the discussion.☕

A woman is just someone who isn't a man.

More of the same boring, basic propaganda against "gender ideology" and mocking "trans" folks.

If we actually wanted to get philosophical, we could have a real debate about
what it means to be a woman, or even broader—what "female" actually signifies—instead of just clowning on random non-philosophical statements.

Once you try to pin down a precise biological definition that covers more than just Homo sapiens, it turns out things aren't nearly as clear-cut as people pretend.

Sure, the simple version is: penis equals male, vagina equals female. But nowadays, surgery can change that, and hormone therapy can flip physiological sexual traits entirely.

Inevitably, the debate crashes into social roles and personality variations—basically "gender studies." And honestly, some people just flat-out ignore biological facts. Meanwhile, others dogmatically insist that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," acting like that's the beginning and end of the conversation.

A philosopher's job is to question what "everyone knows" to be true.

But just sitting there saying "we don't know" isn't doing philosophy.
So, I did some digging and found an essay by a philosophy professor over in Australia: https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence...uman-diversity

He writes specifically about the biological definition of sex: it's not about physiology, it's about genetics—specifically, what kind of gametes an individual produces. On the flip side, there's the whole discussion regarding the definition of "woman," which brings in gender.

"There’s no need to reject how biologists define the sexes to defend the view that trans women are women. When we look across the diversity of life, sex takes stranger forms than anyone has dreamt of for humans. The biological definition of sex takes all this in its stride. (…)"

"I call this the ‘biological’ definition of sex because it’s the one biologists use when studying sex – that is, the process by which organisms use their DNA to make offspring. (…)"

"Many people assume that if there are only two sexes, that means everyone must fall into one of them. But the biological definition of sex doesn’t imply that at all. As well as simultaneous hermaphrodites, which are both male and female, sequential hermaphrodites are first one sex and then the other. There are also individual organisms that are neither male nor female. The biological definition of sex is not based on an essential quality that every organism is born with, but on two distinct strategies that organisms use to propagate their genes. (...)"

"Understanding the complex ways in which chromosomes and phenotypes relate to biological sex will make clear why the biological definition of sex shouldn’t be the battleground for philosophers and gender theorists who disagree about the definition of ‘woman’. (...)"

lonetrucker4, if anything is "boring" today, it isn't "transphobic propaganda"—it's exactly what you're doing right now: the tedious repetition of trans dogmas like "trans women are women."🤣

Seriously, you can't open a single non-right-wing news outlet these days without seeing a whole flock of sheep eagerly chanting the obvious nonsense that "trans women are women."

The reality is quite the opposite: trans women are men (who either dress as women, shave to look like women, or undergo various surgeries and medical treatments to appear female).

lonetrucker4 said:More of the same boring, basic propaganda against "gender ideology" and mocking "trans" folks.

If we actually wanted to get philosophical, we could have a real debate about
what it means to be a woman, or even broader—what "female" actually signifies—instead of just clowning on random non-philosophical statements.

Once you try to pin down a precise biological definition that covers more than just Homo sapiens, it turns out things aren't nearly as clear-cut as people pretend.

Sure, the simple version is: penis equals male, vagina equals female. But nowadays, surgery can change that, and hormone therapy can flip physiological sexual traits entirely.

Inevitably, the debate crashes into social roles and personality variations—basically "gender studies." And honestly, some people just flat-out ignore biological facts. Meanwhile, others dogmatically insist that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," acting like that's the beginning and end of the conversation.

A philosopher's job is to question what "everyone knows" to be true.

But just sitting there saying "we don't know" isn't doing philosophy.
So, I did some digging and found an essay by a philosophy professor over in Australia: https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence...uman-diversity

He writes specifically about the biological definition of sex: it's not about physiology, it's about genetics—specifically, what kind of gametes an individual produces. On the flip side, there's the whole discussion regarding the definition of "woman," which brings in gender.

There it is again—that "boring" trans-dogmatic way of muddying the waters. Sure, "sex" can ultimately be viewed as two dominant reproductive strategies. And yes, nothing in biology is 100% "binary"; there are always deviations and so-called "errors." That's why genetic conditions exist where it can actually be difficult to categorize an individual as "male" or "female."

But that has almost nothing to do with transgender ideology. That ideology explicitly *denies* any connection to biology or biological phenomena like genetic malformations; instead, it claims that a perfectly healthy man can be a "woman" simply because he "identifies" as such.

I have to ask... when did *you personally* start believing that if a healthy man starts taking female hormones and dressing "like a woman," 😕 — he actually becomes a "woman"? I'm genuinely curious. 😬 How did that logic even work for you? What arguments managed to convince you of such blatant nonsense? lol

There was a time when guys rocked long hair and bright, colorful outfits—back then, people would mock them and call them women. But they didn't see themselves that way. That whole style carried a different message entirely. It was about saying we’re all humans first, before we even get to being men or women. My look confuses you because you've been conditioned to lead with biology—to see everything through that narrow lens—but I’m trying to shift the focus. I want you to see my humanity and my spirit instead.

lonegardener said:lonetrucker4, if anything is "boring" today, it isn't "transphobic propaganda"—it's exactly what you're doing right now: the tedious repetition of trans dogmas like "trans women are women."🤣

Seriously, you can't open a single non-right-wing news outlet these days without seeing a whole flock of sheep eagerly chanting the obvious nonsense that "trans women are women."

The reality is quite the opposite: trans women are men (who either dress as women, shave to look like women, or undergo various surgeries and medical treatments to appear female).

There it is again—that "boring" trans-dogmatic way of muddying the waters. Sure, "sex" can ultimately be viewed as two dominant reproductive strategies. And yes, nothing in biology is 100% "binary"; there are always deviations and so-called "errors." That's why genetic conditions exist where it can actually be difficult to categorize an individual as "male" or "female."

But that has almost nothing to do with transgender ideology. That ideology explicitly *denies* any connection to biology or biological phenomena like genetic malformations; instead, it claims that a perfectly healthy man can be a "woman" simply because he "identifies" as such.

I have to ask... when did *you personally* start believing that if a healthy man starts taking female hormones and dressing "like a woman," 😕 — he actually becomes a "woman"? I'm genuinely curious. 😬 How did that logic even work for you? What arguments managed to convince you of such blatant nonsense? lol

I find myself wondering why such a tiny percentage of the population—whether it's a few percent or just a fraction of a percent, I haven't bothered to check because frankly, I don't care—attracts so much intense focus from people who are perfectly comfortable with their own gender.

Let me offer another comparison—think about people who, due to some accident, lose both legs and have to rely on wheelchairs. How often do those of us with functioning legs actually dwell on them or obsess over their struggles? Sure, the legislature can pass laws to make mobility easier or help them live more independently, but most of us rarely give it a second thought.

Personally, I find this entire topic rather uninteresting. What I've just noted applies to *average* people who seem strangely preoccupied with transgender individuals.

Beyond that, I don't believe meaningful debates regarding gender should be built upon edge cases.

lonegardener said:Right, because people who, I don't know, have steel rods where their legs should be (like in

Honestly, I couldn't care less about who gets what kind of recognition. People try to honor Reagan as some sort of founding father figure, but frankly, it doesn't move the needle for me.

And that’s really the core difference between us. I'm indifferent to the whole thing, whereas you seem to be deeply invested in it for reasons I can't quite wrap my head around.

lonegardener said:By the way, if this topic doesn't actually interest you, what on earth motivates you to post here? I'm asking for a friend... 🤣

I wrote:

Sam Martinez9 said:I find myself wondering why such a tiny percentage of the population—whether it's a few percent or just a fraction of a percent, I haven't bothered to check because frankly, I don't care—attracts so much intense focus from people who are perfectly comfortable with their own gender.

Let me offer another comparison—think about people who, due to some accident, lose both legs and have to rely on wheelchairs. How often do those of us with functioning legs actually dwell on them or obsess over their struggles? Sure, the legislature can pass laws to make mobility easier or help them live more independently, but most of us rarely give it a second thought.

Personally, I find this entire topic rather uninteresting. What I've just noted applies to *average* people who seem strangely preoccupied with transgender individuals.

Beyond that, I don't believe meaningful debates regarding gender should be built upon edge cases.

Fair enough, perhaps I wasn't being clear—what I find interesting are the people who actually find transgender individuals interesting.

Sam Martinez9 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less about who gets what kind of recognition. People try to honor Reagan as some sort of founding father figure, but frankly, it doesn't move the needle for me.

And that’s really the core difference between us. I'm indifferent to the whole thing, whereas you seem to be deeply invested in it for reasons I can't quite wrap my head around.

Well, would you be interested in finally learning why I actually "care" about this topic—even if it's something you find completely trivial? 😬

Sam Martinez9 said:I wrote:

Fair enough, perhaps I wasn't being clear—what I find interesting are the people who actually find transgender individuals interesting.

Why? 🤔 What’s so fascinating about that?

Secondly, I'm not even that particularly interested in "transgender" people myself (well, just a little bit). What actually interests me are social phenomena—like the one you're illustrating perfectly right now: claiming you "aren't interested" in a topic, yet you just can't help but comment on it. It reminds me of that old fable... honestly, I run into a whole crowd of people like this all the time. They go out of their way to insist they aren't interested, but then they're suddenly incredibly intrigued by "what makes someone else drawn to it," lol.

Take stamp collecting, for example. I have zero interest in it... and consequently, I have no interest in why anyone else might enjoy it. I am totally indifferent to the whole thing. 😍

The biological distinctions between sexes are actually pretty clearly defined. Just because there are some outliers or transitional cases caused by hormonal imbalances that don't fit neatly into those boxes doesn't mean the definitions themselves are flawed. It’s a simple reality that certain traits and inclinations are biologically hardwired. At the same time, though, you have to recognize that sex serves as the foundation for the cultural and social layers we call gender. Think of sex as the physical hardware and gender as the software running on top of it. They’re like two overlapping circles in a Venn diagram—they share a massive amount of common ground, but they aren't a 100% perfect match.

lonegardener said:lonetrucker4, if anything is "boring" today, it isn't "transphobic propaganda"—it's exactly what you're doing right now: the tedious repetition of trans dogmas like "trans women are women."🤣

Seriously, you can't open a single non-right-wing news outlet these days without seeing a whole flock of sheep eagerly chanting the obvious nonsense that "trans women are women."

The reality is quite the opposite: trans women are men (who either dress as women, shave to look like women, or undergo various surgeries and medical treatments to appear female).

There it is again—that "boring" trans-dogmatic way of muddying the waters. Sure, "sex" can ultimately be viewed as two dominant reproductive strategies. And yes, nothing in biology is 100% "binary"; there are always deviations and so-called "errors." That's why genetic conditions exist where it can actually be difficult to categorize an individual as "male" or "female."

But that has almost nothing to do with transgender ideology. That ideology explicitly *denies* any connection to biology or biological phenomena like genetic malformations; instead, it claims that a perfectly healthy man can be a "woman" simply because he "identifies" as such.

I have to ask... when did *you personally* start believing that if a healthy man starts taking female hormones and dressing "like a woman," 😕 — he actually becomes a "woman"? I'm genuinely curious. 😬 How did that logic even work for you? What arguments managed to convince you of such blatant nonsense? lol

Both options suck. Yours? A little less so, I guess. Not like I'm gonna waste my breath trying to convince you otherwise.

lonegardener said:lonetrucker4, if anything is "boring" today, it isn't "transphobic propaganda"—it's exactly what you're doing right now: the tedious repetition of trans dogmas like "trans women are women."🤣

Seriously, you can't open a single non-right-wing news outlet these days without seeing a whole flock of sheep eagerly chanting the obvious nonsense that "trans women are women."

The reality is quite the opposite: trans women are men (who either dress as women, shave to look like women, or undergo various surgeries and medical treatments to appear female).

There it is again—that "boring" trans-dogmatic way of muddying the waters. Sure, "sex" can ultimately be viewed as two dominant reproductive strategies. And yes, nothing in biology is 100% "binary"; there are always deviations and so-called "errors." That's why genetic conditions exist where it can actually be difficult to categorize an individual as "male" or "female."

But that has almost nothing to do with transgender ideology. That ideology explicitly *denies* any connection to biology or biological phenomena like genetic malformations; instead, it claims that a perfectly healthy man can be a "woman" simply because he "identifies" as such.

I have to ask... when did *you personally* start believing that if a healthy man starts taking female hormones and dressing "like a woman," 😕 — he actually becomes a "woman"? I'm genuinely curious. 😬 How did that logic even work for you? What arguments managed to convince you of such blatant nonsense? lol

Not happening. Never.

Amanda Jackson5 said:The biological distinctions between sexes are actually pretty clearly defined. Just because there are some outliers or transitional cases caused by hormonal imbalances that don't fit neatly into those boxes doesn't mean the definitions themselves are flawed. It’s a simple reality that certain traits and inclinations are biologically hardwired. At the same time, though, you have to recognize that sex serves as the foundation for the cultural and social layers we call gender. Think of sex as the physical hardware and gender as the software running on top of it. They’re like two overlapping circles in a Venn diagram—they share a massive amount of common ground, but they aren't a 100% perfect match.

Exactly. Now the real question is whether the term "woman" refers to that biological reality—an adult human female—or if it refers to this social/psychological construct called "gender," which isn't a perfect match for the former.

Personally, I lean toward the first definition. 😬 Because the second one is just a can of worms. "Gender" isn't necessarily limited to two categories anymore; on Facebook, you can choose from sixty different "identities" if you want. People are already mass-producing entire new grammars just to accommodate these invented labels.

he/him
she/her
xe/xir
ze/zir
ey/em
ve/ver
ne/nem
per/pers
...

and so on.

I honestly don't get any of this.

lonegardener said:Exactly. Now the real question is whether the term "woman" refers to that biological reality—an adult human female—or if it refers to this social/psychological construct called "gender," which isn't a perfect match for the former.

Personally, I lean toward the first definition. 😬 Because the second one is just a can of worms. "Gender" isn't necessarily limited to two categories anymore; on Facebook, you can choose from sixty different "identities" if you want. People are already mass-producing entire new grammars just to accommodate these invented labels.

he/him
she/her
xe/xir
ze/zir
ey/em
ve/ver
ne/nem
per/pers
...

and so on.

It’s honestly both. And the whole friction comes from the fact that for some people, those two things just don't line up.

lonegardener said:What exactly is tripping you up? Just ask. You can get the whole progressive angle from lonetrucker4—and I’ll give you the old-school, blunt truth. Either way, you'll walk away feeling pretty enlightened. 🤣

I just don't get the difference between sex and gender.

ruggedraven36 said:I just don't get the difference between sex and gender.

Are you even familiar with the concept of butch women or effeminate men?

Sam Martinez9 said:I find myself wondering why such a tiny percentage of the population—whether it's a few percent or just a fraction of a percent, I haven't bothered to check because frankly, I don't care—attracts so much intense focus from people who are perfectly comfortable with their own gender.

Let me offer another comparison—think about people who, due to some accident, lose both legs and have to rely on wheelchairs. How often do those of us with functioning legs actually dwell on them or obsess over their struggles? Sure, the legislature can pass laws to make mobility easier or help them live more independently, but most of us rarely give it a second thought.

Personally, I find this entire topic rather uninteresting. What I've just noted applies to *average* people who seem strangely preoccupied with transgender individuals.

Beyond that, I don't believe meaningful debates regarding gender should be built upon edge cases.

Look, we're talking about a literal drop in the bucket of trans folks getting all this public scrutiny. Most of them are just living their lives, flying under the radar, and nobody even notices them, so society just moves on. Even in a place like America, there might be a hundred or two who've transitioned—I haven't checked the stats, some old article said 50 back in the day, but plenty do it abroad. How many have you actually heard of?
.
The whole "male is male, female is female" thing is just lazy philosophy. But hey, saying "they had surgery, now they're a woman, end of story" doesn't cut it either. That’s just black-and-white thinking. It's that rigid "either-or" logic where everything is binary: you're either a man or a woman, period. You're either with us or against us, you're white or you're Black, you're a Frenchman or an Arab. Everything has to be strictly true or false, no middle ground.

ruggedraven36 said:There was a time when guys rocked long hair and bright, colorful outfits—back then, people would mock them and call them women. But they didn't see themselves that way. That whole style carried a different message entirely. It was about saying we’re all humans first, before we even get to being men or women. My look confuses you because you've been conditioned to lead with biology—to see everything through that narrow lens—but I’m trying to shift the focus. I want you to see my humanity and my spirit instead.

Pretty much, yeah. But there's more to it. I started growing my hair out when I hit high school back in '72. (Clothes-wise, I always played it safe). Back then, at 15, I was short and had a pretty face—could've passed for a girl with some makeup and the right outfit, but that wasn't the point. That phase ended pretty quick.

It was basically just pure anti-establishment rebellion, just like those kids in the '60s who started the whole long-hair craze. By '72, it was somewhat acceptable, but just a few years prior, some high school principals were actually banning long-haired kids (and girls in miniskirts) from campus. It was even tougher in the small towns—I remember reading about a case where cops hauled in two long-haired kids and forcibly buzzed their heads at the station.

Beyond the rebellion, it was a rejection of that forced "manliness" everyone pushed. "Manliness" isn't biology; it's a social construct designed to make you fit a mold. Check my posts #86 and 87 for my take on that.

By most standards, I'm a "typical guy," though plenty of people would disagree.

Some folks pushed the whole androgyny thing, but honestly, that's just another rigid box to live in.

Long hair back then was a middle finger to the "ideal teenager" image, much like the mini-skirt or wearing makeup. It's all social conditioning: if you lived in a society where Viking braids were the norm, there wouldn't be any rebellion in it.

I kept the long hair for decades; it used to reach mid-back when I was younger. Eventually, it stopped being a social protest and just became my way of being myself. It wasn't about wanting to be a woman—long hair on guys is standard now anyway. Last year, with a long beard and flowing hair, someone told me I looked like an old-school hippie biker.😁 Now, I'm keeping it short and grooming the beard. At 65, the long look just made me look messy and unkempt.

Shaving your head can be a rebellion too, or maybe just conforming to a specific group. I knew a couple of women who shaved their heads specifically to dodge that pressure to look "feminine" or "pretty" (whether that worked is debatable; personally, I still thought one of them was attractive).

ruggedraven36 said:I just don't get the difference between sex and gender.

"Gender" (how to understand gender)englLook, biological sex is one thing, but gender? That's a whole different beast. It basically boils down to two things: the societal baggage—all those outdated ideas about how you're "supposed" to act—and then there's your own internal vibe, which doesn't always fit into those neat little binary boxes.

If you want a solid read, check out "how to understand gender" by Dr. Jadranka Rebeka Anić. She’s over at the National Science Foundation—works there as a nun, but she's a feminist who actually collaborates with Islamic feminists. Interesting mix.

lonetrucker4 said:Pretty much, yeah. But there's more to it. I started growing my hair out when I hit high school back in '72. (Clothes-wise, I always played it safe). Back then, at 15, I was short and had a pretty face—could've passed for a girl with some makeup and the right outfit, but that wasn't the point. That phase ended pretty quick.

It was basically just pure anti-establishment rebellion, just like those kids in the '60s who started the whole long-hair craze. By '72, it was somewhat acceptable, but just a few years prior, some high school principals were actually banning long-haired kids (and girls in miniskirts) from campus. It was even tougher in the small towns—I remember reading about a case where cops hauled in two long-haired kids and forcibly buzzed their heads at the station.

Beyond the rebellion, it was a rejection of that forced "manliness" everyone pushed. "Manliness" isn't biology; it's a social construct designed to make you fit a mold. Check my posts #86 and 87 for my take on that.

By most standards, I'm a "typical guy," though plenty of people would disagree.

Some folks pushed the whole androgyny thing, but honestly, that's just another rigid box to live in.

Long hair back then was a middle finger to the "ideal teenager" image, much like the mini-skirt or wearing makeup. It's all social conditioning: if you lived in a society where Viking braids were the norm, there wouldn't be any rebellion in it.

I kept the long hair for decades; it used to reach mid-back when I was younger. Eventually, it stopped being a social protest and just became my way of being myself. It wasn't about wanting to be a woman—long hair on guys is standard now anyway. Last year, with a long beard and flowing hair, someone told me I looked like an old-school hippie biker.😁 Now, I'm keeping it short and grooming the beard. At 65, the long look just made me look messy and unkempt.

Shaving your head can be a rebellion too, or maybe just conforming to a specific group. I knew a couple of women who shaved their heads specifically to dodge that pressure to look "feminine" or "pretty" (whether that worked is debatable; personally, I still thought one of them was attractive).

Update: Just remembered this video I stumbled upon once—some Creative AD where high school guys are decked out in makeup and girl's clothes (the pitch: our stuff is so good even guys look like hot girls!). I typed "high school boys dressed as girls" into YouTube and actually dug up a few interesting clips!

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...essed+as+girls

Creative ADVERTISING - Shiseido Cosmetic Ad Gender

Gender swap: American high school girls wear pants, boys wear skirts