Is gender identity inherent, or is it shaped by our environment?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Drew Lee7 said: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...

Are you kidding me right now? 🤣

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

social privileges throughout history.

Drew Lee7 said: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...

Are you kidding me right now? 🤣

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

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. 😍

Drew Lee7 said: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...

Are you kidding me right now? 🤣

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

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

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. 😍

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.

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.

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

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

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

Transsexual people don't have an issue with biological sex; they are fully aware they are male and will biologically remain male—honestly, how stupid do you have to be as an adult not to realize that? Kids figure out their sex by age three. Their issue is with gender identity because they are trying to align themselves with stereotypes of how the opposite sex should look. A real problem with biological sex would be someone desperately trying to convince themselves they can bear a child despite having a penis, or being female despite having a penis. We wouldn't take that seriously because clearly, they have issues with perception. 🤷 I should also point out that homosexuals don't have a problem with biological sex either. Even though they sleep with men, they haven't lost their ability to reproduce, and they didn't rip off their testicles just because of who they're sleeping with. They have—conditionally speaking—an issue with sexual identity.

Hermaphrodites—fine. They are born with dual sexual characteristics, yet they can still choose their gender identity. I don't see the problem.

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? 🙄

Drew Lee7 said: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.

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?

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.

Nope.

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

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. 🤷

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.

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.

Biologically speaking, there should only be two sexes—two distinct gender identities. Everything else is simply a deviation resulting from genetic or hormonal factors...

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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