Remember the gender unicorn? This is it but actually accurate. And answering the question before someone asks - yes, the creator of this piece was harrased by TRA's and so called "enbies" for creating this.

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-26T21:07:53+00:00

It's like trying to say race and race stereotypes are the same thing. Race is the skin tone (whereabouts gender is sex) and race stereotypes and roles are the things attached to it by society (gender roles and stereotypes). You shouldn't just put two definitions/concepts under one name.

You do realize race isn't biological right? Humans didn't categorize each other as "white people", "black people", etc until the European colonial era. It was invented as a post-hoc justification for slavery and as a form of population control. And race doesn't equal skin tone, either. There are black people who are lighter skinned than some non-black people, and albino black people are still black. Colorism is also a form of discrimination that is considered to be separate from racism.

Like, maybe learn a thing or two about how racism and sexism operate before making these uninformed comparisons.

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-25T19:58:47+00:00

Either way tho, isn't it kinds hypocritical to be trying to differentiate gender and sex but go rabid when TRAs try to change the definitions of woman/man? :/

Well one, no one is going "rabid" and two, maybe read up on some radfem history? De Beauvoir, Firestone, Wittig, Dworkin, McKinnon, etc - all describe women as being a "sex class" upon which gender is something that is imposed on them.

Separating sex and gender from a radfem POV doesn't change the definition of "woman", it simply separates from the group already known as "women" the societally imposed baggage known as "femininity". The reason why the TRA version of separating sex and gender is hated on is because it erases women as a sex class, and because it is direct conflict with gay rights for LGB people.

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-23T18:52:15+00:00

Man & woman = gender.

No, man and woman are sexed terms to refer to adult human males and adult human females.

The socially constructed traits of being a 'man' and a 'woman' = masculinity & femininity.

This is also known as gender.

All adult human males are men and all adult human females are women.

Yes because "man" and "woman" are sexed terms.

Gender and sex are inextricable.

No because gender is masculinity and femininity.

A man can dress and behave and don the characteristics of a woman and still be a man.

Yes, because "man" refers to sex.

A woman can dress and behave and don the characteristics of a man and still be a woman.

Yes, because "woman" refers to sex.

Other languages and cultures readily adopt multiple 'genders' as terms of describing people, such as in India, with hijra (intersexed people), kothi (feminine males who 'receive').

A male person becomes a "hijra" because of socially constructed ideas of masculinity and femininity - if a man is too feminine or gay, they get shunned and forced to live life as a "hijra". It's a gender role. Same with "kothi". Without these artificial and patriarchally imposed restrictions on what being a "man" is, "hijra" would still be men because they're adult human males. They're only considered "non-men" because people conflate masculinity with maleness/manhood and femininity with femaleness/womanhood. This conflation needs to be abolished.

English and Western culture are both a bit more simplistic in that regard--we see males and call them men, we see women and call them women. We get a bit confused when we come across intersexed people and we usually try to categorise them as 'men' or 'women' or they self-categorise. It's a failing on our cultural and linguistic versatility.\ We also don't differentiate between gay men who 'give' or 'receive' (beyond calling them tops, bottoms or versatile)--we don't label them as a different gender, but as a different sexuality which is far more accurate and nuanced.

It's not a failure to recognize an adult human male as a man regardless of how they present or behave, that's a good thing. Same goes for women. When people tell gay men they're not "real men" because they're effeminate or tell lesbians they're "manly" because they're butch, that is regressive and needs to go.

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-23T17:39:04+00:00

Socially constructed ideas around masculinity and femininity is exactly what gender is. Sex is male or female, and isn't socially constructed. An adult human male is a man, an adult human female is a woman, and people don't "have" genders as gender is just something society forces onto you, it's not a property of the self.

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-22T23:54:21+00:00

I mean this also isn't accurate...the trans idea of "gender" is stupid, but that doesn't mean sex and gender are the same thing. Sex is your physical body and biology, gender is stereotypes and societal expectations.

This diagram, by showing the male lion being blue with big muscles and the girl lion as being pink and demure, is also reinforcing damaging gender stereotypes and is no better than what the TRAs are doing. They're just two sides of the same coin.

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-21T03:10:29+00:00

I actually think this particular image might be a false flag/satire written by a GC person. You can tell by the use of the term "trans male" in the second paragraph. True TRA nut jobs would never say "trans male".

That's not to say there aren't plenty of TRAs who do think like this and say things like this...so the sentiment is definitely real in any case.

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-16T22:32:37+00:00

There's actually just a single mod who is completely hands off, so pretty much no comment gets deleted. So it's super easy to go into that sub and terf things up ;-)

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-14T18:19:55+00:00

This is probably my favorite NB/incel article of all time.

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-13T18:30:51+00:00

In short, yes. The fact that their potentials are opposite comes directly from the fact that they are of two different sexes. If calves were sexless until they became adults, there'd be no way of knowing at all which calves would grow up to be able to perform whichever reproductive role. The fact that you can easily tell simply by examining their physical bodies means that they're of different sexes, even as juveniles.

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-13T18:22:13+00:00

Thanks I'm glad to see lots of old faces here too.

So here's an analogy:

If you're a dairy farmer and your cows have just given birth to baby calves, how do you know which calves are going to grow up to be the ones to produce milk and which ones are going to be the calves that grow up to inseminate the other calves?

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-13T18:12:11+00:00

Because they have male reproductive systems that are simply undeveloped? Also since our species is sexually dimorphic, if you agree that we have one class of people that are born with eggs and are therefore female from birth and constitute a given sex, then you must conclude that people with the other type of reproductive system much be of the other sex.

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-13T18:03:01+00:00

You do know that female people are born with all the eggs they will release in their lifetime upfront, right?

BenderRodriguez · 2020-07-11T18:01:34+00:00

Heyoooo

BenderRodriguez

MODERATOR OF