Gender is not a social construct, free daps and reps

[Apollo Creed]

No. They're too indecisive and think they know everything and put out blanket statements as truth.
Then backtrack.
They put out these theories on controversial "studies" because it will get people talking/ruffle feathers.
No different than certain states allowing gay marriage, then the same states taking it away the next year.
It will get people angry, paranoid, protesting.
It's all energy that I don't give a fukk about.
This study/theory doesn't affect me.

Um ok

 

[Aphrodite]

Um ok

I read the article. I'm not biased but I've observed how these theories/studies go and it just plays on people. I'm not getting wrapped up in it anymore.

 

[Critical Distance]

They're still raising their kids in a non-gender neutral society. Pretty much a fruitless endeavor.

 

[Free White & 21]

Somebody holla at that demonic cave bytch Charlize Theron

 

[DamienWayne]

Gender is biologically fluid there are animals And trees that change their gender within their lifespan. Not to mention the masculine and feminine principles that exist in both sexes

 

[Kenny West]

i dont get it break it down for a yung breh

Basically "Gender is a social construct" is the base lie from where all the agenda/LGBT weirdo logic stems from. From this lie they pretty much draw the conclusion that everything you associate with a gender was because someone had said so and if nobody did men and women would be exactly the same. Let's pretend that logic isn't fukking retarded for one moment.Denial of gender roles, "toxic masculinity", transexual acceptance are all some of the garbage that evolved from this lie.

To them boys are boys ONLY because their parents "force" a set of behaviors on them to get them to conform to the parents idea of a "boy". Basically they're saying the only thing stopping your son from prancing around in a tinkerbelle outfit is you telling him he's a boy, "forcing him" to dress in blue as a baby or play with trucks.

The study in the article however examined the brains of boys and girls in developmental stages and found their brains have essential differences physically (boys brains are bigger, girls have more neural connections) and chemically. Furthermore the toy idea was false, boys NATURALLY gravitate toward mechanically interesting or violent toys girls naturally gravitate toward toys that foster social skills (dolls). Basically the body naturally gravitate males to boy behavior and females to female behavior even before the kids can wrap their mind around the concept of gender.


tldr; feminists are full of shyt, my generation is full of dumbass sexologists who wasted their years in college making up genders for fringe groups of perverse weirdos

 

[Wear My Dawg's Hat]

If gender is indeed a social construct, then why do we gender segregate in the sports world?

Why have separate gender classifications in professional basketball, tennis, or the Olympics
if as a "social construct," is meaningless on an individual basis?

 

[Apollo Creed]

Gender is biologically fluid there are animals And trees that change their gender within their lifespan. Not to mention the masculine and feminine principles that exist in both sexes

Compare humans to trees shebrehs

 

[Black Panther]

Gender is biologically fluid there are animals And trees that change their gender within their lifespan. Not to mention the masculine and feminine principles that exist in both sexes

The existence of gender fluidity in plants and a *small* portion of animals (certain species of frogs and a few other animals) does not prove the existence of gender fluidity in humans.

 

[Kenny West]

Gender is biologically fluid there are animals And trees that change their gender within their lifespan. Not to mention the masculine and feminine principles that exist in both sexes

Are you a tree, hyena or starfish? If not shut that shyt up

Their are more species with set roles to the genders than outliers you mentioned. I could name 3 for every one you pick. Exception doesn't disprove the rule.

No. They're too indecisive and think they know everything and put out blanket statements as truth.
Then backtrack.
They put out these theories on controversial "studies" because it will get people talking/ruffle feathers.
No different than certain states allowing gay marriage, then the same states taking it away the next year.
It will get people angry, paranoid, protesting.
It's all energy that I don't give a fukk about.
This study/theory doesn't affect me.

Science is all about proving or disproving theory. Once an experiment's hypothesis gets proven right a few times by one scientist the scientific community immediately begins testing it different ways to disprove or expand the theory. Only if it can stand up to repeated tests and unlimited scrutiny, then it gets taken as scientific law.

The problem is propaganda machines that take single studies and parade them around as facts. The gender netural study had misinformation in it but because the results said what the agenda wanted people ran with it. Most folks suffer from the appeal to authority fallacy with this kinda shyt and won't disagree with anyone in a lab coat calling themselves a scientist. You see this on the coli all the time, soon as poster A posts a link to a article longer than 2 paragraphs poster B backs down or deflects without even reading it.

 

[Pazzy]

Did the OP actually read the article?

There's a difference between sex which is physical vs gender which is social. Gender is what the idea of what people have created surrounding sexes.

You just sound ignorant misquoting some article to cosign your ignorance. Read a book or something and log off.

 

[Aphrodite]

Are you a tree, hyena or starfish? If not shut that shyt up

Their are more species with set roles to the genders than outliers you mentioned. I could name 3 for every one you pick. Exception doesn't disprove the rule.


Science is all about proving or disproving theory. Once an experiment's hypothesis gets proven right a few times by one scientist the scientific community immediately begins testing it different ways to disprove or expand the theory. Only if it can stand up to repeated tests and unlimited scrutiny, then it gets taken as scientific law.

The problem is propaganda machines that take single studies and parade them around as facts. The gender netural study had misinformation in it but because the results said what the agenda wanted people ran with it. Most folks suffer from the appeal to authority fallacy with this kinda shyt and won't disagree with anyone in a lab coat calling themselves a scientist. You see this on the coli all the time, soon as poster A posts a link to a article longer than 2 paragraphs poster B backs down or deflects without even reading it.

I hear you. I read it. I'm always open to learning. But I don't believe everything I read or hear. I'm naturally like that. I take what I can but if it seems "off" to me, I don't take the whole thing seriously/or put too much faith in it.

 

[Kenny West]

Did the OP actually read the article?

There's a difference between sex which is physical vs gender which is social. Gender is what the idea of what people have created surrounding sexes.

You just sound ignorant misquoting some article to cosign your ignorance. Read a book or something and log off.

Batty man getting upset at the truth Wipe them rainbow tears from your eyes you bytch this is from the 2nd fukking paragraph

Offering kids the opportunity to pursue what they’d like, freed from societal expectations, is an undeniably positive thing — whether it has to do with toys, clothing, or their future aspirations. But the scientific reality is that it’s futile to treat children as blank slates with no predetermined characteristics. Biology matters.

A large and long-standing body of research literature shows that toy preferences, for example, are innate, not socially constructed or shaped by parental feedback.

Most girls will gravitate toward socially interesting toys, like dolls, that help social and verbal abilities develop. Most boys will gravitate toward toys that are mechanically interesting, like cars and trucks, fostering visuo-spatial skills.

In other words kids gravitate toward behaviors akin to their gender before the social "idea of what people have created surrounding sexes" can even set into their heads. Hormones play a greater effect in gravitating toward gender behaviors more than anything else. Maybe the reason you now is cause mom drank too much soy milk while she was pregnant?

Another piece of evidence comes from studying girls who were exposed to high levels of testosterone prenatally, in the case of a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, or CAH. Girls with CAH tend to be gender nonconforming, and will prefer toys that are typical to boys, even when their parents offer more praise for playing with female-typical ones. This speaks to the vital role of hormones in developing gender preferences and sex differences in behavior, more broadly.

 

[Nigerianwonder]

Did the OP actually read the article?

There's a difference between sex which is physical vs gender which is social. Gender is what the idea of what people have created surrounding sexes.

You just sound ignorant misquoting some article to cosign your ignorance. Read a book or something and log off.

What you feel about yourself or gender is irrelevant. That's the problem. Even if we go with the idea that gender and sex should be treated seperately... Everything in society has always been separated by your biological sex and not how you may feel that day. Bathrooms are separated by sex. Sports are separated by sex.. etc.. And the obvious reason society does this is cause men and women are biologically different. End of story.

 

[Champagne Kudo]

my kids playing with DB toys regardless of gender