MrAnony1:
Lol, I guess you are free to be impressed by anything you like.

I guess so too

MrAnony1:
I have not contradicted myself in any way.
- I hold the position that men and women have equal rights under Nigerian law.
- I hold the position that certain duties and responsibilities naturally have certain rights attached to them.
- I hold the position that men and women in Nigeria are free to play whichever of the roles they choose and as a result possess the accompanying rights.
Now please tell me; Which of the above three positions are mutually incompatible?

The first two are incompatible together and the third is impossible because gender roles are not fluid but fixed on sex.

Please name some of these gender roles that society has set for men and women.
Please mention some of these expectations that are different for men and women.....and don't forget to tell us who it is exactly that have these expectations.

With the definition of gender in your mind, do you believe the social roles allocated to the sexes are the same? For example is the man the head of the family or the woman is the head of the family?

Kay17:
The first two are incompatible together and the third is impossible because gender roles are not fluid but fixed on sex.

By saying that the first two are incompatible, you are saying that as long as responsibilities have accompanying rights men and women cannot possibly have equal rights.

Secondly please can you name some of these gender roles that are not fluid but fixed on gender? If you cannot name any such roles, then we really can't take you seriously when you rant on about them

With the definition of gender in your mind, do you believe the social roles allocated to the sexes are the same? For example is the man the head of the family or the woman is the head of the family?

Whoever plays the role of the head of the family is the head of the family regardless of whether the person is male or female.

By the way is the head of the family an example of the gender roles you have been talking about?

Mr Anony1

I have made myself sufficiently clear. Please make your own stand.

In Nigeria and in this thread, it has been repeated over and over and over again that the head of the family is the man. Society perceives the man insuch a dominant role. Suddenly you are in awe and amazed and surprised about what gender roles mean!

And then you accuse me of being a twister.

Kay17: Mr Anony1

I have made myself sufficient clear. Please make your own stand.

Actually I have made my stand clear you even quoted it here:
https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/23#25517623

In Nigeria and in this thread, it has been repeated over and over and over again that the head of the family is the man. Society perceives the man insuch a dominant role.

It is also said in Nigeria that the woman is the neck that controls the head hence putting the woman in the dominant role. We can either discuss factual things or we can dwell on figurative expressions that are neither here nor there. Personally, I'd rather we discuss what the reality is.

Now you said that gender roles are not fluid but fixed. I hope you do realize that this means that you hold the position that such roles as the head of the family can never be played by a woman. This would mean that your position is sexist by definition because you are basing rights and responsibilities solely on a person's gender.
I am the one here who is arguing that both men and women can play roles like being the head of the family and if they bear that responsibility, they deserve the rights that come with it.
And finally there is no law in Nigeria that I know of that prohibits women from playing this role. So far you have failed to show any such law even after I asked you many times. This makes me wonder why you think feminism is relevant when you can't show that women are oppressed.

Suddenly you are in awe and amazed and surprised about what gender roles mean!

You assume too much.

And then you accuse me of being a twister.

You must be confusing me with pickabeau1. I didn't accuse you of being a twister. I did more than that. I exposed your dishonesty by quoting your very own words here:
https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/23#25510581

mranony1: Now you said that gender roles are not fluid but fixed. I hope you do realize that this means that you hold the position that such roles as the head of the family can never be played by a woman. This would mean that your position is sexist by definition because you are basing rights and responsibilities solely on a person's gender.

I do not hold the bolded rather it is what the patriarchial society holds. I'm merely observing. Now, if you understand what gender means, you wouldn't have said Gender is fluid. In reality women do pick up the supposed men's role, but it is not the intended role. If you agree with society that the man is the head of the family, it would be contradictory to claim a woman is the head.

Thank God, we have agreed sec. 45 distributes rights discriminately.

mranony1: I am the one here who is arguing that both men and women can play roles like being the head of the family and if they bear that responsibility,

Good you believe that, but what does society perceive, that's the concern.

Kay17:
I do not hold the bolded rather it is what the patriarchial society holds. I'm merely observing. Now, if you understand what gender means, you wouldn't have said Gender is fluid. In reality women do pick up the supposed men's role, but it is not the intended role. If you agree with society that the man is the head of the family, it would be contradictory to claim a woman is the head.

So you agree that women can and do play supposedly men's roles yet you said that it is impossible here:
https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/24#25528527

You contradict yourself.

Secondly, I think you are confusing gender with roles played. Being male or female is more or less fixed but playing roles like being the head of the family is fluid.

Thank God, we have agreed sec. 45 distributes rights discriminately.

I don't think we have such an agreement.

Good you believe that, but what does society perceive, that's the concern.

The Nigerian society also allows both men and women to play the role of the head of the family. I don't know of any woman (or man) who has been prohibited from providing for her family because of her gender.

I would ask you to provide any examples you have, but judging from your past behaviour on this thread, I doubt you will.

^^^

Of course women can do anything and everything even better than men but society acts as a co.ckblocker that's the grouse of feminists.

If you read the link on the definition of Gender, you would know that it is the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes. Very simple to understand. Society dictates Gender, and it is fixed despite the fact that any human can pefrom those roles. It is like a division of labour created by society.

mranony1: The Nigerian society also allows both men and women to play the role of the head of the family. I don't know of any woman (or man) who has been prohibited from providing for her family because of her gender.

Anony1, (pardon my language) you are a stupi.d liar, so why does everyone including you say the man is the head of the family and the woman is the neck?!

I have had enough.

Kay17: The first two are incompatible together and the third is impossible because gender roles are not fluid but fixed on sex.

Classic... insults...

I'm surprised she held out this long

Kay17: ^^^
Of course women can do anything and everything even better than men but society acts as a co.ckblocker that's the grouse of feminists.

I can't tell whether or not you are speaking seriously here so I won't respond to this.

If you read the link on the definition of Gender, you would know that it is the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes. Very simple to understand. Society dictates Gender, and it is fixed despite the fact that any human can pefrom those roles. It is like a division of labour created by society.

It seems that you have succeeded in confusing yourself. Let me see if I can help you understand what you are saying.

- According to you, the definition of Gender = the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes.

- You also hold that the society dictates the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes and this is fixed.

- It is as at yet unclear to me whether you are in support or against the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of the sexes because with one side of your mouth, you claim that it is impossible NOT to distribute social responsibilities and duties based on sex and then with the other side of your mouth, you turn around and say the complete opposite by saying that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of the sexes does not accurately represent reality. I don't know which is more amazing: Whether it is how you can claim that something is impossible and yet is the reality of the matter or how you are seemingly oblivious of such a huge contradiction.


I on the other hand hold that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties such as being the head of a family for instance is not fixed but rather can and is played by either sex who chooses to play the role. I pointed out to you that women in particular are not denied the right to be heads of their families. to which you replied by calling me a "stupid liar" here:

Anony1, (pardon my language) you are a stupi.d liar, so why does everyone including you say the man is the head of the family and the woman is the neck?!

The best way to show that I am a liar would have been by showing that the Nigerian society punishes women for playing the role of the head of the family. Using casual figurative expressions that have no bearing on reality as the basis for your argument just shows how poor your position is. It is similar to saying that the expression popular expression "white men can't dance" restricts the rights of white men from jumping or that the popular expression "women can't drive" actually denies women equal rights to driving vehicles. This is simply not the case.

Your arguments are deeply flawed.

I have had enough.

Have you now?

pickabeau1: Classic... insults...

I'm surprised she held out this long

And so she goes the way of carefreewannabe.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain my previous distinction between regular and radical feminists. . . . .but alas I am a man of faith.

,.... goodluck waiting for Godot

MrAnony1:
And so she goes the way of carefreewannabe.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain my previous distinction between regular and radical feminists. . . . .but alas I am a man of faith.

pickabeau1: ,.... goodluck waiting for Godot

MrAnony1:

It seems that you have succeeded in confusing yourself. Let me see if I can help you understand what you are saying.

i.- According to you, the definition of Gender = the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes.

ii.- You also hold that the society dictates the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes and this is fixed.

- iii. It is as at yet unclear to me whether you are in support or against the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of the sexes because with one side of your mouth, you claim that it is impossible NOT to distribute social responsibilities and duties based on sex and then with the other side of your mouth, you turn around and say the complete opposite by saying that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of the sexes does not accurately represent reality. I don't know which is more amazing: Whether it is how you can claim that something is impossible and yet is the reality of the matter or how you are seemingly oblivious of such a huge contradiction.

Yes to i. and ii. they are together. As regards iii. it is of secondary concern, because my original purpose was to show you that there were no equal rights between the sexes in Nigeria and that Gender is to be blamed. I didn't say the bolded and iv. is true because there is a difference between the ideal society perceives and reality itself. So the contradiction you saw was imaginary. Largely your creation.

MrAnony1: I on the other hand hold that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties such as being the head of a family for instance is not fixed but rather can and is played by either sex who chooses to play the role. I pointed out to you that women in particular are not denied the right to be heads of their families. to which you replied by calling me a "stupid liar" here

Yes the roles can be played by either sex in reality there is no controversy in that regards, how does society allocate the roles?? that is what is in contention. Note that since gender is anchored on the basis of sexes, it is invariably fixed. Otherwise if fluid like you agree, then the basis is something other than the sexes.

mranony1: The best way to show that I am a liar would have been by showing that the Nigerian society punishes women for playing the role of the head of the family. Using casual figurative expressions that have no bearing on reality as the basis for your argument just shows how poor your position is. It is similar to saying that the expression popular expression "white men can't dance" restricts the rights of white men from jumping or that the popular expression "women can't drive" actually denies women equal rights to driving vehicles. This is simply not the case.

Ostracism and Criticism are the weapon. What does society say about the man who lives under his wife's roof? The society does not have to throw him into jail. Same with homosexuals prior to the Anti Homo legislation, homo.sexuality was not illegal yet society frowned at it and was out of sight.

pickabeau1: Classic... insults...

I'm surprised she held out this long

YOU should learn to distinguish between insults and facts.

This comment is not directed at Kay and MrAnony.

So calling someone stuped is not an insult especially when unprovoked?

So many geniuses around here.

You should answer learn to distinguish between having an air of confidence and an over exaggerated sense of self importance

carefreewannabe:
YOU should learn to distinguish between insults and facts.
This comment is not directed at Kay and MrAnony.

pickabeau1: So calling someone stuped is not an insult especially when unprovoked?

So many geniuses around here.

You should answer learn to distinguish between having an air of confidence and an over exaggerated sense of self importance

Thank you for your advice.

You don't have to be a genius on NL to feel like one because one is surrounded by endless ignorance, to put it nicely. It is quite irritating.

I have always believed in healthy, polite debates but I have come to realise that healthy, polite debates are only possible with worthy partners.

carefreewannabe:

Thank you for your advice.

You don't have to be a genius on NL to feel like one because one is surrounded by endless ignorance, to put it nicely. It is quite irritating.

I have always believed in healthy, polite debates but I have come to realise that healthy, polite debates are only possible with worthy partners.

Good for u..

Seems you hadn't had enough after all....

Kay17:

Yes to i. and ii. they are together. As regards iii. it is of secondary concern, because my original purpose was to show you that there were no equal rights between the sexes in Nigeria and that Gender is to be blamed.

Except that you have not yet shown this to be true even after asking you so many times

I didn't say the bolded

You did here:
https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/24#25528527

MrAnony1:
- I hold the position that men and women have equal rights under Nigerian law.

- I hold the position that certain duties and responsibilities naturally have certain rights attached to them.

- I hold the position that men and women in Nigeria are free to play whichever of the roles they choose and as a result possess the accompanying rights.

Now please tell me; Which of the above three positions are mutually incompatible?

Kay17:
The first two are incompatible together and the third is impossible because gender roles are not fluid but fixed on sex.

So yes you claimed that it is impossible NOT to distribute social responsibilities and duties based on sex

and iv. is true because there is a difference between the ideal society perceives and reality itself. So the contradiction you saw was imaginary. Largely your creation.

Apparently I must have imagined you posting what I quoted then.

Yes the roles can be played by either sex in reality there is no controversy in that regards....

Good. Finally something we both agree upon.

how does society allocate the roles?? that is what is in contention.

I don't hold that society is "allocating" any roles. I hold that people are simply choosing to play the roles they think suits them best. You are always welcome to tell us which roles you would have loved to play that society prohibited you from playing based on your gender.

Note that since gender is anchored on the basis of sexes, it is invariably fixed. Otherwise if fluid like you agree, then the basis is something other than the sexes.

Remember that your definition of gender (which I don't agree with by the way) = the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes and an example of such responsibilities/duties that you gave is men as the head of the family.

So you are effectively saying that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes is invariably fixed i.e. men playing the role of family head is fixed. Otherwise if fluid - i.e. if females played the role of family head for instance - then the role will be based on something else other than sexes.

Since the reality is that both men and women can and do play these roles then according to your own argument - i.e. your argument that "if the roles are fluid then they are not based on the sexes" - we have to discard your definition of gender as having nothing to do with reality.

Ostracism and Criticism are the weapon.

Seriously? Is that it? You do realize that people have freedom of association and the freedom of speech. Right? I hope you are not suggesting that we force people to be friendly with people they disagree with in the name of "equality".
Bear in mind that refusing to associate with someone and actively criticizing the person's actions do not lessen the person's rights in any way. Even in this (and by the way I am not granting that society particularly ostracizes or criticizes women for being women or playing certain so called gender roles), you haven't shown an absence of equal rights between males and females.

What does society say about the man who lives under his wife's roof?

Whatever society says, does it affect the rights of such a man in any way? If it doesn't, then it is irrelevant. If it does then please show us how it does.

Remember that your task has always been to show that the Nigerian society gives men greater rights than women.

The society does not have to throw him into jail. Same with homosexuals prior to the Anti Homo legislation, homo.sexuality was not illegal yet society frowned at it and was out of sight.

Being male or female and being a homosexual or heterosexual are not at all in the same category.

MrAnony1: Seems you hadn't had enough after all....

Except that you have not yet shown this to be true even after asking you so many times

I did, by showing that society distributes the rights based on gender. But you didn't understand, because you are barely understanding what gender means.

You did here:
https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/24#25528527

So yes you claimed that it is impossible NOT to distribute social responsibilities and duties based on sex


Apparently I must have imagined you posting what I quoted then.




Good. Finally something we both agree upon.


I don't hold that society is "allocating" any roles. I hold that people are simply choosing to play the roles they think suits them best. You are always welcome to tell us which roles you would have loved to play that society prohibited you from playing based on your gender.


Remember that your definition of gender (which I don't agree with by the way) = the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes and an example of such responsibilities/duties that you gave is men as the head of the family.

So you are effectively saying that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes is invariably fixed i.e. men playing the role of family head is fixed. Otherwise if fluid - i.e. if females played the role of family head for instance - then the role will be based on something else other than sexes.

Since the reality is that both men and women can and do play these roles then according to your own argument - i.e. your argument that "if the roles are fluid then they are not based on the sexes" - we have to discard your definition of gender as having nothing to do with reality.

You are the first person in the world to deny the existence of gender and worst of all you believe I'm arguing for gender. Worse, you don't know gender is and you denied the definition! Considering your post, we were arguing over nothing.

mranony1: If you were paying any attention to what I was saying, you would have noticed that I wasn't "distributing" rights based on gender rather it was based on function....i.e. whichever sex - male or female - that bears the responsibility deserves the rights that accompany the responsibility. This is fair. Or don't you think it is?

Remember that your task has always been to show that the Nigerian society gives men greater rights than women.

You denied the existence of gender, what else can one say. By the way, where did you get the talk that "the woman is the neck of the family from

Kay17:
I did, by showing that society distributes the rights based on gender...

Actually you didn't show any such thing. You merely claimed that it was the case. You still haven't provided us a single right that males have that is unavailable to females in Nigeria.

But you didn't understand, because you are barely understanding what gender means.

Oh I understand what gender means quite alright, I am just not as blinded by feminist ideology as you are. (More on this later)

You are the first person in the world to deny the existence of gender

Actually this is not true. I don't deny the existence of gender I only reject your definition of it.

...and worst of all you believe I'm arguing for gender.

No I don't. I believe you are contradicting yourself mostly due to a very poor understanding of the issue you are discussing.

Worse, you don't know gender is and you denied the definition! Considering your post, we were arguing over nothing.

Actually there is no such thing as "worse than the worst of all" but that's by the way, We aren't arguing over nothing. The problem you seem to have is that you start from faulty presuppositions that taint your definition of gender and equal rights. It is these presuppositions that we don't share and this spills unto our disagreements on gender and equality.

You denied the existence of gender, what else can one say.

It is interesting that no matter how often you are asked to show these unequal rights, you never do rather you assume them to be the case and then redefine/misinterpret the definition of gender to match with your prior assumption. This is a classic case of circular reasoning

By the way, where did you get the talk that "the woman is the neck of the family from

I'll tell you once you tell me where you got the talk that "the man is the head of the family".

[size=13pt]Addendum:[/size]

For the sake of clarity, please allow me to point out exactly what the debate between two of us is.

1. I think we both agree that as a society we ought to treat males and females equally i.e. grant them equal rights
2. You start with the presupposition that females are the oppressed sex, I don't.

No.2 is why you are a feminist and I am not. All I have done throughout our discourse was to challenge your presupposition by asking you to show how exactly females are specifically disadvantaged in Nigeria. You haven't been able to do this at all.

Let us now take a look at how you define gender.

According to you, gender is the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes. You even go on to suggest that society allocates these roles and they are fixed and cannot be fluid.

Here is the definition of gender according to the Merriam Webster's dictionary

Gender:
a : sex; the state of being male or female e.g. the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Notice any difference?

While gender is actually defined as traits typically associated with being male or female, you have chosen to define yours as traits allocated to/imposed upon males and females with females especially getting the worse end of the stick.

This is why I have repeatedly asked you to give examples of roles that you or women in general would like to play have that have been unfairly denied to you for the specific reason that you are female. That is your burden of proof and you have repeatedly failed to meet it.

I don't deny that in our society, there are roles played more often by men than by women and vice versa. What I reject is how you interpret that to mean that the roles played are therefore imposed upon the sexes by society. This is simply not true because the reality is that men and women from time to time switch from roles typically associated with their sexes and no one punishes them for it.

I do not buy your assertion that "criticism and ostracism" are the "weapons" because people their is no such thing as a right to not be criticized. For me to take that point seriously, you will need to show that they are indeed used as weapons in the sense that they actually limit the rights of their targets. In this case, the females in particular.

Your argument is similar to saying that because black people don't typically play Ice hockey therefore they are prohibited from playing it. The logical leap is just absurd.

Because women typically don't play the role of bread winner of the family, it doesn't necessarily follow that society therefore forbids them from playing such a role. To justify your position, you will have to provide positive evidence of society punishing women for daring to provide for their families. Since so far, you have failed to back up your claim with any evidence, you leave us with no other choice than to disregard your position as contrary to reality.

To put it bluntly, the position you hold is simply false.

MrAnony1:
Actually you didn't show any such thing. You merely claimed that it was the case. You still haven't provided us a single right that males have that is unavailable to females in Nigeria.


Oh I understand what gender means quite alright, I am just not as blinded by feminist ideology as you are. (More on this later)


Actually this is not true. I don't deny the existence of gender I only reject your definition of it.


No I don't. I believe you are contradicting yourself mostly due to a very poor understanding of the issue you are discussing.


Actually there is no such thing as "worse than the worst of all" but that's by the way, We aren't arguing over nothing. The problem you seem to have is that you start from faulty presuppositions that taint your definition of gender and equal rights. It is these presuppositions that we don't share and this spills unto our disagreements on gender and equality.



It is interesting that no matter how often you are asked to show these unequal rights, you never do rather you assume them to be the case and then redefine/misinterpret the definition of gender to match with your prior assumption. This is a classic case of circular reasoning


I'll tell you once you tell me where you got the talk that "the man is the head of the family".

[size=13pt]Addendum:[/size]

For the sake of clarity, please allow me to point out exactly what the debate between two of us is.

1. I think we both agree that as a society we ought to treat males and females equally i.e. grant them equal rights
2. You start with the presupposition that females are the oppressed sex, I don't.

No.2 is why you are a feminist and I am not. All I have done throughout our discourse was to challenge your presupposition by asking you to show how exactly females are specifically disadvantaged in Nigeria. You haven't been able to do this at all.

Let us now take a look at how you define gender.

According to you, gender is the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes. You even go on to suggest that society allocates these roles and they are fixed and cannot be fluid.

Here is the definition of gender according to the Merriam Webster's dictionary

Gender:
a : sex; the state of being male or female e.g. the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Notice any difference?

While gender is actually defined as traits typically associated with being male or female, you have chosen to define yours as traits allocated to/imposed upon males and females with females especially getting the worse end of the stick.

This is why I have repeatedly asked you to give examples of roles that you or women in general would like to play have that have been unfairly denied to you for the specific reason that you are female. That is your burden of proof and you have repeatedly failed to meet it.

I don't deny that in our society, there are roles played more often by men than by women and vice versa. What I reject is how you interpret that to mean that the roles played are therefore imposed upon the sexes by society. This is simply not true because the reality is that men and women from time to time switch from roles typically associated with their sexes and no one punishes them for it.

I do not buy your assertion that "criticism and ostracism" are the "weapons" because people their is no such thing as a right to not be criticized. For me to take that point seriously, you will need to show that they are indeed used as weapons in the sense that they actually limit the rights of their targets. In this case, the females in particular.

Your argument is similar to saying that because black people don't typically play Ice hockey therefore they are prohibited from playing it. The logical leap is just absurd.

Because women typically don't play the role of bread winner of the family, it doesn't necessarily follow that society therefore forbids them from playing such a role. To justify your position, you will have to provide positive evidence of society punishing women for daring to provide for their families. Since so far, you have failed to back up your claim with any evidence, you leave us with no other choice than to disregard your position as contrary to reality.

To put it bluntly, the position you hold is simply false.

Definition of Gender:

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

https://www.genderspectrum.org/understanding-gender

http://m.psychologytoday.com/basics/gender

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Now these definitions are radically different from the one you built your post on.

Kay17:

Definition of Gender:

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

https://www.genderspectrum.org/understanding-gender

http://m.psychologytoday.com/basics/gender

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Now these definitions are radically different from the one you built your post on.

Gender is a ruse. A neologism in the vein of "gay" or "homosexual". Created and/or used as part of the aim to normalise deviancy and dysfunction.

Human beings - the human binary - are male and female. Apart from a few unfortunate instances of case such as intersex, that is it. No other categorisation is required.

Gender has now morphed into ove 50 odd categories at the last count. With orientation an alphabet soup, starting from LGB, and at last count somewhere at LGBTIQRSTVW...and increasing !

Orientation, which we are told is a spectrum - including hetero, homo and bi, but not other paraphillias such as attraction to animals, babies or the prepubescent?

If your sex, gender and orientation do not align, if the way you present is at odds with the way you feel, and not dovetailed with your "attraction", which is again different from your biological functionality there is something wrong.

And whilst we do not deny people the right to "self-identify" in whatever way they choose, we are not overturning thousands of years of anthropological evidence, cultural heritage and social norms just to justify the idiosyncrasises - or downright perversions - of a disordered minority.


Yeye de smell.

Morning everyone !


TV

^{Sex = male, Gender = masculine, Orientation = striker , Functionality = normal}

Kay17:

Definition of Gender:

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

https://www.genderspectrum.org/understanding-gender

http://m.psychologytoday.com/basics/gender

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Now these definitions are radically different from the one you built your post on.

Or are they? Let us consider what you have put forth...

First let us remind ourselves of the dictionary definition.

Gender:
a : sex; the state of being male or female e.g. the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Now compare that to the definition on Wikipedia.

"Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity."

Notice that the definitions are similar i.e. traits pertaining to (NOT "allocated to" nor "imposed upon" ) masculinity and femininity.

But Wikipedia isn't done yet, it continues....

"Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender....."

So basically, the meaning you are harping on about was in fact created by feminist ideology. Yet you can't see how this is circular?
Essentially you are admitting to changing the normal meaning of a word in order to conform it with your theory and then you turn around and accuse those who disagree with you of not understanding the meaning of a word which you are using differently from how it has normally been used. C'mon now, surely you can see the problem here.

Apparently feminists succeeded they even got to the WHO, as Wikipedia continues...

.....Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences and documents written by the World Health Organization (WHO)....

Let us hear how the WHO defines gender shall we?

What do we mean by "sex" and "gender"?

Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what is meant by the term "gender", and how it differs from the closely related term "sex".

"Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

To put it another way:

"Male" and "female" are sex categories, while "masculine" and "feminine" are gender categories.

Aspects of sex will not vary substantially between different human societies, while aspects of gender may vary greatly.

Some examples of sex characteristics :

Women menstruate while men do not
Men have testicles while women do not
Women have developed breasts that are usually capable of lactating, while men have not
Men generally have more massive bones than women

Some examples of gender characteristics :

In the United States (and most other countries), women earn significantly less money than men for similar work
In Viet Nam, many more men than women smoke, as female smoking has not traditionally been considered appropriate
In Saudi Arabia men are allowed to drive cars while women are not
In most of the world, women do more housework than men

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

I didn't fail to notice that the what the WHO defines as the "characteristics of gender" read like a feminist campaign. It teaches us nothing about differentiating between masculine and feminine genders.


Continuing with Wikipedia...

....However, in many other contexts, including some areas of social sciences, gender includes sex or replaces it. Although this change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, a small acceleration of the process in the scientific literature was observed in 1993 when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) started to use gender instead of sex. In 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using sex as the biological classification and gender as "a person's self representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation." In non-human animal research, gender is also commonly used to refer to the physiology of the animals.

In the English literature, the trichotomy between biological sex, psychological gender, and social sex role first appeared in a feminist paper on transsexualism in 1978. Some cultures have specific gender-related social roles that can be considered distinct from male and female

Clearly, we can see that outside feminist influenced contexts, gender is still very synonymous with sex and has always been so until the 1980s when the meaning was changed by the influence of feminism.

How you can't see the circularity in redefining a word and then trying to use your redefinition to prove your redefinition is truly amazing.

TV01:

Gender is a ruse. A neologism in the vein of "gay" or "homosexual". Created and/or used as part of the aim to normalise deviancy and dysfunction.

Human beings - the human binary - are male and female. Apart from a few unfortunate instances of case such as intersex, that is it. No other categorisation is required.

Gender has now morphed into ove 50 odd categories at the last count. With orientation an alphabet soup, starting from LGB, and at last count somewhere at LGBTIQRSTVW...and increasing !

Orientation, which we are told is a spectrum - including hetero, homo and bi, but not other paraphillias such as attraction to animals, babies or the prepubescent?

If your sex, gender and orientation do not align, if the way you present is at odds with the way you feel, and not dovetailed with your "attraction", which is again different from your biological functionality there is something wrong.

And whilst we do not deny people the right to "self-identify" in whatever way they choose, we are not overturning thousands of years of anthropological evidence, cultural heritage and social norms just to justify the idiosyncrasises - or downright perversions - of a disordered minority.


Yeye de smell.

Morning everyone !


TV

^{Sex = male, Gender = masculine, Orientation = striker , Functionality = normal}

Lol that's the new strategy nowadays. Destroy the meaning of a word, redefine it and then insist on that the world should respect your madness.

The LGBT folks are the ones that make me laugh. A man can wake up tomorrow and claim that he is actually a woman, calls himself "transgender" and the society celebrates him (or her) yet another man who woke up thinking that he is really a pumpkin is in the mental ward being cured of his madness.

The inconsistencies of modern ideologies are just beyond hope.

A delusion by definition is a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

MrAnony1:
Or are they? Let us consider what you have put forth...

First let us remind ourselves of the dictionary definition.

Gender:
a : sex; the state of being male or female e.g. the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

The dictionary meaning is hardly sufficient, too general and lacks in the sociological context yet touches behavioral and cultural] traits associated with a sex.

Now compare that to the definition on Wikipedia.



Notice that the definitions are similar i.e. traits [b]pertaining to (NOT "allocated to" nor "imposed upon" ) masculinity and femininity.

But Wikipedia isn't done yet, it continues.... [quote]

I will reproduce what Wiki said on that; Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity. So in effect, you amputated the coloured to deliberately mislead.


[quote]So basically, the meaning you are harping on about was in fact created by feminist ideology. Yet you can't see how this is circular?
Essentially you are admitting to changing the normal meaning of a word in order to conform it with your theory and then you turn around and accuse those who disagree with you of not understanding the meaning of a word which you are using differently from how it has normally been used. C'mon now, surely you can see the problem here.

This is another attempt by you to mislead. The term was employed by a sexologist John Money in an attempt to distinguish between biological sex and the social construct around biological sex. It is only natural for feminists to harp on this clarification for their purposes. So it is not a creation of feminists, rather it is an apt sociological concept.

Apparently feminists succeeded they even got to the WHO, as Wikipedia continues...


Let us hear how the WHO defines gender shall we?


http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

I didn't fail to notice that the what the WHO defines as the "characteristics of gender" read like a feminist campaign. It teaches us nothing about differentiating between masculine and feminine genders.

Obviously for the purposes of your argument, the definition is not suitable and favourable to you. Hence the witches of feminism must have poisoned the WHO.

Continuing with Wikipedia...

Clearly, we can see that outside feminist influenced contexts, gender is still very synonymous with sex and has always been so until the 1980s when the meaning was changed by the influence of feminism.

How you can't see the circularity in redefining a word and then trying to use your redefinition to prove your redefinition is truly amazing.

Prior to 1955, the word was merely used in grammar. John Money reused it in a sociological context, and ever since then people have found the biological sex no different from the social construct. So the original meaning is still for Grammar and thenafter John Money's meaning.

Sex = male, Gender = masculine, Orientation = striker , Functionality = normal

I endorse this..

Let's have your view on the definition of Gender. Whether it is abandoned in the colloquial meaning (biologicAL sex) or social dimension on the sexes.

TV01:

Gender is a ruse. A neologism in the vein of "gay" or "homosexual". Created and/or used as part of the aim to normalise deviancy and dysfunction.

Human beings - the human binary - are male and female. Apart from a few unfortunate instances of case such as intersex, that is it. No other categorisation is required.

Gender has now morphed into ove 50 odd categories at the last count. With orientation an alphabet soup, starting from LGB, and at last count somewhere at LGBTIQRSTVW...and increasing !

Orientation, which we are told is a spectrum - including hetero, homo and bi, but not other paraphillias such as attraction to animals, babies or the prepubescent?

If your sex, gender and orientation do not align, if the way you present is at odds with the way you feel, and not dovetailed with your "attraction", which is again different from your biological functionality there is something wrong.

And whilst we do not deny people the right to "self-identify" in whatever way they choose, we are not overturning thousands of years of anthropological evidence, cultural heritage and social norms just to justify the idiosyncrasises - or downright perversions - of a disordered minority.


Yeye de smell.

Morning everyone !


TV

^{Sex = male, Gender = masculine, Orientation = striker , Functionality = normal}

Kay17:
The dictionary meaning is hardly sufficient, too general and lacks in the sociological context yet touches behavioral and [b]cultural] traits associated with a sex.

Remember that the contention is not about the traits/roles associated with the sexes rather it is whether these traits/roles are imposed upon the sexes. That's the point

This is another attempt by you to mislead. The term was employed by a sexologist John Money in an attempt to distinguish between biological sex and the social construct around biological sex. It is only natural for feminists to harp on this clarification for their purposes. So it is not a creation of feminists, rather it is an apt sociological concept.

Remember that I am not contending an attempt to distinguish between biological gender traits and sociological gender traits. I am contending against the feminist suggestion that these traits are distributed/allocated by society because that would mean that they are imposed roles rather than traits. Essentially feminists have hijacked the meaning and tilted it to suit their purposes; just like you are demonstrating here.

Obviously for the purposes of your argument, the definition is not suitable and favourable to you. Hence the witches of feminism must have poisoned the WHO.

This is just silly. Are you suggesting that the way to distinguish between the female and male genders is by such things as who gets paid less vs who pays more, or who smokes less vs who smokes more, or who is allowed to drive vs who isn't or who does more housework vs who does less? Surely you can clearly see that the so called characteristics of gender are not characteristics at all as they don't tell us anything about how to distinguish the categories it is supposed to be describing. All it does is sound off popular feminist soundbites.

Prior to 1955, the word was merely used in grammar. John Money reused it in a sociological context, and ever since then people have found the biological sex no different from the social construct. So the original meaning is still for Grammar and then after John Money's meaning.

But John Money's meaning is not the same as yours because where he makes a distinction you and other feminists go further to claim that this distinction is enforced by society such that it leads to people being treated unfairly and given less rights than they deserve. That's the point you need to prove....and you haven't yet made any attempt to back up the claim.

Kay17: Let's have your view on the definition of Gender. Whether it is abandoned in the colloquial meaning (biologicAL sex) or social dimension on the sexes.

I believe I have been quite clear in that regard - it's a needless construct at best. Its use is mostly ideological in nature and used to promote dysfunction and deviancy.

But I'm always game for a laugh


The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:

•Agender
•Androgyne
•Androgynous
•Bigender
•Cis
•Cisgender
•Cis Female
•Cis Male
•Cis Man
•Cis Woman
•Cisgender Female
•Cisgender Male
•Cisgender Man
•Cisgender Woman
•Female to Male
•FTM
•Gender Fluid
•Gender Nonconforming
•Gender Questioning
•Gender Variant
•Genderqueer
•Intersex
•Male to Female
•MTF
•Neither
•Neutrois
•Non-binary
•Other
•Pangender
•Trans
•Trans*
•Trans Female
•Trans* Female
•Trans Male
•Trans* Male
•Trans Man
•Trans* Man
•Trans Person
•Trans* Person
•Trans Woman
•Trans* Woman
•Transfeminine
•Transgender
•Transgender Female
•Transgender Male
•Transgender Man
•Transgender Person
•Transgender Woman
•Transmasculine
•Transsexual
•Transsexual Female
•Transsexual Male
•Transsexual Man
•Transsexual Person
•Transsexual Woman
•Two-Spirit


TV

^{plus, don't think you are off the hook re abortion. You've woefully failed to make any semblance of a case on that !}

TV01:

I believe I have been quite clear in that regard - it's a needless construct at best. Its use is mostly ideological in nature and used to promote dysfunction and deviancy.

But I'm always game for a laugh


The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:

•Agender
•Androgyne
•Androgynous
•Bigender
•Cis
•Cisgender
•Cis Female
•Cis Male
•Cis Man
•Cis Woman
•Cisgender Female
•Cisgender Male
•Cisgender Man
•Cisgender Woman
•Female to Male
•FTM
•Gender Fluid
•Gender Nonconforming
•Gender Questioning
•Gender Variant
•Genderqueer
•Intersex
•Male to Female
•MTF
•Neither
•Neutrois
•Non-binary
•Other
•Pangender
•Trans
•Trans*
•Trans Female
•Trans* Female
•Trans Male
•Trans* Male
•Trans Man
•Trans* Man
•Trans Person
•Trans* Person
•Trans Woman
•Trans* Woman
•Transfeminine
•Transgender
•Transgender Female
•Transgender Male
•Transgender Man
•Transgender Person
•Transgender Woman
•Transmasculine
•Transsexual
•Transsexual Female
•Transsexual Male
•Transsexual Man
•Transsexual Person
•Transsexual Woman
•Two-Spirit


TV

^{plus, don't think you are off the hook re abortion. You've woefully failed to make any semblance of a case on that !}

LOLOLOLOL Na wa Oooh. Who let the loonies out of the psych ward?

MrAnony1:
Remember that the contention is not about the traits/roles associated with the sexes rather it is whether these traits/roles are imposed upon the sexes. That's the point

Would you be alright the word "perceive" or "expectation"?? Does impose sound too forceful to you?? The WHO definition, WIki's, John Money's and the feminists have a convergent definition on Gender. Basically as a social construct, a sociological concept built around the biological sexes. What this social roles would be are not biological neither did they come from Heaven. They are from earth and a product of society. Just like one of the websites I provided said, Gender in primitive societies was;

n the old days, it was so simple: Men hunted and women raised the kids.

Remember that I am not contending an attempt to distinguish between biological gender traits and sociological gender traits. I am contending against the feminist suggestion that these traits are distributed/allocated by society because that would mean that they are imposed roles rather than traits.

You just introduced/invented the bolded, and I do not know what biological gender means. And what could you possibly mean by sociological gender?

This is just silly. Are you suggesting that the way to distinguish between the female and male genders is by such things as who gets paid less vs who pays more, or who smokes less vs who smokes more, or who is allowed to drive vs who isn't or who does more housework vs who does less? Surely you can clearly see that the so called characteristics of gender are not characteristics at all as they don't tell us anything about how to distinguish the categories it is supposed to be describing. All it does is sound off popular feminist soundbites.

The whole definitions Mr Anony! What do you understand by all the definitions I have provided, which the WHO approves??

But John Money's meaning is not the same as yours because where he makes a distinction you and other feminists go further to claim that this distinction is enforced by society such that it leads to people being treated unfairly and given less rights than they deserve. That's the point you need to prove....and you haven't yet made any attempt to back up the claim.

This was what you said:

mranony1: Clearly, we can see that outside feminist influenced contexts, gender is still very synonymous with sex and has always been so until the 1980s when the meaning was changed by the influence of feminism

Does John Money use Gender synonymously with sex? NO! Was the original word used to mean sex? NO! Mr Anony you have been unfairly deceitful.