Parents Upset: Guess Why

[Noir]

Now I'm confused. I'm beginning to wonder if you're realising that your position is nonsense.

In any case, is clothing fashion really the point now at issue, thanks to your posting ? I've asked you to offer evidence from some time ago to support your 'gender v sex' argument. I've yet to see any from you. Could this perhaps be because there is actually NOT any evidence to back your argument, after all ?

If there is, @Noir -- I repeat my challenge. Supply the evidence I've asked for !

If you can't, then I suggest you admit that your argument is your invention, or, just maybe, the invention of some cloud-cuckooland Leftie playing games with social perceptions ... as they like to do, in their dictatorially deranged way ...

sex
noun
Definition of sex
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures In the past, couples could hold fast to their dreams about their baby's sex until the moment of truth in the delivery room.— Jacquelyn Mitchard
b: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females Doctors can alter the physical characteristics of sex, but bodily sexdoes not determine gender.— Dinitia Smith
c: the state of being male or female … Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex.— Tamar Lewin
d: males or females considered as a group He gave the minister a sly look, daring him to disparage the female sex.— Evelyn Anthony

gender

noun
Definition of gender

(Entry 1 of 2)


1a: a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b: membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
c: an inflectional form (see INFLECTION sense 3a) showing membership in such a subclass

2a: SEX sense 1a the feminine gender
b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
c: GENDER IDENTITYThose seeking state driver's licenses in Massachusetts are closer to being able to designate their gender as "X" instead of "male" or "female." The state Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would allow for the nonbinary designation on licenses.— Steve LeBlancFacebook's message was clear when the social media network added new gender options for users on Thursday: the company is sensitive to a wide spectrum of gender identity and wants users to feel accommodated no matter where they see themselves on that spectrum.— Katy Steinmetz

For some reason these two definitions aren’t identical, almost like they’re different or something, weird.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Now I'm confused. I'm beginning to wonder if you're realising that your position is nonsense.

In any case, is clothing fashion really the point now at issue, thanks to your posting ? I've asked you to offer evidence from some time ago to support your 'gender v sex' argument. I've yet to see any from you. Could this perhaps be because there is actually NOT any evidence to back your argument, after all ?

If there is, @Noir -- I repeat my challenge. Supply the evidence I've asked for !

If you can't, then I suggest you admit that your argument is your invention, or, just maybe, the invention of some cloud-cuckooland Leftie playing games with social perceptions ... as they like to do, in their dictatorially deranged way ...

You've cornered him, brother, and now he has to attempt to liberal psycho-babble his way out of it without having to admit he was wrong.

Arrogant, know it all, self aggrandizing leftists never admit they were wrong. It's beneath them, just like you and I are beneath them. We should be bowing down to his brilliance and be mouth agape in awe of his presence here... that's how leftists like Noir view themselves.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

[/COLOR]
For some reason these two definitions aren’t identical, almost like they’re different or something, weird.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Of course, I already copied and pasted right off dictionary.com where they are the same, but he ignored that... weird.

He had to find a dictionary website that has been edited to reflect the new leftist idiocy of gender dysfunction.

I think Noir should be required to provide a link to the page too, or isn't that plagiarism?

[Noir]

Is that just a personal statement, or a proven fact?

Look up the meaning of Gender:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
A lot of twisting in there, but bottom line is Gender means born male or female.
Screw your behavioral and societal opinion.

Did you even read this before posting?

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity andfemininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex(i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersexvariation), sex-based social structures(i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3]

“May include sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation)”
It literally says that gender and sex are not the same in the first few dozen words.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

And here comes all the "NEW" revised leftist gender dysfunction psychobabble that were all supposed to believe is 1, old as the hills, and 2, is normal. Of course, neither is true.

.........................

[Gunny]

Your question relates to sex when the discussion I was having about the title Mx being the norm is about gender

Intellectually dishonest attempt at playing semantics.

You KNOW what is being discussed.

[Gunny]

They have never been the same.
Gender is behavioural and societal. Sex is biological.

Ummm ... you in some kind of backward universe, or what? Sex is behavior. Gender is biological.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Scenario -
Teacher used title Mx.
Students asks why they use Mx.
Teacher should respond how?

Respond how?
Perhaps the teacher should speak the truth and say- because I am a dumbass POS, using my own preference/insanity to
score points as a courageous fighter--- when truth is the teacher is a ffing moron.
Just that simple, but of course you will disagree since sadly, it is apparent that you think in much the same way..-Tyr

[Gunny]

Nothing is being over-intellectualised, gender and sex are not the same thing period.

Given you created this thread to discuss the topic presumably you ascribe some importance to it.

Technically, you are correct in your first sentence. Which, has nothing to do with the discussion. It's a cheap attempt to deflect.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ummm ... you in some kind of backward universe, or what? Sex is behavior. Gender is biological.

If he has those two mixed up-- just imagine what else he very likely is to also have so very mixed up- ....--Tyr

[SassyLady]

Information of the image and sources multiple sources in the early 20th Century agree with the norm at the time being that boys and girls both wore dresses, and that of the pastal colours boys should wear pink, and girls blue.

“We find the look unsettling today, yet social convention of 1884, when FDR was photographed at age 2 1/2, dictated that boys wore dresses until age 6 or 7, also the time of their first haircut. Franklin’s outfit was considered gender-neutral.

For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-...-pink-1370097/

Again, Noir, not the norm for the masses. I can guarantee that lower and middle class American boys did not wear pink dresses. This is what's wrong with progressive thinking. They find a few examples to support their theory and then extrapolate to "everyone did/is doing it".

"Societal" norms are hardly ever the norm for the masses. The masses couldn't afford to keep up with the society that shows up in photographs. Farm and ranch boys didn't wear dresses.

[SassyLady]

[/COLOR]
For some reason these two definitions aren’t identical, almost like they’re different or something, weird.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

What dictionary did you find this in and what's the date of publication? Remember, you are trying to support your statement about this is not a new norm.

[Noir]

Again, Noir, not the norm for the masses. I can guarantee that lower and middle class American boys did not wear pink dresses. This is what's wrong with progressive thinking. They find a few examples to support their theory and then extrapolate to "everyone did/is doing it".

"Societal" norms are hardly ever the norm for the masses. The masses couldn't afford to keep up with the society that shows up in photographs. Farm and ranch boys didn't wear dresses.

Well you can take that up with researchers at the Smithsonian.

What dictionary did you find this in and what's the date of publication? Remember, you are trying to support your statement about this is not a new norm.

Merriam-Webster, citing the first use of gender as definition 1a (which I posted above) as being from the 14th Century.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Again, Noir, not the norm for the masses. I can guarantee that lower and middle class American boys did not wear pink dresses. This is what's wrong with progressive thinking. They find a few examples to support their theory and then extrapolate to "everyone did/is doing it".

"Societal" norms are hardly ever the norm for the masses. The masses couldn't afford to keep up with the society that shows up in photographs. Farm and ranch boys didn't wear dresses.

What is sad is that there is a movement out there that seeks to destroy what is normal- in order to advance the the weird, the abnormal , the fantasy world that the liberals/socialist/ dems and their perverted allies want to make reality and the dominate new culture/new norm...
It is truly delusional fantasy on parade yet mainstream media, Hollyweird and other so-called enlightened, progressive groups are hellbent on convincing millions it is normal..
Poppycock! What is normal comes natural to us-- we boys see beautiful girls and we desire those beautiful girls.
Girls see handsome boys and desire handsome boys. That is normal and has been for many thousands of years..
Yet in this modern world we have these dedicated groups that cry it is not normal and their abnormal, perverted ways are normal!
Poppycock!
Normal is exactly what has allowed survival of the species (male/female relationship,marriage and normal procreation)--not this utter bullshit abnormal crap that they( the dems, libs, progressives, gays, trans and other assorted vermin/trash ) are trying to peddle.. TYR

[Drummond]

[/COLOR]
For some reason these two definitions arenÂ’t identical, almost like theyÂ’re different or something, weird.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Heh heh. You're really struggling with this, aren't you, Noir ? High Plains Drifter is, I'm thinking, spot on ... I've got you on the ropes ..

It may be interesting to note that the State of Massachusetts recognises an 'X' gender. What this also says is that even this distinction has been taken on by ONE authority in America, and therefore that it's very far from 'universally' accepted.

Perhaps it's something political with them, an attempt to obey a politically 'correct' form of thinking ? Which proves precisely what about its CORRECT usage ?

What does it prove ? Anything ?

It says that they're the exception, Noir, not the norm. So tell me, what makes them right, and everybody else wrong ? H'mm .. ?

... OK. Time to remind you of what I asked you to provide !!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...316#post941316

Requote (!) ....

OK ... @Noir ... I'll issue a challenge to you. If these 'differences' of perception you claim exist not only do, but have for a considerable time ... supply a link to some literature, or better yet, a debate, in which the 'sex' of a person and the 'gender' of a person are seen as definitely different concepts.

Something going back decades (to prove it's not a recent invention) ... and, preferably, not something originating from a Leftie / propagandist source, either. A source having scientific background to it, how about that ?

If they were 'never the same at any point', you should find it easy to locate, and offer us, proof going back quite a way ! So let's see you do it.

What you've provided is a far cry from what I asked you for. Your definitions didn't come with a source link. They also did nothing to show that there's anything 'old' about them, at all. You claimed that the definitions of 'sex' and 'gender' were never the same at any point, and I wanted you to provide evidence that this may be the case. You've done NOTHING of the sort, have you ??

I think that any 'differences' between these definitions is at least relatively recent, and that they're a revision (no doubt orchestrated by the Left) of the older, original, definitions. You've been challenged to disprove that with evidence of an old source of differing definitions, and YOU'VE NOT DELIVERED.

You can't. Can you, Noir ?

I'll challenge you a second time to prove me wrong. Go to it.

If you can.