Genders aren’t real. Stop bothering me with how you think people should act regarding their ugly bits. I don’t need to know about your sex life and how proud you are for the way you get your happy sensors wiggled.
I mean, entirely false, but ok.
Gender is very much real, you just seem to have a false perception of what the word means.
Most of us do very much have a gender, it is a very small minority who feels their gender does not match their sex, and smaller still are those who, like you apparently, feel no sense of gender at all.
Being outside the common experience doesn’t mean you get to disregard the common experience any more then we should disregard your experience.
Obviously you didn’t read what I wrote, because it is not a construction.
We are animals, we have two sexes. Those sexes are different physically, including brain development.
Human genders are the typical manifestation of our sexual dimorphism. Atypical examples are why we’ve constructed the idea that gender and sex are different, to be socially inclusive to those few outliers.
It shouldn’t be. If gender roles are bad, and it’s not about genitals, what the fuck else is left for the words? There’s no physical or metaphysical meaning to apply.
I’ve heard of “Only 2 genders”, “More than 2 genders”, and “Only one gender, It’s Nerf or Nothin’!”
“Genders aren’t real”? That’s a new one. Lmfao.
Genders are absolutely real though, and it doesn’t automatically mean it’s about sex, there’s so much more to it that’s absolutely non-sexual, lol.
This information was incorrect, and I rest my case. Here is the comment with sources: https://lemmy.one/comment/10802073
Race is skin color and the region of where someone was born or inherited traits passed down through children.
Do you mean difference between gender and sex? Cause like if you have Y chromosome or not…
Google to the rescue! Keep in mind, it is common for people to refer to sex when talking about gender as to not confuse it with “Sex”‘s more sexual definition. It’'d be a lil weird to say the “Sex Reveal Party”. But when comparing the two, they have two different dennotative meanings.
Anywho, from Google’s Dictionary:
gen·der
noun
noun: gender; plural noun: genders
the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
“the singer has opted to keep the names and genders of her twins private”
members of a particular gender considered as a group.
“social interaction between the genders”
the fact or condition of belonging to or identifying as having a particular gender.
“video ads will target users based only on age and gender”
That all communication is an attempt to manipulate the behavior of others.
You mean like… all, all? How so? You mean like by asking you this question I’m “manipulating” you into answering it? If so that’s a bit of a stretch in my personal opinion.
You ask the question in the hope that the answers will provide you either entertainment or edification.
I answered the question in the hope that others will give me a sense of validation for my views or, failing that, start an entertaining or edifying discussion on a topic I’m already interested in.
Right, so I think you have a different definition of “manipulation”, perhaps. Which is fine. 👍
A stretch, yes. But it’s an interesting model for understanding what communication is. By telling you this, I am manipulating you into understanding my point of view and hopefully getting you to agree with me.
It’s important to note that not all manipulation is negative. I should hope parents manipulate their children into being aware of safety.
Even chit-chat could be seen as manipulating each other into “being social” but even I would say that’s a long shot.
Huh, I’ve never thought of this before… I like your example of chit-chat. Because for some instances, you could say that one engages in it to manipulate the other person into relieving their own anxiety from being silent around others. Or forcing the other person to give up their personal interests, or, more cynically, making the other person think you are interested.
I’ve never thought of communication like this before but now I’m going to manipulate everyone in real life into thinking I’m a know it all by telling them this lol
That’s a cynical way to put it, if technically correct. Manipulation has a negative connotation for people, but people don’t communicate for exclusively malicious reasons.
You might as well say that any conscious entity only acts out of reason, to get food, joy, rest… Or that it isn’t possible to speak without words. That much goes without saying. Everyone knows that, which makes this an odd thing to bring up in this thread.
And I’d suggest that you can’t prove that a conscious entity without reason ceases to act. We’ve all surely done something or other for “no particular reason” even if an outward observer might assign one.
Does that mean it’s possible to speak without meaning anything in particular? I genuinely don’t know.
But I can be sure of one thing, that speaking with the intent to achieve one thing, almost never achieves that exact thing. Is failed manipulation still manipulation? Is unintended manipulation still manipulation? People interpret meaning where non was meant all the time.
That’s a good point where the aspect of correctness aside even, it unhelpfully puts too much focus on the sender, whereas communication is widely known to be more of a partnership between both the sender and the recipient(s).
e.g. birds singing is interpreted differently by other birds (want some fuq?) than us humans who happen to hear it as well (oh, such pwetty songs!)
God isn’t real. No deities exist. Stop being delusional.
That Israel is committing a genocide, and seemingly the majority of people don’t care or worse believe propaganda or dehumanise a whole population of people.
Also, when people defend massive corporations and don’t see the negative impact they have on industries.
Capitalism is not working.
The end result of capitalism is slavery. The end result of anarchy is also slavery. The end result of socialism is… yup, also slavery. Basically humanity seems to enjoy slavery:-). :-(
Knowing this, it might have been good to have tried to work against that trend. However, we got too lazy, and/or greedy, and if you don’t fight against entropy then the natural state takes over.
Case in point: our level of technological progress is higher than it has ever been. We could feed the world. We won’t, but we could. And yet, food prices reflect… more similarity to slavery than to freedom of choice - what other food can I buy except the stuff that is twice as expensive as it was?
I can understand capitalism resulting in slavery, because it wants to minimize labor costs, so slavery is the logical conclusion (also, slavery is still used by capitalists). I don’t see anarchy resulting in slavery, because slavery is inherently hierarchical. I also don’t see socialism resulting in slavery because the workers own their means of production/businesses/workplaces.
Your answer refers to the theoretical outputs of each of those - in which case capitalism also likewise probably does not result in slavery either? That’s extremely highly debatable ofc and depends on whether we are talking about unregulated capitalism, which at that point might be better called anarchy, vs. a regulated form, which no longer produces actual slavery, bc of the regulations holding it back - and if the source of the regulations is a voting citizenry, then making it more akin to socialism even? (Bc despite the lack of direct ownership, they would have that indirect source of control - in theory at least.)
True anarchy does not produce slavery ofc. At least not in theoretical models, where once you enter a state you are never allowed to leave it. However, if you had a true anarchist state irl, then people would be free to do as they please. And since some people prefer to own slaves, therefore they would. And then more and more would, progressing through stages such as feudalistic warlords, which could no longer properly be called “anarchy” but it would bring us back to slavery at an institutional level (with peasants having no rights). Not just in theory but bc of actual practice in fact. Anarchy removes the institutional blockers to allow people to do as they wish, so seems to always be a temporary condition on the way towards something else that will last? Barring some external factors that can keep that going, like a small area in-between two large states that gets left alone so that it can be a buffer zone. Even a pirate kingdom will eventually become a feudal state with some people lording it over others, just bc they can (and bc their money or access to secret knowledge entices people to go along with it).
Outside of theory, irl I don’t know that “capitalism” can exist without regulations keeping it going. Otherwise big monkey take from little monkey, and vice versa, without something (regulations) keeping that in check, so that monkey must exchange goods and services for money rather than simply bc they can get away with it. And ofc even “regulations” seems a simple word, but it too will have its nuances like a whole spectrum of how many and what type there are - e.g. are they only ever applied to the poors, in which case trending towards slavery but not bc of “capitalism” and rather bc of “anarchy” i.e. the lack of control of anyone stopping the rich from doing whatever they want.
And similarly, how could socialism exist irl either, without regulations propping it up? At which point I’ll remind us that while regulated socialism doesn’t lead to slavery, neither does regulated capitalism? But yes, unregulated capitalism can lead to slavery, and by a similar process, how could unregulated socialism not do the same? Bc “unregulated” anything really means anarchy, whatever it used to be before it lost its regulatory abilities.
i.e. these terms - capitalism, socialism, and anarchy - do not refer to systems, or at least not stable ones over time i.e. especially referring to those existing irl, but rather processes, that must be sustained (or else systems that maintain those processes). Bc the entropic decay process will counterbalance any such irl process by allowing anarchy to creep in and therefore trend towards slavery, hence an equal and opposing force must be applied to halt that shift. This leads to such extremely ironic - laughably so - thoughts such as: is the USA somehow not capitalist enough to prevent slavery (e.g. landlords need to provide goods and services in exchange for money, rather than simply collect in return for nothing), which I say is ironic bc capitalism always trends towards anarchy, as money acts to corrupt. However the crucially important distinction, i.e. the reason I went into that tangent, is that it is the lack of capitalism there that was the direct cause of the slavery, the latter being due rather to the anarchy, even while at the same time we all know that capitalism will eventually trend towards anarchy overall, ironically not bc it is too strong but bc it is too weak to resist that inevitable slide into anarchy.
And then the caveat is that socialism is the same way: it too irl has to fight that slide into anarchy and thereby feudalism and slavery. Its corrupting influences may not be monetary and instead other forms of power but the underlying greed is the same. A regulated capitalism can avoid slavery, for a time until it succumbs to anarchy, and a regulated socialism can do the same, until it too succumbs to anarchy as well. Maybe if can last longer? We have yet to see such proof irl, but maybe? But ultimately they both lead to slavery, unless efforts are expended to prevent that, at which point we must be fair to the truth and say that neither causes slavery directly, at least not while they are still actively maintained and haven’t yet fallen into the anarchy state… but both have that pit of anarchy ready to swallow them up if not resisted, and yet irl both really do resist it, for a time as best they can.
I’m still not sure about the following yet, but it seems to be accurate. ‘Unregulated’ capitalism is what the US has been dealing with for many, many years now. I look to the major countries in Europe to see what kind of economies they run, to help me understand what a better off country might look like. (Yes, most of them are part of the EU, and that itself brings Pros and Cons to singular economies.)
