I realise you're not going to respond to this. That's your prerogative. I'll respond anyway because I really enjoy these discussions.
Ganondox wrote:
No, it's not my source, again my actual source is a life time of involvement with this subject, I'm just giving you something because you asked for one
So you had a decent source and you gave me that instead?
Maybe your source is only available in a text book but you said your sources were "easily available".
Ganondox wrote:
and it is from an academic source, did you not see the edu?
I saw that it was intended for nursing students. Now I have a great deal of respect for nurses. I know many of them are specialists in their field but your source was not specialist knowladge. It breifly stated what but it didn't state why.
Ganondox wrote:
Of course it doesn't cite any studies, as studies are completely irrelevant to the question, that's what you don't seem to get.
Why are studies completely irrelevant to this question?
You keep on making baseless claims such as "studies are completely irrelevant to this question" without providing any reason for them.
You do realise in rhetoric you don't just make a statement out of the blue with no reason, don't you?
Ganondox wrote:
Your insistence there must be scientific difference between sex and gender is frankly a nonsensical concept because it's literally semantics
You want to go with semantics? That's fine. We can go with semantics if you want but I still think it's a little dissapointing that your proof gender exists as a separate thing is that there's a seperate word for it. There's a word for dragon and yes, it's in the dictionary but that doesn't prove dragons really exist, does it.
You can't prove everything using semantics because a million different things existed before language even developed. Those things were no less real just because they didn't have names.
Ganondox wrote:
You're so off the mark you can't even comprehend what the mark is.
There's no need for insults. Please be mature about this.
Ganondox wrote:
I'm not going to continue this conversation
That's fine by me.
Ganondox wrote:
you're just being stubborn and making a pedantic non-argument
I could say the same for you. Most of your so-called arguments were just "everyone just knows it so it must be true" and "sex is something totally different" without saying what it is and "it's pretty obvious that I'm right" and "you can't even comprehend what the mark is, therefor I'm right"
Ganondox wrote:
because you think you know more than you actually do
Please don't project your own problems on to me.
You speak as though you think you're a scientist and yet you don't know how to back up your claims or even how to describe the system of sex that you claim is the correct one.
I never said that your system of sex is the wrong one, I just said you hadn't actually described it.
Ganondox wrote:
and have *awful* reading comprehension
Where did I have aweful reading comprehension.
Ganondox wrote:
(maybe it would be better if you stopped taking every PHRASE out of context!).
Which phrases did I take out of context?
Ganondox wrote:
The information is all there and extremely easy to get
And yet you seem to have a hard time getting it. If it's so easy to get you could provide me with a link describing why sex and gender are different in a matter of seconds.
Remember that thing for nursing students said nothing about why they're different. It was little more than a glossary.
Ganondox wrote:
you're just wasting my time.
No one can waste your time but you.
Ganondox wrote:
I already answered most your questions anyway (I'll address the ones I didn't, for the rest just reread what I already wrote and try thinking about it a little harder), and the sources you brought up on your own actually confirmed what I was saying (for example the Oxford dictionary had the same definitions as the Merriam Webster dictionary, just phrased differently and in a different order, again there is literally no debate that gender is culture while sex is biology).
That's right. They both had the same definitions (plural) in a different order, including the biological definition of gender.
Ganondox wrote:
PS: Do you know what a layman even is?
Yes. It's a fairly common term. You must have quite a low opinion of me if you think I don't know common words.
Ganondox wrote:
It's someone who isn't an expert. By default, the definitions of words are for layman unless it's specialized terminology.
But gender isn't specialised terminolgy. It's also a common word.
Ganondox wrote:
PSS: There is several definitions of sex WITHIN the scientific community, but they all relate back to the gamete definition of sex in one way or another and relate to the problem that the gamete definition can't be extended beyond the cellular level.
When did I ever claim otherwise?
Ganondox wrote:
You can't just make up your own definition of sex
Of course I can't. I wasn't attempting to make up my own definition of sex. In fact at my point in my posts did I even define what sex is.
Ganondox wrote:
Again, the main problem is that you don't have the basic level of context to even be a part of this conversation, and I can't just give that to you here. Of course you're just going to say that's a non-argument, but that's because you're coming from the position of ignorance, you don't even know what you don't know. From where I stand, it's extremely obvious what's going on.
And of course you're going to say that I should simply major in biology but that's just not practical. I can't just quit my job to study full time in an unrelated field. I can't spend $50,000 to do that.
Sure I could Google all this stuff as you suggested but then you'd say it doesn't count because I'm not college educated.
The trouble with Googling stuff is that you can find stuff to support any position on Google. That's why I gave you the chance to provide sources, to make it fair for you.
Maybe you're right. Maybe I took on more than I could chew. Maybe I'm simply not smart enough to understand the science behind this. Not being smart enough is the story of my life.
I didn't even disagree with your claims, simply the way you presented them without proof. I'm sorry if I annoyed you. That was not my intention.
Ganondox wrote:
PSSSSS: With the "requires no more than two" thing, the issue was parsing, giving it the opposite meaning that you intended, especially with all the unneeded qualifiers like "still". What you should have written was "it doesn't require more than two sexes".
Well that clears that up.
I'm saying dude, use freaking google! I'm not going to waste my time googling stuff for you, it's not any sort of specialized knowledge that's hard to acquire because you need an advanced textbook or anything. You tell me to provide a explanation of the difference between sex and gender, I provided you SEVERAL, yet you rejected them all for some asinine reason. If you go to any reputable source it's going to say basically the same thing. Anyway, most my sources are people, not books, so I can't just give them to you, but you'll find it in books as well. And I'm not going to point out every place where your reading comprehension failed or your took a phrase of context, because that applies to MOST of your comments, and it's simply not worth my time to explain each case, especially when I already explained it once.
The why gender and sex are different is simple: they never were the same thing. The use of gender to refer to sex is an EXTREMELY recent use of the term, like 70's recently. Prior is was just an obscure term used in feminist theory (and some other anthropological disciplines that took the term from feminist theory), and linguistics. The concept of differentiating them using studies is nonsensical because it's an entirely realm of semantics, it's like demanding a study to prove there is a difference between a rock and a sphere. What you're actually asking me to do is explain the difference between a biological concept and a cultural concept, which is more complicated than can be done in a forum post as it requires a foundational understanding of anthropology. They are used synonymously in common speech because the difference is very technical and in most cases it doesn't matter, but when you're getting into an in-depth discussion the nature of sex, or even a general discussion of LBGT culture, it does. The only reason I pointed out the distinction in the first place is because you were talking about how SJWs were wrong for saying sex isn't biological, which is correct, but it misses the ACTUAL argument.
PS: Pointing out your ignorance is not an insult. It's pretty clear the problem is that you have an idea in your mind about what the framework for the definition of sex and gender are supposed to be, but the reality doesn't match your framework at all, and until you get out of the box you put yourself in we can't have this conversation. Like, there isn't an single agreed upon definition for sex, there is several, but there is a general concept of what sex is even if some of the details are fuzzy, and I'm not endorsing any specific definition, just trying to explain the general concept. Meanwhile, YOU have been extremely insulting with your sarcastic attacks, so that just makes you a hypocrite.
PSS: THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF GENDER! The dictionary definition you gave explicitly stated that gender is NOT biological. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not biologists who use gender to refer to sex, it's average people. Once you start talking about gender, you leave the realm of biology, and enter the realm of anthropology as the concept of gender can only be applied to people.
22 Jan 2017, 4:47 pm
