You can be more masculine or less masculine as either a male or female, but you're still one or the other.

Except you don't have to be masculine to identify as male you ******* .

nah man, that terminology for gender was created by these ******* in to give themselves backing, before this gender was a polite way of saying sex

why are you talking to me? all im saying is that gender used to be synonymous with sex and now its been hijacked, nothing to do whether or not they exist

not that im against you or anything but how the **** do you know it happend in 2004?

no

A feminine man is not a woman, hes a man
his gender remains male

no spectrum involved

Whatever your personal views on whether or not it makes sense, is justified, or is even a thing, it is useful to think of sex and gender as distinct things. In psychiatry, psychology, sociology and even just interpersonal relationships, having the extra category gives you an extra data point to work off.

This doesn't mean that some people don't use it in retarded ways. It just means that you're wrong for refusing to even entertain the possibility that it could be a thing.

I guess
but seeing as I am not a professional in those fields I cannot see it as having any use to me

So I don't see the point in entertaining the idea when I see no use that I could gleam from it, and outside of that I see nothing to tell me it should be thought of that way

Only that people want to
And if they want to use a term in a way I see as wrong, that's on them
They can do that

"You're allowed to be wrong if you want to"

So you acknowledge that it could be a thing in certain fields, but you simply have no reason to care about it?

I acknowledge that if people have reason to consider it a thing
then that's on them

I don't understand.

The reasons that I have suggested don't come from inside the person accepting them. From a utilitarian perspective, it's inarguably a good thing to have sex and gender be different things. Everyone has reason to accept that, especially people who work in the previously mentioned fields.

It doesn't even make sense to say it's "on them" to have a reason to believe something. Such a reason would have to be given or found. If it's generated internally with no bearing on the real world, it's both a **** reason and not utilitarian, which is the reason I'm suggesting.

Ive as yet not been given a good reason to see it that way
The only argument I have so far been presented with, excluding your separate data point (which, not being a professional in the relevant fields means next to nothing to me) is that it would make the gibberish surrounding the "extra genders" beyond male and female make more sense

But Im not invested in making those things make more sense

Actually my argument is "Im not convinced by your weak ass argument to believe in this nonsense"

I wasn't talking about you, but you've acknowledge the point I wanted you to acknowledge. That point being that it is useful in certain fields.

How then, can you deny it's a thing? There are many things that have literally no bearing on how you act, but would be stupid to deny. The world being round -ish , for example.

The fact that you're not invested in understanding it has no bearing on whether or not it's true. I don't understand quantum superposition, and have no intention to learn about it, but that doesn't mean that I deny it's true simply because it doesn't make sense to me.

Besides which, I find it odd how you say you're not invested in understanding it, but I've seen you comment in these discussions like half a dozen times by now. Like, why involve yourself in discussions when you're not going to make the effort to inform yourself about the topic? That's sorta #Rood to everyone involved.

I can deny its a thing because I do not see those people with their reasons to see it as a thing as being an authority on the thing, or on anything outside of their field

What I mean is that
their decisions are, as yet, not relevant to me and my life
They havent yet had any reason to dictate my view on the world
So whatever use they have for it, is irrelevant to me, and so I see no reason to change how I see things to suit their uses

As for why I talk about something Im not invested in:
That's easy

I felt like it

I genuinely don't understand how you can acknowledge that it is a useful and true thing in some situations but not accept that it is a useful and true thing.

This is like saying a doctor isn't an authority on how your body works so you don't accept that you have an immune system. Or that a physicist isn't an authority on how the universe works so you don't accept the idea that stars aren't on fire. Or any other such retarded thing.

I never said it was true
I said they see it as useful
THATS what I recognize

This does not make it true

I have to be convinced of it's truth and if the only reason to have believed stars are on fire is so that it makes more sense when some lunatic talks about his star-blisters I wouldnt have believed it

But noone has given any actual good reason for why gender and sex are any different, and of those who try, their only explanation for what gender suddenly means is "Your self identity"

Ok
My "gender" is a sentient latex buttplug
And you need to believe it because gender is a thing

It's unambiguously useful. Whether or not it is a correct usage of the word depends entirely on whether or not it is used that way in the language. Which it is, to the point that it's now recognized as such in dictionaries.

Gender is the state of being male, female or some variation thereof with respect to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.

You keep saying it's useful
And nothing else

Not, for instance, any way in which it is useful, only that it is
Ok

Now you say it's unambiguoously useful

uh huh
how

Gender is Sex

For sociology? Gives an extra variable we can use to track statistics in a population. Are people who experience a difference in their gender and sex more likely to suffer from certain ailments, or commit crimes, or suffer prejudice? You can't track that without distinguishing between the two, and you can't combat it without tracking it.

Psychology/Psychiatry? Aforementioned knowledge of whether they're more likely to suffer from certain ailments extends to those of the mind, too. Sure, you might say that gender dysphoria is a disease in and of itself, to which I would respond that that kind of thinking is at least just as bad. In any case, it's easier to treat someone when you're not ignoring aspects of their personality. How does this affect you? Well, it'd be better for you if there were less psychotic people wandering around, surely. An extreme example, but not the only one.

Interpersonal relationships? People are less likely to think you're a prick if you're not baselessly outright rejecting things they say about themselves. By all means, call them out if they're being attention whores, but not everyone is. Not even most people are.

Let me turn it back around on you, now. Why is gender the same as sex? Despite the fact that the English language can only be improved by adding meaning to words that were previously synonymous, despite the fact that it is a thing that people all over the place are experiencing, despite the fact that it's useful in various situations, and despite the fact that the dictionary no longer supports your definition, you say they are the same thing. Why?

Sociology:
Im not convinced of that
Not that I hold the highest regard for sociology in general but that in particular sounds like bunk to me. You have at it but Im not buying that. Especially when you frame it as the only variable by which these things can be studied, which I understand was not your intent but your focus on somehow proving this focus to be of critical importance has given you that air.

Psychology:
See above, though I have a little more faith in the field but again, this sounds like some gum-flapping. I do not buy that these things are personality aspects in the first place, specifically because I am as yet convinced that every instance of such claims is a bid for attention by vapid and delusional individuals who want to stand apart from the crowd as they are incapable of handling the idea that they are insignificant or not special.

Relationships:
Cry me a river

The reason i still thing Gender = Sex is the same reason I don't pray to a god
I've no reason to. I have yet to be convinced that it is necessary or there is any good reason to do so. I also don't believe in a spectral pink teapot that floats around in space and will determine the future of the universe based on the fashion choices of a lesbian from newyork city. What reason have I to buy into it, when the only argument for it so far as been "But you gotta!"

Youve given me some reasons yes
And they havent been very good ones, so I am not won over
Failing that I am left at square 1, people want me to believe in this thing because...
because they want me to? because it makes them feel better? because it gives them more to whine about when their super secret space gender in their head is somehow slighted?

Under more ordinary circumstances I wouldnt be so opposed, but the last several months have given me pause for thought on why I should simply accept this and that because why not. Well there is a 'why not', and it is that this **** is being used to drive peoples lives to ruin over invented slights and hurt feelings. Institutions of education being turned into stepford culdesacs of feefees and comfort, professionals stripped from their jobs and humour being stamped out.

Ofcourse this isn't everyone but these occurences have given me a reason to stop and seriously consider if I want to accept something, simply because why not?

That's my why not, and that means something which might have previously slid past on "yeah sure I cant see any problem with that I guess" now has to prove its worth being accepted, that there's a good reason to take it in.

Sociology:
Then you're wrong.

Psychology:
Then you're wrong.

Relationships:
Fair enough. You're not obligated to give a **** .

Everything else:
That's ludicrous. Besides the erroneous comparisons between the actual behavior of human beings and the hypothetical possibilities of a deity, you've ignored every reason presented to you for no discernible reason.

Here's the cool thing however: Language isn't determined by the individual. Whether or not you choose to recognize it, for all the reasons I've presented and more, gender is not the same as sex. You ignoring that makes you factually incorrect. The language has evolved, like it or not.

You say so
But I dont care that you say so

So we're at an impasse there

I mean I can do it too
look

Everything else:
Youre wrong tho

Your failure is in having not presented a single reason as to why anything I have said is wrong, or why it's not enough, besides your feelings.

I can't reply to your comment c'mon Addy make threads bigger
But at what point would one draw the line between "arbitrary preference" and "gender"? That line and those categories are entirely subjective. I for one don't see reasons for a feminine or masculine trait. It would be like asking a tomboy why she's a tomboy. The aspects of her personality that make her a tomboy have been subjectively defined as masculine and then objectively accepted by society as masculine. For that matter, what line is there between any of the identities that people give themselves? The problem I find is that the differences are just too minor to be noteworthy, which is why it's only been male and female (and both) up until this last few years to decade. At least that has been the general assumption.
I spent so long typing that paragraph that I forgot what I was going to say next. Oh right, identity. The word is self-explanatory to my point. Many of those who make these identities for themselves are at the age in which they are trying to find who they are (teenagers to young adults; Identity VS Role Confusion) which may be a factor in the creation of these terms. Nobody wants to be undefined, and everyone wants something or some term to use that captures their specific situation, or their specific self. Psychologically speaking, it creates a sense of security and well, identity! But as you pointed out, these examples may not represent the correct way to use what you are describing, and while I agree, it should be considered as an important sociological factor among the aforementioned age group (teenagers to young adults).
I guess to sum up my points, I don't feel that these masculine/feminine tendencies are any more than personality traits. There are of course, major exceptions that push people to get sex changes, but in the end those are still either male or female. There will always be exceptions. The more specific term creation is, in my opinion, currently attempts to define oneself, which is typical human behavior. It's not abnormal at all because people have done it in different ways for a while now. Probably going to head off after this. It's always fun having an intelligent discussion once and a while.

How does it feel talking to a brick wall? Apathy = Bias.
Not to say I disagree with him on the Gender = Sex thing, however. If one is a man with feminine traits, then one is still a man. There should be no special label for non-masculine traits because everyone is going to have character traits that are one or the other, regardless of gender. I typically keep my fingernails longer than normal, which is an arguably feminine trait. Does that need a label? Absolutely not. Having masculine-oriented personality traits as a woman does not make someone anything other than a woman with masculine traits / oriented personality.
As for the psychology / sociology reason, of course it's useful. Studying these traits can be very useful in diagnosing disorders, and the thought processes of individual people. However, I don't believe these differences should be categorized and treated as anything more than minor divergences from the norm, unique from person to person.
It would be stupid to assume that there's one reason for why so many people create these identities for themselves, so I'm not going to do that. However, I personally feel that some people create such labels in an attempt to explain their behaviors in a way similar to how a teenager would self-diagnose themselves with disorders because they see symptoms of said disorder in themselves. From a personal perspective in this case, it may just be the need for an explanation.
Text walls incoming

Lol I totally ****** that up. I meant to say they get distracted easily, not want things to be straight. Got my OCD and ADD mixed up.

Arguing is like crack to me, so on one level it was fun. On another it was ******* awful.
In my mind, that's a categorically different thing to the gender/sex thing. Gender is inherently about feelings, which is why it's really only useful in the fields where mentality is a factor. The distinction I would make about the nails is the reason. If you had long nails because of arbitrary preference, it's unrelated to gender. If you chose to keep your nails longer than usual because you are feminine, it'd be related to gender. But I agree that it in itself doesn't need a label - The gender thing is related to identity, and your identity isn't determined by a single factor. It's the sum of your parts.
They would need a label in any study or conversation, saying "The way a person feels about their sex" is both tedious and carries none of the subtext that "gender" would. For the same reason, we say "quarks" instead of "pieces of a proton"
Some people definitely do that, but it doesn't change the reality of the matter. To use an example I feel we'll agree on, the fact that some people say they have ADD or ADHD when they want things to be neat doesn't detract from whether or not those are real things. Further, I see no problem with having labels, should they be correctly applied. People seem to take issue with being labelled, I think it's a good thing provided everyone involved is smart enough to know that a label doesn't describe a persons identity in totality and the label is accurate.
Walls have arrived.

So be concerned

That you think so is your problem

That you think I'm wrong is concerning.

Ok
I can roll with thyat
But that's not gender

A feminine man is still a man

If it's gay to **** a trap then then no matter how feminine the man is, hes still a man

ok
but the gender itself has not changed
I repeat

no matter how feminine a man is, he remains a man

They are the same thing so, no

I don't buy that so you saying so means nothing to me

You say that
but you saying so means nothing to me

aight

idk "lemme rephrase that" sounds confrontational

oh yeah those pink lines are pretty autismussy

I mean
What else were you aiming at

harsh

What is the difference between sex and gender to you?

the same as the difference between Femur and Thigh Bone

That was a straight answer

Im saying I would have to be a medical professional to know that
As far as I can tell there is only the word used

Is there a difference between a femur and a thigh bone?

Your thigh bone is your femur. Are you saying sex and gender are the same?

well one is also a verb

unless you know how to gender someone
or have hot steamy gender

But according to you they are two unique words describing the same thing, albeit one having alternative definitions that are irrelevant..

I dont know if the verb-half of sex is irrelevant

You're literally arguing semantics for a definition of sex that isn't being questioned here.

Sex (noun) - your biological sex.
Gender (noun) - the sex you identify as independent of your biological sex.

Now from what I have been trying to understand, you seem to be saying my second definition is incorrect. Can you please answer me straight rather than dancing around irrelevant semantic arguments relating to the words rather than the things the words describe?

actually Im dancing around the issue because it amuses me to deliberately avoid being straightforward and direct when someone tells you to be straightforward and direct

You weren't being straightforward or direct before I asked you to be straightforward and direct either. What was the excuse then?

The excuse was that even my initial indirect response is obvious enough
clarification is wholly unnecessary

so you needing clarification is silly and it amuses me to refuse you

Are you intending to clarify at all or should I just move on with my life?

Fine fine
I'll do it just for you bby

Sex = Gender
Gender = Sex

Except when sex is a verb

and trans folks?

They make the issue more complicated, but only with respect to themselves
Their complication does not affect others

but they literally embody the asynchrony of sex and gender. Because of their exposure/lack of exposure to the appropriate levels of perinatal testosterone their brains did not masculanize/feminize properly.

Now perinatal testosterone is not an on/off switch. The reason why gender is considered a spectrum is because that perinatal surge can to varying degrees masculanize or feminize your brain, making you more likely to feel comfortable taking on the natural roles of one sex over the other. You don't HAVE to be trans to be a very effeminate man, you don't have to be trans to be a very butch woman. Does that make sense?

I dont know Im not a linguist

Welp, guess that's all folks.

And mine is that they are one and the same, regardless of a person's brain chemistry or mental issues

Your 'self identity' is just that
your self identity

label, even, if you like
signifier maybe, if you want to be flowery

title, perhaps
alter-ego

whatever you like

Hell Im not even strongly opposed to the mis-use of the term gender
I will simply continue to believe that this is a mis-use of the term and leave it at that

why have two unique words mean the same thing? In what context is gender a better word than sex?

I said it makes sense
i.e I can see that it would happen
Brain chemistry is funny like that

However brain chemistry has no effect on what something means
It does not alter concepts, it alters people
And then those people alter themselves in an attempt to reach some kind of stability or personal equilibrium

And all of this takes place without impacting the meaning of a term and the concept it represents

My argument is just that gender is not sex. Sex is the concrete thing, gender is the self identifier. What word would you use instead of gender to describe the self-identifiers we assign ourselves?

I have made absolutely no assertion that sex and gender are separate
No agreement has been reached, not even the semblance of such

yet you're agreeing with the logic behind the masculinization and feminization of the brain at birth altering how people identify?

A disagreement isn't necessarily a problem
It's only a problem if you cannot handle differing views

Allow me to clarify: what is your issue with my conclusion? You seemed to be agreeing with me. Sex is a concrete biologically determined thing while gender is label you give yourself based on the masculanization/feminization of your brain and how it influences your development.

No

what's the problem?

It makes sense but it doesnt suddenly liquify the concept of sex

It does not make a man a woman or vice versa
Nor does it allow for this to become the case

It explains only the reasons why someone would want to alter their body to emulate something they aren't

Right, sex and gender are two different things.

^_^ Sex is what you are chromosomally, and gender is what you identify as.

No they embody a mental problem which has been given a physical solution
They do not exist as a seperate "gender" or anything of the sort, they are simply mis-aligned on the binary, and most societies have opted to allow one direction of alignment over the other

Yes, they have a mental problem. Their brains received an inappropriate level of perinatal testosterone.

Essentially, just as men are born a HUGE influx of testosterone is released that masculanizes their brains. Imagine if this boost didn't happen? You said it yourself, we exist on a binary, if they weren't masculanized, by default they would be feminized. These are trans folks who transition from male to female. Now what if the surge happened, but only half as much testosterone as was necessary to masculanize the brain was present. Well, the brain would theoretically partially masculanize. This would result in a more feminine male.

The reverse is true for females. Does this make sense?