Anonymous #1 11w

This is such a stupid analogy. And it's transphobic...

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Is orange juice water because it's a consumable liquid?

1

Anonymous OP 11w

i used the same analogy as you sooooo maybe you’re more transphobic than you thought

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You literally didn't tho. You butchered my logical structure and apparently you are so blind you didn't realize it!

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Is orange juice the same as water?

1

Anonymous OP 11w

maybe! just like someone who’s masculine apparently is a man

1

Anonymous OP 11w

you can’t butcher something that’s already garbage

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Being masculine and adhering holistically to masculine social standards are NOT the same thing.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

Be so fucking serious. Orange juice is not water and sex is not gender.

-1

Anonymous OP 11w

what’s the difference?

0

Anonymous #1 11w

So sex is the same as gender then?

1

Anonymous OP 11w

why did you ask this twice

1

Anonymous OP 11w

nope one’s a social construct and the other is biological reality

1

Anonymous #1 11w

One is based on you while the other is based on your position in relation to the structure of gender.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

So then why are you disagreeing with me??

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Because you ignored me the first time.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

okay so you do understand that it doesn’t matter how you describe something the reality of that thing will always supersede everything else

3

Anonymous OP 11w

i literally answered you lol

1

Anonymous OP 11w

bc your point makes no sense. when you say men what are you referring to? are feminine men suddenly not men bc they aren’t meeting masculine social standards? am i not a woman bc im not meeting feminine social standards? who determines that? is it a fixed thing? why is something so malleable being used to define individuals?

1

Anonymous OP 11w

so if a man doesn’t meet masculine social standards is he no longer a man?

1

Anonymous #1 11w

NO not at all omfg stop making strawmen arguments

1

Anonymous #1 11w

it not if he meets them or not. it’s whether or not he IDENTIFIES with them.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

then why would you use that to define a man if someone NOT reaching it doesn’t exclude them from being part of that group? how would you even define what a man is in that case?

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You seem to identify more with a harmful version of masculine social standards than many men I know just btw

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Because that’s not what I did lmao that was just your shitty interpretation of my point

1

Anonymous OP 11w

how can someone identify with something they aren’t? if i identify as a millionaire, does that suddenly mean there’s more money in my bank account?

0

Anonymous #1 11w

The whole problem is that we are trying to define people by their gender!!!!

1

Anonymous OP 11w

ok then what’s your definition of a man?

1

Anonymous #1 11w

THAT’S LITERALLY THE POINT GOOD JOB FINALLY UNDERSTANDING MY RHETORICAL QUESTION

1

Anonymous #1 11w

There isn’t one. It’s SUBJECTIVE

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Now you’re just spewing nonsense.

0

Anonymous OP 11w

so just to be clear you’d rather use the subjective definition that has no real way to describe anything bc it’s not BASED on anything rather than looking at biological reality? if ‘man’ has no definition how are women meant to describe their oppressors? how can we track male violence against women if ‘man’ has no strict definition? how are statistics meant to be used if men (and i’m assuming you feel the same way about women) are define subjectively?

1

Anonymous #2 11w

This exactly why we need to stop labeling gender so adamantly.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You didn’t tho. You deflected again.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

🐕 <- this is a man

0

Anonymous OP 11w

you can literally see me answering you

1

Anonymous #1 11w

My goal is to get RID of oppression. Why do you want to keep it???

1

Anonymous #1 11w

I think you’re forgetting this also applies to women and femininity as social constructs…

1

Anonymous OP 11w

how does taking away the ability to track violence against women getting rid of oppression? unless in your mind if it can’t be tracked it doesn’t exist

1

Anonymous OP 11w

now you can’t think of a response so you have to say this

0

Anonymous #1 11w

You can’t define gender for others… It’s a personal thing.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

I can literally see you dodging my hardest questions.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

i think you need to reread my comment bc i literally bring that up lol. also yeah why wouldn’t it? if men have a subjective definition to you it makes complete sense women would as well. so dos femicide stop existing bc there’s no way to define a woman? is that how you plan to stop oppression, by just defining it away?

0

Anonymous OP 11w

ok show me what i haven’t answered and i’ll reply to it

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Not the gender, you identify with the structure. I didn’t say you are a man. I said you subscribe to a very specific idea of manhood

1

Anonymous #1 11w

I’m so tired of you being unable to hold nuance. Please try harder.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

what do you think my idea of manhood is? i also never said you called me a man lol im a woman

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Labels are what separate us from being just human. Queer people have understood this for so fucking long. Have you considered that you can’t heal from trauma if you don’t let go of it? This happens interpersonally and collectively.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

you haven’t answered any of my questions on how violence against women and femicide will still exist if gender is subjective

1

Anonymous OP 11w

thank you for proving you don’t have an answer lol

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You’re making strawmen again. When did I say violence against women shouldn’t be addressed??

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Downstream solutions don’t fix upstream problems.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

THEY WON’T DIVA THAT’S LITERALLY THE WHOLE POINT. THE ONLY REASON IT HAPPENS IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE WE DEFINE GENDER AND SEXUALITY SO RIGIDLY

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Do you want it to still exist or???

3

Anonymous #1 11w

You’re the one missing all of my points.

0

Anonymous OP 11w

i’m asking how, if gender is subjective and there’s no way to define what ‘men’ and ‘women’ are, you think violence against women can be tracked. if the words are subjective, how can anyone know if it was a man or woman who was killed?

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Are you saying you want gender to exist concretely so there will still be violence?

0

Anonymous OP 11w

wait do you actually think women are being killed bc of how their gender is defined? do you actually genuinely think femicide is bc of the DEFINITION of a word?

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You are still asking the wrong questions. I will say again that downstream solutions do not fix upstream problems.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

you have such a deep misunderstanding of misogyny it’s actually kind of impressive. are little girls being married to old men bc of how their gender is defined? do women and girls go through fgm because of that? or do you understand it’s bc of their sex and no subjectivity will change reality?

0

Anonymous #1 11w

NO OMG stop twisting my fucking words

1

Anonymous OP 11w

you continue to prove my point

0

Anonymous #1 11w

WOMEN ARE BEING KILLED BECAUSE OF PATRIARCHY AND PATRIARCHY FUNDAMENTALLY REQUIRES THE GENDER BINARY!!! WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK I’M AGAINST THE SEX-BASED BINARY GENDER????

1

Anonymous OP 11w

you literally said THE ONLY REASON IT (violence against women) HAPPENS IS BECAUSE OF HOW WE DEFINE GENDER. it’s not twisting your words to point out how you’re went

1

Anonymous #1 11w

*wrong

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You never had a point. Just misunderstandings and assumptions.

0

Anonymous OP 11w

so you agree? changing the definition of men and women won’t actually do anything to stop women’s oppression?

1

Anonymous #1 11w

I think you are mixing up gender and gender roles. They are not the same thing

1

Anonymous #1 11w

When you say “defining gender” do you mean personally or societally?

1

Anonymous OP 11w

…no? i’m saying that using subjective definitions won’t do anything but hide when that violence happens. if you can’t define what a man or woman is, how do you know when one has been killed? how do you know who killed them? how can violence against women by men (which i hope you agree is a serious issue) be tracked, if there’s no objective way to define those groups?

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You think gender is based on sex?

1

Anonymous OP 11w

i already told you they’re different. i think using a subjective definition won’t do anything but hide when violence against women happens. if you can’t define what a man or woman is, how do you know when one has been killed? how do you know who killed them? how can violence against women by men (which i hope you agree is a serious issue) be tracked, if there’s no objective way to define those groups?

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Uh though criminal investigation??? It’s pretty easy to find out how people identify based on the people who knew them.

0

Anonymous OP 11w

but if gender is personal, how can anyone really know that? what if they started identifying as a man and no one knew? what if the perpetrator starts identifying as a woman halfway through the investigation? can you see how that would skew the stats if they’re dependent on subjective definitions?

0

Anonymous #1 11w

I’m sorry you feel that way, but you are interpreting my position through the standards of a control society in way that you will never understand me

1

Anonymous #1 11w

I hope you understand very well that I am NOT advocating for the suppression of violence tracking. That’s absurd that you even accused me of that.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

then explain how using a subjective definition won’t suppress it. i’ve asked you probably 15 times and you still don’t have an answer

1

Anonymous OP 11w

which is why changing the definition of what man and woman means won’t do anything to fix systematic misogyny

0

Anonymous #1 11w

good thing that’s not what i’m saying to do!

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You keep converting my structural point into something I never claimed. I never said definitions cause violence, that removing definitions would stop femicide, or that I want gender to stay concrete so violence keeps happening. I said patriarchy needs the gender binary to function, which means loosening that binary weakens one of the mechanisms that sustains the hierarchy. That’s not the same as saying words alone cause or prevent harm.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You can track violence against women without treating ‘man’ and ‘woman’ as fixed metaphysical categories. Investigations already work off how people are known and identified by others, which you basically conceded yourself a few replies ago.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

I’m not defending positions you’re inventing for me. Respond to what I actually said or don’t respond at all.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

oh so you’re not trying to help women you’re just doing this for fun

1

Anonymous #1 11w

oh another strawman??

1

Anonymous #1 11w

you’re the one who’s resisting feminism right now diva don’t pin that on me

1

Anonymous OP 11w

i never said any of that either. hate crimes against women aren’t done bc those women meet the socially acceptable standards for being a woman, they’re done because of our biology. gender doesn’t exist. it’s not real. so the logical solution is to use definitions based in reality for men and women to make sure accurate representations of violence is being reported. patriarchy ALSO needs harm to women to function. if you define away what a ‘woman’ is, how can hate crimes be tracked?

0

Anonymous #1 11w

oh so now gender isn’t real?? i fucking knew you were transphobic

1

Anonymous OP 11w

investigations also work based off of objective facts, which you seem to care less and less about as this convo goes on

0

Anonymous OP 11w

…gender is a social construct. that’s not transphobic to say lol

1

Anonymous OP 11w

the concept of resisting feminism by saying women are victims of sex based crimes and not bc of how they identify… i love you so much

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Social construct doesn’t mean not materially real. Money’s a construct and it still decides whether you eat this month. Borders are constructs and people die over them. Constructed means produced and enforced by human systems, not fake.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

which is why using sex based definitions work better. it doesn’t matter if a woman is masculine or feminine or what her hobbies are or anything else, she’s still a woman. same for men. getting rid of gender allowed individuals to behave/dress/do anything they want without worrying about meeting societal expectations for what a ‘man’ and a ‘woman’ are

7

Anonymous #1 11w

You keep assuming the fix for violence is getting the definition metaphysically ‘correct,’ like the people who think killing fascists ends fascism instead of the conditions that produce them. Nobody gets targeted because of their chromosomes, they get targeted because of how they’re read and classified socially, which is gender.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

it does if it’s based off of subjectivity, which you’ve already agreed gender is. money has an objective value. borders have objective boundaries. if i hand you a 10$ bill but i SAY it’s 20$, does that suddenly make it true?

0

Anonymous #1 11w

If sex is what ultimately matters to you, why does it matter so much that women specifically be classified by sex, when the violence itself runs through gendered perception? That’s a determinist getting mad that ‘choice’ language exists at the level where it actually operates. Both levels can be true without collapsing into each other.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

bc it’s not based off of gender, it’s based off of sex. masculine AND feminine women are the victims of misogyny. if it were truly based off of gender, masculine women would be seen as ‘closer’ to the male gender and would get the benefits of that. but they aren’t, bc at the end of the day they’re still women. are women being denied abortions and bodily autonomy because of their gender? or because of their sex? are little girls able to escape fgm by identifying out of being women, or do you

0

Anonymous #1 11w

understand that they’re oppressed on the axis of SEX?

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You’re saying masculine women don’t get any benefit from being closer to masculine norms, but that’s not true. I know someone who reads as feminine but acts dude-bro, holds pretty patriarchal views herself, and she gets along easily with men and is visibly more comfortable around them than around women. She doesn’t get corrected for it and doesn’t seem to care either way. That’s a real, material benefit from aligning with masculine-coded behavior, not a punishment for failing femininity.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

That’s what gender is doing: sorting who gets ease and who gets friction based on how they present and act, separate from their sex. If it were purely sex-based like you’re saying, her sex wouldn’t buy her any of that. And you’re still defending a strict, binary, sex-based classification system as the thing that protects women from patriarchy, when that exact rigid binary is what patriarchy runs on. You can’t use patriarchy’s own sorting mechanism to fight patriarchy.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

…bc she’s aligning with patriarchy values. i can’t believe im saying this but that’s literally the point of the cool girl monologue from gone girl. by your own definition then is she a man bc she aligns more with societally accepted masculine traits? or do you understand regardless of her behavior or views she’s still a woman?

0

Anonymous OP 11w

then why aren’t we telling little girls who are forced into marrying older men to just identifying out of being a woman? why won’t identifying as a man protect them from fgm? acknowledging that sex exists is the same as acknowledging the sun is in the sky. GENDER is actually the tool of the patriarchy, as that’s where gender roles/expectations/oppression comes from. honestly if you won’t even admit misogyny is based off of sex idk if it’s worth continuing this convo

0

Anonymous #1 11w

That’s backwards. If sex alone determined how someone’s treated, a masculine woman and a feminine woman would face identical social consequences, they don’t. #2 just described exactly that: presenting masculine changes how she’s read and treated, regardless of her sex. That’s gender doing work sex can’t explain.

0

Anonymous #1 11w

You’re also contradicting yourself. You said getting rid of gender lets people dress and behave however they want without worrying about meeting expectations for ‘man’ and ‘woman,’ but a sex-based definition is what enforces those expectations in the first place.

2

Anonymous #1 11w

If sex is the only category that matters, then failing to meet masculine or feminine standards should carry zero consequence, since your sex doesn’t change. But it clearly does carry consequences, which means something other than sex is doing the sorting. That something is gender.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

I will say this again since you ignored it the first time: you’re still defending a strict, binary, sex-based classification system as the thing that protects women from patriarchy, when in reality that exact rigid binary is what patriarchy runs on. You can’t use patriarchy’s own sorting mechanism to fight patriarchy.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Also if it’s not already clear, getting rid of binary gender is not the same as getting rid of gender. Sex isn’t even binary btw it’s bimodal.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

There’s also a structural reason patriarchy needs the binary to be rigid, and it’s about lineage. Patrilineal systems trace inheritance, name, and property through the father, which only works if paternity is certain. Maternity is never in question, you always know who gave birth. Paternity can only be secured by controlling women’s sexuality and reproduction, hence virginity requirements, chastity enforcement, punishment for infidelity, child marriage to lock in paternity early, and so on.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

That’s why the hierarchy needs a strict, binary, sex-based category for ‘woman’ specifically. It’s not really about protecting women, it’s about guaranteeing which children belong to which father. A rigid binary is the mechanism that makes that guarantee possible. Matrilineal societies never needed this kind of policing, because maternity was never in doubt.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

So when you say sex-based classification is what protects women, you’re actually pointing at the exact system built to control them. The certainty you’re calling protection is the control.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

Because that’s not how gender works?? Did you choose your favorite color? No. Gender works the same way. Everyone experiences gender. Masculinity and femininity resonate differently in everyone just like different colors do. You can’t just change your favorite color to ease some material situation. Any attempt would simply be untrue. gender ESSENTIALISM is what you are describing and that’s different than gender.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

i’m gonna say this and leave fr lol but you’re assuming we live in a society where we’ve abolished gender. we haven’t. as you continue to prove, gender still matters very much. in a world where it DIDNT, then yeah exactly what you’re describing would happen. men and women wouldn’t be judged based off of their ability to meet arbitrary and subjective gender roles. they’d just be able to exist as people and present/behave/whatever however they want

0

Anonymous #1 11w

read everything before responding

1

Anonymous #1 11w

I still don’t know what you’re on about saying that I’m assuming we live in a society where we’ve abolished gender? I don’t know how you came up with that when I’ve been saying that it’s impossible to abolish gender. if you think genderqueer people get treated the same as their cisgender counterparts you have failed to learn the sociology of gender. you keep saying “men and women” as if it means all humans which erases queerness from the narrative. I was hoping you’d address my actual points…

1