3 ms·

This is detracting from the point. Again, a child can tell you that a phone is not a washing machine, just like a child can tell you that a man is not a woman.

by azth 5y ago

This is detracting from the point. Again, a child can tell you that a phone is not a washing machine, just like a child can tell you that a man is not a woman. Men and women have been the same as men and women from thousands of years ago. We did not magically change species or something. Do physical conditions exist (XXY, XYY, etc) exist? Yes they do, but what we're seeing today is mass hysteria around a mental issue. What should be done is start looking at the underlying causes. Hormone imbalances? childhood trauma? Depression? Wanting out of the current lifestyle? Lack of religion? People with too much time on their hands that they start inventing problems? All these and more should be investigated

shakna 5y ago
> just like a child can tell you that a man is not a woman. Men and women have been the same as men and women from thousands of years ago. We did not magically change species or something. Ah. You have a very limited background. Right. We have been the same species for thousands of years. And for thousands of years there have been male and female (sex) groups that have presented as men and women (gender), that is not the same as the one you might assign to them. (The galli priests of Rome, the Hijras of India, the khanith of Arabia, etc.) And no... No, a child is not always able to tell them apart. Nor does a child, necessarily, instinctively call them either man or woman. If you were to ask a child of the Tiwi tribe what one of their ladyboys are, today, man or woman, they would answer "ladyboy". If you press the point - the child becomes confused. The ladyboys have been present in the Tiwi for roughly the last eight to ten thousand years or so ("kirrijamiyagirraga" in Tiwi). They are as much a part of the social fabric as man or woman. Tiwi is a gendered language, and has three genders (kirri - male, makirri - female, rraga - ladyboy), as well as a fourth tense that is used for gender-neutral terms (ramiya). And, well, if you assume that they're all genetic males, you'll get that wrong as well.
- azth 5y ago
  > the khanith of Arabia I'm very well aware of Arabian culture. khanith is a homosexual and/or effeminate male, and is heavily used as an insult today (almost like "fag" in english). It was never a "third gender" as you're trying to claim. So no, the entire basis is incorrect. Repeat after me, there are two genders. Everything you described has one of two parts between their legs, barring physical ailments like intersex, which are extremely extremely rare.
  - shakna 5y ago
    > Repeat after me, there are two genders. Everything you described has one of two parts between their legs, barring physical ailments like intersex, which are extremely extremely rare. As the Tiwi would say today (and have been saying for an order of magnitude longer than most nations have existed - about eight thousand years or so): > Kirrijamiyagirraga naramiya makirri kirrikirriramiya To roughly translate into English... "If you cannot see if it is a woman, nor a man, why must it be either?" It loses a little bit of meaning, as it uses four genders and English is not a gendered language, but you can get the gist. (Naramiya is closer to "bear witness" or "absolutely determine" in a somewhat-legal sense. It's a stronger phrase than English really has.) You are conflating the genetics of _sex_ with the cultural status of _gender_. No one is denying the genetics side. They have just managed to understand the difference between how one presents oneself, and something else that only their doctor need know.

by azth 5y ago

shakna 5y ago

> just like a child can tell you that a man is not a woman. Men and women have been the same as men and women from thousands of years ago. We did not magically change species or something. Ah. You have a very limited background. Right. We have been the same species for thousands of years. And for thousands of years there have been male and female (sex) groups that have presented as men and women (gender), that is not the same as the one you might assign to them. (The galli priests of Rome, the Hijras of India, the khanith of Arabia, etc.) And no... No, a child is not always able to tell them apart. Nor does a child, necessarily, instinctively call them either man or woman. If you were to ask a child of the Tiwi tribe what one of their ladyboys are, today, man or woman, they would answer "ladyboy". If you press the point - the child becomes confused. The ladyboys have been present in the Tiwi for roughly the last eight to ten thousand years or so ("kirrijamiyagirraga" in Tiwi). They are as much a part of the social fabric as man or woman. Tiwi is a gendered language, and has three genders (kirri - male, makirri - female, rraga - ladyboy), as well as a fourth tense that is used for gender-neutral terms (ramiya). And, well, if you assume that they're all genetic males, you'll get that wrong as well.

azth 5y ago
> the khanith of Arabia I'm very well aware of Arabian culture. khanith is a homosexual and/or effeminate male, and is heavily used as an insult today (almost like "fag" in english). It was never a "third gender" as you're trying to claim. So no, the entire basis is incorrect. Repeat after me, there are two genders. Everything you described has one of two parts between their legs, barring physical ailments like intersex, which are extremely extremely rare.
- shakna 5y ago
  > Repeat after me, there are two genders. Everything you described has one of two parts between their legs, barring physical ailments like intersex, which are extremely extremely rare. As the Tiwi would say today (and have been saying for an order of magnitude longer than most nations have existed - about eight thousand years or so): > Kirrijamiyagirraga naramiya makirri kirrikirriramiya To roughly translate into English... "If you cannot see if it is a woman, nor a man, why must it be either?" It loses a little bit of meaning, as it uses four genders and English is not a gendered language, but you can get the gist. (Naramiya is closer to "bear witness" or "absolutely determine" in a somewhat-legal sense. It's a stronger phrase than English really has.) You are conflating the genetics of _sex_ with the cultural status of _gender_. No one is denying the genetics side. They have just managed to understand the difference between how one presents oneself, and something else that only their doctor need know.