The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Original post by Tootles
It's called "immigration," I think :rolleyes:


Yes it is. If it wasn't, it would have been a "thing" for much longer than the... what, fifty, sixty years (...?) in which it has. Before then the closest thing was people acting like the opposite gender, rather than pretending to be it.

Gender identity is a purely social construct; people are conditioned to identify with and aspire to the socially aceptable roles and rules associated with their biological gender, and with good hostorical reason: both genders have their advantages and their disadvantages, and someone doing something for which their gender isn't properly equipped will make that something much harder to accomplish.


There is no such thing as biological gender. It is called sex.

Gender is deeper than a purely social construct, as shown by various case studies.

Posted from TSR Mobile
[video="youtube;7yPUa5-aJg0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yPUa5-aJg0[/video]
Original post by Katty3
There is no such thing as biological gender. It is called sex.

Gender is deeper than a purely social construct, as shown by various case studies.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I was waiting for this.

Take your soapbox somewhere else :mob:
Reply 63
Original post by Tootles
I was waiting for this.

Take your soapbox somewhere else :mob:


Do you mean my actual knowledge of the subject of sex and gender.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 64
Original post by Katty3
There is no such thing as biological gender. It is called sex.

Gender is deeper than a purely social construct, as shown by various case studies.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Same thing
Reply 65
Original post by sw651
Same thing


No. Gender is different to sex. Calling them the same thing only serves to annoy people who know what they're going on about.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 66
white people please stop
Reply 67
Original post by Katty3
No. Gender is different to sex. Calling them the same thing only serves to annoy people who know what they're going on about.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Gender is masculine or feminine. Sex is Male or Female. But Biological Gender can be considered as sex

It depends on the literalism.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 68
Original post by ammmauk
white people please stop


Racists please stop
Reply 69
Original post by sw651
Gender is masculine or feminine. Sex is Male or Female. But Biological Gender can be considered as sex

It depends on the literalism.


Biological gender does not exist. It is the wrong word. Gender is inherently social and not biological. To call it that is like calling a takeaway pizza healthy. It just isn't.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 70
Original post by Katty3
Biological gender does not exist. It is the wrong word. Gender is inherently social and not biological. To call it that is like calling a takeaway pizza healthy. It just isn't.

Posted from TSR Mobile


In terms of English it does, Gender is a real thing. Biological gender is a social construct.
Don't lecture me on pizza, I'm half Italian, it can be healthy, fite me irl.
Reply 71
Original post by sw651
In terms of English it does, Gender is a real thing. Biological gender is a social construct.
Don't lecture me on pizza, I'm half Italian, it can be healthy, fite me irl.


Gender, whilst not being an entirely social construct is fundamentally not biological. Gender is real, yes. It refers to the thoughts, feelings and behaviours associated with masculinity and femininity. It is far more complex than the relatively simple concept of sex.

Notice I said takeaway pizza. These are invariably greasy and unhealthy.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Lady Comstock
Rachel Dolezal received a scalding for identifying as transracial, yet there is currently a big push to recognise and accept transgender people.

Can someone explain why one is acceptable but the other is not?


First of all, transgender isn't acceptable. It's just highly supported. Acceptable means no one has an issue with it. That is false. They are still persecuted and sometimes prosecuted.

So you're either alluding to, transracial is normal and okay
or
transgenderism is wrong and needs to be treated as transracials would be.
Whatever either of those mean.

Secondly,

Dolezal was "scalded" because she is apart of the NAACP. "Transracialism" isn't even a thing yet, it's just a word in the cyber English language. No one takes it seriously because like....0.00005% of humanity struggles with the thing. So she's seen as psychotic.

She's also seen as a potential infiltrator to the black cause/progression by having pretended to be black this whole time?
Original post by Katty3
No. Gender is different to sex. Calling them the same thing only serves to annoy people who know what they're going on about.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I feel bad you've been stuck in an argument with a troll for an hour.

I don't feel bad that you don't realize he's a troll after an hour.
Original post by RobML
The legitimisation of insanity is a trend as old as civilisation; don't panic

Posted from TSR Mobile


Been reading Don Quixote? :holmes:
Original post by ammmauk
white people please stop


[video="youtube;komph9TxTbI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=komph9TxTbI[/video]
I agree with the point OP is making.


Modern liberal Westerners allow people to claim to be internally actually members of the opposite 'because of their fee-fees' but don't allow it for race. It's inconsistent.
Original post by thecatwithnohat
Or the level of policing is higher in areas that have a high ethnic minority population therefore there are far more arrests/shootings that occur.


Which is usually because the level of crime is higher in areas of lower income of which ethnic minorities tend to be more than the ethnic majority.
Original post by cherryred90s
Shouldn't be. They should both be accepted or both be rejected


Ridiculous. On what logical grounds?

They're two totally different things. Homosexuality and transgenderism are only "accepted" now because there's no physical, tangible, visible proof that the concepts of sexual attraction and gender identity are actually what they've been traditionally ascribed to be. (Accepted as in, it's now socially and constitutionally wrong in many places--but not all--to discriminate against them or to even speak ill of them).

Race however, even if it is a "social construct" (cliche buzz term thrown all over the internet by pseudo-intellectuals), it is still something you can clearly see to form personal or scientific opinions about. This is why "transracialism" (not even an academic, dictionary recognized word yet) is seen as not even taboo, just ridiculous, if not mental. Whereas transgenders are seen as taboo because they challenge what we've never even seen but have arbitrarily accepted, that being gender. This is why transgenders are massively supported more and more each decade. It's a slow but steady train moving in their favour.

So you can't just look at a big or small group of people and say, "well they think they're this, let's legitimize it even though it makes no sense, if we just took the time out to realize, but we won't because we supported another group. Let's support them all no matter how silly or dangerous they are."

Do you see how that negates the purpose of supporting the prior group in the first place? This is when liberalism goes wrong. You think you're helping by confusing prejudice with common sense.
Original post by Macy1998
Aww, yes. Deny your ancestry when there are benefits. Don't feel like a white person today? Tomorrow you're an Asian boy and applying for minorities scholarships.

People need accept what they are. There should be less "I'm anything what I wants cuz I so" nonsense. Just stop. "Trans-racial" is a joke.


Why is the idea of transracialism a joke but transgenderism is not?