Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Whole_Ferret1724 t1_j29qv08 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in We need more comprehensive gender education in our public schools by [deleted]

Gender has historically meant male or female biologically. It’s morphed recently to mean something else but o really can’t put my finger on what it means these days. It’s unfair to expect the whole world to immediately adopt a new and controversial nomenclature. I think most are happy to let people live their lives however they like but don’t see a need to try and pretend biology doesn’t play a critical role in determining gender.

13

[deleted] OP t1_j2a2852 wrote

[deleted]

−2

Whole_Ferret1724 t1_j2a2tx9 wrote

So wait. Is gender about sex characteristics or not? This is why this debate is pointless. You’ll just move the goalposts and won’t engage constructively. Gender has until very very recently meant biological sex. There’s generally two but other possibilities exist in nature none of which has anything to do with a two spirit gender. I’m fine with using gender as a social construct as long as we have words to distinguish biological sex.

3

digitalpretzel t1_j2dl3jt wrote

>Gender has until very very recently meant biological sex.

Before 1610, It was generally accepted that the earth was the center of the universe. You could fill a library with all the things we have believed to be true only to be proven wrong as science and knowledge progresses.

−1

[deleted] OP t1_j2a3q0b wrote

[deleted]

−2

Whole_Ferret1724 t1_j2abdwn wrote

Biological sex for humans is binary absent genetic defect. So if we’re using the traditional meaning of gender, there are two. Everything else is just trying to create new labels to pigeonhole every individual variation and is pointless. If we’re agreed on the first point you can see why there isn’t really anything to be arguing about.

6