Anyway, there is a very real reason why most people fit neatly into this binary gender classification.
Because of culture and society.
A male is usually (not always) predisposed to act out behaviours in accordance with his biological makeup: that he is physically stronger, has higher testosterone levels, has a brain geared more towards aggressive behaviour and less towards empathy than his female counterparts, and other facets which make him likely to act in a particular fashion.
There are sexual differences, but much of these are based on society.
Look at almost every culture in human history -- males dominate, as well as hunt, fight, wage war, and protect women and children, while women tend to be subordinate, child-rearers, gatherers etc.
You think that is the exact same today?
but there can be no argument that these are not the most obvious inclinations of males and females, due to biology.
Load of absolute nonsense. These are societal based differences, and largely created by influence from outer factors that have a basis in Human social relations, not biologically based.
Women in most human societies -- before the advent of contraception -- would have been pregnant a significant portion of their lives, and would have spent a significant portion also displaying their very intrinsic, evolutionary desire to feed and nurture children -- it is really only in the last hundred years that this has come into question, and not even in all societies.
We have had a lot of progress in understanding nature and society.
And to a large extent, this is still the norm in many less developed cultures, precisely because these biological differences in strength, size and reproductive capacity compliment each other in this very obvious fashion.
Just remember, you can't derive an is from an ought, plainly fallacious.
If gender is a construct, it is a construct in the same way as it is for bulls to have horns, thus fight, and sows to have udders, thus feed calves.
Not at all, society created gender in the same way we created hierarchy and the state.
This, again, isn't to say it is morally right or wrong to be transgender, it is just a statement of fact: transgenderism is an exceptional circumstance -- some would say a medical or organic psychological condition, for which there is in fact significant scientific basis.
Since gender is societal, transgenderism has a basis in leaving societal norms, not biological norms. An easy way to disprove this is with language. Language came into human society a long time ago, but is not something within us, it is a formation of rhe mind. To say that using language (different term, "transgender", as opposed to typical classification) in a different way than usual is a medical condition of some sort is pure hogwash.
Among monozygotic twins where one is transgender, the other is also quite likely to be transgender, while among dizygotic twins, where on is transgender, there is a near universal absence of the same tendency in the other twin.
That is actually not completely true, but this phenomena can arise. Here is the real question concerning this, How are these similar people (twins) exposed to the social world? Influenced in many similar ways? How do they respond to their environment? Their psychological and biological makeup can possibly influence how they may respond to their environment, which could be something shared by twins. It is like the gay gene, there isn't exactly a found gay gene, but there was a study done that has found a gene that increased the chance of homosexual. It could largely be based on response to a specific social environment.
Now, back to the point, inheriting a language use and perception is complete nonsense, especially in this case.
So it an be concluded that there must be a significant genetic component to transgenderism.
Which would simply not be the case when considering social influence as a major impression on human behavior.
Transgenders and transexuals, as you know, can't procreate as the gender they identify with.
But can with the opposite biological sex. The idea of gender has nothing to do with it, it is society that has made this categorization.
I am talking about gender, not sex (which is a social construct too, but has a biological basis).
Those who lie outside the binary classification are an exception, not a norm.
This just proves my point.
So yes, gender is what you might call a social "construct", but it has significant and valid biological bases.
No, it does not. Biological sex does have a valid biological basis though.
However, it is ludicrous to come at this problem with the idea that non-binary gender is the norm.
What is "normal" here is dependent upon the context of society. Society (social relations) created gender.
They may hate the belief in God and concept of God (as told by a religious text or philosophers), they do not have to believe it is true. Also, I don't think "everyone" that has a lack of a belief in God is talking about it. Many intellectuals don't talk about it since it is just as silly and irrational to them to accept God as accept Zeus as an existing being.
Just because you broke up with your GF doesn't mean she never existed no matter how angry you are at her because yet still, the evidence of her existence is in your bitterness towards her.
That wouldn't be proof she exists in itself. Someone could have an imaginary friend and get mad one day and blame it on the fact that his imaginary friend turned on him, then be bitter about it. If this happened, would this mean the imaginary objectively exists? No it wouldn't.
You know a GF exists because you can experience her with the 5 senses empirically. You cannot see, feel, touch, taste, or hear God, God is immaterial and supernatural.
That is not how she was perceived by the Progressive MSM ! Tell me i am wrong !!!!!!!!!!
You are wrong, just like what you wanted me to say.
Don't believe i was wrong because your Progressive Media has lost their mind over the election of Trump !!!!
What does not liking Trump have to do with Clinton being a "progressive dream"?
So what really happened with your Hillary in 2008 and 2016 ????????????
She ran but didn't become president in both years.
Liberals argue we need illegals to do the work Americans refuse to do.
No they don't.
Yet, liberals claim if there is no minimum wage then Americans will work for one dollar an hour or some absurd small amount.
Not exactly. The minimum wage acts as a wage floor, so every worker is guaranteed a certain amount to live on as working time. This prevents further poverty and a potential future of lower wages for low-skilled workers. Many already make more than minimum wage, but there is a percentage that make money at the minimum wage, it is important we take their well-being account as well.
Yes, gender is a social construct.
Social Construct- a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice (Dictionary.com)
Gender is definitely a category of people that is kept and developed by society. People are influenced by their society and institutions, so it is clear why people largely accept the gender they were classified to (but of course, not always). Gender roles (which are part of gender) are also clearly socially constructed as well.
Not according to the article you provided. Communism is the ideology to get to the communist society. Money becomes superfluous once that ultimate goal is reached. You can have communism before that ultimate goal is reached.
No, it is the end goal that is communist society. Marx called the transition "socialism". Communism as an ideology contains a means to the goal, but it is nevertheless, the communist society that is "communism".
Except it doesn't explain at all how there can be no money, no classes, and no state. In communist thought eventually it happens just because.
It is explaining what communism is, not how such a society is possible.
Private ownership still exists, but you are trying to eliminate profit motivation.
No, there is still a profit motivation. It doesn't go away when there is a regulation on pay.
You are proving my point, not yours. If they can't do the bare minimum on the job you fire them, you don't make sure to pay them what everyone else gets.
You wouldn't have to if there was no minimum wage. You can pay them less, cheap labor. It regulates pay by setting a minimum.
Yes it is.
No, it isn't. It is supply, demand, and the competition. Not inherently merit based pay. The employer may standards of merit they pay you by, but capitalism isn't inherently on fixed merit equivalent exchange.
How much you get done is what you described.
I was talking about the working class and capitalist wage negotiations. If you do a certain amount of work, the capitalist is not obligated to pay you by your specific merit, and would be impossible anyways since there is so many factors in the merit of production. It is usually some set standard in the workplace to go by.
So, it isn't about making sure everyone succeeds the same amount. Weird.
No, not inherently.
No one was suggesting that.
No one suggested that. In fact, it was actually pretty dumb to say at all.
You said pay by merit for everyone working in the system. According to you, if the capitalist doesn't go off someones specific merit, it is not capitalism. That isn't even in the definition.
You are describing something that isn't capitalism.
Capitalism is private ownership and profit motivation.
You are trying to eliminate workplace class wage relations.
Yeah, communists want it eliminated.
Why do you get to pick which parts of capitalism fit?
I am not, I am going off of the definition.
You are describing half capitalism half communism.
There is no, half capitalism half communism. They are both completely different structured systems.
Why does your half mean that it is 100% capitalism?
Capitalism is private ownership of production operating for profit. I am not talking about "half" capitalism.
Before the state can be eliminated it represents the public sphere. You are discussing the ultimate goal of communism.
Fine, for now on, I will be assuming you mean the "socialist" transition society to communism.
Your missing the point religion was not legislation.
Religious views have influenced politics. Like denying gays marriage.
People who have morals or do not have morals equally bring their whole person into government.
How are you defining morals? Clearly it must be your conservative religious morality.
We are Americans we all are a religion. Whatever you believe and stand for is a religion.
America is not a religion, it is secular. There is much diversity within it.
So you say and others in your camp that immorality is the standard. So what's the difference?
No. Nobody holds to "immorality" as their self-proclaimed standard.
We actually didn't have an overly moral or churches society, we had a live and let live society where everything existed and we each could partake in our "beliefs"
Christianity dominated as a religion in the past and still does. Luckily, it has losing influence on our society as a whole.
And now we have a society that forces morality, it just happens to be immorality that's forced!
This just proves my point. You hold to the conservative "Christian" morality, and if society doesn't follow it, it is immoral.
You think equality is immoral? That is what is changing in our society.
FromWithin has said this many times about the left and now its my turn.
The right is filled with ignorant hypocrites who vote for candidates that add to our almost $20 Trillion and blame it all on the left. They blame the people trying to protect our secular nation for censorship. All they care about is protecting their religion and heritage. They call oppression "freedom". They hold to many of their paranoid delusions of terrorism as an excuse for more security of immigrants, but when it comes to their guns, they want complete "freedom" to access. To them, security is wrong for them but cry "terrorist" when someone is trying to flee their country from it.
FromWithin is a disgrace to Christianity with his hateful voice. Forcing your religion onto others isn't Christianity.
Both parties(sides) have their issues, but shifting the blame to one side and pretending they have all the answers isn't going to solve the problem.
You are also making a disgrace out of the right too.
You are voting to screw our country by voting for Trump.
"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."
How do you pay them without money?
That is an incorrect definition of communism. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless that is built upon common ownership of production.
Wikipedia does a good job explaining it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
If it restricts it in a non capitalist way it is no longer capitalism. I didn't say anything about all restrictions.
That is true of course, but the mixed economies in our modern day restrict a lot of things. However, private ownership and the profit motivation still exist, which characterizes capitalism.
Having a minimum amount to pay someone for the work they do is not related to eliminating the idea that you are paying them for the work they do. So, nope.
You can't hire someone who's merit is under the minimum wage, it is a wage floor.
Yes. That is a key to Capitalism. It is the driving force behind competition.
Not inherently. Capitalism is up to the capitalist and possibly negotiations, not by how much work you have done. The entrepreneur is trying meet demand and make profit while beating its competitors, that is what capitalism is built around. Not a system where everyone's work is measured by calculations of all the factors and given the equivalent wealth in money. You don't really get paid according to the amount of labor you do because then there would be no profit from your labor.
If you say that you are paying someone because of their abilities and needs (just because they are a person) and not based on what they actually accomplished then yes, that characterizes communism.
Not if there is a capitalist(private owner) and profit. There are no workplace class wage relations in communism.
If a business owner decided to pay its workers based on their abilities and needs, it would still be capitalism. If the state enforced it, it wouldn't be communism since there is no state in such a society anyways.
I am not quite sure what much of this has to do with my point.
Just stupid excuses to push religion on society.
Here is societies evil complaint, they hate a standard of personal responsibility. And they are eating themselves alive, and also everyone else.
We don't need legislated religion to be a society on personal responsibility.
We are no longer America, you all have been brainwashed to bite and bite and bite. We didn't live that America till now!
Showing that you are clearly a conservative.
So force it into everyone's house, and family, and every program, including Disney, and kindergarten!
Christianity wasn't forcing themselves, we existed.
Yes, they are. There is a difference between freely practicing it and forcing it on the public. The U.S. has always been a secular nation, not a religious one.
We didn't block the door to the gay bar. And if state wants to marry them for benefits of marriage whatever. We have a problem when we are forced to adapt to a lifestyle that is not our choice.
You are not being forced to anyone else's lifestyle anyways.
It wasn't the Christian who forced society into a moral line. It was respect for all by honor, that live and let live without pouring into our neighbors house.
Its the religious right that wants to. They believe in the lie of a "Christian nation".
We have changed our society for the better now, we still face challenges but are now meeting the standards of equality for all people. Women can now vote, so can blacks. We are getting to equality with Homosexuals and transgenders. These days, conservatism is disappearing, almost outdated. We have changed, and not necessarily for the worst.
No, Conservatives and religion want to maintain boundaries, it's the left that calls our boundaries intolerance and their encroachments freedom!
That just supports my point. Boundaries in a statist society represent the nation, which is where the legislated morality is contained.
The left has generally been in favor of a more open border policy.
I repeat, we are 20 TRILLION in debt and ignorant voters will still vote for Hillary while she promises you free College, free free free etc. etc. etc. etc.
Ignorant voters like you vote for Trump which is estimated to add much more to the debt than Hillary.
Tis is what this lazy younger genertions has been conditioned to demand. You think you are entitled to other's money. SICK!
You have the freedom to decide where our taxes should go. People contribute and get benefits from it, there is nothing "sick" about it. Lots of these taxpayers benefits are beneficial to society as a whole.
That's not necessarily true.
By definition, it is true.
No. Equality in a capitalist system is one based on merit. If you want to make more money you can. In communism you get the same thing as everyone else. That's what you are suggesting.
So, you are saying that if there is state restrictions and controls(even if on pay) in a capitalist economy, it isn't capitalism anymore? If that's the case, then we aren't living in a capitalist system anyways, since we have a minimum wage.
Are you saying that pay by merit is what characterizes capitalism? and equal pay in a job necessarily characterizes communism?
I guess you never heard of the financial crisis that was bad enough to sink into a depression. It is inevitable that when Obama became president, the GDP wasn't going to soar back up.
The good thing is, that a second recession and depression was prevented thanks to Obama's package.
However, you are right in saying that the GDP growth is among the lowest.
JustIgnoreMe exposed this as a fake with a link: http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/
DBCooper won't accept it.
Democrats don't really want to ban all firearms anyways.
Barack Insane Obama hasn't had a GDP growth over 3 percent in his 8 years in office. Worst president in the history of the nation when comes to GDP growth.
You have heard of the financial crisis in 2008, right?
You do know that Obama's stimulus package prevented a second recession that could have turned into another depression, right?
Also, the GDP is growing and the economy is recovering.
Home ownership is at a all time low under Obama.
Do you support pumping up home ownership with subsidies like Clinton and Bush did?
Home ownership was artificially high and is finally going back down to the sustainable and secure levels. It is a sign of recovery.
Poverty is at a all time high under Obama.
True, the poverty rate went crawling up from 11.3% to 15.1% from 2000 to 2010, but went down slightly from there.
Obamacare is a train wreck.
You clearly don't get what you are talking about. His plan has succeeded in expanding healthcare coverage to Americans who were previously uninsured.
This is why people like you are so dangerous to our freedoms.
Your beliefs are dangerous to other peoples liberties.
It's a sickening lie that America is secular,
Not its not, you clearly don't care about the constitution. Read the first amendment.
and it's a sickening lie that we must censor our Christian heritage and History so as not to offend other religions or Atheists.
Your wording translates to: "It's a sickening lie that Christians can't push their religion onto the public(oppress)".
Can you even grasp a Big Brother nation that must censor any issue that may offend another, or ofend the Government!
Its not censorship, its secularism.
That is ludicrous. Celebrating our Christian heritage DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RELIGION! IT'S CALLED FREEDOM!
Practice it yourself instead of trying to push our country to live by it.
In your sick world of political correctness, only your beliefs of humanism and LGBT activism can be forced on all Americans, but any mention of God must be censored.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."(U.S. Constitution Amendment 1)
No, I don't oppose exercising your religion(or talking about God). However, I do oppose promoting your religion to the public. No prayer in public schools(violates our secular state), no laws based on religious beliefs, etc.
Forcing equality and liberty on Americans? That isn't "forcing" on others.
Legalizing gay marriage isn't "forcing" on Americans since it is just equality that doesn't affect their lives. Your conservatism does though.
You are a College student being indoctrinated by left wing professors.
Not at all, I base by beliefs on research and reasoning and am always open to new ideas.
I will wait another 15 years when you are working and PAYING HUGE TAXES, to then see what your politics have become.
There is no correlation between working and paying taxes to your specific political identity.
If you are an intelligent person, you will no longer vote for these corrupt closet socialists.
I wouldn't vote for "socialists" anyways. The democratic party isn't socialist, so I can only assume that you are referring to something else.
They punish the responsible hard working successful Americans by taking more and more of their money to give to their low income voting blocks.
Taxes aren't "punishment". They are something even people like you agree we should have.
For now, you have yet to live life and your naive view of what is happening to this nation is built on what the media conditions you to believe.
What the media conditions me to believe? I would much rather ignore the media gossip.
We are 20 Trillion in debt and you spew the Left's talking points to the letter.
I am disputing your unreasonable crazy views.
I am concerned about the debt as well, but your answer seems to be "republicans", which added so much to our debt that I can hardly trust them with it.
Do they teach you that 2.4 BILLION interest payments every single day are a very very dangerous things, especially when interest rates are historicaly low.
Why do you say that?
I forget, young people think money grows on trees, and there will always be some government program to bail out your bills.
I am well aware that you don't pull wealth out of thin air, but the problem is, you equate "fiscal irresponsibility" and "failure of understanding towards economics" to people who support some of these government programs as if it is inherent to their beliefs.
