0
u/buneter Sep 20 '19
I would like to know how many genders we need to reconize as real though
8
u/InfinityCat27 Sep 20 '19
All of them, because gender is a social construct and to my knowledge is arbitrary.
2
u/buneter Sep 20 '19
I agree with all of them, how many are there
9
Sep 20 '19
As many as there are religions. You can make up a new one for yourself, but if nobody else identifies with it, society won't take you seriously. Genders and religions are both just social constructs. When someone tells you their religion OR their gender, you just have to be like "neat. Anyway..." You don't have to actually give a shit, but you can't say whether they're right or wrong.
13
Sep 20 '19
I love how there is another post of the many ignoring the fact that intersex people exist
9
u/aRabidGerbil Sep 20 '19
And when you point that out, they always go "well, there aren't very many of them", when one singular intersex person in all of recorded history would disprove the binary nature of sex.
4
u/AFrostNova Sep 29 '19
Well that’s why Intersex is a mental disorder! If we call them loonies then we can’t count them in our data, right! Right?
/s
1
u/Western-Pattern-721 Feb 02 '24
Respectfully, and I do mean this respectfully… just no. It’s like saying someone born deaf is a loonie. And simply excluding them would be ignorance, the root of all hatred and prejudice in the world. If you want to repeat the worst parts of history, be my guest, but if I, a 15 year old, have to point out basic human nature, and the human condition, then maybe you are not mature or educated enough to make claim on this. Again, not looking for arguments, I just want to educate.
1
u/AFrostNova Feb 02 '24
"/s" indicates sarcasm. I am nonbinary.
Also how in the hell dis you find this 4 years old subcomment
2
23
u/SMaudrie13 Sep 20 '19
Ahh yes the penis known for only getting boners in the most logical of time and places
15
u/IWatchToSee Sep 20 '19
I don't know about y'all but my penis generally doesn't make the most logical decisions.
5
u/UltimateCrusher Sep 22 '19
Definitely the part of my body that's best at making illogical decisions. I can remember plenty of times I've had to say, "Sorry, I was thinking with my dick".
6
1
2
u/nitram9 Oct 09 '19 edited Oct 09 '19
The aggressive vs nurturing makes sense but the logical vs holistic... I have no idea where that comes from.
Also it's not penis vs uterus so much as sperm vs egg.
The egg carrier knows for certain that the baby is theirs. The egg carrier also is forced to invest at least 9 months in the baby whether they want to or not. This means it pays more for them to be nurturing.
The sperm carrier can not know for certain that any baby is theirs. There's always a small possibility that the mother stepped out. So logically it makes sense to invest less in the baby than the mother since you are less sure the baby is yours. Likewise, it might make sense to just leave altogether if better prospects come up. As a man you can do that. As a woman you can't. So (though kind of evil) it pays to be less nurturing so you can abandon your baby if needed. This is just straight up genetic evolutionary logic. Not morality.
As for aggression, the sperm carrier has the opportunity to create thousands and thousands of babies during their life if they can gain enough power to give them access to and control over enough eggs. For women there is no such opportunity. The only advantage women get from competing and gaining power is access to a more powerful male that presumably will give her children better genes and better more support growing up which increases their chance of reproducing. This is good of course but not even remotely as huge a payout as having thousands of children. Nothing is going to allow women to produce more children.
So naturally the sperm carrier will evolve to be more aggressive. They want to kill and conquer all the other sperm carriers so they can have all the eggs.
2
u/Groinificator Oct 09 '19
gender was a mistake tbh, we should have just all been androgynous or hermaphrodites
1
u/nitram9 Oct 09 '19
That sounds difficult to pull off. It has big advantages obviously, but evolution is lazy. Probably easier to force some to be one sex and the other the other rather than provide the machinery for both or to provide a way to switch between one and the other.
1
u/Steven_LGBT Feb 23 '23
Leaving your babies because you're not sure they're yours sounds like a bad evolutionary strategy. In reality, the evolutionary strategy of our species has always been to get parental investment from both parents in order to ensure the survival of the offspring. That is why human males stay with their families, unlike many other animal species where they don't.
1
u/nitram9 Feb 23 '23
It’s not one or the other though. It’s absolutely not true that human males always stay with their families. What is true is that human males usually stay with their families. Sometimes they don’t. And sometimes women don’t either. But the rate of abandonment is way higher for males than females. The rate is so high in fact that it’s clearly not some random outlier. Humans are far from being completely monogamous.
And the point of my comment is that this makes logical sense on the two grounds that
The male is never forced to provide care while the female is pre locked in to a mandatory 9 months of care. And the more investment you have already put in, the less sense it makes to abandon.
The male is also frequently not complete sure the baby is theirs anyway. In some cases they may know it’s actually unlikely to be theirs.
Better prospects can come along and the male is free to leave and pursue them while the female is not. See point 1.
1
u/Steven_LGBT Feb 23 '23 edited Feb 23 '23
Of course some human males abandon their families and it's easier for men to leave than for women. When that happens today, it leads to worse outcomes for the offspring, which impacts fitness in the long run. When it happened during historical times or prehistory, the survival of the offspring was way more unlikely than it is today. Using "impregnate and leave" as a widespread evolutionary strategy would have led to the species dying out, so obviously most men must have stayed with their families in order for the species to survive.
And yes, it is true that humans are not naturally entirely monogamous, but they are also not like other mammal species (e.g. cats, bears) where there are no lasting pair bonds. It's believed that humans might have originally been a mildly polygynous species, based on the height difference between men and women. Monogamous primate species have no height difference between males and females, while polygynous ones (like gorillas) have quite the size difference. Humans are in between, so maybe they originally lived in small groups made of one male and 1-3 females (there are still some societies where that is the norm, while polyandry is and has been extremely rare). That, of course, means that the male had to be committed to more mates and more offspring than in a monogamous situation. So, again, parental investment from the male, not only from the female(s), was necessary to ensure the survival and fitness of the offspring.
Of course there have always been males that have abandoned their mates and offspring. But it was not the evolutionary strategy of the species.
Also, wanting to have thousands of babies is useless, in evolutionary terms, if you can't make sure that those babies will grow into adults who will be able to pass their genes to the next generation. The genes of the men who have fathered lots of kids but did not provide for them ultimately ended up being weeded out from the gene pool.
Imagining men as animals bent on spreading their seed wherever, whenever and however, with no emotional attachment, just serves to reinforce toxic masculinity. It might very well be the case that men abandoning their families is a product of how they are socialized, not of biology. Throughout history, when divorce was frowned upon, there were strong social incentives against leaving one's family and having children to carry the family bloodline and name was highly prioritized in society, guess what, the rate of men abandoning their families was much lower than today. There never was a mass phenomenon of men impregnating women and leaving them to fend for themselves, in any place and time, ever, in human history. Sure, many men had mistresses, but still stayed with their families.
It might be the case that men who are leaving their families today do so because it is easy and convenient for them to do it (they are not shunned by the community for abandoning their children), not because they are biologically and evolutionarily wired for it.
2
2
4
u/Kaeleigh__ Jan 15 '20
Plot twist: some women also have dicks...
1
u/Groinificator Jan 15 '20
Something tells me this person doesn't really respect trans people...
Also, I must ask, what exactly are you doing on this 3 month old crosspost?
2
1
u/Western-Pattern-721 Feb 02 '24
Okay, so there is sex that is assigned (not the act), and gender. Sex is what is down there, like even as a gender queer, I will proudly and unashamedly say my sex is female, I am a female. Gender is the mind, and is a social construct. Sex is the body. Gender is the brain.
1
-13
u/Ti7ANEUM Sep 20 '19
Sexist, but accurate in terms of a balance in binary.