How are there more than two genders? can someone with education that goes beyond highschool explain this to me?

go back to cleaning your ar-15

no gender is a made up construct that can be given nearly any meaning which is why people use it to to make stupid arguments

Well you see, most people simply go by what type of genitals you're born with but some people want to confuse themselves into being a minority.

KEK

Hi. I'm a phd student in sexual engineering. I can say that there are only two genders for the human species. Anybody who claims otherwise has a different number of chromosomes, making them not human.

Sex and gender is modernly used as the same thing.
There's a penis, there is a vagina. There are women and there are men. You can switch your role if you want but you can't use idealism as reality.

>Or somewhere in between.
That's where you fucked up.

Gender = Feminine
Biological sex = Female

You can be a female without being feminine.

So, often the argument that will be put forth that there are two genders is a simple one: there are two sexes. These sexes are different in many measurable ways: their sex chromosomes, sex hormones, etc. Though there are exceptions (i.e people with stuff like XXY), they are usually viewed as "intersex", not really as a third sex.

And, if that's what you mean by gender, then there are two genders. Simple. But, when people talk about "gender", they often mean more than literal biological fact. For instance, when people say high heels are "feminine", they don't mean that they're associated with a pair of X chromosomes, as indeed they aren't. In fact high heels were once seen as exclusively masculine, and may one day be viewed that way again. So, when a neurobiologist or social scientist talks about gender, they are talking about a broader category than sex, something that includes both biological and cultural reality.

Across cultures and eras, very different things have been associated with gender and, in fact, some cultures even chose to split gender into more than two categories, adding gender terms for what the west might view as either particularly feminine men or particularly masculine women. Some cultures' ideas about gender don't really line up with western expectations at all. The west's own gender norms have varied wildly over time.

Given this, a lot of people reject the notion of gender as either being 1) completely determined by sex and 2) as simple as a dichotomy. There are many different viewpoints here (gender is a spectrum, gender doesn't really exist at all), but most people who study it vary and least some amount from the simple masc/fem.

My perspective is all social

I want to wear dresses
I want to look pretty
I want to a woman

I don't care if I was born male. All the roles woman get to play without judgment make me happy.

If my destiny really is in my hands. I will choose to be a woman.

so, you're saying:
2 sexes, spectrum of genders?

...

I just wanna add I am bisexual

cont.
A lot of evidence points this way. For one thing, while biological sex characteristics are universal across cultures, very few gender norms hold up to analysis across cultures or time. Second, gene testing has shown that there are gender related genes off of the sex chromosomes. These genes influence how "masculine" or "feminine" someone is judged by others, regardless of their sex. This suggests that, with the right genes, someone with XX chromosomes could be genetically quite far from the traditional feminine. Third, studies of the heritability of certain "gender-specific" traits have show that they have relatively low heritability coefficients, suggesting that a lot of how a person expresses their gender is about how they are raised.

All in all, a way more complicated topic than it's given credit for on either the left or right.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to argue that the vast majority of gender norms are socially constructed (closer to the "gender doesn't exist, mostly" response), though I'm not set in stone here. Still reading, and making up my mind

But yeah def two sexes

there aren't more than 2
there's 2 genders and mental illness. It's just easier to let people live there delusions than actually spend the time and money to help them

...

>I want to a woman

This is Jake and Jake want a wuurmmun

bless you for being intellectual

Gender is a human construct....SO IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. You can say you are "chocolate pancake gender", it doesn't mean anything. Let those people say whatever they want, it doesn't fucking matter and no one who isn't a retard gives a fuck.

Biological sex (defined by chromosomes) is the actual science. Biologically you can have all sorts of different "sexes". Human can have maybe 7 different "sexes", most of them are seen as genetics disorders/syndromes and leave them sterile. The vast majority of humans fall into the binary (XX and XY) sexes. Types of sexes vary all across the animal kingdom. Some species of animal have like 5 different sexes and weird mating behavior. And non-animals (bacteria, viruses, fungi) have all sorts of weird sex shit. Here is an interesting fact:

"Because the male bee technically has only a mother, and no father, its genealogical tree is rather interesting. The first generation has one member (the male). One generation back also has one member (the mother). Two generations back are two members (the mother and father of the mother). Three generations back are three members. Four back are five members. That is, the numbers in each generation going back are 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, ... – the Fibonacci sequence."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_(bee)

Mammal Sexes:
General Info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system
XXY or XXY: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
XXX: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome
X: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome

Bird Sexes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZW_sex-determination_system

Insects: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X0_sex-determination_system

There are only males and females, however masculinity and femininity are on a spectrum. Ergo you can have a biological male who's so feminine they may as well be female (MTF), or a biological female who's so masculine they may as well be male (FTM), or you can have someone who's extremely masculine and feminine, or neither masculine nor feminine, where it's just confusing (nonbinary).

ok, that makes sense.
But, I still have a question and I'm having trouble expressing it but:

as you've said: there have been very few gender norms that hold up across culture or time. However, there have been at least some, right?
for exemple: except in recent times women weren't allowed to participate in front-line warfare (as far as I know, feel free to contradict me here.) but the reason has been logical. if you lose all men in a tribe but a few it's still fine since they can reproduce with as many women as they please, if all women but a few die no matter how many men there are, the tribe is fucked.

as such there are gender roles based on the sexes because of biological reasons, right?

another example: no matter how man felt about it, it would have been impossible for them to give birth; it would have been difficult for them, exclusively, to care for babies since they cannot produce milk.

that would be another gender role based on biological reasons.

now, in recent times, there are so many women that it's unreasonable to think that even in warfare a nation could lose enough to make it a danger to it's society. As such It's now OK for women to be front-line if they want (and they qualify for it, I'm not moving your shit because you're weak, work out more), and vice-versa.

It never ceases to amaze me how much liberals claim to be 'pro-science' when they deny the existence of chromosomes

It's post-modernists (incorrectly labeled "leftists" and "liberals") who promote this notion. Post-modernists do not believe in the scientific method, but rather think that facts are subjective, and what's true for me might not be true for you.

but we're not talking about sexes here.
well to be fair, what is true for me might not be true for you because each person has a different body, which changes at least one variable.
just like water might be liquid or gaseous at the same temperature. it all depends on the pressure.

there aren't even two genders. there are two sexes, and there is gender, which is strongly but not perfectly correlated to the two sexes. anyone blathering about gender categories is somebody who thinks their personal identity should be recognized by society at large.

One of the two required hormone pickup times inutero goes wrong. One is for physical and the second is for mental. If one of these goes wrong you won't feel like the "correct" gender you physically appear to be.

hard to deny when clearly you have one extra

anyone?

I totally agree. That's why I said "gender mostly doesn't exist" rather than "gender doesn't exist".

That being said, though, even in the most rigid and traditional of culture, there are usually *some* female warriors. The point I'm getting from you is that sex and gender are correlated to some extent: XY's are more likely to want to/be able to fight than XX's. Yet even against all obstacles: a lack of opportunity since birth, lower general muscle mass, the complete disapproval of society and often the government, some women were sufficiently masculine that they broke through it all.

In the same way, there have alway been men who raise children.

What I'm hearing from you is that sex and gender are correlated, and occasionally bound by biological reality. I agree entirely. "masculine" and "feminine" didn't get their connections to sex from nowhere: there really is a connection between the two, even in a social vacuum. As those biological barriers start to be broken down, though, I think we'll see that, in such a vacuum, that correlation is far weaker than many expect it to be.

...

fuck shoulda proofread that

Yes exception exist, I didn't make that clear.
We agree then, nice talking to you.

to go back to the original question, the way I see it is that there aren't 36,000 ways to call someone, it's all on one or maybe two axes from masculine to feminine and maybe something like open to closed sexually, and you're on a certain value there. there isn't a name for each value and people should be more open with people in a value different than what their sex would tell them they should be.

The problem with post-modernism is that it means that nothing is true and everything is true, which is a useless notion. Because, how will you be able to predict anything, and therefore make anything following such a model?

That's why Descartes's statement cogito ergo sum gave birth to science. A computer is possible because we discard useless philosophical arguments, and rather focus on things we can agree on. And empiricism is a way to determine something that can demonstrably affect everyone. If we discover that heat transfers into colder objects, we can determine that if it's warm enough you will catch fire, even if you don't believe it. According to the post-modernist model, you wouldn't catch fire if you believed it was cold, rather you would freeze instead, despite being thrown into a volcano or whatever

Post-modernists also can't account for logical opposites. If I believe a frog is alive, but another believes it is dead, and a third doesn't believe it exists at all, how can all these be true?

you're confusing gender with gender identity.

gender
the state of being male or female

sex
either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

gender identity
a person's perception of having a particular gender, which may or may not correspond with their birth sex.

The honest not trolly answer? It's all a big stupid argument of semantics. There are two genders, biologically speaking, Man and Woman. There are outliers like intersex people but those are mutations, not their own genders.

The "Multi-gender" people are arguing (typically very stupidly) that the social construct aspect of gender exists on a spectrum, which I don't disagree with.

Let's say that we have a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 is Chad Manlington, and 7 is Tiffany von princess, Pure manliness and pure girlyness defined.

There are a lot of people who aren't that manly or girly. There are guys who act girly but don't identify as women, and I've met plenty of straight cis women who act more manly than I do. I think what the people making up dozens of genders are trying to do is create a more accurate classification to identify where you lie on the gender spectrum, and that seems perfectly fine as long as you aren't trying to lynch people if they guess your place on the spectrum wrong.

It's just all a matter of labels and classifications.

Well, I wish I could state more on the post-modernism movement right now, but I am not very familiar with it.

From what you're inferring, It seems illogical. however, if we go back to the sex; no, sorry, gender, thing there are some things that make sense:

If, for me, with a testosterone in my body of x1, I think that kilts are manly enough for man, it's true.
however, for you, with a testosterone value of x1+2, you think that nothing under jeans are manly enough for man, it's still true.

it's all a matter of perspective since "manly" is not an objective value.

for example, for me, who is 5'2", a man that is 5'8" is tall.
for you, who is 6'4", a man that is 5'8" is small.

they're both true, right?

and I should make something clear, I tend to forget to do that.

there are objective truths, too.
all laws of the universe.
heat transfers into colder objects.
everything tends to become more chaotic.
etc.

and there are somethings that aren't laws, but the speakers still agree on.
a frog is alive, a rock is not, viruses exist.

but there are some things that aren't laws but we still don't agree on.
is a virus alive or dead? is 10 degree Celsius cold or warm?

thread is dead?

dead thread is dead... sadness, it was so interesting too.