And yet you get butthurt when someone calls you something other than a man. Clearly you don’t think gender is imaginary.
Heck, no one does, you’re just supporting a straw man argument per usual

The only people saying social constructs are imaginary are you guys - and nonsensically so.

Gender, fashion, race, crime, language, and money all exist, and none are empirically definable - they're just what we as a society have accepted them to be.

You literally just said it's a social construct. That's the definition.

The word "imaginary" appears nowhere in the definition of a social construct.

EVERYTHING is imaginary and a construct.

"Patriarchy" is as much a construct as is the "oppressed victimhood" being bemoaned.

All you said is that you are antisocial.

Yeah. That's why I'm an intersectional feminist. It includes men. The patriarchy puts expectations on everyone regardless of gender. The more obsolete gender becomes, the more the patriarchy will lose it's hold on society.

There is no patriarchy. Men have no more power than women now in the west, and in a lot of cases less. There are rich and powerful women and they are just as corrupt and abusive as the men.

That's not what the patriarchy is. The patriarchy is the stereotypes and expectations placed upon people based on their gender.

Nonsense

prove it.

The patriarchy as you put it... Is both "men" and "women". It's the elite 1-7% of the world that owns 99% of the wealth. The rich never give up their wealth.

But you said two imaginary words in your statement. Feminist suggests "being for things feminine". Then Patriarchy - meaning a system in which the father or eldest male is the head of the family. Since gender is an imaginary construct, so is terms describing something as "manly" or "woman like.

Ergo - there isn't such a thing as Feminist or Patriarchy because Gender is an imaginary construct. Your own definition of what you are has betrayed you because it doesn't stand the test of logic when applied to modern definitions of gender.

So difficult to express sarcasm in print.

You and Swift have the knack.

Social constructs aren't imaginary - gender, fashion, race, crime, language, and money all exist, but as shared ideas and perceptions, which is why they're also subjective and differ between societies.

The ideology of patriarchy also exists as a social construct, but it has nothing to do with gender - as you pointed out familial leadership is held by the eldest male, which is a sexual distinction.

You just repeated the definition of social construct.

Gender = sex

Sex is a biological classification, gender refers to social roles, behaviors, expressions and identities.

They're not remotely synonymous.

You are incorrect.

Was it not clear based on the discussion that we aren't talking about the colloquial use of these terms?

There is a clear delineation between the definitions for the technical terms sex and gender in medical or scientific context.

Was it not clear that only your ilk is relying on your agenda based nouveau "definition" as argument in favor of delusional behavior?

I have as many as you have head in the sand, refusal to acknowledge the truth, nonsense replies.

In summary:

I got an "uh huh" for every "nuh uh"

The medical distinction between gender and sex is not agenda based, new, or delusional.

Your insistence they're the same is all three though.

Was it not clear that we were discussing the long held common understanding throughout societies all over the world and not your "i want it to mean this" definition because you desire boys to be girls and girls to be boys and various other combinations of the same nonsense.

You need to do more research instead of just echoing the party lines.

I repeat - YOU are incorrect.

Was that not clear?

I reiterate...

YOU are INCORRECT.

Clear now?

A few wiggles of your google finger will prove that....but you don't want to know the facts, do you?

Do you have more variations of this same nonsensical reply, because it's no more rational than the first.

There are no party lines - we're talking about words that have specific technical meanings in a medical context, not your third grade attempt at purposely misunderstanding what they mean.

That's how you define sex, but you don't need two words to mean the same thing. You can totally use it that way and we'll still be able to tell when you're talking about sex for the most part, but saying nobody can use gender to mean other things besides sex is kinda communist bruh.

Says the communista

Oh, and ancient Rome barred women from voting.

That's not a good model to bring up. If you follow moral degradation and crime rates... Everything started getting worse when women were given the right to vote in the U.S.

not that I don't believe in the right of women to vote... I think that was a great step forward for the U.S. but if you look at what was social acceptable in various moral compass based topics... Then look at when women got the right to vote and then look at how things that weren't socially acceptable then became socially acceptable through the years, and you follow various crime rates... The more socially unacceptable things that became acceptable, the more the crime rates rose. Including but not limited to violent crimes.

What was never implemented but should have and maybe should be implemented... Is a social studies test and morality test prior to voting. You have to score so well on the test - to be able to vote. Some parts about morality and some parts about various aspects of US History. If you're too amoral - you don't get to vote. If you don't know US History well enough - you don't get to vote. This would keep morally bankrupt people from casting morally bankrupt votes. On both sides. Then also keep people who know nothing about what they are doing from making ill informed votes.

Bruh. We already knew that. That happens because there's going to be outliers in bigoted ppl that decide to kiII ppl who get rights cuz they don't like it.

I think you may have just disqualified yourself from voting based on your ignorance of US History.

Did the violent crime rates actually increase, or did we just start holding people accountable for crimes that were overlooked before women and minorities had franchise and were able to influence the laws governing us?

In the US for most of the 1800s for instance, rape laws specifically excluded black women, so it was not only socially acceptable for white men to sexually assault them, but legally defensible as well.

What you see as a decline into degradation is actually an increase in personal responsibility and accountability that simply wasn't possible when women were second-class citizens.

Being intoxicated is against most morality aspects of most religions - which is what morality mostly pulls it's general societal stand points... So yes. Being intoxicated is morally wrong...even criminally/civilly wrong in circumstances... like when driving, while in public. Both of those situations can be criminal or civilly fined. Why? Morals

That's not what morally wrong means. Morally wrong means wrong outside of religion. Drunk driving is morally wrong. Being intoxicated isn't.

Nah I wouldn't disqualify myself from voting lol. And no - I'm not wrong about my points. I've studied them thoroughly. I'm referring to more universal morals... Like stealing is bad. Murder is bad. Assault is bad. Being intoxicated is morally wrong.... When those started yo degrade (right in time with women's voting) the crime rat s rose in turn. It's not because more people spoke up and new laws were passed... It's because as a society -general morality has dropped.

Whether it's in coincidence or direct result is up for debate... But the fact that it happened isn't.

Being intoxicated is not morally wrong tf? Have you never drank?

So what

You're just saying it a different way. It's a fact that modern morality is what I described it to be. Generation after generation over thousands of years of mixed cultures... Human kind has some baseline morality items, based mostly off of religious influences passed through generations of people.

The baseline is not based on religion. If it was, Japan, korea, and china would have legalized marriage because their ancient religions were tolerant of homosexuality.

What is morally wrong depends on your perspective. What we call morally right and wrong is mostly derived from religious backgrounds and historical era and the culmination of variant religions and regions coexisting and coming together on certain topics. But most of what we know of today as morally right or wrong - is some diluted form of an amalgam of centuries on centuries of laws and traditions rooted within religions.

That's not an opinion, that's a FACT. So what you think is morally right or wrong can and does differ from others.

Some strict religious folks and or recovering alcoholics would swear that drinking is morally wrong. Others find drinking to be ok, but not in excess. Others find drinking until drunk to be fine morally. But most would agree that driving drunk is morally wrong.

Is it morally wrong to drive a dying pregnant woman to the hospital when you're drunk and you're the only possible option for transportation...but you're not too drunk to drive? Now we have a conundrum... Bc morally driving drunk is bad, but morally - letting a dying pregnant woman and her baby croak because you refuse to risk a drive to the ER

Morality is odd how it can be molded

That's not a fact, philosophy mainly agrees that immoral things are things that hurt others. Morality is based on empathy.

If Japan etc had been left to themselves sure... When intermixed with all the world like happened... Not so much. You're grasping at straws

But the rest of the world is pro gay marriage.

A lot of the world is actually NOT that way, in particular for example... HAMAS. For a Numbers game - only 36 out of 200+ countries actually have same sex marriage laws. Which means less than 25% of sovereign countries support it.

Cool unrelated tidbit? Um. Hamas isn't a government tho. I think the ppl might not be pro gay marriage, but that was kinda weird.

Hamas is just a social construct... Lmao

???? What?

You realize Hamas runs Gaza right? They have literally taken over governmental rule in Gaza

I mean,... I WOULD believe that, but the death toll of Hamas is so high, either Hamas doesn't exsist anymore or Hamas is just made up.

Are you pro palestinian?

If so you are pro absolute patriarchy.

Slow down... Gender doesn't exist. Ergo words that are masculine or feminine in nature...also don't exist. What patriarchy? It's a term that is defined by imaginary constructs. There is no patriarchy.

There used to be a patriarchy but it was a thankless job. Keeping family members from murdering one another, when trouble came a knocking the head of the household was the first to confront it, when a man did 'inherit' the position of patriarchy there was no direct wealth or riches because that all went back into the household, when one household member did something stupid guess who else got the blame, and if a man was a Hebrew/Jew guess who kept him under constant watch - God.

😄👍

😄👍

😄👍

😄👍

It is misogynistic to state that women put no expectations on an individual of either of the two genders.

Misogynists cannot be feminists...or can they?

Anti "patriarchy" does not equate to feminism.

I am against being ruled by any classification of human being.

Why do you oppose only the patriachy?

Bro bro bro... Misogynists don't exist either.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
noun
a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

Against Whaaaaat? Women is a imaginary term because gender doesn't exist. Ergo - misogyny doesn't exist either.

😄 You may have something there!

The patriarchy is a social construct OR:

A patriarchy cannot exist because gender does not exist!

🤔

Genius!

Them people with the milk bubbles have been equal all this time because we're all the same!

They oppressed themselves all these centuries!

Progress in understanding has been made this day!

That's udderly ridiculous!

It's always hilarious to see what you guys think sounds intelligent.

I remain wholly unimpressed with you.

I've seen what impresses you, and consider this the highest of compliments.

I do not believe you have seen what impresses me.

I was not complimenting you regardless of how you took my statement.

It's ok if you don't understand. We can explain it in smaller words.

There's little doubt in your ability to explain concepts using, and only using, small words.

I have to use small words or how will leftists understand?

Have you tried arranging them in an intelligible order?

not to be a bitch, but you can dislike imaginary things. Like fairies.

Fairies are real. I identify as being in a world with fairies.

Yeah! That's a real religion. :) I actually like believing in fairies too, but it's more like wistful, ahh wish fatties existed way.

Looks at own stomach... Aww. Those are real

I'm not really a fatty... But I could definitely use to lose 15 lbs of "I like beer"

Fun fact, that's not fat. That's your liver enlarging.

No it's fat. I eat greasy foods when I have beer

By saying that women have long been subjugated by men are you not conceding that women are weak and incapable of rising to a state of equality on their own, without legal mandates?

And if the patriarchy exists as the monstrous overlord as is oft suggested, why would the patriarchy grant women agency and allow the lobbying for "equal rights"?

Are you sure you are not simply misandristic.

That's what I've been saying. Yeah, I could say, I'm anti-misogyny and anti-misandry, or I could say I'm an intersectional feminist. They mean the same thing. The expectations women place on men are the patriarchy. Like if a woman assumes a guy is gay because he's close to his friends.

Semantics.

I am not a man in control of my household because of the expectations placed on me by women.

I place expectations on myself.

What others expect of me is of no consequence in the performance of my duties to my family.

Yay for you! It's not fair to expect all men to like that kind of family dynamic.

😭 "it's not fair!"

Sickening.

Tell me, is seeking protected class status the example of fairness?

You denigrate a group with impunity yet that group is prohibited by statute from speaking their minds about you without penalty.

You believe that "fair".

"Equality" seekers really desire superiority.

Here's how you know this is true - they are already equal. Their only hindrance in life is themselves.

Bro. That's what I'm saying. That's what I call the patriarchy. It's just simpler that way.

Actually you are saying nothing.

You have not given your definition of patriarchy.

Typical behavior.

I have. The internal biases of society as they relate to gender.

That is what I mean when I say patriarchy.

What is what you mean when you say patriarchy?

I mean the expectations placed upon men and women in respect to their gender.

Which is just an imaginary construct created by... Wait.

Yeah. Men and women. Everyone has what's called an "internal bias" and that's how it gets constructed.

Why do you ask such an odd question, are you a pedo on the prowl?

I am not interested in helping you find your puppy, I do not want any candy, I do not need a ride home.

???

Oh. No. I'm just curious cuz it seems like you've never gotten the internal bias work training.

I do not know what type of people are so ignorant and lacking of self awareness to the point of requiring training, in the workplace no less, to know that they have internal biases.

This sounds like a part of DEI discrimination ideology.

Two people of the same ethnicity are not the same, nor do they think alike.

That is "diversity" right there.

DEI is the cowardly manifestation of ethnic discrimination.

There is no benefit to a company in being forced, coerced, cajoled, into hiring a candidate based on the color of their skin.

You remember the white woman that identified as a black woman that became a well received and high ranking official of the NAACP?

What happened to Rachel D. when it was discovered that she was actually Caucasian?

She was fired instead of embraced, despite her diversity and different perspectives that should have been viewed as "beneficial to the company".

Affirmative Action and DEI are discrimination.

Now go look for kids elsewhere.

I am not getting in your van.

Bruh,... We agree. Why are you arguing? Companies don't want to work with trans racial people because it alienates certain groups from buying their product. It's not that deep. Companies do whatever they want. Trust me.

Lecture by Professor Knowitall of Google U.

Who would have thought every person on earth has "internal bias"...perhaps every person on earth?

Get another alt and try this nonsense again in a month.

Actually, that's what every job will tell you during training. Are you a kid?

DEI is discrimination.

It's not...? Unless you're talking about how it mostly just benefits yt women. But DEI is about how diversity is beneficial to businesses. Like marketing? If you're going to advertise, you need to know your audience so if there's no yt men on your team, your not gonna be able to market to them as well.