Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tglassy" data-source="post: 7602138" data-attributes="member: 6855204">Anytime someone on the right speaks of gender they are speaking of one's role in reproduction.&nbsp; Not their role in society.&nbsp; &quot;Modern Gender Theory&quot; is an attempt to rewrite the definition of various terms in order to advance an agenda.&nbsp; The two sides are, in essence, speaking different languages, as the words they are using hold different meaning to each one using them.&nbsp; Doing this has caused much confusion in our society, even to the point where you have congressmen saying if a transwoman has a penis, it is a &quot;biologically female penis&quot;, which is a statement that is so intellectually fallacious it almost breaks my brain to consider.&nbsp; What role a person has in society is cultural and has nothing to do with reproduction.&nbsp; If you strip away all culture and society, along with all laws and language, and leave the human at it's bare minimum, little more than an animal, the only purpose of having more than one biological sex, or gender, or whatever you want to call it, is reproduction.&nbsp; What role they have in reproduction is straightforward and obvious to anyone without an agenda.&nbsp; In fact, everything about a person's physiology is dictated by their role in reproduction.&nbsp; Females being generally smaller and more nurturing, are also very vulnerable during pregnancy, and therefore the male is stronger and larger and more expendable, in order to protect her during that time. Now, that is simply the biological make up, and is best shown during a cave man society, with no laws and no culture.&nbsp; Once you add culture, you add &quot;societal roles&quot;, which is what many on the left mean when they say &quot;Gender theory.&quot; Or at least, that's as best as I can tell, since I've never actually heard what these other 'gender roles' are.&nbsp; I only ever hear that there are dozens, no examples are ever given. Whether a culture follows that biological design is completely irrelevant to reproduction.&nbsp; Whether a culture allows for eunuchs, or has Warrior Women, or allows for male prostitutes, is completely beside the point and has nothing to do with biological reproductive roles.&nbsp; Two parents, one female, one male, are absolutely, unequivocally, undeniably, scientifically required in order to procreate, regardless of what their roles are in society.&nbsp; One sperm, one egg.&nbsp; Two sperms, or two eggs, will never create life in and of themselves.&nbsp; Now, you can circumvent that with through cloning and other such things, but that has nothing to do with the natural design, nor does it have to do with one's 'roll' in their culture.&nbsp; Culture is a made up construct.&nbsp; Biological imperative is not.&nbsp; &nbsp; So when I say &quot;No animal that reproduces sexually has more than two genders&quot;, I define Gender as one's general role in reproduction, divorced from their societal or cultural role.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tglassy, post: 7602138, member: 6855204"] Anytime someone on the right speaks of gender they are speaking of one's role in reproduction. Not their role in society. "Modern Gender Theory" is an attempt to rewrite the definition of various terms in order to advance an agenda. The two sides are, in essence, speaking different languages, as the words they are using hold different meaning to each one using them. Doing this has caused much confusion in our society, even to the point where you have congressmen saying if a transwoman has a penis, it is a "biologically female penis", which is a statement that is so intellectually fallacious it almost breaks my brain to consider. What role a person has in society is cultural and has nothing to do with reproduction. If you strip away all culture and society, along with all laws and language, and leave the human at it's bare minimum, little more than an animal, the only purpose of having more than one biological sex, or gender, or whatever you want to call it, is reproduction. What role they have in reproduction is straightforward and obvious to anyone without an agenda. In fact, everything about a person's physiology is dictated by their role in reproduction. Females being generally smaller and more nurturing, are also very vulnerable during pregnancy, and therefore the male is stronger and larger and more expendable, in order to protect her during that time. Now, that is simply the biological make up, and is best shown during a cave man society, with no laws and no culture. Once you add culture, you add "societal roles", which is what many on the left mean when they say "Gender theory." Or at least, that's as best as I can tell, since I've never actually heard what these other 'gender roles' are. I only ever hear that there are dozens, no examples are ever given. Whether a culture follows that biological design is completely irrelevant to reproduction. Whether a culture allows for eunuchs, or has Warrior Women, or allows for male prostitutes, is completely beside the point and has nothing to do with biological reproductive roles. Two parents, one female, one male, are absolutely, unequivocally, undeniably, scientifically required in order to procreate, regardless of what their roles are in society. One sperm, one egg. Two sperms, or two eggs, will never create life in and of themselves. Now, you can circumvent that with through cloning and other such things, but that has nothing to do with the natural design, nor does it have to do with one's 'roll' in their culture. Culture is a made up construct. Biological imperative is not. So when I say "No animal that reproduces sexually has more than two genders", I define Gender as one's general role in reproduction, divorced from their societal or cultural role. [/QUOTE]

Verification