Topic: The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God - page 25. (Read 37219 times)

It is only recently (really within the last 50 or 60 years) that minority groups have pushed other meanings onto gender.

I give up.

Sex and gender are synonyms.

No, every poll ever created either has a pure gay agenda or a total anti-gay agenda. The world is black and white.

Simplicity is comforting, is it not?

In my opinion, people who fuss so much about gender and sexuality need to have more, or perhaps better, sex.

Are there any honest polls that are not designed to elicit certain responses and results?

Are there any honest polls that show what people generally think when they hear the word "gender?"

I now declare that those who think that "Sex will kill God" [Beliathon] are of a gender that is extremely different from the gender of those who know that "God will judge those of the gender that think that 'Sex will kill God.'

gender¹
[jen-der]

noun
1. Grammar.

    (in many languages) a set of classes that together include all nouns, membership in a particular class being shown by the form of the noun itself or by the form or choice of words that modify, replace, or otherwise refer to the noun, as, in English, the choice of he to replace the man, of she to replace the woman, of it to replace the table, of it or she to replace the ship. The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20; often the classification correlates in part with sex or animateness. The most familiar sets of genders are of three classes (as masculine, feminine, and neuter in Latin and German) or of two (as common and neuter in Dutch, or masculine and feminine in French and Spanish).
    one class of such a set.
    such classes or sets collectively or in general.
    membership of a word or grammatical form, or an inflectional form showing membership, in such a class.

2. either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior:
the feminine gender.
Compare sex (def 1).

3. Archaic. kind, sort, or class.

sex
[seks]

noun
1. either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.
2. the sum of the structural and functional differences by which the male and female are distinguished, or the phenomena or behavior dependent on these differences.
3. the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another, or its manifestation in life and conduct.
4. coitus.
5. genitalia.
verb (used with object)
6. to ascertain the sex of, especially of newly-hatched chicks.

Verb phrases
7. sex up, Informal.

    to arouse sexually:
    The only intent of that show was to sex up the audience.
    to increase the appeal of; to make more interesting, attractive, or exciting:
    We've decided to sex up the movie with some battle scenes.

Idioms
8. to have sex, to engage in sexual intercourse.

Usage note

Although it is possible to define gender as “sex,” indicating that the term can be used when differentiating male creatures from female ones biologically, the concept of gender, a word primarily applied to human beings, has additional connotations—more rich and more amorphous—having to do with general behavior, social interactions, and most importantly, one's fundamental sense of self.

Until recently, most people assumed that acknowledging one's gender, or sex, was easy. You just checked the appropriate box on a standard form, choosing either “male” or “female,” according to the gender you had been assigned at birth based on visible anatomical evidence. But some people's internal sense of who they are does not correspond with their assigned gender. And in fact, we now recognize that a complex spectrum between male and female exists not only mentally, psychologically, and behaviorally, but anatomically; there have always been biologically intersex people.

Gender identity is complicated. Some people, perhaps most, do not question their assigned gender. But others perceive themselves as belonging to the opposite sex. Still others, some of whom identify themselves as genderqueer, see themselves as neither male nor female, or perhaps as both, or as rotating between genders, or even as not belonging to any gender categorization at all.

Those who clearly see themselves as the opposite sex may or may not want to transition to it in some measure. Of those who do, some may complete that transition, but others may be happy to stop partway on a path that can include dressing and behaving like the opposite sex, although the desire to cross-dress can exist quite apart from issues of gender identity. Somewhere along the transitional path, people may want to change their given names and adopt linguistic terms of their own choosing, including a variety of pronouns, as designations of themselves and others. Some will have hormone treatments and opt for various kinds of surgery—perhaps facial, perhaps on their bodies, perhaps ultimately including sex “reassignment” surgery (genital reconstruction). At any point, they may welcome or reject a “transsexual” or “transgender” label.

This array of life experiences has resulted in a veritable explosion of new, or newly adapted, vocabulary. Particularly striking and useful is the word cis or prefix cis-, as in cis male, cis female, and cisgender, designating those whose sense of self matches their assigned gender. Using cis is a way to refer to these individuals without implying that “cis” people are the norm and all others a deviation from “normal.” It is notable that choices of gender beyond male and female are even appearing on social media sites. Clearly, gender is no longer a simple binary concept, if it ever was.

I know everyone thinks they want a saviour, a Jesus Christ, a Satoshi Nakamoto, Nelson Mandela etc etc - but look around you at the constituent members of this forum Beliathon - even a good percentage of those that appear to be legit are in fact, in one form or another, the basest type of amoral, self interested scammer, on nothing more than an ego driven pump and dump trip .

And there goes your argument. Innate gender roles has nothing to do with socially enacted gender roles. Every society has different gender roles for males and females. As I said before, it is true that males tend to gravitate towards being more masculine and women towards being more feminine, but the various "extras" imposed upon each sex by societies is the problem. Get it? The point of this is because societies forcing down socially defined gender roles on male/females may leave negative results. Such as males being afraid to show their emotions for fear of being viewed as "weak", or females afraid to stand for their rights in a male dominated society(Look at India).

Again, I highly, enormously, advise that you go search up the words "gender" and "sex" in your local dictionary. What you're describing, for the millionth time, is Sex. Sex is the biological factor, gender the social one. You're talking about somewhat predefined roles based on the person's Sex, not gender.

I rather that society change to at least accommodate to help all of the people, than stick to the "majority" and ignore everyone else. Of course you don't care, because well, you're a sheep.

Please, if you're gonna continue typing, at least know what you're typing about. This is honestly disappointing. Ugh.

Please elaborate, Jeff Garzik has me convinced that it isn't.

Bitcoin is corruptible however.

The difference is that in today's world the softer sciences can (and often are) warped and corrupted by the profit motive, that's what Feynman is warning those CalTech students about.

Verisimilitudes or not, raw mathematics is wholly incorruptible by virtue of transparency (see Bitcoin). Contrast that with statistics, or other weaker methods commonly used in the social sciences.

Its possible that the distinction between hard and soft sciences is a bit of a false dichotomy.

Social science is able to employ the scientific method also. And in empirically testing falsifiable theories, using various social research methods, it is able to arrive at valid and reliable conclusions.

It has been said of the "natural" (hard) sciences that at best they only ever attain a verisimilitude  - that is, an approximation to truth (or falsity) - and so, in this sense are not so far removed from the social sciences as might first appear to be the case.