Read the article. See for yourself the "father" and his "works", the roots and purpose of "The Gender Theory".

Aren't we saying the exact opposite is actually the case? That gender identity is innate? That case actually only reinforces this. So I do not see your point.

The point is, this is the one man who created the "Gender Theory" fundamentals, further experiencing it on baby twins life and growth, leading a whole family to a human tragedy.

Yourself wrote, "it's just better to inform yourself and see things from other points of view."

Role-play a little of David Reimer / "Brenda", maybe to follow your own words of advice.

The french extreme-right is currently capitalising on this story (which is the extent of their "knowledge" of gender studies, which they reframe as "gender theory" as if the distinction between gender and sex was a hypothesis - with the implied suggestion that, on the contrary, washing dishes is a biologically innate female ability, and that absolutely no human culture function on different gender categories). And yes, as you point out, this story illustrates the idiocy of imposing predecided gender roles to people, something that their society is precisely intending to do.

Note also the attempt at using it as "what gender studies come to". From the same normative people who used to pin pink triangles on homosexuals.

But collective ignorance here does lead to the use of morally normative "naturalistic fallacy". Just think of prejudices and pressures on the relatively simple cases of homosexuality. It is not legitimised by the fact that homosexuals are minoritary.

So the gender concept, as a tool of relativisation (from "nature" and rhetorical reductions to it), is very important to give a way to minorities to define themselves, be recognised (even if it was as unique individual) and "exist" cognitively.

Also, it doesn't take that much to adapt society to less normative rules and norms on that subject. Allowing homosexuals to live their love lives in marriage if they intend to is already something. Generally speakjing, we don't regulate much about haircuts, and it didn't require an overwhelming list of laws for each type and colour.

Thing is, this doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. I told you to look at what other cultures think about genders - that has nothing to do with the Western science (or social science) of Gender Studies (et al) whatsover.
It's just about looking at people and how they are and not immediately trying to categorize and mark them as insane or sick or whatever.

Also, just in case you insist on that case, I could point to many such (more or less fitting) analogies: "Christianity? Lawl, what about the Inquisition." "Genetics? The Nazis forever tainted that with Eugenics" etc. etc.

Only because somebody misused something in a certain field, it doesn't mean that it will forever stay like that. If you learn to differentiate, you can assess how things truly are (as far as possible, at least).

Telika, different people and groups will always (mis)use events and occurences to fit their ideals/ideologies/agendas.
I think it's necessary to be as objective as possible whenever possible and not let such things get in the way, especially when it's about (re)defining human society, our values and freedoms.

The originator of something is not the end-all, be-all of something. Money had a thesis that gender identity is learned. Now the current trend is that it is NOT learned. So.
What was your point again? It seems rather irrelevant, to be honest.

The origins and consequences of the "Gender Theory" in its former application are irrelevent. It was just one experience and proof we should not force people to be men or women. David Reimer was expendable. Whatever.

I find it somewhat obvious the name and acts of John Money being absent from most wiki pages and "lessons" about the "Gender Theory" speaks for itself. It evolved into gender studies, but..

My position is, of course conditioned with France actuality, our government current project to experience these studies on our children at school, and it is not reassuring. At all. I freak out about it, so sorry..

I believe that we are to answer, and sorcerer's apprentices "experiencing" / playing / messing with children / people minds and lives with big words and theories under the cover of progress and freedom will have to as well. Not all are ill intended, but only time will tell.. This I trust, hope, and somewhat wait for. Amen.

Also, do you KNOW you are blatantly equating me, and conservative political parties to Nazi Germany, what the..!?

Edit : Removed personal stunts against @Telika, another gender influence as I process the information she is / may be a she..?

Edit 2 : You are not a woman, but I drop it anyway.. Because I am a Christian, hence meant to "love my enemies".

Clap!

A socio-anthropological lecture on genders.

Is there an option called "confused"?

If you don't know how to address people you don't agree with with a minimum amount of respect, I won't dignify your posts with an answer.

Now, pls, go insult someone else, because I don't feel like wasting energy interacting with you if you will behave like this.

Really, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Seconded, good read and close to no propaganda for a change.. Sex as body, gender as mind and social expectations, got it.

This doesn't change and actually support my conviction that sex and gender must match, or it is a danger and inappropriate for either an individual balance, interpersonal relations and public life.. Anyway, thank you for taking on your time to write this down as clearly.

I trust there are two distinct sexes / genders meant for each other by nature / culture, not three, not 50 and no other in existence still to be found out, in terms of genetics and their purposes.

Creating and / or comforting "new" ones or morally questionable kind of groups and causes within the society "in the name of" won't solve anything, just divide the whole more and more, with each group striving from the humble right to breath life, which should be a given for sensible reasons when it involves consenting adults, up to requesting offensively their share of legitimacy from all the others as it is now happening with LGBT lobbies..

These are dangerously driven by the hunger to expand their "culture" as they can't procreate between themselves as homosexuals, and for the social legitimacy of their behaviors, to ease their own moral consciousness accusing them of "sinning" by gaining public opinions approval, Religions and most informed studies pointing such as inappropriate and harmful no matter what for solid reasons grounded in ethics and healthcare. I trust LGBT people themselves for knowing it being deviant deep inside, their sorrow, incompleteness right after laying with another man or woman, "married" or not.. Ironically, their most loyal and vocal supporters are more often than not complete strangers to and from actual LGBT people, your generic "Social Justice Warriors (TM)" as someone wrote here, good one!

End of this road of them lobbies pushing on our Western societies with the outburst of LGBT content in medias and for illegitimate privileges, like these terrible claims having "rights" on, and for children..? Civil war, where Might makes Right. If this happens, you can forget about minorities having rights at all, and quiet LGBT people asking nothing but living would be the collateral victims of this, because of their own lobbies misrepresenting them and the trigger, these ideological imposters biting too hard the hand feeding them.

Sexuality being a private matter, I understand no valid reason to manage different "gender systems" for our societies beside sensibilizing to the specific situation of transgender people, for their effective integration and employment. Other than that, there is no legitimate need and reason to "change mentalities" and by that to "create" more LGBT people building easier ways to engage in their behaviors and lifestyles, as they are suffering their conditions, I believe..!?

A man acting effeminate, a man being penetrated by another male, are transgressive for a reason to the very notion of what is a man, his purpose as a human being and the masculine gender in general for aeons worldwide. This should and must not change, namely because men are not women! Asking me, it is an outright crime to shake the entire moral system for the only benefit of a few LGBT people well being over the 95% or so of us, under pressure from sick ideologies masquerading as "progress" to brainwash the masses into accepting this happening as the "new" normal reality. A man can also do the vacuum cleaning, cook food, wash dishes and take care of babies, sure, fine. That is not transgressing sexual roles and behaviors, at least!

All these theories, assumptions and speculations about "inborn" predispositions to licence specific behaviors, what a deceitful lot of confusing lies aimed at numbing any true personal responsibility.. Really and in all honesty, WE HUMANS ARE FREE WILLED BEINGS, obviously sexuality is learnt and building, is subject to change over and throughout the course of one's life experiences, while having testicles or ovaries is a biological FACT, one's gender psychological inversion is a medical issue, period.

Absurd ideologies are absurd. Though, they have one important thing and purpose in common, self-righteousness through manipulating semantic values, words for exemple "homophobia" viciously includes in a single term the fair reject of homosexuality as BOTH the orientation AND / OR the behavior for oneself, WHILE ALSO the unfair reject of "homosexuals" as human persons, for BOTH their homosexual orientation AND / OR the conduct.. Same pattern with the only one word "homosexuality" for BOTH the (often unwanted and suffered) orientation AND / OR the willful practice.. "Inborn" is some magic, justifying word, I guess..? Less popular because not usually shown and not (yet) supported by our deceiving medias, NOTE I am not drawing insulting comparisons between groups here, but what with pedophiles, zoophiles and so on voicing the exact same "inborn" claims, as a way to shake off personal, MORAL responsibility over THEIR OWN BEHAVIORS, as a common Law pleading in today's Tribunal courts..?

Pardon me for asking, where is that "gay gene" scientific, bullet-proof evidence, by the way..? It is researched for TWO decades, by now..

I am sensible to the begging and crying of suffering people just like the next person, but these don't change reality as it is.. One thing for sure and certain, I do not and will not support / allow social pressures from political hypocrites of the LGBT lobbies and their "progressive people" backers to redefine moral values, and now the masculine and feminine genders as they see fit, to set new rules and guidelines for everyone to live by and bow down to, as they don't have the proper authority to do this outside of their own communities. At least not for and against myself, or whoever is / will be under my responsibility to educate and take care of.

Lobbies manipulating public opinions to expand their "culture", while their concerned people claim to suffer.. How ethical is this..?!

Thank you for the clarification.

In that case, "gender" should seldom be used in most systems collecting basic data about people as it's a very blurry concept.

I'm glad you are giving a clear separation between the physical (what you call sex) and the psychological (what you call gender) as I think that distinction is necessary to create functional systems (in the many cases where we are really interested in the sex).

For my part, I must admit that questions of gender don't particularly interest me. I'm more of a practical mindset and sex is more readily applicable in systems compared to the seemingly infinite permutations of gender.

I am not sure that "gender" makes sense in passports, for instance, yes. The question is about the biological sex, and I doubt that, in such contexts, the border bureaucrats care a lot about negociated social gender.

Things are a bit more complicated when it's about transgender or transsexual people. What does matter, administratively ? And, more interestingly, why ? In such cases, a person who lives, self-identified, and is socially identified as a woman should be labelled a woman (in which cases is it sex, and in which cases is it gender?). The question is merely : what definition there is most relevant to the usage of the paperwork. Identification ? Well, so...

And in everyday life, the most accurate technical terms do sound a bit pedantic indeed. They may be right, but sometimes absurdly correct (and disproportionately obscure) for the intended communication. It's contextual. That said, we witness everyday the more and more widespread and "common sense" usage of terms that used to sound too intellectual or pedantic. These things evolve fast.

Well, when I say "fast"... Many administrations still use the word "race" about humans, which is a facepalm-worthy anachronism. Or misuse "ethnicity" instead, for physical descriptions.

Being accurate with words, and using the right one in the right situation (that is the most "communicative" one, and the less false one) is not often very obvious. :-/

I am afraid that there will be no such option. This is an open discrimination against people who are confused.

There should be at least "it's complicated".