Bringing into education materials based in Queer Theory, including so-called gender-critical perspectives that separate sex and gender as though they are completely different phenomena, is meant to make children activists in this disruptive, destabilizing mode of misunderstanding the world.

submitted by Chipit from (newdiscourses.com)

all 17 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Am i missing the part about being gender critical? Gender is/was specifically meant to be different from sex. People incorrectly started using "gender" as a "polite" replacement for "sex" but they were never meant to be the same thing. It was supposed to refer to the role/caste in society specifically linked to your sex. TRAs also incorrectly stole the word to refer to some kind of magic soul.

The most annoying part now is that "gender" is being colloquially understood by both of the WRONG definitions and whenever you try to talk about gender you get this partisan argument but neither side knows what the actual definition is.

[–]YJaewedwqewq 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The separation of "sex" and "gender" is purely arbitrary and was introduced by a pedophile who was also a major player in this degenerate movement.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't matter that Money coined the usage. All the TRAs today are using the word in a completely incorrect way.

[–]LtGreenCo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Gender has been synonymous with sex since the 15th century. (3rd paragraph)

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There is no 3rd paragraph. And yes we all know gender refers / referred to "kinds" of things including grammar and sex because 2 sexes are 2 kinds of things. The second paragraph mentions 15c as a vague "sense" with no examples or citations. It immediately goes on to say the shift happened in 20c which is the 1900s which is the time period where feminist academics started using the term and people started commonly using the word wrong in the late 1990s. I remember the 80s and literally no one was going around saying "my gender this" or "my baby's gender" etc. Occasionally people on TV would use it in reference to pop culture, that's it. Even i started using it in the early 00s but at the time didn't know why it popped into popularity. People love to point at that vague sentence in this specific etymology website but I have yet to see anyone pull up an example where anyone was commonly or even uncommonly using "gender" as a direct synonym for "sex" prior to the 70s.

[–]According-Junket-885 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

There is definitely a third paragraph there, and it says what the other guy claimed.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

On my phone it shows up as 2 paragraphs. Just checked as desktop version and see the 3. However, it definitely doesn't say what he claimed. He claimed it's "synonymous" and the website doesn't claim that. It says there was a "sense" of the meaning.

[–]LtGreenCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think you're misunderstanding the phrase "sense of the word". It doesn't mean a vague feeling or whatever you're thinking. It means a particular definition of a word.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I was ready to believe you until I clicked the link which makes it seem like you are trying to make your point in bad faith by linking to something which doesn't support your own argument.

You looked up "sense of the word" on Webster and that phrase didn't exist so it gave 2 suggestions.

"in every sense of the word"... Ie there are multiple ways to consider the word but in EVERY sense it means a certain thing.

"in the strict/strictest sense (of the word)" ... Ie without allowing for any deviation from the definition.

Neither of those things define the thing you claimed.

[–]LtGreenCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Which one of those definitions said a "vague wishy-washy kinda-sorta feeling of a word" like you seem to think it means? I think you're just trolling at this point.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why do you put quotes around things which aren't quotes? It goes to prove your arguments are in bad faith.

Which one of those definitions said a "vague wishy-washy kinda-sorta feeling of a word"

Neither because neither defines the fucking thing you keep saying it does, holy shit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_sense

In linguistics, a word sense is one of the meanings of a word. For example, a dictionary may have over 50 different senses of the word "play", each of these having a different meaning based on the context of the word's usage in a sentence

You gave me a definition for EVERY SENSE so if there are 50 senses of a particular word then in a particular case IF ALL 50 SENSES OF THE WORD DEFINE THE SUBJECT AT HAND the it means in every sense of the word.

The etymology website says "The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word" which is implying 1 meaning which if used in a sentence the reader could

reconstruct the likely intended meaning of a word. This process uses context to narrow the possible senses down to the probable ones.

Colloquially the word gender was not viewed as a synonym for sex until the 1900s as stated in the etymology website. By which they likely mean the late 1990s. The fact that they just broadly lump it into the entire 1900s is unfortunate for the context of this particular issue because people start acting like everyone just spontaneously started saying it in like 1901.

[–]QueenBread 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gender is/was specifically meant to be different from sex.

Uh, no. Gender has always been a synonim of sex until a dozen or so years ago when a pedophile wrote an article about how gender should actually mean something else.

[–]cephyrious 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you replace the word "critical" with "marxism", all the disciplines will make a lot more sense.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gender is a linguistic term. Like the French will call random objects he or she for no good reason and this effects the grammar. They couldn't call that sex because clearly tables, chairs, etc don't have a sex.

The whole social roles or internal feelings stuff is last century.

[–]clownworlddropout 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Their assertion that sex is separate from gender is the foundation of their house of cards, and therefore why you're not allowed to question it. Turns out sex is the key component of gender! It's our sexual dimorphism that informed all our concepts of gender! They're not separate, and if you back a gENDEr StUdIES PrOFEsSOR up against a wall even he'll be forced to admit sex and gender are intrinsically linked if he holds a shred of intellectual honesty. This farce just needs to die, it's embarrassing.

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"If gender is non-biological, then why do you feel the need to alter your body when transitioning?"

[–]QueenBread 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's just regular fascist behaviour. Remember when schools, during fascism, were trying to indoctrinate kids. The good thing is that the system doesn't seem to work completely well.