Are you sure these are humans? Do they identify this way or are you projecting your biases and essentializing them? Please be a better ally, refer to any shape/object as "blobs" until they tell you otherwise. Thank you.
@@_blank-_ Haha you are so funny 😐 I think this is obvious, but: you cannot change something completely biological like species. Gender is not biological. Sex is biological. You cannot change sex but you can change gender. Get a better straw man.
@@David280GG ah, you're right, it's the same art style, just a bit better and, again, you're right, they aren't "moving" it's just that the fluidity between the drawn frames makes it seem like movement, everybody knows this, come on, I should know better
3:34 I've heard people complain about the use of the word "meme" to refer to any humorous meme-style picture, and stating the fact that the word refers to the kind of cultural phenomenon itself, rather than a specific instance of it. Some people really can't stand semantic changes.
@@SouthPark333Gamingwell and people used to say suspicious without thinking of among us a few years ago and here we are Or like Literally saying the phrase "among us"
"Give someone an oxygen tank with nitrox in it, nobody bats an eye...give someone an oxygen tank with mustard gas in it, and everyone loses their minds." - The Joker
Meanwhile I have a science background and not enough background in European history to known the meaning behind the mustard gas nickname until now, so the opposite is true lol
Me realizing that one of my favorite RU-vidrs is also non-binary through a video about the etymology and history of gender is extremely poetic and I love it
@@1e1001 Exactly! You'd expect a separator of some kind in there, at least. But on RU-vid comments, the rules are somewhat laxer, so your suggestion is just about what we understand (plus a much more casual tone). I just found the ambiguity/more literal interpretation of the original comment due to the (lack of) punctuation amusing.
Definitions for people who want to learn more: - Sex refers to the suite of traits that differentiate humans for reproductive purposes. It comes in 3 parts: genotype (what people would call your "chromosomes"), primary sex characteristics (your gonads and genitalia) and secondary sex characteristics (how bodies tend to differ in the presence of certain hormones, that develop during puberty). - Gender comes in 3 parts too: gender identity is the self-identification as a man, woman or something else, gender expression is the way in which people choose to indicate their gender through clothing, language and other aspects of culture, and gender roles are the societal norms regarding gender expression. Oh and grammatical gender has essentially nothing to do with any of this, although for various reasons it can reinforce gender roles. - Sexuality is the preference people express for the gender of their partners. This typically has more to do with gender expression than anything else. This can also be distinguished from romantic attraction types. Oh right, a chair is a freestanding raised seat. A seat is an item of furniture intended for a single human to sit on. Furniture is any large mobile construct with a defined domestic purpose... see how quickly things spiral out of control.
The fact that sex is more than just chromosomes also indicates, that it really _is_ possible to, at least partially, "change your sex." While chromosomes are extremely difficult if not impossible to change, surgery and hormones can and do change one's primary and secondary sex characteristics to either be more like the opposite sex or less like the original sex (and the two aren't necessarily equivalent). In this sense, a transgender person who has begun hormone therapy or has taken SRS aren't really fully male or female in sex even if they were prior to transitioning.
"But then, how will I satisfy my thirst for attention?" asked the white f'got after posting his controversial video about his very special "identity" because he's definitely not like the other crackers.
This is true because sex and gender are spelt, pronounced and defined differently edit: 77 likes with no transphobic replies? thanks you guys! edit 2: nearly doubled with 156, thanks to everybody here!!
Something else that people don't seem to notice: Pretty much every society in history with a distinct eunuch class had a system with more than two genders.
I think I will now associate "what is a woman" with "what is a chair" in the same way that "what is a man" is associated with "a miserable little pile of secrets", thank you
The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality Paperback - August 31, published 1994 by Sandra Lipsitz Bem The idea has been kicking around for a while.
Looking into this a bit, Bem is using the word "lens" to refer to the interpretive frameworks of heteronormative patriarchy - specifically, her three lenses are androcentrism, gender polarization and biological essentialism. That's a bit different from saying that gender categories are *themselves* lenses. But the look looks very interesting, thanks for the rec!
I always tended to say Gender is your Genre. Weather you are a Goth, a suit and tie wearing man, a person of an eccentric character, it's basically what sort of feel, vibe or Genre that you choose for yourself. While sex while it can be a part of that, is simply what half do you occupy in the generation of a new life.
@@snorristurluson5849 intersex people exist! There are conditions such as Klinefelter syndrome where someone has xxy chromosomes instead of xx or xy it's actually very interesting
I think we must go back to the meaning of Shakespeare's time. Y'know because the older a definition is the better. Thus from now on i shall catagorise people with their gender pertaining to what type of herb they are most similar to. Thats it, thats the new system. My sex is male, my gender is mint
@@reizayin well, there is no good definition that would include every woman and exclude every nonwoman, but I'll try. A woman is whomst declares themself a woman. You will probably not accept that though since you are too biased against trans people. Now define chair, please.
as a nonbinary person, i absolutely love this video. one idea in this that i’d never fully contemplated before was how in declaring your gender to someone, you’re telling them what lens you want to be perceived through by them. it reminds me of how, whenever i’m explaining my gender to children or those unfamiliar with more “complicated” concepts of gender, i say that if they struggle to understand the concept of nonbinary, they can just see me as a boy/man, because i’d rather be perceived as a boy/man than a girl/woman
why would you be rather be perceived as a boy/man tho? I wonder how much societal expectations of gender shape how we want to be viewed, and how many people don't feel comfortable with their gender and change it due to society considering them 'unfit' for it
@@heywhat6676 Honestly a good question (though I don't have an answer). For me it's actually the opposite - I'd rather be perceived female, though I am perceived male given that I have undergone male puberty. To me there is a certain desire to make people question their gender stereotypes and not apply their expectations of "men" onto me just because of the way I look. This is also reflected in the fact that I would love to wear skirts and feminine clothing more often, but I feel unsafe to do so due to the expectations people have when they see someone who appears to be a man wearing feminine clothing - there is this disgusting stigma still that it must always be a sexual and "deviant" act that needs to be discouraged. Which is why I often stick with bright, somewhat masculine clothing instead...
The mic, tone, and image changes between when drawn K Klein speaks and real K Klein speaks makes my brain mentally separate them even though I know logically they are the same
Most actual hard hitting conversations are censored and deleted by youtube, if I were to be 100% honest about how I feel, youtube just deletes my comments, because youtube is on the side of all you homosexuals, even though you like to think otherwise.
Less experienced divers would actually probably use a tank filled with an oxygen/nitrogen mix that corresponds to regular breathing air, nitrox tanks have a greater ratio of oxygen to nitrogen, slowing down nitrogen build up, allowing you to stay underwater for longer without having to decompress on the way back up. Problems may arise with oxygen toxicity depending on the mix used and the depth dived at. There's math formulas for determining maximum depth with whatever oxygen% you're using and what your no-decompression limit is (kinda, there are risk factors to consider), but the formulas are fairly simple and there are tables for it. This has jackshit to do with the video itself, I just felt like explaining more about nitrox tanks since you brought em up, I don't even have scuba diver let alone nitrox diving training/certifications. I might've made a mistake there somewhere, someone who knows what they're doing please do correct it.
And yet, I'd wager that those are still called "oxygen tanks", at least some of the time, despite the contained gas being mostly _not_ oxygen. Cuz the oxygen is the important part. Unless the rest of the contents are mustard gas. That'd be pretty important.
Great video talking about the philosophy of gender. As a fellow enby, I can relate to some of the things you talked about in this video. I liked your description on being enby as "refusing to be seen as a specific lens". I used to identify as binary trans. However, for me, acting out the "opposite" role of my birth gender wasn't as freeing as I initially thought. Of course there are tons of binary trans people who get great happiness from being their true self. But for me, trying to be the "opposite" sex just felt like putting on another performance, similar to how I felt when I was still trying to convince myself I was cisgender. I eventually realized non-binary was a more accurate term to describe me and I am happier now that I know more about myself. Much like I found it freeing when I first realized I am not straight, I found the realization that I am non-binary to be very freeing for me. I hope, in the future, society becomes more accepting of gender non-conformity as a concept, so that other people will allow themselves to explore how they wish to present and who they want to be. People should be free to live their lives as they please and not be forced into a box. Also, btw, sorry you had to deal with all those dumb comments. From what I hear from other openly LGBTQ creators, bigoted comments have been getting worse over the past two years or so. Conservative politicians needs a scapegoat to rally their angry supports against, and trans people have become that in the last few years. Hopefully, this rise in bigotry is temporary.
@@serhiy-serhiiv To make fun of them for saying "as a trans person" No significant person cares You aren't special, never were these people love to pretend they're more common than they are
@@serhiy-serhiiv It happens all the time on any video that openly signals to them. The context is forced either way, there is still no real reason to do it, if they wanted to be treated like normal people, maybe they should act like normal people, and normal people don't introduce their point with anything like "as X, I...".
@@animationecho1Is a sofa a chair? Is a stool a chair? Is a bench a chair? What a chair is is a social construct, as there are things which are definitely chairs, which we don't call chairs. What a woman is also a social construct, but it is ascribed to people. We can ask people, but we can't ask inanimate objects about if they're a chair or not and it's utterly meaningless to these objects whether or not they are a chair. But to people, there is a very important meaning, and we can ask them.
Hey I just wanted to point out that as far as I'm aware the term hermaphrodite is considered derogatory by the intersex community, I'm by no means and expert but I thought it best to raise the point than just not say anything.
My understanding is that "hermaphrodite" is a biological term used to describe someone who has both functional male and female gonads, which in humans is incredibly, incredibly rare - the vast majority of intersex people don't fit this definition. So people who are "true hermaphrodites" may or may not be comfortable with using the term outside of a medical context since it can feel a bit dehumanizing, but it's personal preference. But yeah, using it to describe intersex people as a whole is definitely derogatory. (though I've seen a few people trying to reclaim it, similar to the f slur)
Hermaphrodite is also a term used to describe plants and stuff in scientific discourse, and well, humans too. It's nice that we got a term now with intersex which covers a lot more ground and hasn't been used by mean people to do mean things, but ultimately biological hermaphrodism is still a thing (which is not all intersex people). A new term might be worthwhile? But like how would it work linguistically, disex??? But then that's a restrictive term since hermaphrodites which are 2+ in some way exist in nature. So what are we gonna use, polysex? Well polysexual and polygamous are already terms which exist for totally different things Ultimately most people who still use the word intersex to refer to humans are biologists in pretty specific contexts and I guess gender theory-biological sex discussions. It's a problem with no clear solution, and while it might upset I think for now the default is still the most figured out/logical option. But hey it'd be pretty cool if I was wrong
_blank-_ : c'mon ppl like you throw virtue signal and woke around so lightly it's seems the actual ones who don't know the og definitions are you yet you complain about virtue signaling without knowing what it actually means nor if the person behind that comment truly cares about bringing spotlight to certain themes and ppl or they just cared about portraying a leftist image to other leftist ppl for only social approval of themselves. It seems you just throw around that whenever ppl just try to be genuinely nice and empathetic towards different ppl and themes with no ill reason behind like self gain.... It's not always that way. Ps:also the white knight term already giving extremely online anti sjw/incel vibes...
i have 2 intersex friends, and they both consider it to be a slur (when being used to refer to humans, anyway). that’s obviously not a huge sample size, but i think it’s relevant lol
Haven't finished the video, just got to the sponsor segment, but since it wasn't covered in the relevant section, I'mma make this comment now. Will edit if it's addressed later. Some people I've heard say "gender isn't real" are coming from a much more trans-positive, radical sentiment, basically "gender is just a social construct, there's nothing which should tie you down to any gender roles". Which, honestly, is a mindset I can get behind - act how you want, if it doesn't hurt anyone - but it comes up against the exact same problems, in that it is genuinely just denying that people _do_ see gender, and it does exist. It's a touch more convincing than something like "I don't see race" (even if that's more complicated than many people think, too), but it is still just a denial of a concept we do genuinely use. And we are on a linguistics channel - I shouldn't have to make much of an argument regarding the fact that the fact that something is a "social construct" doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't somehow useful. Same could go for morality, at the very least how people apply it. Even so, there is perhaps discussion to be had as to whether we should try and move past the concept of gender, but that's a slightly different discussion we could have in the replies.
Gender is not a social construct. It's a social recognition of something that already exists. To try and overcome it is to try and deny something natural.
That's fair. I think I've almost fallen into saying that, but I think the more constructive way of formulating my actual feelings is "Gender shouldn't matter for anything important. It doesnt need to restrict you from doing anything you love to do, and you shouldn't need to follow the arbitrary rules attached by society." in general i think society caring a lot about gender is dumb, but that obviously gender can be very important to individual people. Sincerely, your local agender person.
@@syro33 That's all fair enough, too. As I say, it's a bit like "I don't see race" - obviously race is a thing that exists, and that most people at least register, even if the person saying this genuinely has absolutely no ability to tell them apart. People will see gender, too. Cis people who "act like their gender" will be seen as such, and generally a person can identify a trans or non-binary person too, given how they present themselves. Identifying the latter strongly with the gender they're presenting themselves as is a little tougher - at least, in my case, I do genuinely find it difficult to see a trans woman in the same category as a cis woman (though I'm trying), which goes to show that even people who want to be allies have trouble with it sometimes. (I also realise that "presenting themselves as" sounds very charged, as if the person is faking, but I genuinely can't think of a better way to put it. I'm a cis dude and "present myself" as such, too, by wearing generally "masculine" clothing, among other things.) So yeah, I do think it's more relevant to try and discuss what genders there are, and how each of them is treated, rather than calling the whole thing into question.
@@klop4228Gender presentation is actually the terms used by the trans community so its alright to use the word presentation there! Personally, im agender, but i do present mostly masculine (mostly since its comfortable and what im used to, honestly). I dont think anyone could really tell im agender without asking me or hearing me say it. So... i guess something to think about? idk. My gender presentation and gender identity dont match up (though i dont know how one would dress in a completely ungendered way, really)
The part about a man getting his dick cut off, given estrogen, and then raised as a female, _has actually happened_ I forget his name, but there was a boy (from a pair of twins) who had a botched experimental circumcision, and afterwards, his parents decided to raise him as a girl before he eventually opted to identify a man anyways. I think he's commonly given as an example of "detransitioning," but since his parents are largely responsible for acting as though he was always a girl, I actually view him more as a transman, having been assigned female (maybe not necessarily _at_ birth, but shortly thereafter) despite having been born outwardly male, who then later in life transitioned from female to male.
You know you could have spent 10 seconds to Google that case instead of spouting BS out of your rotting ass? First of all, his name was David Reimer, his circumcision wasn't "experimental", it was just botched since any surgical procedure can go wrong, especially genital mutilation on children. Secondly, his parents didn't decide to raise him as a girl. It was John Money's idea. You may not know his name but this sexologist popularized the idea that gender wasn't biological, created the term "gender roles" and "gender identity". He wanted to experiment these ideas on David. If he was raised as a girl he would obviously become a girl, right? So he castrated him when he was a 22 month baby, used hormones on him and instructed his parents to rename him (Brenda) and raise him as a girl. Growing up, David had to answer to this weirdo's inappropriate questions. He ended up finding out the truth and spiraled into depression and ended up killing himself. So did his twin brother some time after. Your whole ideology and lingo are based on the torture of a child. Congrats, I guess. Let's also misgender him while we're at it, calling him a "trans man" even though he was born a boy, was biologically male and the only ambiguity comes from the torture he went through and your ridiculous ideology. But hey, you continue to do it on kids that definitely need puberty blockers.
@@syro33 David Reimer identified as a man because he was born a boy and this was only put into question because he was experimented on to prove that "gender and sex are totally different". Stop trying to push these terms any further, he killed himself because of this BS. Jesus Christ, you sick f'ks have no respect.
I’ve only discovered your channel today, but I think I platonically fell in love with you. You just absolutely nailed explaining it and I look up to you 🤩
Something I've noticed is everyone, regardless of politics, uses gender as sex and vice vera when it helps them, but pretends it's separate/or the same when it doesn't help them. For example, if a discussion is occurring where sex is the topic, and thus male and female are referring to sex, people will bring up gender identity when it isn't relevant. Even though gender isn't the topic. On the flipside, if gender identity is being discussed, another side will scream that they are male or female, as though biological sex is the topic. Which is not being discussed. The issue I'm trying to convey is male and female refer to both sex AND gender, but sex and gender are not the same. This results in an odd situation where people cannot always seem to agree on which context to use in any given situation, despite the terms being clear. This frustrates me because I care about clarity of communication, and clarity is not being achieved.
I think the viciousness from reactionary people makes describing gender very difficult. Politically, to defend oneself, a gender minority MUST expose a consistent and strong perspective of gender and sex to their opposition, as a conservative opponent will act in bad faith because they have contempt for gender minorities. This defensive political posture follows one back to their more safe social spaces, and confuses the really nuanced, inconsistent and complicated topic of gender. If gender wasn't besieged by reactionary conservative politics, it would be easier to discuss the nuances of gender and how our culture perceives it. Frankly, I agree with some of what you have to say here. As we evolve from ancient Germanic and Latin perspectives of gender, to early modern gender, to current day gender, our relationship with biological sexes and gender change but maintain relationships with each other. In my opinion, gender is an ancient human attempt to make sense of how biological sex impacts our social behavior. Male, intersex, and female have consequences for social animals of any species, and effect us too. These rules and expectations evolved (and evolve) into new concepts, but remain married to their original question: How do we make sense of our sexes?
I’ve noticed people at least refer to sex as “biologically male/female” or “assigned male/female at birth”, but gender generally just gets referred to as “male/female”. I wish some simple adjective like “male/female-gendered” or “male/female-identifying” would gain popularity to clear up this mess. Whatever that term may be, I’m sure it have to be more accessible than the examples I just gave
This is because the concepts are inherently linked - sex was created to be the scientific explanation and encoding of gender. Thus, to discuss sex IS to discuss gender, and any discussion about gender inherently impacts sex.
Your observation is spot on, but your proposed solution falls apart when you say that "male and female refer to both sex AND gender, but sex and gender are not the same". This is contradictory and incoherent. And does this also mean that terms like "woman" could refer to either sex or gender? Because if so, then there is absolutely nothing wrong about saying "transwomen aren't women"
the idea that gender is purely and inexorably chromosomal means that some women who were assigned female at birth and lived their whole lives happily being treated as women would have to have their entire identity taken away from them and be legally and socially treated as men if a medical test in their 30s discovers they have a Y chromosome. Is that something even the most strident "your genes are your gender" kind of person would insist on? Of course not. So they are willing to concede that sex is the same as gender, most of the time, but sometimes it isn't. Wow, looks like the exceptions sometimes disprove the rule
The thing about the Y chromosome idea is that it is wrong--it's not the Y chromosome that makes someone male, it's the SRY gene usually on the Y chromosome that causes a chain of genes to switch on that makes someone male. If that SRY gene is translocated to another chromosome or if the downstream genes turned on by the SRY gene are defective then who's to say what sex or gender you'd end up with.
"Chromosome" is a shortcut to "material reality" and "biology". If these two don't matter and that it's all just social constructs, let me identify as an Asian middle-aged woman even if I'm a teenage black male then. Wait no, race is somehow sacred and immutable. Age? Y'all are probably on your way to make transagism a thing.
27:38 - this got me thinking. I often find myself in low-key conflict with online progressives (as a somewhat progressive cis-gay man myself), because I feel like a lot of them try to define a perfect set of strict rules for the gender language game and then enforce these rules - whereas I instictively need some flexibility left in the game. And usually I stay quiet about it all, 'cause we all have bigger problems let's be honest, but it still keeps slightly bugging me.
k klein being nonbinary is just another slay for the queer community anyways this video is so fucking interesting as a trans person and as an enjoyer of linguistics and GWS. i especially loved the familial traits part, using the question "what is a woman/man" and applying it to something that seems so obvious is just genius
Although why is that sexual intercourse and biological sex, the same word? That would also beg the question why 'can' has two meanings. Why is it that words have different meanings
@@Bunny_Bill I've had a hunch since I was young that English was made/modified that way by the upper classes to screw people over in legal and business contracts.
@@Bunny_Bill I've had a hunch since I was young that English was made/modified that way by the upper classes to screw people over in legal and business contracts.
Now you've got me thinking about my own gender with a more useful framework than normally again. I still cannot believe that my agenderness solidified from "well i have no real desire to be a woman, whatever" through my realisation that I care more about my identity as a gamer than my identity as a girl. Now, I have days where I fully agree with seeing myself as a girl, but other days I only keep girl as my backup gender for people who aren't cool or too formal. Sure I am a girl, when assigning one-gender flats. Or when determining if my comp-sci class is severely or only mildly deficient in diversity. Or to people that will forever stay strangers to me. Some days, I am a girl because that's correct, and some days because it's less wrong, and then even just because I am more used to it.
Exactly how I feel after watching/reading a bunch of stuff breaking down gender, but as a guy. Do I like masculinity? Yea sure. Have there been time when looking/feeling masc made me feel good? Yeah! Do I like being called a "man"? Eh, sometimes? Depends on the context. Do I like filling in my gender as "male/man/cisgender man"? No, I get this icky feeling everytime I do it. Do I even like he/him pronouns? Kinda, but I also like they/them pronouns. I also like dressing femininely and get gender envy from femme-presenting people. So like, what's up with that?
Woo! Other agender-ish but also feeling some sort of connection to another gender people! (I've never seen anyone else like me on the internet before, hello!)
I've spent some time thinking about labels in general, like gender, planet, continent, or color. The conclusion I've come to is that all of these are defined concepts imposed onto an undefinable universe. And just because they're arbitrary doesn't mean they're not useful.
I thought gender not being the same as sex was just everyday common sense for the English-speaking world, since it's been something I've repeated as a sort of reminder in U.S. public school settings since the 90s. Most people in my (millenial) age-range that the topic came up with also seemed to know. So it's so bizarre in the past few years to see large numbers of people seem to have never heard this ubiquitous platitude, and to see it treated as cutting edge, newish information in public discourse.
It's not common sense. I'm also millennial (one of the youngest), but the first time I came across that concept was in high school. My whole life prior I had thought of them as identical in meaning. Gender was just the more polite way to say sex.
Came for more information about gender, stayed for the explanation of illocutionary force. Didn’t pay that much attention during my seminar towards this topic, so it was nice to finally fill this gap. Thankssss!
Your explanation of definitions being a collection of traits that some examples may or may not share with one another (a chair may or may not have 4 legs, or may or may not have a back) reminds me a lot of the youtuber Savy Writes Books and her definition of woman in her review of the book version of what is a woman! her definition was of a similar “not all boxes need to be checked to count”, and was able to count both a cis butch lesbian powerlifter on steroids and a pre op feminine dressing trans woman! linguistics are fun :)
Hej! Scuba diver here, and first off: I really liked the video, thank you for teaching me a new lens on the topic! But I gotta chime in on the oxygen tank discussion. Yes, this is not relevant at all for the point of the video, but I can't help myself to clarify this a bit. TL;DR: Oxygen, air and nitrox have very specific meanings for divers and mixing them up might very well kill you. First off, I would expect an "oxygen tank" to contain 100% oxygen - which you would usually have around somewhere when diving, for the initial treatment in case someone gets a compression illness. An "air tank" is what is most used (literally compressed air, 21% oxygen). "Nitrox" is just any gas with mainly oxygen and nitrogen, but usually refers to more oxygen than usual - this is great for staying underwater longer, but you can't go as deep because the excessive oxygen makes you sick and disoriented. So if I was offered an "oxygen tank" for diving I'd be stumped - like, have it around please, but don't have me dive on it or this will go very badly without even descending much. Using "air tank" and "nitrox tank" interchangeably can also get you very ill or even die very easily, as you're either going too deep with nitrox or overstaying your time limit with air. That's why any cylinder containing something other than air will be clearly marked (oxygen tanks have a different form factor as well and won't attach to your regulator). So in your example, specificity matters a lot, even if no mustard gas is involved (that's why we smell the tank content before taking it for a dive). So bad example for your point.
came for gender, stayed for linguistics random thought: what if instead you have an oxygen tank with really high carcinogen/mercury/any toxic chemcial content, but it doesn't kill you outright? is that still an oxygen tank? if no, how much mercury do you need to put in there for it to stop being one?
what defines an "oxygen tank" is utility; whether it can be used _as_ an oxygen tank (i.e. you can breathe from it). it stops being one when someone goes "wtf your tank has 10% toxic gas this will kill me" (it loses its utility)
@@emmabellhelium if it is of utility to call it that, then sure. if you said "I want an oxygen tank" and someone gave you a broken one, you might refuse it (so in that context it _isn't_ an oxygen tank). on the contrary, if you said something like "this warehouse stores oxygen tanks, but a few are broken" then in that context broken oxygen tanks do count. words are used in context; not in a vacuum.
I’m non binary and I often find that more linguistic or scientific content is made by more right wing people, I didn’t feel safe watching them. So I truly appreciate having a small safe space for both language nerds and queer people to talk :)
I've learned this little thing which is that trying to put something into categories especially when it comes to social or biological concepts, it will almost always leave something out or just fail to accurately represent the underlying concept. Judging anyone including yourself by standards or categories that dont actually have substance is just generally a bad idea.
I don't think the way of box thinking is bad. The issue is when you don't ask yourself if the system you use for packing, is helpful or accurate. Take for example, I learned that humans are either male or female, I learned to differentiate between these two. But at some point I learned there are quite a lot more of sexes (my native language doesn't differentiate between sex and gender) I opened up a few boxes more, like trans-fem, trans-male and intersex. After a couple of years I learned sex and gender are a thing and different, most things refer to gender, so I resorted the boxes and enby came along, too. It's now in a setting, where it's more like a 64 bit binary system creating many steps in between. While writing I realized my box system became quiet complex. I somewhat realized because of that why certain ppl want things simple. Should they really live in reality rather than in imagination. They can't seem to accept the complexity of reality in the process.
How do you define where on that spectrum someone is? Does one very female possess more femaleness than someone that is less female? I would appreciate if you could point me to where I can find more information about this :-)
Great arguments, interesting stuff. There is one thing i genuinely wonder about. WHY is gender important? Why is it useful to ask others to see you through some lens like "man", "woman", "non-binary", etc.? I mean, for decades now, it's standard notion that are sex doesn't define us, that it doesn't force us into specific roles and expectations, or at the very least, it shouldn't. What tangible is gained by saying "I'm non-binary" compared no being a man or woman that doesn't wish to identify with the typically understood masculine and feminine traits? Why is another label more freeing than just asking others to view you through the lens of your personality, or just as a human being?
To paraphrase Ian Danskin: "Gender is like race and money. It's real, but only because we make it real." I'm not a fan of money, and I want it to go away forever, but if I behave like money doesn't exist *today*, I'm gonna have a bad time. Gender is a social construct that - like it or not - is still very relevant to modern society. It's used as a means of organizing power, of communicating and expressing ourselves. It may be a killable god, but it's still alive and kicking. Problem is that, just like race and money, gender is very often used as a *weapon* instead of the *tool* that it should be.
@@Shield-Theyden I get that the world is not 100% free of gender bias, and since we live in this world, we have to adapt to it. But even in this world, in what setting is it more advantageous to declare yourself as non-binary rather than gender-non-comforming? Let's assume you are a male working in a nursery in a conservative area where a bunch of Karens would throw a fuss if a man took care of their toddler. But the exact same Karens would probably hate a self-identified non-binary even more. There is no escape, if people hate you for being non-comformist regarding gender roles, they'll hate you no matter what. And they hate trans men a lot more than girl bosses too. Personally, all this focus on redefining gender (from being associated with just sex) feels like an unnecessary uphill battle when society (including normies and convervatives) is much more receptive to de-emphasizing gender.
Because the labels make sense for people. Beyond clothing, social roles... Being referred to as he or she really matters. So it's important to have the decency of treating people in a way that doesn't hurt them. I guess it's like names. I know multiple people who had shortenings of their names as a kid and as they grew up wanted to now be called by their full name. Is there anything inherently childish about one sound (that's all a name is) over the other? No. But it's still important to get the right one. And I don't think getting rid of names would feel as good either.
@@19Szabolcs91 We are taught the language of gender as we grow up. We learn to speak in it, and see how we feel as we are spoken to. Many of us (myself included), chafe at the labels given to us because of how our junk looked to the delivering doctor. Many of us (myself included), don't feel that we fully fit in the Coke or Pepsi options most people in (white colonial society) recognize. So we choose different labels and pronouns that feel right to us. Much like we choose different names. And by the way, *everyone* does this. Everyone chooses their name and pronouns. Choosing the ones given to you, choosing a nickname, choosing to go by one's given middle name, and choosing one's assigned pronouns are all still choices. The difference is that trans and non-binary people often have to fight for those choices to be respected by others. No one *chooses* to be trans or cis. No one is *made* to be trans or cis. We simply are. Transphobia is a choice. One's gender identity is not.
@@19Szabolcs91 "Personally, all this focus on redefining gender (from being associated with just sex) feels like an unnecessary uphill battle when society (including normies and convervatives) is much more receptive to de-emphasizing gender." Point of interest: social constructs are expanded all the time. They need to work for us, not the other way around. Gender has *always* been a part of human society and has *always* been distinct from sex. It's just that the increased visibility of trans and non-binary people has drawn this distinction into sharp relief. Conservatives are very invested in welding gender to sex because it's a very powerful weapon they use to control people. This is bad for many very obvious reasons. Considering I only begrudgingly tolerate the existence of conservatives anyway, and that I have strong personal and moral interests in the wellbeing of the groups they target, I have no interest in doing a damn thing to make things easier for them. The world is leaving them behind, and they can get with the program or they can fuck off.
I mean, I'd argue that this is about language as much as anything. Language and expression are inevitably linked (see literally any Sapir-Whorf discourse). The only difference is whether or not any particular language is controversial, and maybe how comfortable the author is being personal rather than didactic.
Honest Question: Are there fundamentally conservative linguists? I feel like the study of language is inherently the study subtle differences and change. I would find it fascinating to read the work of a deeply conservative linguist.
@@The_Flexiloquent_Frog yes, kjønnsidentitet is from what I can tell the closest. However it seems more recent than the Anglosphere term. You'd think we would be early adopters 😃
I didn't expect this kind of quality when I've decided to watch this, even though KKlein's videos are all really good I can't express how incredible this video is, thank you very much for making it
You are SEEN, you are BRAVE and you are VALID. I know it's hard to be middle class and white in this cruel world. Don't worry, we're getting through it together ❤
The problem with videos about gender theory (or any other academic topic) is the premise that academic articles and authors are always right, so they present a bunch of theories from famous academics as if what they say was proven, but most of the time it's just bullshit, in the human sciences there are many articles from chmess and think tanks(take Hannah Arendt, Focault and Heidegger as an example), in the natural and biological sciences there are pseudoscientific articles(like the articles by Paul Ekman) published in famous magazines such as Science and Nature. The theory and its author are irrelevant if their veracity is not proven, the only thing that matters are the arguments, the evidence and the proof that they are true. A theory based on its academic status or the reputation of its author has no value. Note: I don't believe that chromosomes or genitals define a person's gender. I interpret gender and race as historically based sociocultural constructions. But it's tiring to see complex and serious topics being treated superficially in pseudo-essay videos for RU-vid without methodological rigor.
i hope you are well, thank you for the calm and logical/knowledge-based/reality-based views on the matter! i for one wear contact lenses and i'm glad i'm allowed to see - likewise i support everyone else to change themselves to fit them better!
This is a false equivalence. You using contact lens *corrects* something that went wrong with your body to its natural functioning. Transgenderism is fundamentally changing the body to something that it never was nor was ever meant to be.
@@theoe3541. Not all trans people transition so your generalization isn't even applicable 2. You're no expert. We know that dysphoria is proven to be alleviated by transitioning (social and/or medical)
FUN FACT! If you compare a trans gal and a cis gal, you might find no difference between the structure of their brains, but you would definitely find a difference between a gal and a guy, regardless as to whether either is trans. Enbies, in the same part of the brain which looks the same between all gals, and all guys, looks like neither. Neurologically, no gal looks like a guy, no guy looks like a gal, and enbies don't look like either, but since non-binary is an umbrella term, there's probably some people who look similar to gals and/or guys, even if not exactly. There was an experiment in Belgium that covered this, explained moreso in a video by PoweredByRainbows, about the science of being transgender. Trans doesn't refer to change when used as a prefix there, unless the term is inaccurate, in which case, the term doesn't refer to people who are transgender.
I'm not clear on how saying that things exist before we have a word for them is anti-post-modernist take. I thought the whole point was to analyse society from a new perspective, rethinking some of things we've been taking for granted, and bring to our attention complexities that weren't previously being looked at. That being said the post-modernist approach can be applied to any period of history, or to society without these kinds of terms. I'm genuinely confused about this, hope I've made myself clear as to why. Sidenote: just finished the video, amazing work through and through, really happy you decided to get deeper in a slightly more controversial topic.
"post-modernism" is a confusing term because it has so many uses that share sentiment yet have different particulars depending on the field. I suspect this is referring to post-modernist philosophical ideas around language being ontologically constructive to the world. That is, phenomena existing because we describe them/by describing things we bring them into being.
basically every single time I watch a video on this stuff I get an ad for a documentary called “gender transformation” by the epoch times, owned by the Falun Gong which is literally explicitly transphobic and homophobic
For a long time I didn't think gender existed, and this isn't because I believed what those other people in the video believed, but rather because I couldn't think of anything real about gender that isn't already covered by personality or by gender roles. Going my whole life I detested gender roles and the way people treat us differently because a core principal of my philosophy is that we are equal, so hearing anyone say that we are fundamentally different mentally, rather than physically, has always been something I can't accept. But over time I started realizing that I was different than other people, because other people are so attached to their gender that they'd get upset if suddenly they became the other, if you started calling them by the opposite pronoun, and that they truly believe that the traits associated with the gender is true and describes them. At some point I realized this is something I lack, and was able to accept the idea of nonbinary people (I always accepted transmen and transwomen because that can be explained by the want for physical changes). My reasoning might be a bit shaky, but since I can't understand a feeling I don't have, I'm left to assume gender is whatever that feeling is that they do have, and I can relate to it when I consider how it feels when people assume how I should act based on my gender or explicitly call me a "man" with all the social implications rather than just a descriptive statement in a medical context. So in that way it does exist, I just lack something required to understand it that both cis and trans people seem to have.
I myself agree with your former beliefs, but i am okay with people asking me to call them by x y and z because no one has a moral imperative to reject gender.
“Does this house have a functioning bathroom with a toilet that I can use and you can direct me to? If so, may I use it? If so, would you please direct me to it?”
Great video! It's really not that often that RU-vid Videos get you to think on such a deep level as this one did for me (At least with the content I'm usually watching lol), but it's still really interesting and refreshing every now and then. Also really exciting to see your channel be so close to 100k subscribers! By the time I've posted this comment, you might actually already have hit the 100k, so I'm just going to say congrats already :) Keep up the good work!
I've been getting into linguistics a lot lately since I am learning finnish and goddamn I love this channel because not only is it amazingly well researched, its super affirming🏳️⚧️
Polish; Płeć (sex/gender) Rodzaj (grammatical gender - literally "type" or "category") Polish doesn't have separate words for sex and gender unless you add a descriptive word in front like biological or social.
Im pretty confused on the section seemingly about transphobes saying gender isn't real, because Ive literally never heard it in that context. Maybe transphobes have started doing this more recently and Im behind, but if I heard that phrase without context, I'd assume what they mean is "gender isn't real, so let people do what they want with it" Like, if have to explain being non binary to someone, I'll explain it along the lines of "gender is made up, it's just a social role, and I don't care to subscribe to either the social role assigned to me, or any other option"
They proposed “gender and sex are the same” as an equivalent statement (3:58), so I figure that’s what they mean by “gender isn’t real”. But yeah, I agree that “gender isn’t real” sounds more in line with “gender is just a social construct”
Worth noting sex is also a social construct. With intersex and trans people outward sex does not always match the strict definitions we have reached for "biological sex". Then people try and go to hormones to justify it, saying xx or xy but those people are often unaware that many people have xxy chromosomes or have xx chromosomes but developed as a "male" or vice versa, because it turns out chromosomes are not steadfast determiners of what we consider to be sex. Then people come to try and say "oh this is sex" or "this is sex" but in reality sex is us as a society trying to map certain biological traits to one group or another, often with more variance within a given "biological sex" then between those of the "opposite sex". A similar distinction generally happens w/ race and ethnicity, where we try and view race as biological and ethnicity as a social construct, when in reality both are social constructions. It's all a part of human's obsessive desire to categorize people, which is impossible when we are all this varied biologically.
The talk of Familial Resemblance reminds me of the Vsauce video "Do Chairs Exist?", Great video, I would recommend it if you haven't seen it already, but basically the thesis of the video is that a chair is not a thing, Nor is a table, or a rock, or a person, A chair is quite simple a mass of stuff that happens to be "chairing", I.E. acting as a chair, _being_ a chair, And as long as there's stuff there that's chairing, there's a chair, even if what that stuff is changes, however if the stuff stops chairing, then there's a chair no longer, even if the same exact stuff is there. And the same goes for everything, I am not a person, I am a giant lump of cells (which on an even smaller level are themselves made up of proteins, which are made up of atoms, which are themselves made up of even smaller stuff, et cetera) that's "personing", that's performing the action of being a person, And what that entails can't really be described as words, but it's there nonetheless. Not sure how relevant this is but I felt like mentioning. Honestly Michael probably cites Wittgenstein in that video, Idk it's been a while since I've watched it.
@@snorristurluson5849 fun fact: singular "they" predates singular "you." so if you want to make the claim that they is plural, then you better stop using the word you
@@katieorsomething115 "they" can only be singular when we don't know the sex, gender (whatever u wanna call it) of the person in question but in K Klein's case we fucking know he's a man therefore his correct pronouns are he/him/his
Edit: this comment was originally written early in the video before I'd finished. Having watched further, it's clear that the video hits on most of the same notes, but I think fails to follow them all the way to the conclusion (or rather, stops at the linguistic conclusion regarding gender, and not at the societal conclusion regarding sex) Speaking as a non-binary trans person, gender and sex are actually basically the same, but not in the way the transphobes think Sex is just as much a social construct a gender If you ask someone how they know a person's sex they'll tie themselves in knots, saying things like it's your chromosomes (despite being sure of their own sex having almost certainly never had their chromosomes tested), or your genitals (despite being happy asserting the sex of people whose genitals they have never seen), or make nebulous appeals to biology So what is the biological basis for sex? It isn't _a_ thing, it's a _constellation_ of things Whilst many traits in humans follow simple bell curve distributions, some traits (e.g. chromosomes, adult height, adult weight, fat distribution, certain skeletal features, genitals, hormone profile, etc) follow bimodal distributions. Instead of having a distribution with a single peak, they have two distinct peaks. It also happens that which peak someone lies nearer on one trait usually correlates with which peak someone lies nearer in the others such that in this many-dimensional "trait-space" we have an overal bimodal distribution (rather than a 2^N-modal distribution) Someone's "biological sex" would then seem to be which of those two peaks the person lies nearest, right? Well, as said earlier, these traits only *usually* correlate with each other. Some people don't have them all lining up, and so don't, or have one or more trait where they don't fall near either peak. These are intersex people, and "gender-critical" types tend to either ignore them or, if confronted with them, dismiss them as "just rare exceptions" ignoring the fact that the proportion of people who are intersex has been estimated as similar to the proportion of the global population with red hair - something they're much less likely to think can just be dismissed out of hand as flukes They also ignore that being intersex is just another way to be, a natural consequence of the statistics of human diversity Then there's the fact that many of these traits can be changed. Hormones can be altered medically (which in turn alter fat distribution, can cause skeletal and genital changes etc), and genitals & bones can be altered surgically, even the ability to produce certain gametes can be altered (either hormonally or surgically), albeit only to a neutral position not producing any Chromosomes are pretty much the only immutable aspect of this constellation And yet, this supposedly "biological" concept is held to be immutably determined at birth How then is sex determined at birth? To hear the GC's tell it, there'd be a blood test to check chromosomes, but this is pretty rare (when it does occur chromosomal screening is typically done well before birth to look for chromosomal abnormalities that may lead to a low quality of life, typically only in those who are thought to have a high risk of such in their children, and not for sex determination of healthy infants) No, what happens is that someone at the birth (typically the doctor if at a hospital) looks at their genitals and makes the assumption that the baby isn't ~~redheaded~~ _intersex_, and that all the traits in the cosntellation that is sex align If the genitals don't easily conform to either norm, the child may then be mutilated to make them fit. A very real instance of violence in service of reifying the idea of biological sex as an inherent binary And then of course, the judgement that one person made looking at the baby's genitals is held to be correct and permanent for the rest of that person's life (at least, as the GC's would have it, and so ignoring any ability to change markers on documents etc) In this way, sex is gender assigned at birth. Sometimes violently, and always based on incomplete information But of course, people don't look at people's ID, or a photo of their newborn genitals when meeting someone for the first time, and yet GC's claim to be able to "always tell" if someone's trans, and to be able to reliably guess someone's _real_ sex How do they do this? Well then they go back to the cosntellation, as well as the social cues we've created Women typically have less facial hair than men, so society has constructed womanhood to include a complete lack of facial hair (besides eyebrows which must be carefully maintained according to the current fashion). The GC's will then latch onto the presence of any facial hair as evidence that a woman is "actually a man" This is why there've been so many stories of butch _cis_ lesbians being harrassed in public bathrooms. Their failure to perform womanhood to these transphobes' standards is then read as evidence that their sex is not female It makes it perfectly clear that for all the rhetoric and theory GC's construct around sex, in the real world it functions like, and feeds on gender, being just as socially constructed, unscientific, and illusory Sex is not different from gender Sex is just gender playing dressup in a labcoat
I like this a lot. When I found out more about how sex functions in biology, it really helped my understanding of how some of these things work. Explaining how the characteristics we often use to define one's sex fall on a bimodal distribution rather than a binary is something I would love to do, but those who really need it explained to them are usually not willing to listen. What ends up bugging me is how so many people claim that "the science" is behind them when they try to claim things like "sex is binary" when it very clearly isn't. At this point, I'm convinced there is only one binary in biology, and its whether or not one specific gene is active or not. Heck, I could even be wrong about that!
I just think most people are comfy enough with the system that lets them identify gender/sex at face value, if that makes sense. Also most people will be comfortable to present the gender that's same as their sex. -dresses "feminine", has curves, has a certain type of voice = woman. -dresses "masculine", has large shoulders, has visible hair, has a certain type of voice = man. I know I sound like a dick when I say it, but seeing an individual who fails to fit these face-value characteristics presenting to me, gets immediately sorted as "uncanny valley". Because it's just weird and unusual to see. I prefer a cis woman with a body that has curves and a clear voice, to a trans woman who might have kept hands, shoulders and feet the same size as when they used to be cis men, or even weirder a voice pitch that sounds male. But then of course, my perception issues vanish the instant I become able to not clock a person. Passing is a controversial topic because it implies a lot of body transformation that's unnatural and often undesired by trans folk. But that's just how that works in my mind and I think most people's minds. Hence transphobia. Now transphobia is used as a derogatory to out people who are downright hostile, but let's not forget the phobia element, meaning terrified, or at the very least afraid and uncomfortable. I'm kinda transphobe, yes. I would never intentionally hurt a trans person, never physically assault, a friend of mine came out as trans woman recently and I didn't go and reject her, but seeing her being not as naturally woman-like definitely makes a weird feeling in me, that I cannot help. I just wish she can become as beautiful as her (cis) sister, for example. My 2 cents.
The rest is all quite interesting, but you should be aware that that 1.7% figure everyone keeps tossing around doesn't mean what you think it means, and the true rate of intersex conditions is actually much lower. Almost all of the that 1.7% demographic is categorized that way due to _one specific condition_ where a baby boy's pereneal raphe can have a small opening that has not yet completely fused by birth to seal the urogenital sinus; urine is then able to flow out through this opening rather than the penis until the pereneum fuses the rest of the way. Importantly, this birth deformity is not actually an intersex condition; it just shares one commonality (formed phallus but unfused raphe) with other genuine intersex conditions and is therefore often counted as one for the purposes of demographic studies.
I appreciate the depth in which this video explains this particular topic. It's well researched and a breath of fresh air amongst all the videos on either side of the debate that just repeat the same rethoric. I don't hate on either trans on non-binary people and I'm all for freedom of expression, but I have an issue with some ideas within the gender "movement" or "ideology": If gender is an arbitrary social and linguistic category, why does gender in all known societies throughout the world, contemporary and historical, correspond to sex or the traits asociated with sex and/or reproductive roles? In some examples like the one in this video, there are societies that have genders that correspond to the opposite sex or the combination of both sexes. It still somehow corresponds to sex, rather than height, hair color, weather someone has an innie belly button or on outie etc. Here I'm not arguing that sex and gender are the same. They obviously aren't. I'm just questioning this idea that you can completely separate gender from the characterictics of your biological sex. If that was the case, gender dysphoria wouldn't be a thing and all the issues every trans person has would just be solved with language adjustments. Also, I understand that people can be deeply uncomfortable with a gender identity that corresponds to their biological sex (and should be allowed to do whatever they want with their identity, body, appearance), but I don't think the reason that is happening is the same for everyone. People can have other issues that cause that feeling and there's also social media contagion going on in recent years. I'm not here to say who's identity is invalid and who's isn't. The thing I'm questioning here is how helpful some of these ideas about gender are if we don't know why there is gender in the first place. Seriously not hating, but genuinely curious to see what people think about this. ☺️
Who said gender was arbitrary? I'm curious where you've encountered that definition, because I certainly don't know anyone who would describe it that way. Gender and gender roles have always been informed by sex. The traits we associate with a sex, we also associate with a gender. Traits originating in something biological, i.e. women grow less hair than men, becomes something sociological, the gender role that women must shave themselves to fit into beauty standards. You can't fully separate out these categories. It might be nice if you could, but that's obviously not the world we live in or have ever lived in. But I don't think anyone is arguing that the two do not inform one another - simply that they aren't the same and shouldn't be treated as such. Gender dysphoria can be both biological and social. I think you're assuming dysphoria only refers to physical dysphoria, but social dysphoria is obviously the other half here - and again, the social categories and physical categories aren't so easily separated, and they inform one another. Is getting surgery or taking hormones purely physical dysphoria, or is it to do with how you're perceived by others? The reason may not be the same for everyone, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I think the reason matters less than the desire. It's important that peoples' desire be real and not performative, sure, but the reasons, while interesting, should not be the most important thing. Any reason for declaring and living as something which brings you joy is a good one. If you believe in social contagion, that theory mainly comes from a discredited paper which interviewed transphobic parents, and its findings haven't been replicated on a larger scale - don't get me wrong, people can and have come to conclusions they wouldn't have in the past, but this is primarily to do with visibility - this is the same reason diagnoses of autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions have been on the rise. Finally I'll say, we'll never truly know what gender is in the first place, since it's an ever-shifting cultural category. Humans are an enigma. But we can't put letting people live their lives on hold to do a million studies and come up with a million theories. Not knowing the answer is sometimes fine, so long as you're letting people live and be themselves and be what brings them joy. The study of the field, though fascinating, will always come second to that.
Your right that you can't separate gender from sex completely when the base model for ppl who don't have the same gender as their sex (trans ppl), get the cis gender as a model. Some trans ppl don't take a cis model and some take both, most of the time these are enby. Why is it important to know why Gender exists? We know what it does and affects, that's all required to know that gender expression is useless for displaying a gender identity (ask the stereotype of gay men, they are so feminine expressing, that they would even go outside of the feminine spectrum) and that gender identity is the thing that can't be changed and may harm the person.
@@christofferoff I agree with you 100%. I've seen many posts on social media claiming that gender is arbitrary and is all about language. I've also seen many, for example, female presenting people identifying as male, but not doing absolutely anything to transition either socially or phisically (not because they aren't allowed or can't, but because they don't actually want to transition). This all comes for the way people on the internet describe and define gender and gender identity as an arbitrary pick and choose thing rather than a real social category.
@@celinematerzok6421 why shouldn't we know why gender exists? It could be partially biological and ingrained within our psychology. There could be some other reasons why we had it ever since there were humans. It's still a specrtum though. I'm not denying that. I'm just questioning the deffinition of gender as an arbitrary pick and choose identity label that you imagine while speaking to someone rather that something that relies on something visible or feelable (either phisical characteristics or just the vibe of the person).
@@churka5984 Gender is not a pick and choose label. It is something you need to identify with. And basing your gender on your sex stems with issues from our society that pointlessly consist of gender roles that serve no real purpose but when drifting away your punished for it. Forcing ppl whose identity and expression doesn't align with their sex characteristics to play pretend their entire life's which creates an insane amount of pressure which will create anxiety disorder, depression and overall dysphoria when enduring.
I’ve always felt disconnected to gender. I’m born female and mostly like feminine things but I’ve always felt like my personality traits were more masculine. This is why I’ve always considered people watching others through the “gender lenses” were doing something wrong. Especially since I’ve never related to having “gender lenses” (might be bc I’m autistic). I’ve always knew I didn’t want to change my gender bc I felt like I was able to do whatever I wanted and be who I am, even if was born male. But especially bc I didn’t want to make people who have “gender lenses” feel like they were doing the right thing. This is only my vision. I see “gender lenses” as something harmful bc it makes it harder for people for just being themselves. I feel glad about the fact that these kind of social norms didn’t effect me and didn’t have to go through a transition process or a lot of hate for changing pronouns, but I do understand and support the people that do get effected by it. I only wish it didn’t have to be a thing bc of some generalizing “stupid” people.
Except it's the same word in German (and some other Germanic languages too like Danish). Sex - (biologisches) Geschlecht Gender - (soziales) Geschlecht; Grammatical gender - (grammatikalisches) Geschlecht; Genus There is also the word "Gender" in German, but only as a rather recent English loanword and usually only used in LGBTQ context.
Enjoy that in English, you have different words for gender and sex, which is a good thing, while in Finnish we only have one common word for both, and it causes a lot of confusion and misunderstandings about which one we are talking about.
@@Sweet_Moon-IIn Polish, people would usually say "płeć" for sex and "gender" for, well, gender. Ideally, we do actually create a word for it some day, but probably not any day soon.
