This is actually textbook accurate(or used to be) So I have a degree in sociology, back when I was in school the definition for "gender" was different. It had basically the same meaning as "gender roll" (sexist stereotype). Gender was the way a society saw an individual based on their biological sex. The roll of said sex was dependent the culture. It's honestly just jargon since gender and gender roll had the same meaning. As I was in school in the early 2010s I noticed that each semester would get more woke and focus on postmodernism rather than classical theory.

10 years later and apparently the definition of gender change to "a feeling". It literally changed definition in the textbooks. It's shame that a whole field of study is getting indoctrinated into postmodernism gender ideology. It will eventually discredit everything that sociology was studying.

It's role, not "roll"!

BTW, I upvoted you. You learned the same definition of gender, namely stereotyped sex role, or masculinity/femininity, that I learned in the 1970s.

Haha yes role, I'm gonna blame my phone for that.

So - the notorious Autocorrect strikes again! Once I typed on my phone "I have to go out" and autocorrect changed it to (and I am not kidding) "I have to go poo." (!!!) Luckily, I caught it before sending.

[–] SakuraBlossoms she/TWAM 6 points Edited

That still is the accurate definition of gender in most textbooks, dictionaries, online resources etc. that haven't completely sold out to M/TRAs, at least from what I've seen recently. I took a women's studies class like ~5 years ago and they had gender defined as it has always been, while the theoretical (and evidence-lacking) concept of "gender identity" was defined separately and was supposed to be the "feeling" that allowed men to pretend to be women. A friend took a similar course like ~2 years later and looking at those definitions, that time within the context of the trans movement, is ultimately what peaked me. Gender identity was which gender you felt you identified with, and gender was... the roles, norms, and behaviors socially assigned to the two sexes? So the precious "gender identities" we were never supposed to question were just identities based on sex stereotypes? And as it turned out, they were and always have been.

To my understanding, trans theory still maintains the definition of gender, while having "gender identity" be what makes TIPs women or men. TRAs are quick to repeat that "gender is a social construct" while not grasping that this is an admission that it's just socially constructed sex stereotypes and as such an identity based on these cannot be innate.

What does "peaked" m ean? I've seen it used several times in these threads.

[–] Laurel 1 points Edited

I took a Soc of Gender course around 2000. I was taught that "gender" means "sex roles," which is how I still use the word because it's the only definition that makes sense.

Then, later in the semester--same class!--I was told "gender" means the magic fairy that sits in some people's heads and tells them what sex they are.

[–] Lipsy #bornnotworn 1 points Edited

I already use the phrases "stereotype-affirming care" and "typecast-affirming care" both online and in real life.

Do recommend, if you don't mind the escalation that WILL ensue if you're talking to anybody who doesn't turn out to be a dyed-in-the-wool terf superstar.

That's gotta be my absolute least favorite of all my un-favorite things about this stuff, is how even otherwise reasonable people have practically ALL somehow become infected with the TRAs' extreme defensiveness, constant "I know you are but what am I?" DARVO instincts, and predilection to launch immediately into ad hominem (ad Feminam??) attacks that are so beyond the pale and honestly just so absolutely all-around ridiculous that I don't even immediately know what to say in response.

I mean like
I know there's a complete media blackout and embargo (how much money is this lobby using? to bribe how many people? jhfca...) so it's inevitable that tons and tons of well-meaning people are misinformed. underinformed, or just flat-out uninformed. Fine.
But how did some of the world's worst, most anti-charismatic people manage to infect so many fairly normal, not-even-maladjusted, humans with their horrifyingly alienating and offputting hateful rhetoric and antisocial personality traits? I don't get it and I REALLY want to know.

I like all of these except the "assigned * at birth" one because I feel like it plays into the TRA argument. No one, excluding those with intersex conditions, is assigned as anything at birth.