NBC are quoting a police chief in Nashville...

I think some behaviours are more culturally linked and some more biological.

And that's there's a difference between behaviour and sex.

I think behaviour linked to sex whether cultural or biological is what we refer to as gender.

I think some behaviours are entirely culturally linked (eg makeup, heels) and to me they are what I would describe as gendered behaviours, not sexed ones.

Oh my fucking god how is this so hard for you.

GENDER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

SEX IS INNATE, BIOLOGICAL REALITY.

TESTOSTERONE IS LINKED TO SEX.

But yes you are right, we need to understand and accept biological differences of sex, the conclusion being that women have their own sports categories and safeguarding from men when in vulnerable situations.

400 years ago men wore wigs and painted their faces. Then only women did. Then in the 80s men did again. This could flick back and forth forever because it is a gender idea, a social norm associated with sex, but not caused by sex.

Testosterone levels are not an associated idea, they are a reality. women are not all of a sudden going to start naturally producing male levels of testosterone, and then swap back some decades later. Because it related to biological sex

Nope.

I think some behaviours are more culturally linked and some more biological.

And that's there's a difference between behaviour and sex.

I think behaviour linked to sex whether cultural or biological is what we refer to as gender.

Violence is not sex but it is a gendered behaviour linked to biology and socialisation.

Pressed send too soon. And if a man grew up in the same conditions, would he be any more or less likely to wear make up?

Socialisation is an unconscious process.
The behaviours from socialisation are unconscious and many then claim freely chosen.

You seem to be adding a new aspect of 'conscious choice' to gendered behaviour which I haven't seen before.

@MalagaNights

You think women get sociology lessons before they wear makeup??

If a woman grew up in isolation untouched by society, do you think she would ever wear make up?

The reporting on this is a prime example of how gender ideology is the enemy of clarity (which is perhaps part of its aim). We are being told that Hale was angry with her parents for not accepting her being gay and trans. What does 'gay' mean in this context? The 'trans' changes the meaning of the 'gay'. It's generally assumed that Hale was a lesbian, but if people really believe that she was trans then that automatically means she was straight (by genderist logic). We are told she had issues with the conservative Christianity of the school, and TRAs are arguing that she was driven off the rails by societal transphobia. But isn't the actual problem here someone being told that lesbianism is a wrong (something that religious conservatives and TRAs would agree on) and becoming completely warped by internalised lesbophobia, of which the trans identity was a manifestation?

It's illogical to be critical of biology.

There are many feminists (like on here) who continue to insist gender is purely a social construct.
Then also argue yesterday testosterone makes women more violent.
And can't seem to see the flaw in this.

I actually think a more realistic discussion of biological differences on behaviour would benefit women and the insisting it's an insult when differences are mentioned has not helped women.

With this example of make up - if a baby girl grew up in a vacuum with np outside influence, would she feel an urge to put on make up
? Would she feel an inate desire to paint her face?

No?

So where does that desire come from? Oh yes, society.

So this is the difference, you think gender is innate behaviour, i think gender is conscious behaviour based on societys expectations of your sex.

I think innate behaviours are sexed behaviours.

A woman in a coma - she will still have a period, she will still have oestrogen, hormone cycles.

A male in a coma will still have testosterone in his body, he may get erections.

Are either of these people capable of doing gendered things?

Gender is only behaviour when you are conscious of the performance (because it is a social contruct, a consciouss behaviour). You are conscious of putting on high heels to appear feminine, you choose to do that. Nothing in your biology means you have to do it.

My cockerel is not thinking 'i am a cockerel therefore I should be aggressive as this is what society expects of me'

He has unconscious behaviours linked to his testosterone, which is due to him being of the male sex. These are sexed behaviours

Some cockerels are less aggressive due to lower levels of testosterone.

They don't have to know about gender to exhibit gendered behaviour! 🤣🤣
No body does.

You think women get sociology lessons before they wear makeup??

Behaviour is separate from but linked to biology.
Some behaviour is very closely linked to biology some are more cultural, but once you admit some behaviour is linked to biology you can't claim gender is just a social construct.

All animals exhibit some behaviours linked to their sex, but the behaviour does not define their sex their biology does.

There is a difference between biology and behaviour but they are linked.

The argument that your behaviour defines your sex is used elsewhere...

GC means gender critical, not gonad critical.

Of course GC women understand sex based differences between men and women, and the fact that testosterone affects men’s behaviour, including their propensity to violence.

You think cockerels and hens have a concept of gender??? HOW?

And if you view aggression as a marker of sex then aggressive women would be men. See where this logic goes...

Gender is behaviour and roles associated with sex.

Some of which are not purely socially constructed.

Your cockerel is exhibiting gendered behaviour linked to his sex.

You are right he's not performing it.

You seem to be admitting there are some behaviours linked to sex but not seeing that those behaviours are gender differences.

Sex is just the physical body.

Gender is the behaviour. Some are linked to sex some less so.

You cannot identify the cockerel by his behaviour as not all cockerels exhibit the same behaviour. But more cockerels do because they are male.

His aggressive behaviour is linked to his biology.

It's just logic, not a moral judgement.

Do you view violence as a gendered behaviour?

If you view it as just a marker of sex then your argument works.

Just obviously different to what we're discussing?

Unless you are suggesting women's physical oppression by dangerous men is a gendered behaviour by the women??
Which I think the Taliban doesn't even suggest...

My cockerel is aggressive and fights and is huge beacause he is the male sex, not because he is performing male gender.

My chickens lay eggs because they are of the female sex. Not because they are female gendered.

The concept of gender does not exist within my flock of chickens. But biologican sex does.

There have been interesting studies that when there is immediate danger men will more quickly respond.

But when there are no men present women respond equally as quickly.

Providing evidence of brave women here won't prove your point. Surely we are discussing generalities?

Of course women are physically brave, but there is obviously a higher propensity for men to respond physically to threat and take risks in these situations.

Men's higher risk taking is clearly established and linked to testosterone.

These are gendered behaviours linked to biology.
So gender is not just a social construct.

Not ‘voluntary’ so to be discounted?

Men have testosterone due to biology, not due to social construct.

Therefore, testosterone levels are not a gender concept, but a matter of biological reality.

Women will take extreme risks to protect their children.
Children are at more risk from males.
Men will take extreme risks to protect their wives and children.

All gendered behaviours.

All socially constructed?
Nothing to do with biology?

From general observation, no it is not true that men are more likely to take physical risks on behalf of others. You can only come to that conclusion by ignoring the type of physical risks women take because it doesn’t look immediately ‘heroic’? The teachers at the school didn’t have helmets, guns and bullet proof vests but were in the classrooms protecting the children in their charge as best they could.

Only one of those is voluntary risk.

The others are examples of women at risk of higher male violence due to higher testosterone...??

Some gender roles & norms are more socially constructed than others.

But gender is just a social construct seems to be becoming increasingly hard to stand by with recent events.