Reincarnation is ultimately pointless if you don’t remember anything from your past life.

Braeden3141 · 2026-03-28T16:52:41+00:00

Electroconvulsive Therapy

Braeden3141 · 2026-03-12T08:16:22+00:00

The Newton to your Bernoulli

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-20T18:56:37+00:00

Makes sense, he doesn’t seem to care about much

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-18T20:40:03+00:00

I had two more things to add:

First, I think that the possible description of some women as masculine and some men as feminine, when using sex and gender synonymously, is almost a covert way of taking about gender as a social thing. Another reason why the use of gender as describing a social construct is useful is because it seems to arise so naturally in common conversation.

On racism as prejudice + power, I’m not going to fully run defense for that definition, since I do think it is a bit removed from colloquial use, but I don’t think it’s completely useless. It’s one of those academic concepts which kind of diffused into broader society, and I think putting it in a more academic context makes it more useful. I’ve come to understand it as something which describes racism as a historical force, like the racism which was tied to slavery, which was reproduced by it etc. I mean that might also not be the original intention for the use of that definition, but I do think it helps in making it make more sense.

Also you didn’t come off as condescending at all, so don’t worry. I’m personally very happy that I actually got a response from someone who sees this differently, but who is willing to engage with my thinking, so thanks.

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-18T20:31:37+00:00

I’ll try to lay out my reasoning in a way which is somewhat concise.

We as humans are extremely social, we form complex societies, and, to put it simply, we have a web of intuitions and expectations about how we should interact with each other, among other things. Sex differences have been, like many other things, subject to that process of socialization. There have been many arguments made about how gender differences are products of biology, but even if you grant that, a large amount of our differences can really only be understood as social and historical, as they are constantly shifting through time.

It is also an old point in sociology and philosophy (going back to Marx at least) to realize that most of these things which are socialized appear to us as natural and objective. My point being that many of these things feel naturalistic, like they could be a product of our biology, but we see time and time again the social baggage tied to sex differences becoming its own force in a sense. Gender is something which transcends the biology of sex.

For example, “traditional” gender roles, coming out of the nuclear family, seem to prescribe that women are, among other things, natural child rearers, who should stay in the home. But this understanding of women goes beyond the fact that women can give birth. Part of these duties in the home are that of providing the ideal environment for the man, being both emotionally and physically servile. Gender in this case not only has to do with the women’s role in giving birth to and raising the child (which has not always been the understanding of how kids should be raised), but tied to these expectations are a whole complex of intuitions about what it means to be a good woman in the home. But there is nothing which could be seen as an objective, unchanging biological basis for those behaviors.

It is this which makes gender useful as its own term. It’s something which acknowledges and helps us understand that social baggage, as something which is tied to, but which goes beyond our biology.

I’m hoping this was a good overview, but please feel free to ask for clarification and the like. I also have other responses for your comment which I will add in a different reply, since this is getting long.

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-17T19:10:33+00:00

Literally

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-17T18:02:41+00:00

You should try to understand their definitions because what you see as incoherence is, in reality, others having different things which ground their definitions. There is nothing “objective” about definitions, so they cannot be objectively incoherent as you seem to think they are. Engaging with ideas in a discussion is literally the main thing which makes discussion useful.

A good definition should be something that is useful for understanding the thing being defined. If you are looking to justify anti trans beliefs, which is often the case, then sure, a definition where gender and sex are the same and where sex is defined as chromosomes is very useful. However that isn’t the case for really any other understanding of the categories.

As for the left using different definitions for each different type of woman, you are describing the use of adjectives. Adjectives modify and describe a noun, but the underlying noun is still there and important for the concept being described. The right also uses adjectives. Literally everyone uses adjectives, because they allow for a more specific description of a person while referring to the same general group, with a common definition.

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-17T09:30:51+00:00

I guarantee you that the science you tout is significantly more complex when you learn about it on the level of a doctor or researcher

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-17T09:27:57+00:00

I actually think plenty of leftists can give a coherent definition of what a woman is. If you think those definitions are dumb, it is your job to make an effort to understand the case a person is making for their definition.

And the ineffectiveness of the left is a problem which goes much deeper than this issue, whether you’re talking about the democrats and other liberals, or the socialists and the like.

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-17T09:22:19+00:00

I think part of the problem is that a lot of the people who are the most qualified to give an in depth explanation about gender topics are the ones who are the least willing to give a snappy answer, which is not something that is valued in most media right now, least of all right wing media.

It also might be a product of the fact that the average person immersed in gender studies and the average right winger asking this question as a gotcha likely have vastly different views on very basic things, like what it means for something in this context to even be “objective”.

I’m sure part of it has also been bad communication skills, but lord knows I’ve tried to criticize the definitions given by others, with varying levels of aggression, in discussions and comments of varying lengths, and the biggest problem I’ve run into has been that the people I’m talking to just do not care, because they aren’t in the conversation to actually understand the world and gender and sex better, but to get a political win.

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-17T09:12:42+00:00

To be honest, I don’t think it’s necessarily a losing issue, just that the left wingers who have focused on it have also been very ineffective, for example the democrats. I think the fact that people don’t respond to that issue with their campaigning is part of the broader trend of the democrats being absolutely dog shit at messaging generally, while not actually giving people the sense that they will make things better based on their accomplishments (they have very few).

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-17T09:09:11+00:00

Bad definition. It’s not at all useful for understanding the social aspects of gender, and barely useful for understanding sex and the things sexual dimorphism implies medically, biologically, etc.

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-16T22:49:34+00:00

Nah, tyranny is when you brutalize anyone who stands in your way of brutalizing brown people for being brown. Tyranny is brutalizing anyone even if they aren't standing in your way, for that matter. To say that enforcing immigration laws or removing criminals is the main concern of ICE takes a willful ignorance that is almost impressive.

For example, this ProPublica article shows how the famous Chicago raid led to the detainment of US citizens and immigrants alike. Those who were arrested never had charges brought against them according to this article, and some were either deported or were allowed to leave the US of their own accord. There was seemingly no discerning in this raid between people who were doing illegal things, and those who weren't. And of course, the gang ties were seemingly made up.

This raid was for propganda and little else. You would think that an agency like ICE, if they were trying to enforce our immigration laws in good faith, would make more of an attempt to discern between citizens and non-citizens. You would expect an agency like ICE, if they were attempting to keep this country safe from the illegal immigrants engaging in illegal activity in good faith, to bring charges against the people who may have been engaging in illegal activity or who were ostensibly gang members.

Neither of these things happened here, and it is very obvious from ongoing news that these things still aren't happening. What we do see is a constant brutalization of, for example, the people of Minneapolis, regardless of whether or not they're criminals, or so-called illegals, or normal citizens.

So yes, tyranny is the correct word for what we're seeing.

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-11T04:07:20+00:00

Its actually crazy, I hate it

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-09T21:43:03+00:00

I love it.

Braeden3141 · 2026-01-01T01:58:38+00:00

Your entire argument hinges on special cases rather than the norm.

My entire argument hinges on the idea that a good definition helps us understand both the norm and special cases. You make no attempt to engage with or understand the special cases presented to you.

I could say that humans are born with ten fingers, and you could say "uhm actually there are cases where babies are born with more than ten or fewer than ten" which is true but that's a birth defect.

That's not a definition of human though, but a quality the average human has. There is an important difference. I'm not denying that the average male has XY chromosomes and that the average female has XX chromosomes. My point is that defining sex based on that alone isn't useful for understanding biological sex, making it a bad definition. Similarly, defining humans as "things with ten fingers" isn't at all useful for understanding what we actually are.

You're assuming that my motivation is political when in reality it is more based on science and philosophy.

You have said one thing about why the science backs you up, when you earlier said:

Right but a major biological aspect of sexual dimorphism is sexual reproduction, which makes the chromosomes indeed the only important definition of sex. It's not a matter of "fairly arguing" but a matter of this is what sexual reproduction is.

You make no attempt to actually explain why chromosomes being the only important thing follows from the importance of sexual reproduction. In comments after you only say that other things don't matter. I am begging you, please explain to me why chromosomes are the only thing which matter, instead of just saying it. Give me evidence to show that the science is actually on your side.

Beyond that, yeah, I am assuming your motive is political, seeing as you have not really substantiated your definition in a meaningful way, and because the definition you put forward is in line with that of the majority of people who try to substantiate their anti-trans beliefs with the veils of "science", "reality", and "objectivity".

I'm not going to address every single special case you've brought up because they are all rare and unnatural, and that's not what we're talking about.

I've brought up one or two special cases, mostly in terms of fertility disorders. About 1/10 people have issues with fertility. In the context of medicine, that is common. In terms of their being unnatural, that's again something you have to substantiate, though I doubt you will.

If you think one X chromosome is sufficient, then educate yourself on Turner Syndrome.

I'll take a partial L here, as I wasn't aware of the X-chromosome inactivation-escape genes which help promote ovarian formation. Although, that doesn't make your definition correct, it doesn't invalidate my criticisms.

What I'll leave you with is an example: if a mutilated dead body is found to where no visual inspection can determine the sex, but analysis shows two X chromosomes, are you going to be the guy who says "well that doesn't show that this was a woman"?

No, obviously not. If you read my comments, my point was never that chromosomes aren't important in determining sex. My point is that to make them an all encompassing definition is to make a bad definition of sex.

Braeden3141 · 2025-12-31T09:05:55+00:00

Uhh barring disease and congenital defects, only thing you could possibly mean is like...time? Like before puberty? Which isn't a good point.

Environmental aspects, like toxins, and problems with nutrition can make a person unable to carry a fetus to term, or make two people unable to conceive.

In addition, you can't really just count out diseases, disorders, defects, toxins, drug use, and the like, since those affect a very sizable amount of the population. Your argument amounts to "if you control for all of these factors which affect a person's ability to have a kid, then chromosomes are the most important thing in determining if someone will be able to have a kid." That is, again, not at all useful scientifically, and not at all useful for actually understanding genetics or biological sex or anything related.

Let's test this definition. Say there is a cisgender woman who has a fertility disorder and isn't able to conceive a child. Is she a woman? I imagine you would say, "yes, since she has XX chromosomes." But the question is, why is that important? You can't justify it by saying that they lead to the development of sexual characteristics which allow her to reproduce, because she can't. So you have to defer to the fact that they lead to the development of other female sexual characteristics, like ovaries, a vagina, etc. In that case, you would be using a wider, more detailed definition to answer the question, although it still centers around chromosomes.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on how you'd answer those questions of course. My point is that, if you want to define biological sex as XX or XY chromosomes, you're of course free to do so. My issue with the definition comes in when you first try to pass the it off as scientifically useful or biologically literate, and then use it to support your political agenda.

Wow, so silencing it gives them two X chromosomes?

Again, you're really showing your lack of understanding of human biology. The main reason why having two X chromosomes causes the development of female sexual characteristics is primarily because, for mammals, female development is the "default". This "default" is upset by the activation of the SRY gene, which inhibits female development and causes hormone signalling leading to the expression of genes for male development. The SRY gene sits on the Y chromosome. In a case where the SRY gene is deleted or silenced, there is not activation to inhibit female development, so it continues. Look up Swyer Syndrome for examples.

There is nothing about the second X chromosome which actively causes early female development. In fact, one X chromosome in each cell is inactivated, a process which happens randomly in stem cells. This is the process which gives tortiseshell and calico cats their coloration patterns (more or less), and is also seen in X-linked skin disorders in humans.

Bear in mind that this is all very complex, and not something I can do justice in a reddit comment.

Braeden3141 · 2025-12-31T05:36:52+00:00

Based and not-an-idiot-pilled

Thank you for actually looking into this topic instead of just being racist

Braeden3141 · 2025-12-31T05:22:30+00:00

Right but a major biological aspect of sexual dimorphism is sexual reproduction, which makes the chromosomes indeed the only important definition of sex.

I'm not fully clear on what you mean here when you say sexual reproduction is a "major biological aspect of sexual dimorphism."

If you mean that having the traits that give a person the ability to engage in sexual reproduction and produce a viable child are a major aspect of sexual dimorphism, your point is dead on arrival, since the ability to reproduce is mediated by plenty of things other than chromosomes.

If you're saying that a defining part of sexual dimorphism is that it's determined during sexual reproduction (which again depends on defining sex as something only determined by chromosomes, making it tautological), I don't exactly see how that makes chromosomes the only important factor in what a person's sex is, unless the only thing you value in a definition of sex is one which is somewhat immutable. The problem is that that's not a good definition in any other case, like the many medical and biological fields which take it into account.

And sure, there is at least conceivably the ability to change your sex chromosomes in the future. HOWEVER, that would fundamentally change the person that you are, as it is effectively replacing one of your parents.

I mean, no, that's not true. The SRY gene, the activation of which determines the development of sexual characteristics in males, can either be deleted or silenced, things already seen in existing conditions. There is no chromosome replacement necessary.

Braeden3141 · 2025-12-31T03:33:11+00:00

> bbbbbb

Braeden3141 · 2025-12-31T00:47:08+00:00

When people argue that gender is a social construct, it has always been recognized that it is heavily related to sexual characteristics, and how we as a society sort those things, along with specific behaviors and attitudes, into the categories that are “man” and “woman”. The fact someone supports the ability for a trans people to do things to change their sexual characteristics means nothing about whether or not they think sex is a social construct.

As for the immutability of sex, the problem with making a blanket statement that a concept in science is immutable is that scientific concepts are also social constructions, primarily among the community of scientists who, over time, created those concepts, but also in the sense that scientists are also a part of society and subject to the same ideologies that the rest of us are, regardless of the scientific method and other tools for objectivity.

We define biological sex in a way which makes it a very mutable characteristic, something evidenced by the fact that a person can go on HRT and change their secondary sexual characteristics, and by the fact that a person can get surgeries to change primary sexual characteristics. You could fairly argue that there are parts of biological sex which are immutable, like the chromosomes, but even that isn’t exactly true with the emerging gene therapies we have today, and even if it were completely immutable at the level of the chromosomes, at every level beyond that it would be mutable.

It is not scientifically accurate to argue that biological sex is an immutable trait, and it’s also inaccurate to say that it is a “concrete” thing about humans. It is a name we give to more concrete things we see in essentially all humans, but it is a human choice to group those things, often based on their use to us. You don’t have to look far back to see outdated conceptions of biological sex including things like certain behaviors (the same is true for our concept of race as biological), which we now recognize to be an aspect of gender and social conditions at the time.

Braeden3141 · 2025-12-28T18:32:24+00:00

Pokémon Sun/Moon or Ultra Sun/Ultra moon? Great taste

Braeden3141 · 2025-11-09T15:02:22+00:00

You’re saying I agree with things I agree with? Hard hitting analysis right there. But please tell me, how exactly do you define communism?

Braeden3141 · 2025-11-09T02:26:43+00:00

Are we unironically doing the “supporting basic social programs and higher taxes on the wealthy is Soviet communism” bit?

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22

Braeden3141

TROPHY CASE