now hold on just a minute here. i've known a fair number of people that this forum would call "SJWs" automatically because of their stances on issues. most of them are not the toxic kind of person that "ess jay dubbleyews" seem to be flaunted as. what i'm saying is, "SJW" has been developed into a strawman, both by inexperienced idiots and by trolls who want to shoot the message.
pre argument briefing: the definitions of words are subjective and prone to change and individual interpretation. as such you will be arguing forever over meaningless stuff so don't try to state your definition as fact. argue the validity of gender dysphoria and ect all you want but don't even touch the "does gender mean love" thing
basically this; this is why these arguments start, because people are using different terminology.
the point is, when these people say more than two genders, they're talking about the societal constructs that have been based around and (most generally) correlated to biological love. the two concepts are distinct (though closely related in most cases).
Genders belong because of the lovees. I dunno where they found extra genders.
historically, there ARE precedents for additional genders in societies around the world. often, this took the form of a third "neutral" gender. some of these societies did still tie gender in with love, using the neutral option for either men or women (usually not both) who could not have children. others had something else entirely. ancient Athens considered young boys (or rather, those who were "not MEN") to be a third gender iirc.
now, OP was originally in a different language. i'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the translation carries different connotations than the original, especially in terms of whether there's a separate word that can be used the way gender is used by the english left. if there isn't, or if the professor and/or tutor was using the 'gender' word as opposed to the 'love' word, well, i can kind of see why she'd be pissed, honestly. talking down at people and being condescending is never going to make them like you.
i'm curious as to whether the original equivalent to "check your privilege" is used to shut down conversations in the original language, too; it was originally intended to get people to stop and consider how their own traits may have affected their experiences, but then a bunch of insane-liberal-arts-college-students and a truckload of trolls started using it to destroy discussion instead of create it.
You live in Argentina right? You probably don't see any of these types of people because your country has real problems it faces. I see these people all the time in Canada. I had teachers that were massive SJWs (they thought the old spice commercials were loveist) and there were students who unironically shared feminist buzzfeed videos and Occupy Democrat stuff on Facebook.
first off, iirc Old Spice commercials used to be very fine examples of the "toxic masculinity" (for those who aren't familiar, that doesn't mean what it might sound like it means - i usually see it used to mean the demanding of nothing less than total masculinity from guys, for example, the jackass kind of lady who only wants a "REAL man"). whether that makes them loveist or not depends on how broadly you define loveism, whether in reference to the lovees themselves or also in reference to traits associated with the lovees. iirc they toned their advertising down a few notches because it was TOO immediately effective - the product became too closely associated with its insecure-male target audience.
there's no real excuse for the 'feminist buzzfeed videos' bit though, that's usually more feminational socialist turf. but i suppose pampered students with no life experience are pretty likely to veer into unrealistic territory. they also tend to abbreviate things in ways that make sense to them, but maybe not so much to others.
There actually are three genders though, Male, Female, and Trans. Wish people would do their research more instead of using the handicapped textbooks schools give us, and trying to force false information into the minds of children.
*facedesk*
ah I see, unsurprising that an SJW would pick an argument then storm off moments later. how pointless.
to be fair, maybe the
professor tutor said something about the muscle development differing by gender. we don't know, OP doesn't know.
