From the Wikipedia article: I was diagnosed with phimosis as a child and the doctor recommended my parents to have me circumcised. I was scared shitless of the idea of getting some piece of my body cut off and my parents wisely decided to have nothing done as long as there is no actual problem. And guess what? It solved itself when I entered puberty, the foreskin is not meant to be retractable on children. Just another example of science cult believing it knows better than nature.

What do you call it when the mind does not match up with the body?

Yes, the hypothalamus gland (the ''master gland'') secretes the hormones that regulate the secretion of hormones such as testosterone or estrogen or any hormone from their respective glands. Essentially, the hormones determine sexuality and genitals determine sex. The hormones secreted determine sexuality; and the secretion of these hormones are determined by the hypothalamus.
This is why gender reassignment surgery is followed up with or goes side by side with hormone treatment. The operation removes the current genitalia thereby significantly decreasing the secretion of the undesired hormone and the new hormones injected into the body are the ones that determine the sexuality of the desired gender.

If gender was a social construct; gender could be changed via social conditioning. And that has NEVER worked and never will work. I'll believe gender is a social construct when someone conditions someone to be another gender. Social constructs would also vary from culture to culture and consider how ONE cultural tradition traveled to ALL cultures of the world; including the still undiscovered ones when the world is divided as it currently is. The only one that seems even close is the tradition of marriage which varies GREATLY across different cultures and which can be argued that has some basis in nature (ie,albatrosses, penguins, hornbills, crnes etc mate for life). AND marriage today is drastically different from marriage when it was first founded probably tens of thousands of years ago.

Exactly, but there is one point that always gets shoved aside:
What about other mammals? Is the homo sapiens somehow special because he can extend his delusions further than anyone else or do the others have more sexes as well and are in desperate need of operations and hormone therapies as well? I refuse to use the term "gender" altogether, since it's a social construct indeed imho, while sexes are not.

My thought is that some scientist loose their dispassionate distance and start to "believe" in a certain theory. This seems rather the case with science that involve chaotic variables like human nature or other things that are currently hard to proof.

I hope I could make clear what I'm trying to say. :/

Thought this might be relevent to what your taking about here. Thats all I should be running along now. ;-)
http://www.thelocal.se/20150824/cross-dressing-pupils-cause-stir-at-rural-school

Who's trying to be pseudo British and I'm not even going to try to debate the grammar and usage of what is extremely flexible colloquialism, which may or may not, despite popular misconception, originate from Britain, observe exhibite A - " ... stiff upper lip ... " generally thought to be a now archaic British colloquial expression, in reality originating from the mid-west U.S. of the mid 19th Century.

Here's your "rape culture" lies...
But some people like Susurrus won't let the truth get in the way of a good story...
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/10/24/statistics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture
http://time.com/100091/campus-sexual-assault-christina-hoff-sommers/
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs00.pdf

As to gender...its not the brain, its the chromosomes. Outside of a few very rare abnormalities, science has proven the difference between men and women. Your made-up assertions that gender is all in the brain is absurd. It's pretty crazy how these social justice idiots think they can throw away hundreds of years of established science on their own unproven pet hypotheses.

But let me also propose this question...
Has it ever occurred that a transgendered individual has ever changed their mind and switched back to their original sex? Does this happen? What does this say about transgender being from birth or somehow "in the genes"?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/19507-the-transgender-con-many-transgender-people-regret-switch
http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

But the great Susurrus claims to know all...

The thing is. Without having ill itntentions at all. Transgenders, and all those "non bynary" are actually dellusional, just as those with Cotard syndrome who believe they are either dead or decaying. Transgenders are functionally dellusional, as long as they don't try to get in the rstroom of the opposyte sex. But the "non bynary" "otherkin" and all that shit are non functional. They make up new pronouns and get very violent when questioned, they are basically insane asylum material.

Not to mention that those pronouns and all that stuff remind me of Newspeak. And as you might know based on that concept, altering the language in a drastic way poses a threat to society.

There are non-binary sexes and non-binary genders.
They are not always in alignment.
Therefore, you're kinda silly.
(Sex is typically taken to refer to either karyotype or genitalia.
Not gender identity, which is a blend of neurology [not socially constructed] and culture [social constructs].)

Race is also a social construct.
It has absolutely no scientific basis, and most people would find it extremely difficult to identify genetic groups based on appearance, and yet racism is a thing.
I'm not sure what your mention of faith/religion/belief-in-a-divinity has to do with an actual argument though.
I question the relevance of your digression.


Also, what the fuck are you even talking about with that last section?
Absolute poppycock it seems like.
No, they're not.
Fuck off with your transphobic fucking bullshit.

There are non binary sexes and non binary genders.
Gender / sexuality needn't always align with the sex someone is born with.
So what did I say wrong?
I'll repeat my other post :
Yes, the hypothalamus gland (the ''master gland'') secretes the hormones that regulate the secretion of hormones such as testosterone or estrogen or any hormone from their respective glands; and the hypothalamus is in the brain. Essentially, the hormones determine sexuality and genitals determine sex. The hormones secreted determine sexuality; and the secretion of these hormones are determined by the hypothalamus.
This is why gender reassignment surgery is followed up with or goes side by side with hormone treatment. The operation removes the current genitalia thereby significantly decreasing the level of the undesired hormone and the new hormones injected into the body are the ones that determine the sexuality of the desired gender.

If gender was a social construct; gender could be changed via social conditioning. And that has NEVER worked and never will work. I'll believe gender is a social construct when someone conditions someone to be another gender.

Social constructs would also vary from culture to culture and consider how ONE cultural tradition traveled to ALL cultures of the world; including the still undiscovered ones when the world is divided as it currently is in information sharing. The only one that seems even close is the tradition of marriage which varies GREATLY across different cultures and which can be argued that has some basis in nature (ie,albatrosses, penguins, hornbills, cranes etc mate for life). AND marriage today is drastically different from marriage when it was first founded probably tens of thousands of years ago.

Basically you're saying gender is a social construct solely because you include gender roles in ''gender''. But they are slightly different. Gender roles are the roles assigned to a particular gender base don that gender and gender refers to the act of being of any gender. So you either had this strange concept of gender from the start or realized denying the biological side wouldn't work and pulled a bait and switch.

Race is not a social construct. People having different skin color / average body size isn't because society divided them as so. What is a social construct is the set of presumptions and prejudices made up by one group against another, like what happens even now. Modern day racism is the perpetuation and belief in these prejudices; ie treating someone differently or assuming something from / because of their race. In olden times when societies were normally uni-racial, they made up prejudices about other people based on race; ie, skin color or other external features. Today societies are multi-racial and we use stuff other than skin color; like ideology or habits. It is just one type of the many types of discrimination.

You said gender was a social construct but said it wasn't any less real because of it. Then I asked if you think other social constructs are also any more or less real.

You said SJs may have different opinions on what they talk about. I said that they will only parrot the extremist ones to get more victimbux.

Also, why the sudden jump to race?

Maybe we should start ignoring that user. He seems to be dellusional. I mean, anyone whod ares to say race is a social construct must be unable to accept the fact that genetics are a real thing. He actually makes me sick. He is as dellusional as Rachel Dolezal.

Race is merely differences in skin / hair color and average height and weight. None of which can be directly linked to social ''construction'', especially since all humans came from one race from Africa. If we look into history, how can we even state a time when society developed enough to have these so called social constructs, and if they did, isn't there a unique race for every unique society? Its BS really. Racism is bad of course but no need for him / her to go full SJ and blindly hate everything related to it.

They don't exist. There is no gene or set of genes that makes somebody African or European. A typical African has as much in common, genetically, with a European as two Africans or two Europeans do with each other.

If you were to walk from Spain all the way down to the tip of Africa 2 hundred years ago, you would have seen a gradual shifting of skin colors and facial features as you went.

Kind of. All humans share the same basic DNA structure, but there are variations and mutations within chromosomes. For instance the Y chromosome in the African haplogroups show several differences from European or Asian chromosomes. It's like frogs or toads. They both share the same amphibian DNA, but there are genetic mutations that helped separate them in certain characteristics that led to their split via evolution and environmental adaptation.

Point being, we're all human, but just like any other species with various branches on the phylum/class/order tree, if you look close enough you will see genetic differences.

Exactly. It is like with dog breeds. They are all dogs. But they are not the same. The reason why we don't have such an exreme variation is because no one tampered with our genetic branching. Maybe more like with cat breeds. They are all cats, but have different traits.