Look just because someone believes they are something doesn't mean they are. Just like how Otherkin aren't actually wolves/rabbits/dragons and dictators are literally gods..
Sure it is. Up until fairly recently in human history, it was believed that cooking was a woman's job. That males who cooked were, by definition, homosexual. Express that opinion at a Texas grilling competition and see how alive you are by the end of the night.
Not even that. Simply the "rules of behavior you're to follow because you have certain body parts". It's not a matter of a boy being raised to think they're a girl and thus should wear a dress. It's the matter of a boy being raised to think that it's normal for boys to wear dresses.
NO ONE can be the gender their parts say. Because parts say nothing about gender in the first place. Parts are a matter of sex (biological)... gender is a matter of cultural programming (language)... and the only influence one has on the other is what we choose to allow.
Um, those are things that are culturally expected of certain genders but not the actual gender itself. Just like how having sex doesn't necessarily make a boy a man or being a virgin doesn't make a man a boy. He's a man once he's reached adulthood. Also those things very from culture to culture. Scots still wear kilts, most of the western world has basically said fuck it to who's the provider and home spouse. Those aren't what define gender, that's just what people expect of you after it's already been defined. Likewise if a woman goes through the standard initiation for manhood in a culture that doesn't suddenly make her a man in their eyes or vice versa. If a boy wears a dress it's still a boy, if a girl wears pants it's still a girl.
What the hell definition are you using? This sounds like when those femanists try and redefine racism and sexism. There is a simple definition in the dictionary, that is not it.
You might find this discussion interesting if you want to know a little about what happened to feminism and how it was stolen from the actual women's rights activists. It's quite interesting.
Seriously? Is this where we're going to go with this thread?
Really, it's more like where it started than where it's going.
wikipedia said:
Yeah. But usually MOST of the normal members of those labels actively try to reject and distance themselves from the psychos, attacking them even harder than "outsiders" do in an effort to send the whole "that psycho's not one of us" message as loud as possible to the rest of the human race.
I don't actually know much about Anita Sarkeesian, other than that there was a big Internet brouhaha about her approximately forever ago in Internet time. Tell me what you consider relevant and problematic about her.
She's known for fabricating things to make it seem like everyone is attacking her. I'd be careful about using anything that happens to her for proof one way or another. It's how she makes her money.
You haven't answered my first question.
Could you give some examples?
Jack Thompson actually deserved the criticism andthe bolded is some of that failure to analyze I talked about.