Debunking 'Gender is a social contruct.'

Post Reply New Topic

Ah. That makes more sense.

I'll still stand by my opinion until some genuine science proves otherwise.

Quote:

Sex and gender are two different things.

Sex is a biological construct that expresses one's objective reproductive function.

Gender is an ego-based construct that expresses one's subjective personal identity.

Social construct?

Meh ... not so much ...

If the under 35 year olds sort this out in a manner that regresses society they are going to have to deal with the consequences.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 03 Jun 2019, 3:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

So, then you support non-binary people's right to self-identify, and not have a binary designation imposed on them?

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 03 Jun 2019, 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You're right that this is a bit weird and can be difficult to get your head around.

Perhaps it would help if you thought about the different elements to gender. There is an innate biological gender identity. Cases like David Reimer and trans people help to illustrate this. Most people "know what they are" and feel bad if they are not able to express that.

However, how we interpret those feelings is partially due to a socially-constructed framework. Western society has largely used a binary gender system, for example, but other societies use more complex systems, and Westerners are increasingly realising that a binary system does not accurately reflect the range of gender identities. And the different roles of men and women are socially constructed - certainly they have changed far too rapidly over the last century to be explained by biological changes, and indeed they vary between societies.

In simple terms, gender identity is biological, but ways of understanding it, including gender roles, are socially constructed.

I think you're getting at something similar to the point I made in my last post.

Would you not agree that elements of "gender performance" are the result of social pressure, rather than internally driven by the individual? Maybe not for you personally, but perhaps for some of the people you served with, or people you went to school with?

On sex as a purely "biological" construct - I mean, OK, but remember that biological definitions are themselves often the result of the scientist's preconceptions. This is unfortunately particularly true when dealing with how lay people understand science. Anyone who thinks that there are two sexes, for example, is demonstrably wrong. There are various plausible definitions of "male" and "female" and each of these presents difficulties. So while you might objectively be able to say that this person produces sperm and call all sperm producers "male", that definition is going to run into difficulties.

Sure, always happy to help

The specific claims I made were:

- There are not only two genders; other gender identifies are real.
- Queer identities are not a form of attention seeking or a "first world problem".
- Trans people exist, and someone's gender is not defined by their assigned sex at birth or their genitalia.

Unfortunately I don't have the same access to paywalled resources that I used to but I can provide you with some reading. I hope you know the usual tricks for accessing difficult PDFs...

On my first point:
This is a good review on non-binary genders in Western society: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-0111-8
Across the world, you're probably best off with the Wikipedia article on "third" genders, which cites a lot of sources but is much more readable than most of them and much broader than any of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender

On my third point:
Gender dysphoria is a recognised condition in both the ICD and the DSM. While there is controversy about whether this is appropriate (as it suggests that being trans is a disorder, which is controversial), there is no disputing that trans people exist.
Trans people have brains associated more closely with their desired gender, not their birth sex: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 112351.htm

I believe that between them, these two points cover the second point quite well. If you'd like further clarification then you only have to ask.

No idea. I have only one gender and one sex in my experience: "gynotropic cis-male" -- I am attracted to women, and I am a natural-born biologic male.Again, no idea. I came up through the ranks when the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" practice was in full force, and I went to school when anyone you was not "normal" was simply "queer".To me, there are four basic sexes: Male, Female, Both, and Neither. Again, these are based on objectively-observable reproductive function. Digging deeper, we may find that instead of only "XX" an "XY", there are "YY", "XXX", "XXY", "XYY", and "YYY", et cetera. I don't know how viable these combinations may be, but whenever the "Y" chromosome is expressed, there is at least some form of male reproductive organs being expressed. In any case, this is only an academic exercise, without any implied morality, ethics, psychological or legal status. It's biology, nothing more.Sure, everybody has their own "model" of understanding sex and gender. This is the model that works for me. It may not work for others. As soon as I see a real consensus among the scientific community, I will consider it, and if it changes my model, then It changes. The problem I see is that many people who think they have it all figured out are either not science-minded, or they are trying to push their personal beliefs as The One Truth That Binds All Truths. For instance, if there are indeed 71 distinct genders, then how does that bode with the concept of a genderfluid "spectrum"?

"XXY" is called Klinefelters Syndrome, so I'm not sure that should be called a sex of its own.

So let's just look at gender for a moment.

When people say "gender is socially constructed", they're talking about things like boys being given blue and girls being given pink, men being encouraged to be sexually active while women are discouraged, men being discouraged from public displays of weakness, women being discouraged from public displays of anger to a greater extent than men, etc.

While some of these things can be explained in evolutionary terms (although not without controversy), I can't see any reasonable explanation for the blue/pink thing other than "social construct". No matter how hard you look at the Y chromosome you're not going to find a gene for liking the colour blue.

On the "71 different genders" - have a look at one of those lists one day. In essence you'll notice that most of them aren't really "different genders" but are just different words for the same thing. Your four categories of "male", "female", "both", and "none" capture them quite well (obviously exchanging "male" for "man" and so forth). You could also add "in between" which is the only category you'd be likely to break down further. They might be modified by an acknowledgement that this individual was not assigned this gender at birth, they might use "girl" instead of "woman", they might use "sex" instead of "gender", and occasionally they might use a non-Western term. But there simply isn't the language to capture every individual's gender expression, and even if there was then it wouldn't be all that useful. (In the same way, we acknowledge that autism is a spectrum but we don't talk about "Fnord syndrome", "Walrus syndrome", "Ferret syndrome" etc. - yes we are all distinct but we can still all meaningfully be referred to as autistic)

Thank you. Of the three only the last is informative. I'm also pretty familiar with the TG issues: one of my brothers became a female...for a while. He thought for sure he was a female; he thought transitioning would take care of his doubts and problems. He even did hormone therapy and patterned his life and style after that of a female. Until he decided he actually wasn't a female. His partner went from being female, to non gendered, to male, and then back to female. "Gender" is, indeed, fluid for some.
Ultimately I go by what your chromosomes dictate: XY makes you male, XX makes you female. There's literally no changing that. I wouldn't say trans is a disorder, but "assuming" a different gender is a choice. As much as my brother initially wanted to be, he was never going to be female.

Ah, yes ... that crap. You should have seen the fit my father threw when I asked if I could bake a cake for him. I like baking and cooking. Then, we were taught that "Men don't do housework", and they wondered why we never cleaned our rooms, did our own laundry, et cetera.Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter? I like the feeling that a deep blue hue gives me. Same for certain shades of green and yellow. Nature or nurture? Again, does it matter?Okay, here's the simplified classification system I came up with:

Sexes
- Male
- Female
- Both (Hermaphroditic)
- Neuter

Sex Modifiers
- Cis (born that way)
- Trans (born as something else)

Tropics (long "o" sound)
- Androtropic (attracted to males)
- Gynotropic (attracted to females)
- Ambitropic (attracted to males and females)
- Atropic (asexual, or not attracted to any sex)

Thus, I am a "Gynotropic Cis-Male". Arguably, there may be other "in-between" classifications, but these work for me. It's when people start saying things like "I'm 93.2% into men, but I'm 5.48% into women, and 1.32% curious about animals" that gets me wondering where they get their numbers and why they feel they need to break it down so far.

It matters insofar as if you want to be baking cakes or wearing pink but your father won't let you because of his expectations for men, then you are being made unhappy by silly, socially constructed gender roles.

If on the other hand it was literally impossible for men or boys to enjoy baking, then perhaps there would be more reason for your father to discourage you from giving it a go.

I do think there are differences between the interests of average men and average women - but these are averages, there is a great deal of variation, and there is a great deal of overlap. Yes, men tend to be taller than women, but I'm about average height for men in the UK and I've met lots of women who were taller than me.

I think everyone should identify as they wish. You're obviously being very cheeky. What is your solution to the problem?

I identify as a man. I don't call myself a "cis-man," even though, by definition, I am.

I'm not going to any woman's bathroom any time soon!

In my culture, it causes puzzlement that a boy interested in baking cookies or a girl fascinated by robotics is viewed as an LGBT issue.

LGB are about sexuality. Cookies, car mechanics, cosmetics, computer programming, teaching young children and a lot of other statistically gender-unbalanced interests are not.
In my culture, putting it to the same box as sexuality is only obscuring the topic - like a boy couldn't become a hairdresser without being associated to gay culture? It doesn't make sense here.

I think it's kind of curious that cooking and baking are seen as feminine pursuits, when the male alpha-dog egomaniac chef is basically a stereotype in and of itself. Gordon Ramsay plays it up for the cameras, but the trope is very much based in reality.