Gender Is A Social Construct? True? Not True? Why? (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

Hint: It's a definition that even President Obama got rid of as a federal quality, despite his friendliness towards transgenders. 

What makes it a social construct? Respond here. 

 

[kface]

biologically it obviously isn't...socially of course it is.  You could take a girl and stick her in a room and only give her 'boy' toys and 'boy' things to do and she would be a boy in the social sense of the word.  

 

[rockaction]

biologically it obviously isn't...socially of course it is.  You could take a girl and stick her in a room and only give her 'boy' toys and 'boy' things to do and she would be a boy in the social sense of the word.  

So why do we gender identify instead of identify by sex now, when the latter is far more important to census-like or physical arrangement (bathrooms, locker rooms) things?  

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Forget the political forum, how about a gender forum instead?   I mean how many ####### gender topics do you need to start?

 

[kface]

So why do we gender identify instead of identify by sex now, when the latter is far more important to census-like or physical arrangement (bathrooms, locker rooms) things?  

Honestly I could care less either way.  This is one of those cultural items that some people like to get in a tizzy about...my opinion is who the hell cares who uses a bathroom.  

 

[Limp Ditka]

Forget the political forum, how about a gender forum instead?   I mean how many ####### gender topics do you need to start?

maybe if you'd stop being such a sissy, we wouldn't be all confused about what's what and who's who, guy.

 

[Sweet J]

I think you do understand the distinction that liberals make when they differentiate between gender (or "gender identity"), and biological sex (or sex parts).

You are asking for comment about what we think about the gender piece of it.  And, I'm assuming, specifically, a situation where a person's determination of his/her own gender differs from their biological sex.  Is that correct?  

 

[RokNRole]

biologically it obviously isn't...socially of course it is.  You could take a girl and stick her in a room and only give her 'boy' toys and 'boy' things to do and she would be a boy in the social sense of the word.  

Maybe until puberty

 

[rockaction]

Forget the political forum, how about a gender forum instead?   I mean how many ####### gender topics do you need to start?

I started two in response to the idiocy of the others so that we can end the endless debate and go for clarity. 

It's easy: 

gender = social roles and expectations

sex = organs and sexual expression

intersexed = ####ed in both respects.  

 

[Black Box]

I think it is a social construct, but it is rooted in biology. So I don't think the two are identical, nor do I think they are completely divorced from each other. Rather, gender emerges from biology.

That's my layman's take on it, anyway.

 

[rockaction]

I think you do understand the distinction that liberals make when they differentiate between gender (or "gender identity"), and biological sex (or sex parts).

You are asking for comment about what we think about the gender piece of it.  And, I'm assuming, specifically, a situation where a person's determination of his/her own gender differs from their biological sex.  Is that correct?  

Nope. In all honesty, I want to clear up the synonym of sex/gender for the board's sake. I'll take no liberal or conservative position on it, other than the use of "gender" in public policy.  

 

[otb_lifer]

Honestly I could care less either way.  This is one of those cultural items that some people like to get in a tizzy about...my opinion is who the hell cares who uses a bathroom.  

pretty bold and noble of you to be so cavalier ... but, yeah, knuckle draggers like me are none too keen on 'assigned' gender folk sharing the ####### with our daughters. 

 

[Sweet J]

It angers me that this has gotten so politicized.  We politicize so many more things than need to be.  Why, for example, is the concept that "we should take care of the environment we live in" so politicized is beyond me.

Similarly, here.  If a person says to themselves, and the world, "I don't feel like my gender matches the sex organs I was born with," why in the world is this such a hot topic.  It drives (some) conservatives out of their everloving minds.

Ok, based on an earlier response to me:

1.  A person's biological sex (or sex organs, i.e., the "parts" that you were born with), is considered by many, including me, as a person's "sex."  This refers only to physiology.  What a doctor's examination would conclude.

2.  A person's gender (in the past referred to many ways, including "sexual identity," but I think "gender" is less confusing), is how a person conceives of himself when he/she thinks "am I a boy or a girl."

(as an aside, "gender identify" is unrelated to preference of gender of someone's sexual partner, but I'm assuming you know that.  Let me know if I need to speak more about it).

That's my understanding of the difference between sex and gender.  For the vast majority of people, a person's gender identity matches his/her biological sex.  Some people it doesn't.  For the people where it doesn't match, the vast majority have no affect on the world outside of them one way or another (other than, maybe, being really annoying about it at the quad at college campus; but good grief, you could say the same thing about Smith fans or any other 19 year old that just discovered something new about themselves).

A few people do represent some sort of issue to be resolved.  One being athletics.  It's not really fair to let someone with the testosterone equivalent of a male compete against females, but I can't really get worked up about this.  This just means we have to find a thoughtful way to address it.  Maybe another is  the military or something.  And finally the bathroom thing, which conservatives seem to go nuts over (why is this a liberal conservative thing?  I don't know, but liberals seem to support gender identify as a construct and conservatives seem to ridicule it.  Please correct me if you think I'm wrong about that).

For the life of me, though, I don't know what there is to say about it.  Seems pretty simple and straightforward.  What are you confused about?  What would you like clarified?  Barring that, do you have something you'd like to say about it?

 

[Sweet J]

I started two in response to the idiocy of the others so that we can end the endless debate and go for clarity. 

It's easy: 

gender = social roles and expectations

sex = organs and sexual expression

intersexed = ####ed in both respects.  

Actually, I think it is a little more nuanced than that.  There is a difference between "I think I'm a boy" and "I think boys should have these rolls and expectations."  If you are adding "social roles and expectations" to the mix, you are adding a new axis. 

 

[Sweet J]

I started two in response to the idiocy of the others so that we can end the endless debate and go for clarity. 

It's easy: 

gender = social roles and expectations

sex = organs and sexual expression

intersexed = ####ed in both respects.  

I'd prefer:

sex = organs (what do you mean by "sexual expression"?).

gender = a person's own identity of whether he or she is a "girl" or a "boy," regardless of what his or her sexual organs are.  The "social roles" are kind of meaningless here.  Or not meaningless, but secondary to how a person sees himself or herself.

 

[rockaction]

Actually, I think it is a little more nuanced than that.  There is a difference between "I think I'm a boy" and "I think boys should have these rolls and expectations."  If you are adding "social roles and expectations" to the mix, you are adding a new axis. 

Totally fair. See, this is the discussion I'm hoping to have. We've now removed "gender" and "sex" as synonym. Where do we proceed? Thanks, Sweet J.

What would I like to say about it? That any self-declaration of identification is problematic, transient, and always subjective. Transient being the most important of the bunch.  

 

[rockaction]

I'd prefer:

sex = organs (what do you mean by "sexual expression"?).

gender = a person's own identity of whether he or she is a "girl" or a "boy," regardless of what his or her sexual organs are.  The "social roles" are kind of meaningless here.  Or not meaningless, but secondary to how a person sees himself or herself.

I mean sexual expression in terms of physical sexuality. 

I get your second point, I just think it lacks permanence. I saw myself as a straight edge kid for years, now...not so much. Kind of hurts the people you rely on.  

 

[wikkidpissah]

Fruitless but necessary exercise. Absolutely hysterical that we are getting down to so many real truths at a time when respect for truth has never been more loosely held. We are all on sexual, hormonal, autistic, bipolar and a thousand other spectrums. Can't wait til y'all stop making it my business. nufced.

 

[Sweet J]

What would I like to say about it? That any self-declaration of identification is problematic, transient, and always subjective. Transient being the most important of the bunch.  

Sure, I get it.  It's tough, because I truly don't know how much actual scientific (or even social-scientific) research has been done on this sort of thing.   So I'll go with what I believe.

I believe that there are actual people in the world that are born with one set of sex parts, but feels in their brain that they were "meant to be" the opposite sex (or gender).  Frankly, I don't see how it is a stretch at all.  All sorts of things are firing when people are developing in the fetus, and the first couple of years.  Maybe its in the DNA, maybe it's in the mother's nutritional intake, maybe it's simply the way that the synapses were forming, but at some point in time a person with girl parts says to herself: "I'm a boy; I've always been meant to be a boy. I will always be a boy."  So much so that they will make drastic and life-altering decisions with respect to their own lives. 

This has happened too much for me to conclude that it is anything other than genuine feelings on the matter.  I've witnessed it personally (I go to a UU church, lol), and I've read numerous stories of the parents of a 4 year old kids where it appears, out of the blue, with no prompting from parents.

Does this mean that people won't try this on in college like the 4-year lesbians at Smith or Wellesley? I dunno.  I guess it could happen.  But I don't really have any problem with it.  Some girl wants to live as a man for a few years rather than his/her entire life?  Ok.  

This is one of these areas where I don't see a need for argument.  I *guess* we could argue over the bathroom aspect of it.  But even there, we could find lots of places to agree. 

 

[rockaction]

Sure, I get it.  It's tough, because I truly don't know how much actual scientific (or even social-scientific) research has been done on this sort of thing.   So I'll go with what I believe.

I believe that there are actual people in the world that are born with one set of sex parts, but feels in their brain that they were "meant to be" the opposite sex (or gender).  Frankly, I don't see how it is a stretch at all.  All sorts of things are firing when people are developing in the fetus, and the first couple of years.  Maybe its in the DNA, maybe it's in the mother's nutritional intake, maybe it's simply the way that the synapses were forming, but at some point in time a person with girl parts says to herself: "I'm a boy; I've always been meant to be a boy. I will always be a boy."  So much so that they will make drastic and life-altering decisions with respect to their own lives. 

This has happened too much for me to conclude that it is anything other than genuine feelings on the matter.  I've witnessed it personally (I go to a UU church, lol), and I've read numerous stories of the parents of a 4 year old kids where it appears, out of the blue, with no prompting from parents.

Does this mean that people won't try this on in college like the 4-year lesbians at Smith or Wellesley? I dunno.  I guess it could happen.  But I don't really have any problem with it.  Some girl wants to live as a man for a few years rather than his/her entire life?  Ok.  

This is one of these areas where I don't see a need for argument.  I *guess* we could argue over the bathroom aspect of it.  But even there, we could find lots of places to agree. 

The bolded is my issue. The paragraph before is not. It seems like there are those that take license with identity, make it political and sexual, and then transgress my life with it, frankly. I don't want it. But the four year-old (and we all know that this happens) is not my issue, nor my concern, nor do I want them to live anywhere they think they're diminished. That would be cruel, actually.   

It's really the indignant Smith or Wellesley woman -- or Yale man. You've got me there. I don't sign off on that. I'm not down with experimentation being gussied up in the name of dysphoria or identity for those that really suffer.    

 

[rockaction]

Also, leaving for lunch now. Will be back in an hour for anyone that wants to contribute. 

Thanks, @Sweet J, for engaging.  

 

[Thorn]

I don't follow this closely, but isn't the talking past each other a result of the phrase "identify as"?  Shouldn't it really be "look like"?

Conservatives fear that someone who looks like this  is going to claim they "identify" as female, and gain access to womens rooms in order to do bad things.

Liberals fear that people who look like this will be forced to use a womans room, and people who look like this will be forced to use a mens room.

Can't we all agree that all all the above are bad ideas?  Why not just go with what they look like?  Otherwise aren't you going to have to ID someone for the bathroom (or worse)?

 

[cockroach]

I don't follow this closely, but isn't the talking past each other a result of the phrase "identify as"?  Shouldn't it really be "look like"?

Conservatives fear that someone who looks like this  is going to claim they "identify" as female, and gain access to womens rooms in order to do bad things.

Liberals fear that people who look like this will be forced to use a womans room, and people who look like this will be forced to use a mens room.

Can't we all agree that all all the above are bad ideas?  Why not just go with what they look like?  Otherwise aren't you going to have to ID someone for the bathroom (or worse)?

This is the simple, yet effective, solution they would come up on South Park or something, but would never get implemented in real life officially because it's just too easy and simple, but is actually the real practical way it actually occurs on a daily basis. 

 

[whiskey7]

This is the simple, yet effective, solution they would come up on South Park or something, but would never get implemented in real life officially because it's just too easy and simple, but is actually the real practical way it actually occurs on a daily basis. 

Maybe. All of those examples were people who looked pretty convincingly like men or women, though. At least, enough that I don't think folks would really raise too much of an eyebrow if they saw them going into a mens/ladies room. I think it gets more complicated with the folks who look a little more ambiguous/androgynous, though. The tweeners I guess. Policy would need to account for them, too, and that wont be as simple.

 

[Osaurus]

Always been part of the dominant social paradigm

 

[Ilov80s]

Sure, I get it.  It's tough, because I truly don't know how much actual scientific (or even social-scientific) research has been done on this sort of thing.   So I'll go with what I believe.

I believe that there are actual people in the world that are born with one set of sex parts, but feels in their brain that they were "meant to be" the opposite sex (or gender).  Frankly, I don't see how it is a stretch at all.  All sorts of things are firing when people are developing in the fetus, and the first couple of years.  Maybe its in the DNA, maybe it's in the mother's nutritional intake, maybe it's simply the way that the synapses were forming, but at some point in time a person with girl parts says to herself: "I'm a boy; I've always been meant to be a boy. I will always be a boy."  So much so that they will make drastic and life-altering decisions with respect to their own lives. 

This has happened too much for me to conclude that it is anything other than genuine feelings on the matter.  I've witnessed it personally (I go to a UU church, lol), and I've read numerous stories of the parents of a 4 year old kids where it appears, out of the blue, with no prompting from parents.

Does this mean that people won't try this on in college like the 4-year lesbians at Smith or Wellesley? I dunno.  I guess it could happen.  But I don't really have any problem with it.  Some girl wants to live as a man for a few years rather than his/her entire life?  Ok.  

This is one of these areas where I don't see a need for argument.  I *guess* we could argue over the bathroom aspect of it.  But even there, we could find lots of places to agree. 

There has been some (though not conclusive) reseasrch that showed that the grey matter in a transmales (sans hormone treatment) are closer to a gemale grey matter. However, the rest of the transmales brain most resembles the brain of males. Is there something in that difference in gray matter that is biologically causing the juxtaposition of male sex, female gender? Also, I don't believe our brains and genitals develop at the same time, so since these processes are removed by time, there could be issues with them developing in opposite directions. Finally, there have been some limited studies that connect transgender as something inheritable. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Also, you may find this interesting

There is a very odd genetic condition in the Dominican Republic where the early dose of testerone that hits the fetus, the child can't doens't process it (this helped lead the discovery of finiastride- the hair regrowth, prostate shrinking medication that resists testerone). So the child is born without a male genitals. Then, when puberty hits, that testerone does get processed and they develop male genitals, some body hair and some male features. So they essentially live life for 12 years physically as a girl, but mentally as a boy. Only at puberty do they phsically become a boy. 

 

[skol asylum]

Sex is binary. Gender is not. 

Male/Female is binary.

Masculine/Feminine is not.

 

[jonessed]

It angers me that this has gotten so politicized.  We politicize so many more things than need to be.  Why, for example, is the concept that "we should take care of the environment we live in" so politicized is beyond me.

Similarly, here.  If a person says to themselves, and the world, "I don't feel like my gender matches the sex organs I was born with," why in the world is this such a hot topic.  It drives (some) conservatives out of their everloving minds.

Ok, based on an earlier response to me:

1.  A person's biological sex (or sex organs, i.e., the "parts" that you were born with), is considered by many, including me, as a person's "sex."  This refers only to physiology.  What a doctor's examination would conclude.

2.  A person's gender (in the past referred to many ways, including "sexual identity," but I think "gender" is less confusing), is how a person conceives of himself when he/she thinks "am I a boy or a girl."

(as an aside, "gender identify" is unrelated to preference of gender of someone's sexual partner, but I'm assuming you know that.  Let me know if I need to speak more about it).

That's my understanding of the difference between sex and gender.  For the vast majority of people, a person's gender identity matches his/her biological sex.  Some people it doesn't.  For the people where it doesn't match, the vast majority have no affect on the world outside of them one way or another (other than, maybe, being really annoying about it at the quad at college campus; but good grief, you could say the same thing about Smith fans or any other 19 year old that just discovered something new about themselves).

A few people do represent some sort of issue to be resolved.  One being athletics.  It's not really fair to let someone with the testosterone equivalent of a male compete against females, but I can't really get worked up about this.  This just means we have to find a thoughtful way to address it.  Maybe another is  the military or something.  And finally the bathroom thing, which conservatives seem to go nuts over (why is this a liberal conservative thing?  I don't know, but liberals seem to support gender identify as a construct and conservatives seem to ridicule it.  Please correct me if you think I'm wrong about that).

For the life of me, though, I don't know what there is to say about it.  Seems pretty simple and straightforward.  What are you confused about?  What would you like clarified?  Barring that, do you have something you'd like to say about it?

I think the politics really comes in hard when it's applied to schools and kids.  People get touchy about that.

 

[Sweet J]

Sex is binary. Gender is not. 

Male/Female is binary.

Masculine/Feminine is not.

I'll leave to Alan Alda and Free to Be You And Me for the discussion of the nature of masculinity and femininity. 

I'm not sure that I would agree that gender isn't binary.  But maybe you are defining "gender" differently than I do.

 

[skol asylum]

https://youtu.be/ss_BmTGv43M

 

[jonessed]

Genetics control sex and gender.  Sex more directly, but millions of years of human evolution have linked gender to sex.

That's not to say that current society doesn't play a role in gender identity and expectations. It clearly does, and given advances in science we can disconnect genetics and gender even more.  I don't think we are going to break millions of years of evolution any time soon though.

I don't believe people are born gay as much as given infinite genetic possibilities some individuals will simply be predisposed to fall outside the normal sex/gender definition (given the billions of outcomes perhaps that does mean that at least a percentage of gay people are literally born gay).  Life then takes its course and finishes the job.

As a society we should aspire to accommodate the full spectrum of possible genetic outcomes as best we can.  I guess it's that last part that gets tricky.  How far and how fast should that accommodation be taken before it begins to break down aspects of society that the majority holds dear?

 

[wikkidpissah]

unisex bathrooms w coin-op holsters in each stall

 

[whoknew]

pretty bold and noble of you to be so cavalier ... but, yeah, knuckle draggers like me are none too keen on 'assigned' gender folk sharing the ####### with our daughters. 

What do you think is going to happen in the bathroom?

 

[whoknew]

I don't follow this closely, but isn't the talking past each other a result of the phrase "identify as"?  Shouldn't it really be "look like"?

Conservatives fear that someone who looks like this  is going to claim they "identify" as female, and gain access to womens rooms in order to do bad things.

Liberals fear that people who look like this will be forced to use a womans room, and people who look like this will be forced to use a mens room.

Can't we all agree that all all the above are bad ideas?  Why not just go with what they look like?  Otherwise aren't you going to have to ID someone for the bathroom (or worse)?

Doing bad things* in a women's restroom is illegal.

*"Bad things" in this sentence (I assume) meaning assault, flashing, etc.

 

[Ilov80s]

I'll leave to Alan Alda and Free to Be You And Me for the discussion of the nature of masculinity and femininity. 

I'm not sure that I would agree that gender isn't binary.  But maybe you are defining "gender" differently than I do.

How do you define gender?

 

[wikkidpissah]

How do you define gender?

gender?! i barely knew 'er

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

Girls have a penis. Boys have a ######.

Also, it's not a tumor.

 

[-OZ-]

pretty bold and noble of you to be so cavalier ... but, yeah, knuckle draggers like me are none too keen on 'assigned' gender folk sharing the ####### with our daughters. 

Every business should just put in outhouses. 

 

[Sweet J]

How do you define gender?

I wrote about it in an earlier post. Essentially, gender is how a person identifies (either as male or female, or, I guess, "other"). This contrasts with sex, which is the actual body parts a person is born with. So a person can be born with male sex organs, but identify as a female. I'd say that person's gender is female. 

To me, that is binary, either that person identifies as male or female.  I'm not familiar with someone identifying as 80% male, 20% female.  But I've got an open mind if someone wants to educate me. 

(Compare this to, say, sexual orientation: because a person can be bisexual, for some people, their sexual orientation isn't binary.  For others maybe it is.)

 

[Ilov80s]

I wrote about it in an earlier post. Essentially, gender is how a person identifies (either as male or female, or, I guess, "other"). This contrasts with sex, which is the actual body parts a person is born with. So a person can be born with male sex organs, but identify as a female. I'd say that person's gender is female. 

To me, that is binary, either that person identifies as male or female.  I'm not familiar with someone identifying as 80% male, 20% female.  But I've got an open mind if someone wants to educate me. 

(Compare this to, say, sexual orientation: because a person can be bisexual, for some people, their sexual orientation isn't binary.  For others maybe it is.)

There are people that see themselves as both male and female, neither and other shades. What is it to be of the male gender? Is it a choice? Are their traits that indicate one is or isn't male? I'm not antagonizing, just not sure. 

 

[rockaction]

But gender itself is the social construct. It's like fighting plastic wrap. This is what cracks me up. Identifying a certain way lends credence to the sex-assigned roles "gender" was set to undermine.

Gender is a social construct. 

By logic and language, that means, 

Gender = social construct. 

Tautological. And social constructs can be anything. We can't identify that which is simply sociological. It is, as @Ilov80sgets at, a binary proposition. It was meant to #### the binary up. That was the point of gender. So then, what now...?  

Am I just dense?  

 

[ren hoek]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/14/skirts-boys-private-highgate-school-plans-gender-neutral-uniform/

I always figured I was immune to the feeling that I am "conservative" in any sort of social sense.  I hate what that word has become anymore.  Let people be, right.

But the growing embrace of dysphoric gender identities is something I feel incapable of understanding, and it honestly makes me uncomfortable.  I do think society is a little guilty of steering children one way or the other (barbie dolls vs. GI joes) in a social/nurture sense, but like @Black Box said, it's grounded in pure biology. Just because you're a girl who wants to present a strong image and be tough doesn't mean you have to forego being a mother and playing your natural role in society.  Just because you were born with male organs doesn't mean you can't be effeminate and softspoken.  

But does that have to manifest itself in the entire system placating to the free-spectrum gender police?  To me, it feels like children are being 'forced' in a way to accept something they are allowed to be discomforted by.  Understanding isn't a one way street after all.  People that are offended by other people's unease about gender identity are as rightful to their feelings as people that have a hard time coming to grips with gender androgyny in the first place.  You can hold those feelings and still believe in treating every person with respect and dignity.  

I'm sure I sound like a total ogre here, but I'm really not a fan of this new direction taking form in public spaces.  

 

[rockaction]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/14/skirts-boys-private-highgate-school-plans-gender-neutral-uniform/

I always figured I was immune to the feeling that I am "conservative" in any sort of social sense.  I hate what that word has become anymore.  Let people be, right.

But the growing embrace of dysphoric gender identities is something I feel incapable of understanding, and it honestly makes me uncomfortable.  I do think society is a little guilty of steering children one way or the other (barbie dolls vs. GI joes) in a social/nurture sense, but like @Black Box said, it's grounded in pure biology. Just because you're a girl who wants to present a strong image and be tough doesn't mean you have to forego being a mother and playing your natural role in society.  Just because you were born with male organs doesn't mean you can't be effeminate and softspoken.  

But does that have to manifest itself in the entire system placating to the free-spectrum gender police?  To me, it feels like children are being 'forced' in a way to accept something they are allowed to be discomforted by.  Understanding isn't a one way street after all.  People that are offended by other people's unease about gender identity are as rightful to their feelings as people that have a hard time coming to grips with gender androgyny in the first place.  You can hold those feelings and still believe in treating every person with respect and dignity.  

I'm sure I sound like a total ogre here, but I'm really not a fan of this new direction taking form in public spaces.  

We are anarcho-anachronists in this respect, Ren.  Glad to see this bumped. I think your sentiments are shared by millions of bright people everywhere shamed into corners of the public space, with gender dysphoria blues being the dominant subject -- the overwhelming Nietzschean Christian Morality come to light. 

It seems pretty simple; to respect everybody. But the public will not simply respect basic respect. It must be felt; it our bones, in our hearts. We must accept every little last, um, snowflake that exists. Every little last construct must be respected, every little last. 

I say #### it. If you're ####ed up, you're a bit ####ed up and public spaces owe you nothing. 

But public is as public does, and if the public demands, then they do so...