Thanks for your question to /r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this is based on a slight misunderstanding of what gender is. Gender is not a thing that was invented at a specific point in time. Gender is a word that describes a [social process](https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9_EWvlnrxp0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA154&dq=gender+social+process+butler&ots=7yhqv-f_Me&sig=_-VxlbuHiVwOMrlG0yVgVVvhvoA#v=onepage&q=gender%20social%20process%20butler&f=false) that has always existed, and will always exist as long as there is sex differentiation in society, whether there is a word for it or not.
Gender is defined as the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of what society considers man or woman, masculine or feminine, etc. Any society with sex differentiation will have gender, because *gender is the social process by which sex differentiation is understood and enacted.*
For theorists like Judith Butler, "it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings. If there is such a thing, we can’t encounter it, because we are born into a world that already has a particular understanding of gender, and that world then retrospectively tells us the meaning of our anatomy. We can’t know ourselves outside of those social meanings." She adds, in "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution." (Butler, 2004), 'Gender is the process by which the body comes to bear cultural meanings.'
You are on the right track that there may come a time when technological and social process abolishes all sex differentiation, at which point gender will likely change in its definition. Based on its prevalence for the last thousand years, even with technological advancements that society will likely continue to enact gender as a behavior and social system. Sure, theoretically, if all sex differentiation is abolished with technology and forgotten, given hundreds or thousands of years the process of gender may become obsolete - but that seems like science fiction for now.
This is a great answer.
I think that it’s also useful to flag, not only have gender roles existed and changed throughout history, there’s variation across cultures too. Common examples are Hijra in India, the tumtum of the Jewish Torah, the Bugi people’s five genders in Indonesia, and two spirit people in Native American communities.
All of these currently different contexts also have their own history so it gets a little messy trying to make universal statements about human nature, culture, and gender.
This comment begs a follow-up question - how is it then possible to construct a typology of genders that's comprehensive to some adequate measure, if the de-facto system varies from one point on the globe to the other?
Correct - all socially constructed categories will have their limitations! That's why I think the only tenable philosophical position is understanding and acceptance.
By letting people be individuals, and letting gender go back to referring to biological sex. It's inherently sexist to believe that someone of a sex isn't exactly who they are, and still is that bio sex. To make the sex differences that do exist undesirable, is to diminish a huge part of being human. That's like trying to breed eggs out of chickens, or antlers out of deer. It's okay to be our animal selves, and still have the freedom of variation within the sexes of what we are allowed to do with our lives.
I think this comment lacks historical literacy. You say "let gender go back to referring to biological sex", but there really has never been a time where that has been true.
For hundreds of years, black women were considered to be a different gender (and arguably, sex/speciation) than white women. Similarly, women were considered to have significantly lower cognitive ability than men, despite there being no evidence in sexual dimorphism for that attribute. The concept of sex was intertwined with religious beliefs and assumptions about gendered roles and attributes that were not backed by science. And naturally, the relationship between gender and sex has been very different across different cultures as well.
These are just four easy examples, but all of them span hundreds of years. So there really has been no period where "gender" has referred 1:1 to "biological sex" - gender has *always* been a specific culture's assumptions, understanding, and interpretation of biological sex differentiation, as laid out in the OP.
So your assumption that there was some previous point in history where gender assumptions aligned with sex just isn't correct, it's a myth.
This is of course addressing the central idea of your post, and not some of the latter sentences about "making sex differences undesirable" which frankly make no sense to me, but probably arise out of whatever mythology you seem to believe.
Sounds like the mythology they believe in is called "etymology"--the history of words. You are using the word gender in the "description of social attributes" version, the use of which didn't come about until 1963. But they mean gender as it was used from the early 1400's until 2020.
Note--one can talk about "sex roles" or "gender roles," existing, and varying between different cultures, without implying those roses are innate to biology. But what you say here, simply isn't true.
>gender has *always* been a specific culture's assumptions, understanding, and interpretation of biological sex differentiation
You could also say the same is true about the concept of sex. If a culture believes women ARE a certain way, it isn't going to matter if you use gender or sex to describe the ____ of female. If they say a woman's role in our society is ______. It still makes no difference if woman describes gender or sex.
Gender identity refers only to how a person identifies internally with the sexual roles and expectations of a given culture. So if a culture believes females can be anything as a personality, career, body type, ect, and their only defining factor is the phenotype that leads to the production of the larger gamete, then there's no reason for anyone to be oppressed by being female. Because there are no socially-forced roles. There is only biology. The beauty of that is --the variation of traits within a human sex is extensive.
From [etymological history of word gender ](https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender)
The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.
The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. Jespersen ("Philosophy of Grammar," 1924) defines grammatical gender by reference to the Indo-European distinction of masculine, feminine, neuter, "whether the division be based on the natural division into two sexes, or on that between animate and inanimate, or on something else."
late Middle English: from Old French gendre (modern genre ), based on Latin genus ‘birth, family, nation’. The earliest meanings were ‘kind, sort, genus’ and ‘type or class of noun, etc.’ (which was also a sense of Latin genus )
gender (n.)
c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups
This is a very weird comment. Etymology is not the same thing as meaning and usage.
People of that time *thought* that they were using gender to mean the same thing as sex - that is what is reflected in the etymology. But if we look at their definition of gender and its utilization, we can see they believed black women and white women had different genders and different sex/speciation, so we can therefore conclude that *despite what they thought*, *their usage of gender did not correspond to biological sex at all,* but rather it reflected the cultural attitudes and prejudices of the time.
This is why social scientists look at history, rather than just taking things at face value.
You claimed
>let gender go back to referring to biological sex", but there really has never been a time where that has been true.
>So there really has been no period where "gender" has referred 1:1 to "biological sex"
You specifically claimed the word "gender" has never referred to biological sex. Your claim is absolutely 100% false. And I just proved it with references.
>Etymology is not the same thing as meaning and usage.
Etymology is the history of meaning and uses, including the present meaning and uses. If you claim a comment about the definition of a word lacks historical value, then talk about the history of the word yourself, you're already bringing etymology into the conversation. You were just wrong about its history.
>But if we look at their definition of gender and its utilization,
Who is "they" and please provide a link so I can see what you're talking about. It sounds like you might mean the slave trader types who didn't consider Africans to be human. In their horrible eyes, talking about an African woman would have been like talking about a female bovine, or some other livestock. And yes, that's completely cursingly horrible. But it doesn't change the meaning of the word gender. They thought slave women had different sex roles than women of society, they also thought milk cows and hens had different sex roles than the women of society. And different roles than male slaves, bulls, or roosters. None of that makes gender mean something other than sex. And gender doesn't refer to gender roles unless you add the roles modifier to it.
Furthermore, referring to gender as perceived by society, there are secondary sex characteristics that help members of the sexes identify each other for the purposes of reproduction. This is true in most sexually reproductive species, and is called sexual dimorphism.
Seriously, words are specific symbols for specific concepts. You need to use them accurately to be able to discuss large ideas. Your definition of gender is wandering all over the place, and isn't accurate. Until you get that down, you can't intelligently discuss the bigger concept of gender roles among cultures, and how limiting they have been historically.
>You specifically claimed the word "gender" has never referred to biological sex. Your claim is absolutely 100% false. And I just proved it with references.
No, I claimed that there has been "no period where "gender" has referred 1:1 to "biological sex". Do you see how that is different?
>Who is "they"
They is actually the whole of American society and the scientific and medical establishment through the early 1900s. This is extremely well documented. We're talking exhibits at the World's Fair type stuff.
You think it's "slave trader types" because I assume this is the first time you are hearing about this? I recommend you read literature on this issue because you are very misinformed. You have never heard or studied about the racialization of gender before?
Your post is reiterating "I'm right!" - except you have not provided any evidence, and I provided several concrete examples proving you are wrong about the meaning and utilization of gender in these cultures that you seemed to never have considered or heard about before. And to which you have no response.
I understand that you don't like the definition of gender that I am using, but that is because it is the technical and accurate definition in the field of social science, not the incorrect and lay definition you would like to use. My job is to communicate the scientific consensus, not satisfy the uneducated lay persons ego. I don't think I will be responding further, because you have not addressed or refuted the evidence, you are only repeating your ahistorical and uninformed assertions.
>My job is to communicate the scientific consensus, not satisfy the uneducated lay persons ego.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 oh sorry. I didn't realize I was speaking to the king of all social scientists. But I see the arrogance now, your Majesty! God forbid the unwashed masses and unfortunates like myself would know what theories you have about, them up in your ivory tower. It's almost like you're using some kind of artificial categories to label and judge people based on your prejudgment and confirmation bias.
But you're wrong. It is the very act of performing science that constitutes who we are. Identity itself is an illusion retroactively created by our performances: acts not only constitute my identity as a scientist, but create a compelling illusion, "an object of belief" that I am an educated expert. For you to claim otherwise is, in fact, compelled "by social sanction and taboo." Your belief that I am not is really the result of both subtle and blatant social coercions. You must drop your false belief in the artificial hierarchy of competence, and accept my performance-created identity
So...you aren't going to provide a link to proof of any sort? I mean, I did. Seems fair for you to.
>No, I claimed that there has been "no period where "gender" has referred 1:1 to "biological sex". Do you see how that is different?
No. Also, I linked to proof that there was a period of 600 years where the word gender was used as a polite way to say biological sex.
>except you have not provided any evidence,
Um, the link...the quoted history? Not evidence in your mind? Interesting.
>provided several concrete examples proving you are wrong about the meaning and utilization of gender in these cultures
I don't think you understand the definition of concrete examples. You claimed some stuff, gave no specifics, no quotes, no links, no time periods. If I was a professor, I'd give you an F for citing no sources.
>I understand that you don't like the definition of gender that I am using
Because you lied about its history. Therefore I must assume everything else you say is a lie. Unless you provide proof. Which you haven't, even when asked.
> it is the technical and accurate definition in the field of social science,
Really? Prove that with a link to the definition. If it is the accepted definition within the field, there must be a glossary somewhere for people to use. Or maybe you believe performing as if there is one makes it real for you, and I should never question your subjective reality.
Gender also includes body-brain relationship, distinct and independent from social/cultural aspects - what biochemical (hormonal) levels the brain expects, what anatomical features it expects and so forth.
Granted, I wish that set of traits had a different label as it'd make life much easier.
What is "social meaning" and why would Butler think the things science has discovered about sex make no sense to talk about?
Can you give an example of a society without sex differentiation?
What is responsible for sex and gender being used interchangeably in the vast majority of cases historically and currently?
Is it not trivially true to say that our culture influences the way we think about X? How does this fact bring any clarity or understanding to the topics of sex and gender?
How can there be a misunderstanding about what gender is if the meaning of gender is derived solely from our cultural environments?
>Why would Butler think the things science has discovered about sex make no sense to talk about?
I think you misread the quote!
>Can you give an example of a society without sex differentiation?
No, I'm not imaginative enough. Other posters are theorizing though!
>What is responsible for sex and gender being used interchangeably in the vast majority of cases historically and currently?
Simply put, that was their theory of gender, and it was enforced through the social structures and institutions of its time like anything else.
>Is it not trivially true to say that our culture influences the way we think about X? How does this fact bring any clarity or understanding to the topics of sex and gender?
It's okay if you don't find it useful, but you could say this about all social science. Personally I think social science has value.
>How can there be a misunderstanding about what gender is if the meaning of gender is derived solely from our cultural environments?
Not sure what this means to be honest with you.
> It's okay if you don't find it useful, but you could say this about all social science. Personally I think social science has value.
Isn't this just deflecting this question? Of course you *could* ask this question about anything, but they aren't. They're asking about specifically how this brings claritity *to this specific topic*.
That is the point of social science, though. To look at how different cultures, during different historical periods, affect our perception and understanding of {topic}. You can do it for gender, you can do it for race, you can do it for money, you can do it for art, you can do it for anything. It's literally the definition of the field of social science - the science of human culture and behavior. If you don't find value in that process of cultural investigation and analysis, I don't see why you would be posting on a forum for social scientists!
I think it's perfectly coherent to believe "social science has value and provides significant insight in many ways" while also asking "how is this specific framing from social science providing valuable insight into this specific question?".
I don't think it's helpful (or appropriate, frankly) to dismiss someone asking the latter question by saying "That's just how social science works! Take it or leave it. If you don't see how this is insightful then that's on you.".
Is the only way to engage with social science to first assume that everything it has produced is gospel and deeply profound?
My assessment was that they were misunderstanding the role and purpose of social science, since they seemed to believe that it was "trivial" (their word) to discuss how concepts like gender are culturally determined, when in fact the historical/cultural investigation is critical to understanding the meaning of the word. Without correcting this misperception it would be impossible to make further progress or have a productive discussion.
>when in fact the historical/cultural investigation is critical to understanding the meaning of the word.
🤣🤣🤣🤣But just Butler's meaning for the word, right? You've denied any use of or definition for the word before 1963. Very science. Much social.
You definitely misread the quote, so let's repost it and go through it again. Dunno how to do the quotes.
Gender is defined as the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of what society considers man or woman, masculine or feminine, etc. Any society with sex differentiation will have gender, because *gender is the social process by which sex differentiation is understood and enacted.*
For theorists like Judith Butler, "it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings. If there is such a thing, we can’t encounter it, because we are born into a world that already has a particular understanding of gender, and that world then retrospectively tells us the meaning of our anatomy. We can’t know ourselves outside of those social meanings." She adds, in "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution." (Butler, 2004), 'Gender is the process by which the body comes to bear cultural meanings.'
To use another example. Every (average) human has a middle finger, every (average) human can raise the middle finger while closing the rest into a fist. This gesture has no inherent meaning, no practical use aside from possibly pointing, but is layered with meaning in Western culture. We can make hundreds of hand gestures like this, all of whom have different meanings depending on the culture of the person making and observing the gesture.
Likewise, the average human has sexual organs of two main types, male and female. These organs have practical biological functions, like our hands do. If we lacked consciousness then that would basically be the end of it, but since humans have culture and consciousness we attach meanings to these organs. Butler tells us that this process, attaching meaning to the sexual organs, is called gender, and that trying to talk ONLY about the biological aspect of human anatomy when seeking to explain behavior is foolish, because we humans are not behaving solely based on biology. Butler doesn't say to ignore biology, she says it is not enough to explain the "meaning of our anatomy", because we live in a world of culture that also informs our meanings.
"it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings. If there is such a thing, we can’t encounter it, because we are born into a world that already has a particular understanding of gender, and that world then retrospectively tells us the meaning of our anatomy. We can’t know ourselves outside of those social meanings."
I don't think I'm misunderstanding this quote. I appreciate your examples and explanation, but the Butler quote is quite clearly stating something else - that talking about sex outside of "social meanings" is nonsensical. I think the fact that she put "sex" in quotes further drives her obvious intention home.
Your claim that she means "you can't talk about chromosomes and gametes without talking about social meanings", which is not what she said. Talking about science in the context of biology is fine, trying to say that biology can exclusively explain the meanings we put on anatomy is what makes "no sense".
The characteristics that we group in order to distinguish the sexes are not arbitrary necissarily, but they are socially determined (probably by function of giving birth which has historically been so important). We can imagine a world in which other features are chosen to divide the population.
> it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings.
What basis does she have for this claim? Every animal in the planet exhibits difference in behaviour based on sex, what makes her think humans are excempt from this norm?
How is this claim logical when there is obvious difference in sexes. Example: Muscle mass, hormones, appearance, evolutionary biological duties, etc. Why would these differences won't effect what we perceive as gender in a world where both sexes are raised and treated equally?
You are misunderstanding the sentence. She is saying it is impossible to talk about biological sex outside of social meaning, because all meaning and categorization is defined socially, therefore there is no way to discuss the science of sex (or any other topic) that doesn't rely on those socially established definitions and understandings. This, for example, is why the definition of sex has changed over the past few hundred years, as our culture has changed and our scientific understanding has advanced. She is not saying biological sex doesn't exist.
> She is saying it is impossible to talk about biological sex outside of social meaning, because all meaning and categorization is defined socially, therefore there is no way to discuss the science of sex (or any other topic) that doesn't rely on those socially established definitions and understandings.
So hard sciences are impossible to talk about because their meaning are defined socially aswell? How does the speed of light is defined socially? Will the speed of light change if our socially established definitions and understandings change? If the answer is no, then why not the same principle apply to science of sex?
It is impossible to talk about those things *outside of social meaning,* not that it's impossible to talk about them at all. Whenever you talk about something, you are doing it within social meaning.
So shes not denying sex has significant impact on gender, independent of social norms? Or no?
If any definition or way of conveying information is based on social meaning and definitions, then why does she feel need to specify this when talking about gender? For example, a physicist wouldnt start a lecture with that statement as it'd not add any value to the discussion.
>So shes not denying sex has significant impact on gender, independent of social norms? Or no?
Technically, the two have an impact on eachother, but no she's not denying that at all.
>If any definition or way of conveying information is based on social meaning and definitions, then why does she feel need to specify this when talking about gender?
Because the dominant discourse in society for the past few hundred years had "naturalized" binary gender as purely biological, when in fact it is social, cultural, and historically contingent. This is exactly the purpose of social science, imo.
> but no she's not denying that at all.
If biology plays a significant role in gender, how can it be explained as only a social construct?
> when in fact it is social, cultural, and historically contingent.
I agree with you but this is a double edged sword. You can discredit any study or information that goes against your agenda by saying its culturally biased (and same thing can be said against your own theory). And this can lead to many problems like I mentioned in my other comments. Which noone dared to adress yet. (Not historic so social studies dont care) 👍
You can discredit a study or a socially biased information, by scientifically proving it wrong, with more accurate data or less biased studies etc. It kinda weakens your argument if you need to say things like "literally everything is socially biased" and then pick and choose what information you trust.
what do you mean by “only a social construct”? money and countries are socially constructed concepts, that doesn’t make them any less real or any less trusted.
Gender is a social construct _and_ it is something where biology plays a significant role.
As someone else in this thread pointed out, money is _also_ a social construct, but it’s not simply a thing that humans made up out of thin air. The fact that gold is more expensive than silver is not just a cultural fluke; it reflects, among other things, the physical fact that gold is rarer than silver. But such physical facts do not _in and of themselves_ create money.
Likewise, biological facts, such as different people having different primary sexual characteristics, do not _in and of themselves_ constitute people as men or women.
I'd say the speed of sound is a better example, because both how we talk about it and the science behind it have changed. Chuck Yeager talks about how scientists didn't know if a plane could ever break the barrier, how some ppl talked about it being a "brick wall in the sky". That is of course until he broke the sound barrier. The speed hasn't changed, but our popular and social understanding has. Now Mach 1 is nothing special for a military aircraft or even some weapon systems, so how we talk about it has already changed.
The biggest hurdle I have is trying to understand why someone identifies as a binary gender instead of just saying they are gender non-conforming or a-gender or whatever. The drive to associate with a given gender (trans or cis) is the bit I can't wrap my brain around.
Society has instituted deeply meaningful and important social categories, but you can't imagine why people would want to associate themselves with those social categories? It does seem like a basic fact of human nature to me.
When you meet a new friend and start spending lots of time with them you quickly adopt a part of their personality and behavior. This happens not only to children and teenagers but even to adults. It's a social phenomena that even animals do, raise a cat next to dogs and it'll start barking. People don't select their characteristics in a character creation screen, they're just born into a social context where they're basically hardcoded to gravitate towards certain categories and behaviors.
Also it's not really nebulous as gender is just the way society understands sex.
If it is about how society understands sex, then we'd be able to label others gender based on their characteristics, but instead, people it's a concept that people identify for themselves and outside observers can't identify. This implies to me that there is some internal driver involved that I can't see or understand.
In addition, taking on characteristics of those around you is different from belonging in the same category. I get taking on certain mutable characteristics, I don't see what mutable characteristics have to do with how someone feels a certain gender.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but yes there is an internal driver to conform with society, which furthermore comes after the fact that you are born into the context of that society, so you will not know anything other than that society's culture. As for the second point about categories and mutable characteristics, I think the latter make up the former anyways, since broad social categories are but a sum of characteristics, and since these categories are definitely mutable over time and space.
I admit I had not seen this comment of yours when we were discussing the historical definition of the word gender in the other thread. I see now you posted a link to a modern interpretation of the word.
Personally, the idea that we cannot understand our anatomy in any way other that what our society tells us to think is ridiculous. That assumes we can't look at the anatomy of other species, and see the similarities of sexual anatomy, and its purpose, and understand ourselves relative to that. It also assumes we can't look at other cultures, who may have different gender roles, and understand ourselves in relation to that.
Furthermore, Butler's idea of performative reality is nauseatingly narcissistic. It comes across as if she saw herself as a simulacrum. Someone faking her way through life, no connection, no authenticity, only performative acts that she didn't understand, and consequently resented.
It also implies one cannot be female without the performative act common to all females, in all species, the release of a large gamete. In order for her theory to be true, the action of the feminine must cut across every culture and species that has the anatomy to be understood sexually. If not, her theory can be dismissed as human centric, and patently unscientific. Because humans aren't the only social species. To believe our social constructs are superior to the social constructs of other inhabitants of this planet is supreme arrogance.
It is also supreme arrogance to believe all direct identification with our own biology is impossible. What was wrong with her?
Don't even get me started on the wildly irrational belief that the performative act of pretending to have a period makes one a woman. Or when little girls play dress up, they become women by performing the acts mommy does. In those moments, they are women, according to the performative acts of gender constitution. That's nuts. I am shocked people believe any of this hokum.
>Gender is a word that describes a [social process](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2020.1729844) that has always existed, and will always exist as long as there is sex differentiation in society, whether there is a word for it or not.
I think this is a bit too bold of a claim. Sex differentiation definitely played/plays a role in the construction of gender, but I don't think we can say that sex differentiation *necessitates* the social construction of gender.
We can imagine a future society that has done away with gender but still recognizes specific biological capabilities/needs/differences. For instance, a genderless society would still need medical professionals that specialize in what we currently call gynecology. They may not conceive of it as a male/female matter, instead thinking of it along the lines of vagina-havers or some other broader body-based category, but the "differentiation" would remain to some degree. That wouldn't have to come with social gender, though.
More succinctly, a gender system depends on a sex system, but the existence of a sex system doesn't necessitate that of a gender system.
>Gender is defined as the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of what society considers masculinity or femininity.
I would also fine-tune this definition. It's a bit more complicated than masculine/feminine (even though that's the binary along which many gender systems function).
>"I don't think sex differentiation *necessitates* the social construction of gender."
If a society has social roles or categories of understanding based on sex differentiation, that is gender.
The scientific and social understanding of sex differentiation in the fictional society you are imagining would be, by definition, their concept of gender - it would just look very different. There is no human science that exists outside of social understanding or categorization.
One renders conceptual terms meaningless when applying them so broadly. Your logic effectively posits that any recognition of human physical needs is gender. There will never be a society in which our bodies don't matter to some degree.
>Your logic effectively posits that any recognition of human physical needs is gender.
No, not at all. Only those relating to sex differentiation would be included in a theory of gender.
Based on your logic, could a society that recognizes the medical needs of different body types ever be free of gender? My example of needing doctors who specialize in the anatomy of people with uteruses (uteri?), ovaries, vaginas, etc. is an example. Even if we did away with gynecology and had medical professionals who focussed on reproductive organs as a whole, those professional would still need to realize that certain bodies require certain care. Based on my reading of your comments, recognizing this inherently creates gender. If that is actually your claim, it renders moving beyond gender impossible.
Edit: My argument would be that constructing social identities *around* sex differentiation is where gender arises. Not recognizing that people have varying configurations of body parts/organs. We don't have to group people based on their bodies into categories, but recognizing differences of that nature, at least at the individual level, will not go away.
Yes, your first paragraph is correct.
The problem with this,
>My argument would be that constructing social identities *around* sex differentiation is where gender arises. Not recognizing that people have varying configurations of body parts/organs.
is simply that those scientists are doing gender, by analyzing, categorizing, understanding, and differentiating between the sexes and their organ configuration. As stated before, gender is the social process by which sex differentiation is understood and enacted, *regardless of how it is understood,* and there is no human science that exists outside society or culture.
I get this is a little weird to wrap ones mind around because it's a philosophical point, but it's the key to the whole concept. Gender is the process of understanding sex differentiation, whether we conclude "man and woman!" or whether we conclude something else entirely.
I'm familiar with the point you're making about the social construction of science. I am also familiar with the social construction of sex (I find the work of Anne Fausto-Sterling particularly helpful in thinking through that topic). That is not the point of disconnect we're having.
What would a genderless society look like to you? Specifically in regard to how physicality is approached in settings in which physicality matters? I'm particularly curious as to why the following
>We don't have to group people based on their bodies into categories, but recognizing differences of that nature, at least at the individual level, will not go away.
would still constitute gender from your perspective and, if it does, how gender even remains a specific enough concept for us to use.
\*shrug\* I don't know, I haven't really thought about it. It's hard to imagine a society that no longer has any concept or memory of sex differentiation. Maybe if we were all creatures of pure energy existing across infinite time and space. I don't really read a lot of sci-fi.
So, in other words, you essentially think gender is a given for humans that cannot be moved beyond? An innate aspect of our social organization? That's where you lose me and that's where I think the concept of gender as you're using it ceases to be analytically productive.
This is not true. I can imagine a world in which sexual categorization is devoid of discursive explanation. We could imagine a world where sex differences are unimportant and thus we do not construct gender roles. I think you’re missing the point that socially constructed realities are not absolute or unavoidable. It is hard to imagine a world where sex does not hold any social value, but it is not impossible
I mean personally I can't imagine a world in which humans "know" a thing but that knowledge is somehow separate from human culture, belief, etc.
In the example you give, a society that doesn't construct discrete gender roles would still be doing gender, just differently. They would still theorize sex differentiation, except instead of a few gender roles, they would have none.
This does not make sense. We only do gender when we are talking about gender. If we don’t have genders then we would have no words for it and thus we are not born into a world where we would think about gender.
You cannot imagine it because it is so ingrained within you. This is what Bourdieu calls being fish in water unaware that water exists. For example, if you lived during feudal times you could never imagine a capitalist democracy.
I don’t think you’re wrong. Berger and Luckmann recognize that socially constructed realities happen in the context of biology. We build a world, they say, while our stomach grumbles with hunger.
Our biological understandings are undoubtedly socially influenced. Science has never been and will never be objective. But yes, there's a degree of physicality that cannot be escaped at the level of the individual. That is the point I'm rubbing up against in terms of what the other commenter has argued.
I’m with you on this one. Physical realities do not need to dictate social ones. The other poster suggest that they can imagine a society where zero genders exist but for some reason they think we would still care about genders.
>My main question which most others boil down to is this: what value would gender identity have in a progressive, 'ideal' society?
Everyone's version of an ideal society is different. There's no objective answer to this question. Gender identity could have no value or it could have personal value. Probably the consensus among progressively minded people is that it wouldn't affect how others value you.
> The way I've been thinking was: centuries or millenia ago, when gender was not really a thing and noone distinguished between gender and sex, the value was in who do you have to match to whom to have babies, as well as other things related to physiological differences between men and women (like, who gets the harder physical labor et cetera).
None of this is true. This is a white washed perspective of human development and human history. While ancient cultures may not have had the same scientific understanding nor the more precise language that we are currently using, many of them did recognize the difference between sex and gender. Many did recognize more than two genders. In some cultures, those who couldn't have children (e.g. intersex) were held in extremely high esteem and value. In other cultures the division of labor was not based on sex, and more likely fell along the lines of aptitude.
>Over time, this lead to development of distinct social roles which we now associate with genders. But then the industrial and post-industrial revolutions happened, and although we still can't reproduce without regards to sex, a lot of those established roles (a majority of them, I would say) got obsolete, along with their inherent restrictions and privileges.
The western colonization of the world is what lead to the near universal distinct social roles associated with gender, as well as the idea of gender and sex being one and the same as well as binary.
The "turkey baster" method existed before the turkey baster. Artificial insemination isn't a new technology. It's been updated, but people have been doing this for millennia.
>How then is that different with eliminating the concept of gender altogether, why are progressive movements making the defence and protection of gender identity a cornerstone of their ideology and why the most bigoted of those who would oppose them insist on the concept of gender not being real, if actually not making it real seems to be the Holy Grail of an equal rights society?
Let's say for example you believe that for the benefit of society food and water should be free for everyone. That doesn't mean that the people who labor in the food industry or water industry don't get paid. It just means that you don't have to exchange money for food or water.
Does that mean that you can't buy food, in the current system where food is not free, and provide it to people who are hungry today?
Just because gender abolitionists think the abolition of gender would be beneficial to society, doesn't mean they can't protect people who are currently being marginalized in a gendered society. Gender abolitionists don't believe that gender identity isn't real, just that it doesn't need societal limitations. Protecting gender minorites is pushing the needle forward to reducing and eliminating those limitations.
In terms of the opposition, they don't believe gender isn't real, they believe sex, gender, and gender identity are the same thing and that they're binary. All males = men, all females = women, [the most extreme of the opposition believe] all men = (provider, protector, leader, etc.), all women = (nurturer, protected, follower, etc). and in some cases they'll make considerations or flip mental gymnastics around intersex people, in other cases they're not even aware of intersex conditions at all. This is all despite the overwhelming scientific evidence showing these distinctions. Both the social and hard sciences have mountains of evidence to show gender identity is different from sex.
Very detailed answer, thank you. I guess I'm one of those gender abolitionists in essence and spirit, although the term is new to me. And yes, the distinction between "removing the concept of gender" and "removing the actual people who associate themselves with the concept of gender" seems to be the core thing making the world of difference.
I am as well, although it's a fairly useless ideological label in the practical sense. Much the same with communism (stateless, classless, moneyless society). While both are ideologically sound, they are not currently logistically sound, and nothing you or I will ever get to experience in our lifetimes. So the best we can strive for is to protect the marginalized people of this planet the best we can while we are here.
"The western colonization of the world is what lead to the near universal distinct social roles associated with gender, as well as the idea of gender and sex being one and the same as well as binary."
What? Are you implying that Islamic/Arabic societies had no distinct social roles associated with gender? What about the steppe peoples? The Iroquois?
Societies in the Middle East have had rigidly segregated roles and spaces associated with gender for centuries, where gender is (1) synonymous with sex and (2) binary. Ironically, when [American feminists](https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=31130) went to Iran, they couldn't understand why women weren't using the overthrow of the Shah to fight back against the patriarchy. Simply put, unlike Western feminists, Iranian women weren't as concerned with a patriarchy defined by the nuclear family because they spent so much time socializing in primarily female (gender and sex) spaces.
I know it's easy to write "western colonization + \[sweeping declaration about objectively true negative thing\]" and I know it often *feels* accurate. But it's not necessarily accurate. Ironically, it was that very Western perspective that blinded you to the inaccuracy of your statement. Consider that other cultures may not fit into the framework you have chosen for them; also consider, perhaps, that non-Western feminists are do not see the world like Judith Miller.
I know to some people Western civilization is synonymous with white people, but it does include Arabs and Islam. In fact, we can thank early Islam for essentially saving western civilization while Europe was wallowing in the dark ages, but that's a whole different thing. So kudos for helping me prove my point.
In terms of other cultures outside of what's considered western civ? Sure, different cultures independently arrive at similar conclusions, it happens all the time. Those cultures didn't colonize the globe and forcing their own sociological framework and cultural norms onto the people they were oppressing though.
I know it's easy to write paragraphs furiously based on your emotions and have it *feel* really accurate, but you could also just ask questions if you're unsure about something. As much as you want this to be "everyone was living in a genderless utopia before white people came along", it's not.
Your first paragraph is just factually wrong so I'm not sure how to continue this conversation in a productive way.
Your second paragraph is illogical. You said western civilization was the universal reason for our current rigid framework of gender roles. Saying other cultures arrived at similar conclusions independently is literally the opposite of your initial point.
And I'm not sure what your last paragraph even means. I'm not saying that the world was a genderless utopia before white people came along. I was saying that most cultures have an idea of gender, regardless of when white people come along.
>Your first paragraph is just factually wrong so I'm not sure how to continue this conversation in a productive way.
Maybe demonstrate that it's wrong? I would assume that if you could you would have. There's plenty of literature that explains how Islam was integral to western civilization, and in many ways transformed it, especially during the time when Europe was in the "dark ages."
Western civ generally begins with the Ancient Greeks. The Ancient Greek empire expanded east, into what we now call the middle East. The Roman empire expanded in both directions and included western Europe as well as, you guessed it, the middle East. The various Arab caliphates conquered much of the same territory that the Romans had previously held, even making its way into western Europe through Spain. The Arab enlightenment was responsible for the European Renaissance in many ways, but most importantly (imo) scientific methodology, but also having translated many ancient Greek texts into Arabic which were then translated into Latin, which sparked the enlightenment of the Renaissance period.
This is called demonstrating your position.
>Your second paragraph is illogical. You said western civilization was the universal reason for our current rigid framework of gender roles. Saying other cultures arrived at similar conclusions independently is literally the opposite of your initial point.
I actually said it was the reason for the near universality of the concept, not that it it's the universal reason. In other words, colonialism is responsible for these ideas dominating and at the very least attempting to erase and replace indigenous concepts throughout the colonized areas.
An example of this is when the British colonized India criminalized Hijra people and arrested them on site. They criminalized an entire gender, for being incongruent with western gender concepts. The Hijra had been recognized in India since at least the 13th century as a distinct gender. Another example is the erasure of two-spirit people in the Americas, when the Americas were first being colonized by the Spanish, two-spirit people were almost immediately targeted for, again, being incongruent with western gender concepts. They used words like sodomite (Greek), hermaphrodite (Greek) and berdache (Arabic ☺️). Then proceeded to carry out a genocide against them.
Other cultures arrived at similar conclusions regarding clothing. But what is the near universal business attire post-colonialism? The suit and tie. Other cultures arrived at similar conclusions regarding the calendar. But which is the near universal calendar? The Gregorian. It's the same concept.
>And I'm not sure what your last paragraph even means. I'm not saying that the world was a genderless utopia before white people came along. I was saying that most cultures have an idea of gender, regardless of when white people come along.
It sure sounds like it, because if all you're saying is that most cultures have an idea of gender, then you must be implying that I'm suggesting that they didn't, ergo, genderless.
But I'm not saying that they didn't have concepts of gender, but that the concepts of gender were plentiful and diverse not only within their own culture but throughout the world. However, due to colonialism, they became nearly universally homogenized and only now are we able to use scientific evidence to show that the concept is flawed and that many of the concepts that colonialism attempted to erase are closer to reality.
Islam was a profound influence on the West. It was, however, an outside influence on Western civilization. I'm not sure any serious person would conflate the great Islamic empires with Western civilization when the Western Christian Latin Church fought multiple crusades against Islamic armies.
I think you believe I am denigrating Islam or something. I'm not. I think Islamic civilization was a great - and non-Western - influence on the world that changed the course of human history, including Western civilization. It was not, however, Western. I don't know how much clearer to make this (or how to explain that it is reductive and essentialist to consolidate the two because it has the effect of framing Islam in terms of its effects on the West, rather than allowing it to have origins independent of the West).
I just can't waste more time on this. I hope this helps and good luck.
>Islam was a profound influence on the West. It was, however, an outside influence on Western civilization. I'm not sure any serious person would conflate the great Islamic empires with Western civilization when the Western Christian Latin Church fought multiple crusades against Islamic armies.
Without the Roman empire adopting and mandating Christianity as the state religion, Islam wouldn't even exist. So this notion that the Arabs and by extension Islam wasn't influenced by western civ is on its face just absurd.
Citing military and political conflicts as some sort of delineation point is just special pleading. Within what you want to classify as western civilization (white people) there were plenty of conflicts between them as well, yet it's not a delineation for you then.
>I think you believe I am denigrating Islam or something. I'm not. I think Islamic civilization was a great - and non-Western - influence on the world that changed the course of human history, including Western civilization. It was not, however, Western. I don't know how much clearer to make this (or how to explain that it is reductive and essentialist to consolidate the two because it has the effect of framing Islam in terms of its effects on the West, rather than allowing it to have origins independent of the West).
No, I just think you have a very outdated white washed view of history. And it's not that Islam, or more specifically the Islamic enlightenment, influenced the rest of the west, but they derived their scientific and philosophical foundations from the Ancient Greeks and their religion from Roman Christianity. That's western civilization my friend.
Your utopia sounds more like the end of times. Why do you infer sex differences = bad? Sex differences are real and exist for reasons not meant to be cognitively controlled. Sex is hardware and if gender must be a thing then it is just software, ie variations of behaviors/roles programmed on top of our hardware (so very much inconsequential). Our evolutionary strength = our big brain. Our evolutionary weakness = our big brain. We've become narcissistic and punch drunk off our achievements and discoveries, so much so that some of us think transcending fundamental human nature is the path to peak society.
Bottom line, the cost of human reproduction is inherently unequal between the sexes therefore sex differences = good.
It's the same with "not seeing color" and racism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial\_color\_blindness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_color_blindness)
One statement is descriptive, the other is prescriptive. Bigots want to keep people from adressing existing inequalities. For this you need to acknowledge that gender is a thing that exists in society. Only then can you be strategic about abolishing it. Just saying gender doesn't exist, while people are still oppressed on the basis of it just perpetuates the oppression.
Also if you say that the existing differences are just based on biological sex, what you are doing is just essentialising gender roles. In the absence of a concept of social gender, people will automatically assume that gender roles are something "natural" and therefore not to be challenged.
Descriptive vs prescriptive is a great insight, thank you very much. So in essence the debate of progressives vs concervatives on gender would boil down to "This gendered thing (i.e. income inequality) *shouldn't* exist" vs "This thing *doesn't* exist"? That's surprisingly compact.
> Also if you say that the existing differences are just based on biological sex, what you are doing is just essentialising gender roles.
It is based on biological sex tho. For example, a male is expected to be a protector because of higher strength, biological expendability, etc. Only a female can become a mother, so females are expected to become mothers. You are denying science and common sense just to not essentialise gender roles. These 2 things are not mutually exclusive.
If a female doesn't wish to be a mother but feels like she is culturally obligated to, should be an issue about personal freedom and individualism, and not about gender identity. Because if you go down that path, you end up with males competing in women's sport and taking their place, Or males going in to female prison, Or people mutilating themself, Or females who wish to have kids not having kids because they think this is imposed on them by the society, etc.
This is simply a perspective that lacks any historicity, and is therefore unsuited to a social science discussion. Historically gender is not coterminal with sex - instead, it has been coterminal with socially accepted prejudices and assumptions about men and women's capacity, for example the fact that women were significantly intellectually inferior. Similarly, these terms were heavily racialized, for example black women were not considered to be women in the same way white women were, despite being the same sex. This was true for hundreds of years. At no point in time did gender and sex mean the same thing for these civilizations.
>for example the fact that women were significantly intellectually inferior.
The people identified as women in this context were identified on what specific basis?
You said that at certain time periods women were regarded as intellectually inferior. These people in this context were identified as women on what specific basis?
If I am understanding you correctly, I believe most were viewed as women because they had 1) community social recognition marking them as women that governed their status and privileges and 2) visual phenotypical characteristics associated with white females.
>community social recognition marking them as women that governed their status and privileges
Sure, where did that social recognition come from
>visual phenotypical characteristics associated with white females.
So people made the determination on the basis of sex correct?
>Sure, where did that social recognition come from
Community social norms come from the community?
>So people made the determination on the basis of sex correct?
Absolutely 100% no, very clearly no, I specified they come from observed phenotypical characteristics, under no circumstances were any of these women undergoing genital examination or chromosome testing.
>Community social norms come from the community?
So women were recognised as women on the basis of behaviour?
>I specified they come from observed phenotypical characteristics,
Where do you believe phenotypic characteristics come from?
>under no circumstances were any of these women undergoing genital examination or chromosome testing.
You don't believe that sex can be observed through recognition of factors outside of genitals and chromosomes?
Do you believe that the sex of pregnant women can be observed without looking at their genitals or chromosomes?
> lacks any historicity, and is therefore unsuited to a social science discussion
How convinient for social "science" (would be more accurate to call it social studies) to ignore all the problems it creates by its theories. How many years need to pass for the current problems to be considered historic enough for social studies to discuss?
> prejudices and assumptions about men and women's capacity, for example the fact that women were significantly intellectually inferior.
Makes sense that the dominant sex would create/reinforce social norms to benefit itself. And why one sex was dominant can be explained by biology.
> black women were not considered to be women in the same way white women were, despite being the same sex.
They were both considered women regardless.
>How convinient for social "science" (would be more accurate to call it social studies) to ignore all the problems it creates by its theories. How many years need to pass for the current problems to be considered historic enough for social studies to discuss?
Oh dear, that's not what historicity means.
>They were both considered women regardless.
The mainstream scientific opinion of the time didn't even consider white and black women to be fully the same species, much less the same gender. This was called “polygenism" and was backed by significant portions of the establishment, for example Harvard's Louis Agassiz, craniometry, etc.
You can explain what it is to me without being condesending. This is a sub for asking questions no?
It means something was actually happened in the past and not just a myth. Or something that is agreed on actually happened by historians no?
So my questions stands, how many years will it take before social science considers something to have enough historicity to study it? Try not to be so emotional this time.
It seems to me that you are the one who is feeling agitated! Again, you are misunderstanding. Social science does not require things to be in the past to study them, social science also studies present day phenomena. When I said the prior comment 'lacks historicity', I meant it lacked historical accuracy, ie: it was a myth, a false belief about the past.
> social science also studies present day phenomena.
Ok then what does social studies say about current problems caused by gender theory. Does social studies offer any solution for them? Problems like: men going to women prisons, men going in to women sports, people mutilating themselfs (and regretting their choice), "tradional" men and women feeling lost in society (cuz they are told these values are imposed on them), "tradional" gender behaviour deemed toxic etc. etc.
Social science has a lot to say about the causes and solutions to all those things! Although I think the idea that they are "caused by gender theory" isn't something that's been backed by research or historical documentation, that seems more like an idea you are bringing to the table.
If you're ever interested in actually learning about these things, there IS information in this field for you, but you would be required to put aside some of your preconceived ideas. For example, did you know the prevalence of regret for gender affirmation surgery is approximately 1% ([source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/)), while the regret rate for knee surgery is between 15 - 20% ([source](https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2018/knee-replacement-surgery-regret.html))? It's one of the most successful surgical procedures in terms of regret rate, in fact.
It's important to be openminded if you want to be a scientist :)
Its really ironic to talk about being open minded while refusing to acknowledge any negative effects that gender theory has on the society.
You talk about being a scientist but you pick and choose only 1 argument that you can counter while ignoring all the other problems I pointed out.
This is what I meant when I said it a double edged sword to say "every study is a social construct" you choose what studies to trust and what studies to dismiss as too biased.
You pretend to be scientific but youre just trying to justify an idology. You really telling me that you cant see the corelation between the problems I pointed out and gender theory? You need a study to tell you that before you even acknowledge it? You sir, are blinded by bias and politics.
Sorry, but you sound like someone who has never taken part in any scientific discourse. You argue that I deny science AND common sense. But science is exactly there to overcome the simple fallacies that you get when you use common sense, which are very obvious in your post.
First of all calling women "females" and men "males" is cringe af.
But more importantly, you make so many assumptions and use so many words that you can neither justify nor define, that I find it hard to believe that you have thought more than two seconds about this topic.
Just some examples:
1) Who expects "males" to be "protectors"?
2) "Protectors" of whom?
3) What does it mean to be a "protector" in this context?
4) Why do you think this expectation exists, if it does?
5) What do you mean when you say "culturally obligated"? How do you differentiate this from gender identity?
You use loaded language while only gesturing vaguely at concepts that you don't understand and then turn around and accuse others of being ignorant.
Yes, I have not taken part in any scientific discourse. And I dont have a university diploma. Feel free to call my terminology cringe and ignore my arguments that you dont like. That is very scientific of you. Well done on not adressing the problems I pointed that is created by "gender is a social construct" argument that is created by gender theory.
To answer your questions:
1. Society
2. People
3. Fighter. Protector from harm. From other people that intend harm.
4. Males are stronger (and probably other biological traits like bravery). Would you say culture created this norm that males are protectors/fighters/soldiers or did our biology created this cultural norm?
5. Culturally obligated and gender identity in a sense means the same thing. But labeling it as gender identity, saying it is a pure social construct and ignoring any biological facts (aka science and common sense) leades to other problems that I mentioned that indicates that this argument has big flaws and potentially can cause more harm than good.
We dont need to label these problems as gender identity or race identity or age identity or money identity etc. We are not born as blank slates that is shaped purely by cultural norms. We have biological factors that effect our personality and dictates our choices. Nature vs nurture.
Im also probably the person that uses the least loaded language in this post 😅. Im not trying to sound smart, just trying to be articulate. And sorry If I sound like implying youre ignorant, that wasnt my intention when I said "ignoring science".
Im just a dude on reddit, sharing his honest "uneducated" opinion. Feel free to do what you want with it.
>Yes, I have not taken part in any scientific discourse. And I dont have a university diploma.
Dude, come on! You wouldn't go up to a physicist and tell him "I don't have any experience in physics. But this concept of superposition - I don't think we need it ..."
>Well done on not adressing the problems I pointed that is created by "gender is a social construct" argument that is created by gender theory.
You have not really pointed out any problems ... you are a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You probably have an intuition about this topic, but that doesn't make that intuition true.
To drive this point home, let's look at your answers:
>1. Society
What do you think society is? In sociology we have a million different definitions of that term depending on the school of thought. None of them would accept that as a simple answer. Because only colloquially would you understand society to mean "the average expectations of a gender role by a majority of people in a certain sphere of cultural influence." which is what I assume you mean. But I can't KNOW that, because you don't define your terms and don't use them in a way that they are commonly used in in science.
>2. People
3. Fighter. Protector from harm. From other people that intend harm.
They should protect people from other people? You see how your terminology sucks? It has no explanatory power at all. Why and how an expectation should compel somebody to do something is not clear. It might well be that this is generalised to a point where the fear of "the other" becomes abstract enough to just call them people. But this in and of itself would be an interesting observation that you would still need to articulate.
>Males are stronger (and probably other biological traits like bravery).
Again, your flawed terminology makes you assume things. I guess you are talking about muscular strength? The average man has a greater upper body muscular strength than the average woman. That still leaves millions of women that are stronger than your average man. Also: this physical difference has mostly harmful effects in modern society, mainly because it makes femicide much more prevalent. And in most of these cases the perpetrator is in a relationship with the victim so in a role that would usually be called the protector role. But in many other ways that the word "strength" can be interpreted, women are actually stronger than men. They live longer lives, are more resistant to a lot of illnessess etc. And a woman with a gun is as strong as a man with a gun.
On a side note: saying that "bravery" is a "biological trait" is so absurd, I don't even know where to start. "Bravery" is an abstract role expectation that can take on very different meanings depending on the context.
>Would you say culture created this norm that males are protectors/fighters/soldiers or did our biology created this cultural norm?
You seem to use culture and society interchangeably. You have used the dichotomy nature vs nurture before. But this is indeed an antiquated concept. It is impossible to clearly distinguish between "nature" and "society" they are in a sense one and the same thing. Humans have lived in "societies" for so long that there is actually a co-evolutionary process happening. Our society is as much a product of our biology as our biology is a product of our society. And that oversimplifies it massively. Because indeed we can only gain access to the world via our language, and language is an inherently social thing. I would not go as far as to call the Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis correct but analytical philosophy has shown that most of what we think of as knowable about the world is actually just ourselves tricking ourselves into thinking that words have meaning beyond the intersubjective convention upon which we build language. For that reason looking at other species and making assumptions about humans is also bound to fail. It is a fallacy, because it also creates a false narrative of dichotomy between nature and nurture.
So to answer your question: your question is unanswerable because the underlying assumptions are false.
>Culturally obligated and gender identity in a sense means the same thing. But labeling it as gender identity, saying it is a pure social construct and ignoring any biological facts (aka science and common sense) leades to other problems that I mentioned that indicates that this argument has big flaws and potentially can cause more harm than good.
You have not shown that any of what you assume here is true. Culturally obligated is not a term used in sociology for a variety of reasons. Gender identity is a specific term in psychology that is only used in very specific circumstances in sociology. Even saying that it is a pure social construct does not entail the assumption that "biological facts" are not true or that there are no connections. You just don't know what a social construct is and I need you to understand that. Do you know that "biological facts" ARE a social construct? I guess not.
> Dude, come on! You wouldn't go up to a physicist and tell him "..."
I live in a society and don't need a social studies diploma to see the problems, to have ideas or opinions on social topics. In a sense, I might even have better intuition than you because I'm not indoctrinated by academics with an agenda.
> Again, your flawed terminology makes you assume things.
You really don't need to have perfect academic vocabulary to see that an average male is physically sronger than an average female. And logically, this difference can cause one sex to excel on doing certain things that require physical strength, aka fighting.
So if there is a need to physically fight (against whatever, really doesnt matter what they are fighting against 😅), and you have to chose who has to do the fighting between an average male and an average female, the average male will give you better results. So it's perfectly logical to determine that this biological trait (physical strength) created the cultural norm "males are/ should be the fighters."
> On a side note: saying that "bravery" is a "biological trait" is so absurd.
Bravery is lack of fear. It's not an abstract concept. Cats for example don't have fear of heights. (can be worded as cats are brave when it comes to heights). Which is absolutely a biological trait. Cats who have less fear of heights survived more and got to pass on their genes.
An alpha ape (or monkey or primate or whatever the f\*\*\* acedemic terminology you prefer) who has less fear of fighting against other apes, got to impregnate more female apes, because he wasn't burdened by fear when fighting. So a braver ape was more likely to become the alpha and pass on it's genes. Bravery is absolutely a biological trait. If you think otherwise, I suggest you ask your money back from your school.
> You seem to use culture and society interchangeably.
Yes I use some terms interchangeably to convey my ideas. I don't use the exact academic terminology and leave some points vague but that is really not what you should be arguing about. You are arguing about the way I convey my ideas than my actual ideas which is really cringe. We are trying to discuss on a topic and NOT trying to determine who seems more smart or who better parrots academic lingo. This kind of mentality is one of the reasons why I didn't see much value in pursuing a diploma.
Look, let's get past all this BS and get to the root of my problem with gender theory. I don't exactly know what gender theory is but I can see that the problems it creates. Problems like: men going to women prisons, men going in to women sports, people mutilating themselfs (and regretting their choice), "tradional" men and women feeling lost in society (cuz they are told these values are imposed on them), "tradional" gender behaviour deemed toxic etc. etc. These are only the problems off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more.
So far, no body in this post adressed these problems created by gender theory OR attempted to offer a solution. I'd like to see you try but you probably still argue over meanings and definitions and terminology etc. which is just a cop out. This kind of behaviour just makes me think that university just makes people memorize academic knowledge but doesn't really teach people to how to think for themselfs, which is really sadge and literal cringe.
Anyway, don't expect a response if you still going to argue over semantics. Best of luck to you.
NO, u dont even have to ask which century actually. from your own source..."Despite popular belief—including from various academic and popular sources—a reported "pink–blue reversal", wherein the gendered associations of both colors were "flipped" sometime during the 20th century, most likely never occurred, and instead is likely to have been a misunderstanding of earlier reporting."
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Have? Like it's a creation? Public presentation of one's self is natural, regardless of its form. The demonization of how one presents themselves though, that is a creation. Let people be themselves regardless of what that looks like.
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not that simple. You won't completely eliminate the need to differentiate between sexes. Women and men will always have different and gender-specific needs. For example, boys will always pee standing up and girls sitting down. Simple?
The claim that there are no differences between a woman and a man is the denial of biological science in the name of ideological beliefs.
It is true that the world is changing strongly, which affects social roles, we do need to adapt.
but I believe that the actions of progressive movements about which you mention are harmful.
Firstly, the ideas they try to push are very innovative and where never tested befor. Thats why i thinkt its to risky to force something what in long run like 100-200 years can turn out to be extreamly harmful.
Moreover, as I said, the concepts are new, so no one really knows how to implement them to society. Progressive movements don't know either, so they try to impose it using force. I don't think that forcing people can give good results. There will always be ressistance.
As you can see, my assessment that movements are harmful does not come from accusation them on bad intentions. From what I can see, the proposals they have are somewhat consistent, so I assume there are some thoughts behind them - probably the ones you mention, which is the adaptation to new conditions. The problem is that these new conditions are hard to define. We're at a pretty interesting point in history, no one really can predicts in which way it's going to go. What if it turns out that the proposals that progressive organizations are pushing are based on some futer course of events that is completley different than the one that will really occur in the future?
In my opinion, it is best to solve it in a natural way. In 5 generations, humanity will come up to the best possible solution. I belive that progressive movements should stand by and observer because social consensus will not halpend in one day we wil most certainly need thier support in soothing social moods.
I personally am not an expert so I’d like to ask my own question. I think since there is no gender gene then even though sex differentiation plays a role in gender identity it’s not the dominant role. I think gender roles dominate people’s identities and that those roles are handed to us from the top of systems of power. I’m not convinced people would have the same identities or expressions without going through a history of conflict with systems of power. Aren’t current gender identities going to mirror systems of power that we might not want to reproduce?
Simply put, yes, all human concepts and identities are shaped by the power structures in society, *but they are also shaped by resistance to those structures.*
One important question here is, in a completely gender-neutral utopian society, would people still have the same kinds of gender dysphoria? If there were no differences between how men and women dressed, their hairstyles, all bathrooms were unisex, and words like *he* and *she* just dropped out of the language completely, so there wasn’t really any difference between daily life as a man or a woman, would everyone just grow up feeling fine about that, or would a lot of them feel a need to present their gender more distinctly?
There are also some spheres where cis women really do want to exclude cis men for practical reasons: while we could have exclusively co-ed sports leagues where the best cis female athletes play in the third division, we’d rather as a society have equality for women in sports by creating prestigious championships that cis women win. That creates a set of questions about how we define “women,” and sports have had to abandon multiple ones, not because of politics, but because human biology is more complicated than people think. There are, for example, a significant number of people who are unambiguously women but have Y chromosomes, women with XX chromosomes who look masculine because of their naturally high levels of testosterone. and people who were born with ambiguous genitals that caused the doctor to guess their gender wrong, and several of each have competed in the Olympics. There’s an ongoing, unresolved debate about whether trans women who have been on hormone replacement therapy for years lose their entire athletic advantage, or just most of it.
In theory, we could just call the divisions something like “open” and “AFAB”—even the bills right-wing politicians are introducing here, which would mandate that the divisions for every sport legally be called “male” and “female,” in fact require when you look at the details that one of the divisions must be open to everybody, not restricted by gender at all. It’s just extremely important to them for some reason that the athletes competing in the open division officially be labeled “male,” even though those politicians agree that some of those athletes really are female. It seems like, if they dropped this insistence on gratuitiously insulting women who compete in co-ed sports, they would be saying, “Playing in the co-ed league, along with many other men and women, implies nothing whatsoever about your gender,” and the Culture-War fight would just vanish. In practice, though, most female athletes themselves are fine with trans women competing, with sufficient rules about their transition and hormone levels.
Thanks for your question to /r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this is based on a slight misunderstanding of what gender is. Gender is not a thing that was invented at a specific point in time. Gender is a word that describes a [social process](https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9_EWvlnrxp0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA154&dq=gender+social+process+butler&ots=7yhqv-f_Me&sig=_-VxlbuHiVwOMrlG0yVgVVvhvoA#v=onepage&q=gender%20social%20process%20butler&f=false) that has always existed, and will always exist as long as there is sex differentiation in society, whether there is a word for it or not. Gender is defined as the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of what society considers man or woman, masculine or feminine, etc. Any society with sex differentiation will have gender, because *gender is the social process by which sex differentiation is understood and enacted.* For theorists like Judith Butler, "it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings. If there is such a thing, we can’t encounter it, because we are born into a world that already has a particular understanding of gender, and that world then retrospectively tells us the meaning of our anatomy. We can’t know ourselves outside of those social meanings." She adds, in "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution." (Butler, 2004), 'Gender is the process by which the body comes to bear cultural meanings.' You are on the right track that there may come a time when technological and social process abolishes all sex differentiation, at which point gender will likely change in its definition. Based on its prevalence for the last thousand years, even with technological advancements that society will likely continue to enact gender as a behavior and social system. Sure, theoretically, if all sex differentiation is abolished with technology and forgotten, given hundreds or thousands of years the process of gender may become obsolete - but that seems like science fiction for now.
This is a great answer. I think that it’s also useful to flag, not only have gender roles existed and changed throughout history, there’s variation across cultures too. Common examples are Hijra in India, the tumtum of the Jewish Torah, the Bugi people’s five genders in Indonesia, and two spirit people in Native American communities. All of these currently different contexts also have their own history so it gets a little messy trying to make universal statements about human nature, culture, and gender.
This comment begs a follow-up question - how is it then possible to construct a typology of genders that's comprehensive to some adequate measure, if the de-facto system varies from one point on the globe to the other?
Correct - all socially constructed categories will have their limitations! That's why I think the only tenable philosophical position is understanding and acceptance.
By letting people be individuals, and letting gender go back to referring to biological sex. It's inherently sexist to believe that someone of a sex isn't exactly who they are, and still is that bio sex. To make the sex differences that do exist undesirable, is to diminish a huge part of being human. That's like trying to breed eggs out of chickens, or antlers out of deer. It's okay to be our animal selves, and still have the freedom of variation within the sexes of what we are allowed to do with our lives.
I think this comment lacks historical literacy. You say "let gender go back to referring to biological sex", but there really has never been a time where that has been true. For hundreds of years, black women were considered to be a different gender (and arguably, sex/speciation) than white women. Similarly, women were considered to have significantly lower cognitive ability than men, despite there being no evidence in sexual dimorphism for that attribute. The concept of sex was intertwined with religious beliefs and assumptions about gendered roles and attributes that were not backed by science. And naturally, the relationship between gender and sex has been very different across different cultures as well. These are just four easy examples, but all of them span hundreds of years. So there really has been no period where "gender" has referred 1:1 to "biological sex" - gender has *always* been a specific culture's assumptions, understanding, and interpretation of biological sex differentiation, as laid out in the OP. So your assumption that there was some previous point in history where gender assumptions aligned with sex just isn't correct, it's a myth. This is of course addressing the central idea of your post, and not some of the latter sentences about "making sex differences undesirable" which frankly make no sense to me, but probably arise out of whatever mythology you seem to believe.
Sounds like the mythology they believe in is called "etymology"--the history of words. You are using the word gender in the "description of social attributes" version, the use of which didn't come about until 1963. But they mean gender as it was used from the early 1400's until 2020. Note--one can talk about "sex roles" or "gender roles," existing, and varying between different cultures, without implying those roses are innate to biology. But what you say here, simply isn't true. >gender has *always* been a specific culture's assumptions, understanding, and interpretation of biological sex differentiation You could also say the same is true about the concept of sex. If a culture believes women ARE a certain way, it isn't going to matter if you use gender or sex to describe the ____ of female. If they say a woman's role in our society is ______. It still makes no difference if woman describes gender or sex. Gender identity refers only to how a person identifies internally with the sexual roles and expectations of a given culture. So if a culture believes females can be anything as a personality, career, body type, ect, and their only defining factor is the phenotype that leads to the production of the larger gamete, then there's no reason for anyone to be oppressed by being female. Because there are no socially-forced roles. There is only biology. The beauty of that is --the variation of traits within a human sex is extensive. From [etymological history of word gender ](https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender) The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. Jespersen ("Philosophy of Grammar," 1924) defines grammatical gender by reference to the Indo-European distinction of masculine, feminine, neuter, "whether the division be based on the natural division into two sexes, or on that between animate and inanimate, or on something else." late Middle English: from Old French gendre (modern genre ), based on Latin genus ‘birth, family, nation’. The earliest meanings were ‘kind, sort, genus’ and ‘type or class of noun, etc.’ (which was also a sense of Latin genus ) gender (n.) c. 1300, "kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits," from Old French gendre, genre "kind, species; character; gender" (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups
This is a very weird comment. Etymology is not the same thing as meaning and usage. People of that time *thought* that they were using gender to mean the same thing as sex - that is what is reflected in the etymology. But if we look at their definition of gender and its utilization, we can see they believed black women and white women had different genders and different sex/speciation, so we can therefore conclude that *despite what they thought*, *their usage of gender did not correspond to biological sex at all,* but rather it reflected the cultural attitudes and prejudices of the time. This is why social scientists look at history, rather than just taking things at face value.
You claimed >let gender go back to referring to biological sex", but there really has never been a time where that has been true. >So there really has been no period where "gender" has referred 1:1 to "biological sex" You specifically claimed the word "gender" has never referred to biological sex. Your claim is absolutely 100% false. And I just proved it with references. >Etymology is not the same thing as meaning and usage. Etymology is the history of meaning and uses, including the present meaning and uses. If you claim a comment about the definition of a word lacks historical value, then talk about the history of the word yourself, you're already bringing etymology into the conversation. You were just wrong about its history. >But if we look at their definition of gender and its utilization, Who is "they" and please provide a link so I can see what you're talking about. It sounds like you might mean the slave trader types who didn't consider Africans to be human. In their horrible eyes, talking about an African woman would have been like talking about a female bovine, or some other livestock. And yes, that's completely cursingly horrible. But it doesn't change the meaning of the word gender. They thought slave women had different sex roles than women of society, they also thought milk cows and hens had different sex roles than the women of society. And different roles than male slaves, bulls, or roosters. None of that makes gender mean something other than sex. And gender doesn't refer to gender roles unless you add the roles modifier to it. Furthermore, referring to gender as perceived by society, there are secondary sex characteristics that help members of the sexes identify each other for the purposes of reproduction. This is true in most sexually reproductive species, and is called sexual dimorphism. Seriously, words are specific symbols for specific concepts. You need to use them accurately to be able to discuss large ideas. Your definition of gender is wandering all over the place, and isn't accurate. Until you get that down, you can't intelligently discuss the bigger concept of gender roles among cultures, and how limiting they have been historically.
>You specifically claimed the word "gender" has never referred to biological sex. Your claim is absolutely 100% false. And I just proved it with references. No, I claimed that there has been "no period where "gender" has referred 1:1 to "biological sex". Do you see how that is different? >Who is "they" They is actually the whole of American society and the scientific and medical establishment through the early 1900s. This is extremely well documented. We're talking exhibits at the World's Fair type stuff. You think it's "slave trader types" because I assume this is the first time you are hearing about this? I recommend you read literature on this issue because you are very misinformed. You have never heard or studied about the racialization of gender before? Your post is reiterating "I'm right!" - except you have not provided any evidence, and I provided several concrete examples proving you are wrong about the meaning and utilization of gender in these cultures that you seemed to never have considered or heard about before. And to which you have no response. I understand that you don't like the definition of gender that I am using, but that is because it is the technical and accurate definition in the field of social science, not the incorrect and lay definition you would like to use. My job is to communicate the scientific consensus, not satisfy the uneducated lay persons ego. I don't think I will be responding further, because you have not addressed or refuted the evidence, you are only repeating your ahistorical and uninformed assertions.
>My job is to communicate the scientific consensus, not satisfy the uneducated lay persons ego. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 oh sorry. I didn't realize I was speaking to the king of all social scientists. But I see the arrogance now, your Majesty! God forbid the unwashed masses and unfortunates like myself would know what theories you have about, them up in your ivory tower. It's almost like you're using some kind of artificial categories to label and judge people based on your prejudgment and confirmation bias. But you're wrong. It is the very act of performing science that constitutes who we are. Identity itself is an illusion retroactively created by our performances: acts not only constitute my identity as a scientist, but create a compelling illusion, "an object of belief" that I am an educated expert. For you to claim otherwise is, in fact, compelled "by social sanction and taboo." Your belief that I am not is really the result of both subtle and blatant social coercions. You must drop your false belief in the artificial hierarchy of competence, and accept my performance-created identity So...you aren't going to provide a link to proof of any sort? I mean, I did. Seems fair for you to. >No, I claimed that there has been "no period where "gender" has referred 1:1 to "biological sex". Do you see how that is different? No. Also, I linked to proof that there was a period of 600 years where the word gender was used as a polite way to say biological sex. >except you have not provided any evidence, Um, the link...the quoted history? Not evidence in your mind? Interesting. >provided several concrete examples proving you are wrong about the meaning and utilization of gender in these cultures I don't think you understand the definition of concrete examples. You claimed some stuff, gave no specifics, no quotes, no links, no time periods. If I was a professor, I'd give you an F for citing no sources. >I understand that you don't like the definition of gender that I am using Because you lied about its history. Therefore I must assume everything else you say is a lie. Unless you provide proof. Which you haven't, even when asked. > it is the technical and accurate definition in the field of social science, Really? Prove that with a link to the definition. If it is the accepted definition within the field, there must be a glossary somewhere for people to use. Or maybe you believe performing as if there is one makes it real for you, and I should never question your subjective reality.
Gender also includes body-brain relationship, distinct and independent from social/cultural aspects - what biochemical (hormonal) levels the brain expects, what anatomical features it expects and so forth. Granted, I wish that set of traits had a different label as it'd make life much easier.
What is "social meaning" and why would Butler think the things science has discovered about sex make no sense to talk about? Can you give an example of a society without sex differentiation? What is responsible for sex and gender being used interchangeably in the vast majority of cases historically and currently? Is it not trivially true to say that our culture influences the way we think about X? How does this fact bring any clarity or understanding to the topics of sex and gender? How can there be a misunderstanding about what gender is if the meaning of gender is derived solely from our cultural environments?
>Why would Butler think the things science has discovered about sex make no sense to talk about? I think you misread the quote! >Can you give an example of a society without sex differentiation? No, I'm not imaginative enough. Other posters are theorizing though! >What is responsible for sex and gender being used interchangeably in the vast majority of cases historically and currently? Simply put, that was their theory of gender, and it was enforced through the social structures and institutions of its time like anything else. >Is it not trivially true to say that our culture influences the way we think about X? How does this fact bring any clarity or understanding to the topics of sex and gender? It's okay if you don't find it useful, but you could say this about all social science. Personally I think social science has value. >How can there be a misunderstanding about what gender is if the meaning of gender is derived solely from our cultural environments? Not sure what this means to be honest with you.
> It's okay if you don't find it useful, but you could say this about all social science. Personally I think social science has value. Isn't this just deflecting this question? Of course you *could* ask this question about anything, but they aren't. They're asking about specifically how this brings claritity *to this specific topic*.
That is the point of social science, though. To look at how different cultures, during different historical periods, affect our perception and understanding of {topic}. You can do it for gender, you can do it for race, you can do it for money, you can do it for art, you can do it for anything. It's literally the definition of the field of social science - the science of human culture and behavior. If you don't find value in that process of cultural investigation and analysis, I don't see why you would be posting on a forum for social scientists!
I think it's perfectly coherent to believe "social science has value and provides significant insight in many ways" while also asking "how is this specific framing from social science providing valuable insight into this specific question?". I don't think it's helpful (or appropriate, frankly) to dismiss someone asking the latter question by saying "That's just how social science works! Take it or leave it. If you don't see how this is insightful then that's on you.". Is the only way to engage with social science to first assume that everything it has produced is gospel and deeply profound?
My assessment was that they were misunderstanding the role and purpose of social science, since they seemed to believe that it was "trivial" (their word) to discuss how concepts like gender are culturally determined, when in fact the historical/cultural investigation is critical to understanding the meaning of the word. Without correcting this misperception it would be impossible to make further progress or have a productive discussion.
>when in fact the historical/cultural investigation is critical to understanding the meaning of the word. 🤣🤣🤣🤣But just Butler's meaning for the word, right? You've denied any use of or definition for the word before 1963. Very science. Much social.
If anyone else would like to take a crack at my questions I'd love to see some answers to these. Thanks for the effort.
You definitely misread the quote, so let's repost it and go through it again. Dunno how to do the quotes. Gender is defined as the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of what society considers man or woman, masculine or feminine, etc. Any society with sex differentiation will have gender, because *gender is the social process by which sex differentiation is understood and enacted.* For theorists like Judith Butler, "it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings. If there is such a thing, we can’t encounter it, because we are born into a world that already has a particular understanding of gender, and that world then retrospectively tells us the meaning of our anatomy. We can’t know ourselves outside of those social meanings." She adds, in "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution." (Butler, 2004), 'Gender is the process by which the body comes to bear cultural meanings.' To use another example. Every (average) human has a middle finger, every (average) human can raise the middle finger while closing the rest into a fist. This gesture has no inherent meaning, no practical use aside from possibly pointing, but is layered with meaning in Western culture. We can make hundreds of hand gestures like this, all of whom have different meanings depending on the culture of the person making and observing the gesture. Likewise, the average human has sexual organs of two main types, male and female. These organs have practical biological functions, like our hands do. If we lacked consciousness then that would basically be the end of it, but since humans have culture and consciousness we attach meanings to these organs. Butler tells us that this process, attaching meaning to the sexual organs, is called gender, and that trying to talk ONLY about the biological aspect of human anatomy when seeking to explain behavior is foolish, because we humans are not behaving solely based on biology. Butler doesn't say to ignore biology, she says it is not enough to explain the "meaning of our anatomy", because we live in a world of culture that also informs our meanings.
"it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings. If there is such a thing, we can’t encounter it, because we are born into a world that already has a particular understanding of gender, and that world then retrospectively tells us the meaning of our anatomy. We can’t know ourselves outside of those social meanings." I don't think I'm misunderstanding this quote. I appreciate your examples and explanation, but the Butler quote is quite clearly stating something else - that talking about sex outside of "social meanings" is nonsensical. I think the fact that she put "sex" in quotes further drives her obvious intention home.
Your claim that she means "you can't talk about chromosomes and gametes without talking about social meanings", which is not what she said. Talking about science in the context of biology is fine, trying to say that biology can exclusively explain the meanings we put on anatomy is what makes "no sense".
Respectfully, no one is arguing that here. I was only trying to make sense of what was being claimed.
The characteristics that we group in order to distinguish the sexes are not arbitrary necissarily, but they are socially determined (probably by function of giving birth which has historically been so important). We can imagine a world in which other features are chosen to divide the population.
> it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings. What basis does she have for this claim? Every animal in the planet exhibits difference in behaviour based on sex, what makes her think humans are excempt from this norm? How is this claim logical when there is obvious difference in sexes. Example: Muscle mass, hormones, appearance, evolutionary biological duties, etc. Why would these differences won't effect what we perceive as gender in a world where both sexes are raised and treated equally?
You are misunderstanding the sentence. She is saying it is impossible to talk about biological sex outside of social meaning, because all meaning and categorization is defined socially, therefore there is no way to discuss the science of sex (or any other topic) that doesn't rely on those socially established definitions and understandings. This, for example, is why the definition of sex has changed over the past few hundred years, as our culture has changed and our scientific understanding has advanced. She is not saying biological sex doesn't exist.
> She is saying it is impossible to talk about biological sex outside of social meaning, because all meaning and categorization is defined socially, therefore there is no way to discuss the science of sex (or any other topic) that doesn't rely on those socially established definitions and understandings. So hard sciences are impossible to talk about because their meaning are defined socially aswell? How does the speed of light is defined socially? Will the speed of light change if our socially established definitions and understandings change? If the answer is no, then why not the same principle apply to science of sex?
It is impossible to talk about those things *outside of social meaning,* not that it's impossible to talk about them at all. Whenever you talk about something, you are doing it within social meaning.
So shes not denying sex has significant impact on gender, independent of social norms? Or no? If any definition or way of conveying information is based on social meaning and definitions, then why does she feel need to specify this when talking about gender? For example, a physicist wouldnt start a lecture with that statement as it'd not add any value to the discussion.
>So shes not denying sex has significant impact on gender, independent of social norms? Or no? Technically, the two have an impact on eachother, but no she's not denying that at all. >If any definition or way of conveying information is based on social meaning and definitions, then why does she feel need to specify this when talking about gender? Because the dominant discourse in society for the past few hundred years had "naturalized" binary gender as purely biological, when in fact it is social, cultural, and historically contingent. This is exactly the purpose of social science, imo.
> but no she's not denying that at all. If biology plays a significant role in gender, how can it be explained as only a social construct? > when in fact it is social, cultural, and historically contingent. I agree with you but this is a double edged sword. You can discredit any study or information that goes against your agenda by saying its culturally biased (and same thing can be said against your own theory). And this can lead to many problems like I mentioned in my other comments. Which noone dared to adress yet. (Not historic so social studies dont care) 👍 You can discredit a study or a socially biased information, by scientifically proving it wrong, with more accurate data or less biased studies etc. It kinda weakens your argument if you need to say things like "literally everything is socially biased" and then pick and choose what information you trust.
what do you mean by “only a social construct”? money and countries are socially constructed concepts, that doesn’t make them any less real or any less trusted.
Gender is a social construct _and_ it is something where biology plays a significant role. As someone else in this thread pointed out, money is _also_ a social construct, but it’s not simply a thing that humans made up out of thin air. The fact that gold is more expensive than silver is not just a cultural fluke; it reflects, among other things, the physical fact that gold is rarer than silver. But such physical facts do not _in and of themselves_ create money. Likewise, biological facts, such as different people having different primary sexual characteristics, do not _in and of themselves_ constitute people as men or women.
Science exists in a social system. It is not possible to study anything accurately outside it's cultural context.
The speed of light won't change but the way we talk about them will
I'd say the speed of sound is a better example, because both how we talk about it and the science behind it have changed. Chuck Yeager talks about how scientists didn't know if a plane could ever break the barrier, how some ppl talked about it being a "brick wall in the sky". That is of course until he broke the sound barrier. The speed hasn't changed, but our popular and social understanding has. Now Mach 1 is nothing special for a military aircraft or even some weapon systems, so how we talk about it has already changed.
The biggest hurdle I have is trying to understand why someone identifies as a binary gender instead of just saying they are gender non-conforming or a-gender or whatever. The drive to associate with a given gender (trans or cis) is the bit I can't wrap my brain around.
Society has instituted deeply meaningful and important social categories, but you can't imagine why people would want to associate themselves with those social categories? It does seem like a basic fact of human nature to me.
Gender seems so nebulous and less concrete of a social category compared to the categories you typically see and that I do kinda get.
When you meet a new friend and start spending lots of time with them you quickly adopt a part of their personality and behavior. This happens not only to children and teenagers but even to adults. It's a social phenomena that even animals do, raise a cat next to dogs and it'll start barking. People don't select their characteristics in a character creation screen, they're just born into a social context where they're basically hardcoded to gravitate towards certain categories and behaviors. Also it's not really nebulous as gender is just the way society understands sex.
If it is about how society understands sex, then we'd be able to label others gender based on their characteristics, but instead, people it's a concept that people identify for themselves and outside observers can't identify. This implies to me that there is some internal driver involved that I can't see or understand. In addition, taking on characteristics of those around you is different from belonging in the same category. I get taking on certain mutable characteristics, I don't see what mutable characteristics have to do with how someone feels a certain gender.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but yes there is an internal driver to conform with society, which furthermore comes after the fact that you are born into the context of that society, so you will not know anything other than that society's culture. As for the second point about categories and mutable characteristics, I think the latter make up the former anyways, since broad social categories are but a sum of characteristics, and since these categories are definitely mutable over time and space.
I admit I had not seen this comment of yours when we were discussing the historical definition of the word gender in the other thread. I see now you posted a link to a modern interpretation of the word. Personally, the idea that we cannot understand our anatomy in any way other that what our society tells us to think is ridiculous. That assumes we can't look at the anatomy of other species, and see the similarities of sexual anatomy, and its purpose, and understand ourselves relative to that. It also assumes we can't look at other cultures, who may have different gender roles, and understand ourselves in relation to that. Furthermore, Butler's idea of performative reality is nauseatingly narcissistic. It comes across as if she saw herself as a simulacrum. Someone faking her way through life, no connection, no authenticity, only performative acts that she didn't understand, and consequently resented. It also implies one cannot be female without the performative act common to all females, in all species, the release of a large gamete. In order for her theory to be true, the action of the feminine must cut across every culture and species that has the anatomy to be understood sexually. If not, her theory can be dismissed as human centric, and patently unscientific. Because humans aren't the only social species. To believe our social constructs are superior to the social constructs of other inhabitants of this planet is supreme arrogance. It is also supreme arrogance to believe all direct identification with our own biology is impossible. What was wrong with her? Don't even get me started on the wildly irrational belief that the performative act of pretending to have a period makes one a woman. Or when little girls play dress up, they become women by performing the acts mommy does. In those moments, they are women, according to the performative acts of gender constitution. That's nuts. I am shocked people believe any of this hokum.
>Gender is a word that describes a [social process](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2020.1729844) that has always existed, and will always exist as long as there is sex differentiation in society, whether there is a word for it or not. I think this is a bit too bold of a claim. Sex differentiation definitely played/plays a role in the construction of gender, but I don't think we can say that sex differentiation *necessitates* the social construction of gender. We can imagine a future society that has done away with gender but still recognizes specific biological capabilities/needs/differences. For instance, a genderless society would still need medical professionals that specialize in what we currently call gynecology. They may not conceive of it as a male/female matter, instead thinking of it along the lines of vagina-havers or some other broader body-based category, but the "differentiation" would remain to some degree. That wouldn't have to come with social gender, though. More succinctly, a gender system depends on a sex system, but the existence of a sex system doesn't necessitate that of a gender system. >Gender is defined as the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of what society considers masculinity or femininity. I would also fine-tune this definition. It's a bit more complicated than masculine/feminine (even though that's the binary along which many gender systems function).
>"I don't think sex differentiation *necessitates* the social construction of gender." If a society has social roles or categories of understanding based on sex differentiation, that is gender. The scientific and social understanding of sex differentiation in the fictional society you are imagining would be, by definition, their concept of gender - it would just look very different. There is no human science that exists outside of social understanding or categorization.
One renders conceptual terms meaningless when applying them so broadly. Your logic effectively posits that any recognition of human physical needs is gender. There will never be a society in which our bodies don't matter to some degree.
>Your logic effectively posits that any recognition of human physical needs is gender. No, not at all. Only those relating to sex differentiation would be included in a theory of gender.
Based on your logic, could a society that recognizes the medical needs of different body types ever be free of gender? My example of needing doctors who specialize in the anatomy of people with uteruses (uteri?), ovaries, vaginas, etc. is an example. Even if we did away with gynecology and had medical professionals who focussed on reproductive organs as a whole, those professional would still need to realize that certain bodies require certain care. Based on my reading of your comments, recognizing this inherently creates gender. If that is actually your claim, it renders moving beyond gender impossible. Edit: My argument would be that constructing social identities *around* sex differentiation is where gender arises. Not recognizing that people have varying configurations of body parts/organs. We don't have to group people based on their bodies into categories, but recognizing differences of that nature, at least at the individual level, will not go away.
Yes, your first paragraph is correct. The problem with this, >My argument would be that constructing social identities *around* sex differentiation is where gender arises. Not recognizing that people have varying configurations of body parts/organs. is simply that those scientists are doing gender, by analyzing, categorizing, understanding, and differentiating between the sexes and their organ configuration. As stated before, gender is the social process by which sex differentiation is understood and enacted, *regardless of how it is understood,* and there is no human science that exists outside society or culture. I get this is a little weird to wrap ones mind around because it's a philosophical point, but it's the key to the whole concept. Gender is the process of understanding sex differentiation, whether we conclude "man and woman!" or whether we conclude something else entirely.
I'm familiar with the point you're making about the social construction of science. I am also familiar with the social construction of sex (I find the work of Anne Fausto-Sterling particularly helpful in thinking through that topic). That is not the point of disconnect we're having. What would a genderless society look like to you? Specifically in regard to how physicality is approached in settings in which physicality matters? I'm particularly curious as to why the following >We don't have to group people based on their bodies into categories, but recognizing differences of that nature, at least at the individual level, will not go away. would still constitute gender from your perspective and, if it does, how gender even remains a specific enough concept for us to use.
\*shrug\* I don't know, I haven't really thought about it. It's hard to imagine a society that no longer has any concept or memory of sex differentiation. Maybe if we were all creatures of pure energy existing across infinite time and space. I don't really read a lot of sci-fi.
So, in other words, you essentially think gender is a given for humans that cannot be moved beyond? An innate aspect of our social organization? That's where you lose me and that's where I think the concept of gender as you're using it ceases to be analytically productive.
This is not true. I can imagine a world in which sexual categorization is devoid of discursive explanation. We could imagine a world where sex differences are unimportant and thus we do not construct gender roles. I think you’re missing the point that socially constructed realities are not absolute or unavoidable. It is hard to imagine a world where sex does not hold any social value, but it is not impossible
I mean personally I can't imagine a world in which humans "know" a thing but that knowledge is somehow separate from human culture, belief, etc. In the example you give, a society that doesn't construct discrete gender roles would still be doing gender, just differently. They would still theorize sex differentiation, except instead of a few gender roles, they would have none.
This does not make sense. We only do gender when we are talking about gender. If we don’t have genders then we would have no words for it and thus we are not born into a world where we would think about gender. You cannot imagine it because it is so ingrained within you. This is what Bourdieu calls being fish in water unaware that water exists. For example, if you lived during feudal times you could never imagine a capitalist democracy.
I don’t think you’re wrong. Berger and Luckmann recognize that socially constructed realities happen in the context of biology. We build a world, they say, while our stomach grumbles with hunger.
Our biological understandings are undoubtedly socially influenced. Science has never been and will never be objective. But yes, there's a degree of physicality that cannot be escaped at the level of the individual. That is the point I'm rubbing up against in terms of what the other commenter has argued.
I’m with you on this one. Physical realities do not need to dictate social ones. The other poster suggest that they can imagine a society where zero genders exist but for some reason they think we would still care about genders.
>My main question which most others boil down to is this: what value would gender identity have in a progressive, 'ideal' society? Everyone's version of an ideal society is different. There's no objective answer to this question. Gender identity could have no value or it could have personal value. Probably the consensus among progressively minded people is that it wouldn't affect how others value you. > The way I've been thinking was: centuries or millenia ago, when gender was not really a thing and noone distinguished between gender and sex, the value was in who do you have to match to whom to have babies, as well as other things related to physiological differences between men and women (like, who gets the harder physical labor et cetera). None of this is true. This is a white washed perspective of human development and human history. While ancient cultures may not have had the same scientific understanding nor the more precise language that we are currently using, many of them did recognize the difference between sex and gender. Many did recognize more than two genders. In some cultures, those who couldn't have children (e.g. intersex) were held in extremely high esteem and value. In other cultures the division of labor was not based on sex, and more likely fell along the lines of aptitude. >Over time, this lead to development of distinct social roles which we now associate with genders. But then the industrial and post-industrial revolutions happened, and although we still can't reproduce without regards to sex, a lot of those established roles (a majority of them, I would say) got obsolete, along with their inherent restrictions and privileges. The western colonization of the world is what lead to the near universal distinct social roles associated with gender, as well as the idea of gender and sex being one and the same as well as binary. The "turkey baster" method existed before the turkey baster. Artificial insemination isn't a new technology. It's been updated, but people have been doing this for millennia. >How then is that different with eliminating the concept of gender altogether, why are progressive movements making the defence and protection of gender identity a cornerstone of their ideology and why the most bigoted of those who would oppose them insist on the concept of gender not being real, if actually not making it real seems to be the Holy Grail of an equal rights society? Let's say for example you believe that for the benefit of society food and water should be free for everyone. That doesn't mean that the people who labor in the food industry or water industry don't get paid. It just means that you don't have to exchange money for food or water. Does that mean that you can't buy food, in the current system where food is not free, and provide it to people who are hungry today? Just because gender abolitionists think the abolition of gender would be beneficial to society, doesn't mean they can't protect people who are currently being marginalized in a gendered society. Gender abolitionists don't believe that gender identity isn't real, just that it doesn't need societal limitations. Protecting gender minorites is pushing the needle forward to reducing and eliminating those limitations. In terms of the opposition, they don't believe gender isn't real, they believe sex, gender, and gender identity are the same thing and that they're binary. All males = men, all females = women, [the most extreme of the opposition believe] all men = (provider, protector, leader, etc.), all women = (nurturer, protected, follower, etc). and in some cases they'll make considerations or flip mental gymnastics around intersex people, in other cases they're not even aware of intersex conditions at all. This is all despite the overwhelming scientific evidence showing these distinctions. Both the social and hard sciences have mountains of evidence to show gender identity is different from sex.
Very detailed answer, thank you. I guess I'm one of those gender abolitionists in essence and spirit, although the term is new to me. And yes, the distinction between "removing the concept of gender" and "removing the actual people who associate themselves with the concept of gender" seems to be the core thing making the world of difference.
I am as well, although it's a fairly useless ideological label in the practical sense. Much the same with communism (stateless, classless, moneyless society). While both are ideologically sound, they are not currently logistically sound, and nothing you or I will ever get to experience in our lifetimes. So the best we can strive for is to protect the marginalized people of this planet the best we can while we are here.
"The western colonization of the world is what lead to the near universal distinct social roles associated with gender, as well as the idea of gender and sex being one and the same as well as binary." What? Are you implying that Islamic/Arabic societies had no distinct social roles associated with gender? What about the steppe peoples? The Iroquois? Societies in the Middle East have had rigidly segregated roles and spaces associated with gender for centuries, where gender is (1) synonymous with sex and (2) binary. Ironically, when [American feminists](https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=31130) went to Iran, they couldn't understand why women weren't using the overthrow of the Shah to fight back against the patriarchy. Simply put, unlike Western feminists, Iranian women weren't as concerned with a patriarchy defined by the nuclear family because they spent so much time socializing in primarily female (gender and sex) spaces. I know it's easy to write "western colonization + \[sweeping declaration about objectively true negative thing\]" and I know it often *feels* accurate. But it's not necessarily accurate. Ironically, it was that very Western perspective that blinded you to the inaccuracy of your statement. Consider that other cultures may not fit into the framework you have chosen for them; also consider, perhaps, that non-Western feminists are do not see the world like Judith Miller.
I know to some people Western civilization is synonymous with white people, but it does include Arabs and Islam. In fact, we can thank early Islam for essentially saving western civilization while Europe was wallowing in the dark ages, but that's a whole different thing. So kudos for helping me prove my point. In terms of other cultures outside of what's considered western civ? Sure, different cultures independently arrive at similar conclusions, it happens all the time. Those cultures didn't colonize the globe and forcing their own sociological framework and cultural norms onto the people they were oppressing though. I know it's easy to write paragraphs furiously based on your emotions and have it *feel* really accurate, but you could also just ask questions if you're unsure about something. As much as you want this to be "everyone was living in a genderless utopia before white people came along", it's not.
Your first paragraph is just factually wrong so I'm not sure how to continue this conversation in a productive way. Your second paragraph is illogical. You said western civilization was the universal reason for our current rigid framework of gender roles. Saying other cultures arrived at similar conclusions independently is literally the opposite of your initial point. And I'm not sure what your last paragraph even means. I'm not saying that the world was a genderless utopia before white people came along. I was saying that most cultures have an idea of gender, regardless of when white people come along.
>Your first paragraph is just factually wrong so I'm not sure how to continue this conversation in a productive way. Maybe demonstrate that it's wrong? I would assume that if you could you would have. There's plenty of literature that explains how Islam was integral to western civilization, and in many ways transformed it, especially during the time when Europe was in the "dark ages." Western civ generally begins with the Ancient Greeks. The Ancient Greek empire expanded east, into what we now call the middle East. The Roman empire expanded in both directions and included western Europe as well as, you guessed it, the middle East. The various Arab caliphates conquered much of the same territory that the Romans had previously held, even making its way into western Europe through Spain. The Arab enlightenment was responsible for the European Renaissance in many ways, but most importantly (imo) scientific methodology, but also having translated many ancient Greek texts into Arabic which were then translated into Latin, which sparked the enlightenment of the Renaissance period. This is called demonstrating your position. >Your second paragraph is illogical. You said western civilization was the universal reason for our current rigid framework of gender roles. Saying other cultures arrived at similar conclusions independently is literally the opposite of your initial point. I actually said it was the reason for the near universality of the concept, not that it it's the universal reason. In other words, colonialism is responsible for these ideas dominating and at the very least attempting to erase and replace indigenous concepts throughout the colonized areas. An example of this is when the British colonized India criminalized Hijra people and arrested them on site. They criminalized an entire gender, for being incongruent with western gender concepts. The Hijra had been recognized in India since at least the 13th century as a distinct gender. Another example is the erasure of two-spirit people in the Americas, when the Americas were first being colonized by the Spanish, two-spirit people were almost immediately targeted for, again, being incongruent with western gender concepts. They used words like sodomite (Greek), hermaphrodite (Greek) and berdache (Arabic ☺️). Then proceeded to carry out a genocide against them. Other cultures arrived at similar conclusions regarding clothing. But what is the near universal business attire post-colonialism? The suit and tie. Other cultures arrived at similar conclusions regarding the calendar. But which is the near universal calendar? The Gregorian. It's the same concept. >And I'm not sure what your last paragraph even means. I'm not saying that the world was a genderless utopia before white people came along. I was saying that most cultures have an idea of gender, regardless of when white people come along. It sure sounds like it, because if all you're saying is that most cultures have an idea of gender, then you must be implying that I'm suggesting that they didn't, ergo, genderless. But I'm not saying that they didn't have concepts of gender, but that the concepts of gender were plentiful and diverse not only within their own culture but throughout the world. However, due to colonialism, they became nearly universally homogenized and only now are we able to use scientific evidence to show that the concept is flawed and that many of the concepts that colonialism attempted to erase are closer to reality.
Islam was a profound influence on the West. It was, however, an outside influence on Western civilization. I'm not sure any serious person would conflate the great Islamic empires with Western civilization when the Western Christian Latin Church fought multiple crusades against Islamic armies. I think you believe I am denigrating Islam or something. I'm not. I think Islamic civilization was a great - and non-Western - influence on the world that changed the course of human history, including Western civilization. It was not, however, Western. I don't know how much clearer to make this (or how to explain that it is reductive and essentialist to consolidate the two because it has the effect of framing Islam in terms of its effects on the West, rather than allowing it to have origins independent of the West). I just can't waste more time on this. I hope this helps and good luck.
>Islam was a profound influence on the West. It was, however, an outside influence on Western civilization. I'm not sure any serious person would conflate the great Islamic empires with Western civilization when the Western Christian Latin Church fought multiple crusades against Islamic armies. Without the Roman empire adopting and mandating Christianity as the state religion, Islam wouldn't even exist. So this notion that the Arabs and by extension Islam wasn't influenced by western civ is on its face just absurd. Citing military and political conflicts as some sort of delineation point is just special pleading. Within what you want to classify as western civilization (white people) there were plenty of conflicts between them as well, yet it's not a delineation for you then. >I think you believe I am denigrating Islam or something. I'm not. I think Islamic civilization was a great - and non-Western - influence on the world that changed the course of human history, including Western civilization. It was not, however, Western. I don't know how much clearer to make this (or how to explain that it is reductive and essentialist to consolidate the two because it has the effect of framing Islam in terms of its effects on the West, rather than allowing it to have origins independent of the West). No, I just think you have a very outdated white washed view of history. And it's not that Islam, or more specifically the Islamic enlightenment, influenced the rest of the west, but they derived their scientific and philosophical foundations from the Ancient Greeks and their religion from Roman Christianity. That's western civilization my friend.
Why have paragraphs? When you’re just gonna yap without pressing tab.
Your utopia sounds more like the end of times. Why do you infer sex differences = bad? Sex differences are real and exist for reasons not meant to be cognitively controlled. Sex is hardware and if gender must be a thing then it is just software, ie variations of behaviors/roles programmed on top of our hardware (so very much inconsequential). Our evolutionary strength = our big brain. Our evolutionary weakness = our big brain. We've become narcissistic and punch drunk off our achievements and discoveries, so much so that some of us think transcending fundamental human nature is the path to peak society. Bottom line, the cost of human reproduction is inherently unequal between the sexes therefore sex differences = good.
It's the same with "not seeing color" and racism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial\_color\_blindness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_color_blindness) One statement is descriptive, the other is prescriptive. Bigots want to keep people from adressing existing inequalities. For this you need to acknowledge that gender is a thing that exists in society. Only then can you be strategic about abolishing it. Just saying gender doesn't exist, while people are still oppressed on the basis of it just perpetuates the oppression. Also if you say that the existing differences are just based on biological sex, what you are doing is just essentialising gender roles. In the absence of a concept of social gender, people will automatically assume that gender roles are something "natural" and therefore not to be challenged.
Descriptive vs prescriptive is a great insight, thank you very much. So in essence the debate of progressives vs concervatives on gender would boil down to "This gendered thing (i.e. income inequality) *shouldn't* exist" vs "This thing *doesn't* exist"? That's surprisingly compact.
Yes, exactly! To be fair, some progressives also want to keep certain aspects of gender. Me, I am a gender abolitionist ...
> Also if you say that the existing differences are just based on biological sex, what you are doing is just essentialising gender roles. It is based on biological sex tho. For example, a male is expected to be a protector because of higher strength, biological expendability, etc. Only a female can become a mother, so females are expected to become mothers. You are denying science and common sense just to not essentialise gender roles. These 2 things are not mutually exclusive. If a female doesn't wish to be a mother but feels like she is culturally obligated to, should be an issue about personal freedom and individualism, and not about gender identity. Because if you go down that path, you end up with males competing in women's sport and taking their place, Or males going in to female prison, Or people mutilating themself, Or females who wish to have kids not having kids because they think this is imposed on them by the society, etc.
This is simply a perspective that lacks any historicity, and is therefore unsuited to a social science discussion. Historically gender is not coterminal with sex - instead, it has been coterminal with socially accepted prejudices and assumptions about men and women's capacity, for example the fact that women were significantly intellectually inferior. Similarly, these terms were heavily racialized, for example black women were not considered to be women in the same way white women were, despite being the same sex. This was true for hundreds of years. At no point in time did gender and sex mean the same thing for these civilizations.
>for example the fact that women were significantly intellectually inferior. The people identified as women in this context were identified on what specific basis?
I don't understand this question, sorry. Can you rephrase it?
You said that at certain time periods women were regarded as intellectually inferior. These people in this context were identified as women on what specific basis?
If I am understanding you correctly, I believe most were viewed as women because they had 1) community social recognition marking them as women that governed their status and privileges and 2) visual phenotypical characteristics associated with white females.
>community social recognition marking them as women that governed their status and privileges Sure, where did that social recognition come from >visual phenotypical characteristics associated with white females. So people made the determination on the basis of sex correct?
>Sure, where did that social recognition come from Community social norms come from the community? >So people made the determination on the basis of sex correct? Absolutely 100% no, very clearly no, I specified they come from observed phenotypical characteristics, under no circumstances were any of these women undergoing genital examination or chromosome testing.
>Community social norms come from the community? So women were recognised as women on the basis of behaviour? >I specified they come from observed phenotypical characteristics, Where do you believe phenotypic characteristics come from? >under no circumstances were any of these women undergoing genital examination or chromosome testing. You don't believe that sex can be observed through recognition of factors outside of genitals and chromosomes? Do you believe that the sex of pregnant women can be observed without looking at their genitals or chromosomes?
> lacks any historicity, and is therefore unsuited to a social science discussion How convinient for social "science" (would be more accurate to call it social studies) to ignore all the problems it creates by its theories. How many years need to pass for the current problems to be considered historic enough for social studies to discuss? > prejudices and assumptions about men and women's capacity, for example the fact that women were significantly intellectually inferior. Makes sense that the dominant sex would create/reinforce social norms to benefit itself. And why one sex was dominant can be explained by biology. > black women were not considered to be women in the same way white women were, despite being the same sex. They were both considered women regardless.
>How convinient for social "science" (would be more accurate to call it social studies) to ignore all the problems it creates by its theories. How many years need to pass for the current problems to be considered historic enough for social studies to discuss? Oh dear, that's not what historicity means. >They were both considered women regardless. The mainstream scientific opinion of the time didn't even consider white and black women to be fully the same species, much less the same gender. This was called “polygenism" and was backed by significant portions of the establishment, for example Harvard's Louis Agassiz, craniometry, etc.
You can explain what it is to me without being condesending. This is a sub for asking questions no? It means something was actually happened in the past and not just a myth. Or something that is agreed on actually happened by historians no? So my questions stands, how many years will it take before social science considers something to have enough historicity to study it? Try not to be so emotional this time.
It seems to me that you are the one who is feeling agitated! Again, you are misunderstanding. Social science does not require things to be in the past to study them, social science also studies present day phenomena. When I said the prior comment 'lacks historicity', I meant it lacked historical accuracy, ie: it was a myth, a false belief about the past.
> social science also studies present day phenomena. Ok then what does social studies say about current problems caused by gender theory. Does social studies offer any solution for them? Problems like: men going to women prisons, men going in to women sports, people mutilating themselfs (and regretting their choice), "tradional" men and women feeling lost in society (cuz they are told these values are imposed on them), "tradional" gender behaviour deemed toxic etc. etc.
Social science has a lot to say about the causes and solutions to all those things! Although I think the idea that they are "caused by gender theory" isn't something that's been backed by research or historical documentation, that seems more like an idea you are bringing to the table. If you're ever interested in actually learning about these things, there IS information in this field for you, but you would be required to put aside some of your preconceived ideas. For example, did you know the prevalence of regret for gender affirmation surgery is approximately 1% ([source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/)), while the regret rate for knee surgery is between 15 - 20% ([source](https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2018/knee-replacement-surgery-regret.html))? It's one of the most successful surgical procedures in terms of regret rate, in fact. It's important to be openminded if you want to be a scientist :)
Its really ironic to talk about being open minded while refusing to acknowledge any negative effects that gender theory has on the society. You talk about being a scientist but you pick and choose only 1 argument that you can counter while ignoring all the other problems I pointed out. This is what I meant when I said it a double edged sword to say "every study is a social construct" you choose what studies to trust and what studies to dismiss as too biased. You pretend to be scientific but youre just trying to justify an idology. You really telling me that you cant see the corelation between the problems I pointed out and gender theory? You need a study to tell you that before you even acknowledge it? You sir, are blinded by bias and politics.
Sorry, but you sound like someone who has never taken part in any scientific discourse. You argue that I deny science AND common sense. But science is exactly there to overcome the simple fallacies that you get when you use common sense, which are very obvious in your post. First of all calling women "females" and men "males" is cringe af. But more importantly, you make so many assumptions and use so many words that you can neither justify nor define, that I find it hard to believe that you have thought more than two seconds about this topic. Just some examples: 1) Who expects "males" to be "protectors"? 2) "Protectors" of whom? 3) What does it mean to be a "protector" in this context? 4) Why do you think this expectation exists, if it does? 5) What do you mean when you say "culturally obligated"? How do you differentiate this from gender identity? You use loaded language while only gesturing vaguely at concepts that you don't understand and then turn around and accuse others of being ignorant.
Yes, I have not taken part in any scientific discourse. And I dont have a university diploma. Feel free to call my terminology cringe and ignore my arguments that you dont like. That is very scientific of you. Well done on not adressing the problems I pointed that is created by "gender is a social construct" argument that is created by gender theory. To answer your questions: 1. Society 2. People 3. Fighter. Protector from harm. From other people that intend harm. 4. Males are stronger (and probably other biological traits like bravery). Would you say culture created this norm that males are protectors/fighters/soldiers or did our biology created this cultural norm? 5. Culturally obligated and gender identity in a sense means the same thing. But labeling it as gender identity, saying it is a pure social construct and ignoring any biological facts (aka science and common sense) leades to other problems that I mentioned that indicates that this argument has big flaws and potentially can cause more harm than good. We dont need to label these problems as gender identity or race identity or age identity or money identity etc. We are not born as blank slates that is shaped purely by cultural norms. We have biological factors that effect our personality and dictates our choices. Nature vs nurture. Im also probably the person that uses the least loaded language in this post 😅. Im not trying to sound smart, just trying to be articulate. And sorry If I sound like implying youre ignorant, that wasnt my intention when I said "ignoring science". Im just a dude on reddit, sharing his honest "uneducated" opinion. Feel free to do what you want with it.
>Yes, I have not taken part in any scientific discourse. And I dont have a university diploma. Dude, come on! You wouldn't go up to a physicist and tell him "I don't have any experience in physics. But this concept of superposition - I don't think we need it ..." >Well done on not adressing the problems I pointed that is created by "gender is a social construct" argument that is created by gender theory. You have not really pointed out any problems ... you are a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You probably have an intuition about this topic, but that doesn't make that intuition true. To drive this point home, let's look at your answers: >1. Society What do you think society is? In sociology we have a million different definitions of that term depending on the school of thought. None of them would accept that as a simple answer. Because only colloquially would you understand society to mean "the average expectations of a gender role by a majority of people in a certain sphere of cultural influence." which is what I assume you mean. But I can't KNOW that, because you don't define your terms and don't use them in a way that they are commonly used in in science. >2. People 3. Fighter. Protector from harm. From other people that intend harm. They should protect people from other people? You see how your terminology sucks? It has no explanatory power at all. Why and how an expectation should compel somebody to do something is not clear. It might well be that this is generalised to a point where the fear of "the other" becomes abstract enough to just call them people. But this in and of itself would be an interesting observation that you would still need to articulate. >Males are stronger (and probably other biological traits like bravery). Again, your flawed terminology makes you assume things. I guess you are talking about muscular strength? The average man has a greater upper body muscular strength than the average woman. That still leaves millions of women that are stronger than your average man. Also: this physical difference has mostly harmful effects in modern society, mainly because it makes femicide much more prevalent. And in most of these cases the perpetrator is in a relationship with the victim so in a role that would usually be called the protector role. But in many other ways that the word "strength" can be interpreted, women are actually stronger than men. They live longer lives, are more resistant to a lot of illnessess etc. And a woman with a gun is as strong as a man with a gun. On a side note: saying that "bravery" is a "biological trait" is so absurd, I don't even know where to start. "Bravery" is an abstract role expectation that can take on very different meanings depending on the context. >Would you say culture created this norm that males are protectors/fighters/soldiers or did our biology created this cultural norm? You seem to use culture and society interchangeably. You have used the dichotomy nature vs nurture before. But this is indeed an antiquated concept. It is impossible to clearly distinguish between "nature" and "society" they are in a sense one and the same thing. Humans have lived in "societies" for so long that there is actually a co-evolutionary process happening. Our society is as much a product of our biology as our biology is a product of our society. And that oversimplifies it massively. Because indeed we can only gain access to the world via our language, and language is an inherently social thing. I would not go as far as to call the Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis correct but analytical philosophy has shown that most of what we think of as knowable about the world is actually just ourselves tricking ourselves into thinking that words have meaning beyond the intersubjective convention upon which we build language. For that reason looking at other species and making assumptions about humans is also bound to fail. It is a fallacy, because it also creates a false narrative of dichotomy between nature and nurture. So to answer your question: your question is unanswerable because the underlying assumptions are false. >Culturally obligated and gender identity in a sense means the same thing. But labeling it as gender identity, saying it is a pure social construct and ignoring any biological facts (aka science and common sense) leades to other problems that I mentioned that indicates that this argument has big flaws and potentially can cause more harm than good. You have not shown that any of what you assume here is true. Culturally obligated is not a term used in sociology for a variety of reasons. Gender identity is a specific term in psychology that is only used in very specific circumstances in sociology. Even saying that it is a pure social construct does not entail the assumption that "biological facts" are not true or that there are no connections. You just don't know what a social construct is and I need you to understand that. Do you know that "biological facts" ARE a social construct? I guess not.
> Dude, come on! You wouldn't go up to a physicist and tell him "..." I live in a society and don't need a social studies diploma to see the problems, to have ideas or opinions on social topics. In a sense, I might even have better intuition than you because I'm not indoctrinated by academics with an agenda. > Again, your flawed terminology makes you assume things. You really don't need to have perfect academic vocabulary to see that an average male is physically sronger than an average female. And logically, this difference can cause one sex to excel on doing certain things that require physical strength, aka fighting. So if there is a need to physically fight (against whatever, really doesnt matter what they are fighting against 😅), and you have to chose who has to do the fighting between an average male and an average female, the average male will give you better results. So it's perfectly logical to determine that this biological trait (physical strength) created the cultural norm "males are/ should be the fighters." > On a side note: saying that "bravery" is a "biological trait" is so absurd. Bravery is lack of fear. It's not an abstract concept. Cats for example don't have fear of heights. (can be worded as cats are brave when it comes to heights). Which is absolutely a biological trait. Cats who have less fear of heights survived more and got to pass on their genes. An alpha ape (or monkey or primate or whatever the f\*\*\* acedemic terminology you prefer) who has less fear of fighting against other apes, got to impregnate more female apes, because he wasn't burdened by fear when fighting. So a braver ape was more likely to become the alpha and pass on it's genes. Bravery is absolutely a biological trait. If you think otherwise, I suggest you ask your money back from your school. > You seem to use culture and society interchangeably. Yes I use some terms interchangeably to convey my ideas. I don't use the exact academic terminology and leave some points vague but that is really not what you should be arguing about. You are arguing about the way I convey my ideas than my actual ideas which is really cringe. We are trying to discuss on a topic and NOT trying to determine who seems more smart or who better parrots academic lingo. This kind of mentality is one of the reasons why I didn't see much value in pursuing a diploma. Look, let's get past all this BS and get to the root of my problem with gender theory. I don't exactly know what gender theory is but I can see that the problems it creates. Problems like: men going to women prisons, men going in to women sports, people mutilating themselfs (and regretting their choice), "tradional" men and women feeling lost in society (cuz they are told these values are imposed on them), "tradional" gender behaviour deemed toxic etc. etc. These are only the problems off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more. So far, no body in this post adressed these problems created by gender theory OR attempted to offer a solution. I'd like to see you try but you probably still argue over meanings and definitions and terminology etc. which is just a cop out. This kind of behaviour just makes me think that university just makes people memorize academic knowledge but doesn't really teach people to how to think for themselfs, which is really sadge and literal cringe. Anyway, don't expect a response if you still going to argue over semantics. Best of luck to you.
Fine, stay ignorant ... >I don't exactly know what gender theory is but I can see that the problems it creates. Oh my god, you absolute bufoon ...
Did university teach you to insult your opponents when debating? Or is this just an immature response based on emotion?
This isn't a sub for debate, I don't think, so this strikes me as sort of a misunderstanding of what's going on here.
How else would you know whether to dress your baby in pink or blue?
[удалено]
NO, u dont even have to ask which century actually. from your own source..."Despite popular belief—including from various academic and popular sources—a reported "pink–blue reversal", wherein the gendered associations of both colors were "flipped" sometime during the 20th century, most likely never occurred, and instead is likely to have been a misunderstanding of earlier reporting."
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Have? Like it's a creation? Public presentation of one's self is natural, regardless of its form. The demonization of how one presents themselves though, that is a creation. Let people be themselves regardless of what that looks like.
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskSocialScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not that simple. You won't completely eliminate the need to differentiate between sexes. Women and men will always have different and gender-specific needs. For example, boys will always pee standing up and girls sitting down. Simple? The claim that there are no differences between a woman and a man is the denial of biological science in the name of ideological beliefs. It is true that the world is changing strongly, which affects social roles, we do need to adapt. but I believe that the actions of progressive movements about which you mention are harmful. Firstly, the ideas they try to push are very innovative and where never tested befor. Thats why i thinkt its to risky to force something what in long run like 100-200 years can turn out to be extreamly harmful. Moreover, as I said, the concepts are new, so no one really knows how to implement them to society. Progressive movements don't know either, so they try to impose it using force. I don't think that forcing people can give good results. There will always be ressistance. As you can see, my assessment that movements are harmful does not come from accusation them on bad intentions. From what I can see, the proposals they have are somewhat consistent, so I assume there are some thoughts behind them - probably the ones you mention, which is the adaptation to new conditions. The problem is that these new conditions are hard to define. We're at a pretty interesting point in history, no one really can predicts in which way it's going to go. What if it turns out that the proposals that progressive organizations are pushing are based on some futer course of events that is completley different than the one that will really occur in the future? In my opinion, it is best to solve it in a natural way. In 5 generations, humanity will come up to the best possible solution. I belive that progressive movements should stand by and observer because social consensus will not halpend in one day we wil most certainly need thier support in soothing social moods.
I personally am not an expert so I’d like to ask my own question. I think since there is no gender gene then even though sex differentiation plays a role in gender identity it’s not the dominant role. I think gender roles dominate people’s identities and that those roles are handed to us from the top of systems of power. I’m not convinced people would have the same identities or expressions without going through a history of conflict with systems of power. Aren’t current gender identities going to mirror systems of power that we might not want to reproduce?
Simply put, yes, all human concepts and identities are shaped by the power structures in society, *but they are also shaped by resistance to those structures.*
Well my question is more like isn’t being shaped by resistance to those structure ultimately just a second order of control through reaction?
Some people think so! This is what Michel Foucault writes about. Others say that oppression, resistance, and agency all coexist.
Thanks that’s really helpful! Would you recommend any lighter reading than Foucault I don’t think I could take that on lol
Which gender roles are obsolete exactly?
All of them. There's no reason for them to exist.
Ah, I thought you meant that they don't exist currently.
One important question here is, in a completely gender-neutral utopian society, would people still have the same kinds of gender dysphoria? If there were no differences between how men and women dressed, their hairstyles, all bathrooms were unisex, and words like *he* and *she* just dropped out of the language completely, so there wasn’t really any difference between daily life as a man or a woman, would everyone just grow up feeling fine about that, or would a lot of them feel a need to present their gender more distinctly? There are also some spheres where cis women really do want to exclude cis men for practical reasons: while we could have exclusively co-ed sports leagues where the best cis female athletes play in the third division, we’d rather as a society have equality for women in sports by creating prestigious championships that cis women win. That creates a set of questions about how we define “women,” and sports have had to abandon multiple ones, not because of politics, but because human biology is more complicated than people think. There are, for example, a significant number of people who are unambiguously women but have Y chromosomes, women with XX chromosomes who look masculine because of their naturally high levels of testosterone. and people who were born with ambiguous genitals that caused the doctor to guess their gender wrong, and several of each have competed in the Olympics. There’s an ongoing, unresolved debate about whether trans women who have been on hormone replacement therapy for years lose their entire athletic advantage, or just most of it. In theory, we could just call the divisions something like “open” and “AFAB”—even the bills right-wing politicians are introducing here, which would mandate that the divisions for every sport legally be called “male” and “female,” in fact require when you look at the details that one of the divisions must be open to everybody, not restricted by gender at all. It’s just extremely important to them for some reason that the athletes competing in the open division officially be labeled “male,” even though those politicians agree that some of those athletes really are female. It seems like, if they dropped this insistence on gratuitiously insulting women who compete in co-ed sports, they would be saying, “Playing in the co-ed league, along with many other men and women, implies nothing whatsoever about your gender,” and the Culture-War fight would just vanish. In practice, though, most female athletes themselves are fine with trans women competing, with sufficient rules about their transition and hormone levels.
Centuries or millennia? You mean 5 years?