TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

43

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.2064

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/

https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct/

“The size of sex differences in children’s preferences for male-typed and female-typed toys did not appear to be smaller in studies conducted in more egalitarian countries,” says Brenda Todd, a study co-author and senior lecturer in psychology at City University London. Countries rating extremely low on the Gender Inequality Index, such as Sweden, showed similar differences in toy preferences to countries with far greater gender inequality, such as Hungary and the United States.

This runs counter to the popular narrative that gender differences expressed in childhood play are determined entirely by social expectations. Social factors certainly do have influence, and the paper found evidence of this: For example, as boys got older they were increasingly likely to play with conventionally male toys, reflecting the impact of environmental rather than biological causes. But overall, the data reflect broader findings in psychology, which show that biology and society interact to cause gendered behavior. In other words, contrary to the popular progressive belief, gender is partly socially constructed—but it’s not just a social construct.

Despite this empirical truth, researchers who study the biological basis of gender often face political pushback. “Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that gender is not purely a social construct,” says Todd, who notes that her work has faced “very critical attention.” There’s a political preference—especially on the left—Todd believes, for gender to be only a reflection of social factors and so entirely malleable.

Back to the basics because, contrary to biologists, there are a few people here who actually believe gender is a social construct. Let's first review what a "social construct" means:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20construct

an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society

For gender to be a "social construct" it has to be created by society. Gender is not created by society. Gender is highly influenced by society, but to say gender is created by society is entirely incorrect. Something that is created by biology, if only partially, is not created by society.

CMV


[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 40 points41 points  (128 children) | Copy Link

"gender is/is not a social construct" argument gets harmed by package dealing what things are ACTUALLY attributable to GENDEr and what are attributable to SEX

"gender is a social construct" applies best to purely cultural norms like "boys wear blue and girls wear pink" which is unequivocally a "social construct" without relation to the physiological attributes of sex, so in that case yes "gender is a social construct"

you have to tease out the gendered norma that have zero basis in physiology and are purely cultural from the biological sex linked ones. toy choice is expressing physiology, people just didnt know that 60 yr ago

[–]concacanca 17 points18 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Irrelevant anecdote - boys in England used to wear pink (c.200 years ago) because they wanted to emulate the faded red coats of the soldiers.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same goes for the US where new born boys where wrapped in pink.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 3 points4 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

WASP top out of sight elite men in the US are practically the only class of men who can wear pink with opprobrium

[–]darudeboysandstormHaving Instagram makes you a thot 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well this is wildly false and shows how little you know about modern fashion. Go on reddits many mens fashion subs and see the many articles about wearing pink and how its popular. ESPECIALLY AMONG PEOPLE WITH SOME SKIN TONE.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap... 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Finance crew checking in. "Can confirm." I own some pink polos, dress shirts and ties.

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Not true. You seen the UMC fratboys with the salmon colored shorts and the pink collared shirts? Some colleges are crawling with ‘em.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

they are emulating the TOOS

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And they don’t get a lick of shit for wearing pink.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. Nantucket reds.

[–]Merger-ArbitrageTriggermaster, Non-Pill, Cutting through the crap... 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I read her comment as:

WASP top out of sight elite men in the US are practically the only class of men who can wear pink withOUT opprobrium

I think she meant "without", not "with" based on how the first part of the sentence was phrased.

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay. She says the insanely rich WASPs can wear pink on their yachts and not get shit for it. This is most likely true. The fratboys I was talking about also don’t get any shit at all for wearing pink. And they are not yacht owners. Best they do is Daddy’s sailboat.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those guys also were garter belts.

[–]poppy_blu -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No. Pasty white guys wearing pink look awful. Only men with some color in their skin tone should be wearing pink.

Truth.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

yeh thats fine

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Look up breeching. Boys wore dresses until they reached post toddler age.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"gender is a social construct" applies best to purely cultural norms like "boys wear blue and girls wear pink" which is unequivocally a "social construct" without relation to the physiological attributes of sex, so in that case yes "gender is a social construct"

It does, but it also applies to behavior as well. For example its often viewed within feminism that "boys will be boys" is a social construct. In those cases its really not, its more biological as its biological for boys to do things like rough around with each other. In the end really gender is both social and biological.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (83 children) | Copy Link

I'm with you here.

However, saying "gender is a social construct" is an over-simplification to the point of uselessness, no? Gender is clearly NOT created by society.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 14 points15 points  (52 children) | Copy Link

Gender is clearly NOT created by society.

If gender isn't created by society then your gender should stay the same across cultures.

Yet you can simply move to a different location and your gender can change simply because that culture uses different ways of classifying people into gender roles.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 5 points6 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

If gender isn't created by society then your gender should stay the same across cultures.

well i mean in reality it does. show me where this gender change would occur

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 5 points6 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

A transgender woman that's living in the bible belt will be seen as a man, but even if she moves to a place like Iran she will be seen as a woman.

[–]the-4th-survivor 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's hard to believe given how socially conservative Iran is.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's similar in India.

It's highly socially conservative. Slut shaming is at extreme levels, homophobia is deeply ingrained in their culture, honor killings are a thing, etc. but they still have a more flexible gender system and even have a third gender.

India and Iran are highly socially conservative, but they simply aren't Christian cultures. In Christian cultures it's considered to be wrong and unnatural because their infallible God created men and women and not following his plan would be blasphemy, but not all cultures share this belief.

In Iran it's a thing, because their religious beliefs support it. Post-op transgender women are allowed because there are hadiths about them meaning that they have already existed during the time of Muhammad.

In the ancient Arabic world they were called "mukhannathun" and in religious texts there are mentions that after undergoing a "great circumcision" they have become women in truth.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

ok, yes but, thats because the southern person simply doesnt recognize the concept of gender most likely

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 11 points12 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

thats because the southern person simply doesnt recognize the concept of gender most like

Yes that's the point. In the South gender is constructed based on sex, but that isn't the only cultural way to construct gender, because it can also be based on identity or performance.

The biological reality is simply much more complex than the labels we come up with and gender is merely an abstraction that helps us classify people into gender roles.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

When most people say "gender" they just mean "sex".

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

90% of these debates are just people arguing semantics while refusing to just further the discussion under the definition the other person is discussing under. It's more about people debating that gender isn't sex or gender is the same as sex rather than what things are nature and what things are nurture.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

gender vs sex is literally an argument about what words mean. they have never been synonymous, gender is an academic term borrowed from linguistics by critical studies and english departments

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The truth is there are 3 genders, male, female and other the rest is simply fetishizing gender.

Gender dysphoria is a known condition, just because someone wants to identify as gender queer or trans does not define a "gender". They are simply in the other category. There is no legitimate reason to have 57 genders except for people's narcissistic perception of their own identity.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Gender dysphoria is a known condition, just because someone wants to identify as gender queer or trans does not define a "gender". They are simply in the other category. There is no legitimate reason to have 57 genders except for people's narcissistic perception of their own identity.

And no one ever claimed that there are that many genders. You've got to consider that strawman arguments simply aren't facts.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe not that many, but are you really denying that New York City legally recognizes over 30 genders?

[–]Yu4nghydr4 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

In Iran it’s not some progressive liberal acceptance of sex literally changing

It’s an insult, they say they aren’t men because they don’t want to claim them in their ranks, effeminacy is excommunicated from maleness

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

In Iran homosexuality is punishable by death. Yet this doesn't apply to trans women sleeping with men because they are legally and religiously allowed to transition.

They have the second highest number of sex reassignment surgeries and the government even pays most of it.

[–]Yu4nghydr4 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

None of that contradicts what I’m saying

They consider you a legit female ready for rear plowing because you are trying to be a bitch

Not because of progressive liberalism and blank slatism

[–]Realityinmyhand 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What about trans men sleeping with women (still in Iran) ?

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The disparities in gendered behaviour between White and Black Americans. One such example is the difference in how men who dance are viewed.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

They are not perceived as the opposite gender

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

True, they're perceived as effeminate, though. It's typically not masculine to be a good dancer among White communities, whereas Black communities encourage and reward men dancing.

[–]EGOtyst 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell that to Fred Astair and Danny Kay.

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

😂😂😂😂😂

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

If gender isn't created by society then your gender should stay the same across cultures.

There are gendered aspects that stay the same across all cultures. Boys prefer to manipulate objects and girls prefer toys with faces across cultures. See the links.

gender roles.

Is NOT the same thing as gender.

Not ALL gender roles are social constructs either. PiV sex for procreation has gendered roles. Are you willing to claim that PiV sex is a socially constructed gender role?

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

There are gendered aspects that stay the same across all cultures. Boys prefer to manipulate objects and girls prefer toys with faces across cultures. See the links.

You are still talking about gender expression, but I'm talking about gender

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Gender:

the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Behavioral traits, gender identity and gender expression are all included in the term 'gender.'

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

"associated"

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Again, it is associated out of the differences in performative aspects of the sexes due in part to biological influences.

Therefore the differences are not CREATED by society, merely CLASSIFIED by society.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Therefore the differences are not CREATED by society, merely CLASSIFIED by society.

How often do I have to tell you that I'm not talking about the actual differences but about the perceived differences/the associations?

The actual difference is that men cry less due to testosterone, but the perceived differences is that men shouldn't cry.

Can you really not understand the difference between those two statements?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Again, if there are performative differences influenced by hormones, then it cannot be described as CREATED by society.

The actual difference is that men cry less due to testosterone, but the perceived differences is that men shouldn't cry.

This is a gender role, not a gender expression.

"Gender roles are social constructs" is not the same as "gender is a social construct."

[–]weaver420junkie prude 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you confusing biological sex with gender?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you believe the fact that boys prefer to manipulate objects and girls prefer toys with faces a product of gender or sex?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

Huh? explain like I’m five.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 6 points7 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Your sex is a biological fact that's determined by your chromosomes and sexual organs. Your sex stays the same no matter where you are. Even aliens could tell your sex.

Your gender is a cultural opinion that's determined by your cultures gender system. Gender can be based on sex, but it can also be based on performance and identity. Your gender can change if you move to a culture that bases it on other factors. In order to determine your gender we need to take the historical and cultural context into consideration.

As an analogy you can think of age and age groups. Your age is a physical fact and even aliens could tell that you've been on this planet for a certain amount of time, but which age group you get categorized in depends on how your culture constructs adulthood. You can be a kid in one culture, but can be an adult if you simply move to a different location.

You can only determine if someone is considered to be an adult if you take the cultural context of where that person resides into consideration, because adulthood can be based on reaching a certain age or on performance. We can have both the same age and even can be just as mature, but one of us can be considered to be an adult while the other one is still a child simply because we live in different cultures.

The fact that you are an adult in one culture doesnt mean that you are an adult in every culture, just like the fact that you are a man in one culture doesn't mean that you are a man in every culture.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Thanks, lazy redditor here. But it’s still pretty safe to say that in general, the people who fall outside of the gender =sex norm are outliers, as uncommon as the equally small a percentage of the population who have genitalia that doesn’t match their chromosomes, no?

And if gender is strictly a cultural opinion, where do the people who feel like they belong to one gender, but both biology AND culture say they are another?

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Thanks, lazy redditor here. But it’s still pretty safe to say that in general, the people who fall outside of the gender =sex norm are outliers, as common as the equally small a percentage of the population as people who have genitalia that doesn’t match their chromosomes, no?

This depends on the historical and cultural context. Sure in the traditional western world gender aligns with sex, but the idea that sex=gender is still just a very western idea and thus is called the European gender system in anthropology. This is a idea that's based on the idea that the Christian God is infallible and that going against his will is unnatural, but not all cultures have such religious beliefs.

Biology doesn't give us exact guidelines how we should construct gender.

There have been gender systems where gay or castrated men where considered to be a third gender, because they didn't fulfill the role of the "real" man. There have also been gender systems that considered masculine men, feminine men, masculine women and feminine women to be distinct genders with unique pronouns for each of them. (and being gay was considered to be bad, but it wasn't based on sex but on gender expression. A masculine man with a masculine woman would be considered to be gay and immoral by them, but a masculine man with a feminine man wouldn't)

And if gender is strictly a cultural opinion, where do the people who feel like they belong to one gender, but both biology AND culture say they are another?

Their gender identity is based on biological facts. Transgender people have a brain that's closer to their preferred gender than their sex.

They have an innate sense of which gender they belong to, but this also depends on the choices their culture provides them.

Like someone who's transgender (but only slightly) in our binary gender system might have chosen to be a two-spirit (a non-binary gender that's considered to be man and woman at the same time) if they had grown up in a Native American tribe.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Two spirit is a spiritual leader specifically. That's why the gender bending was acceptable.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

TIL

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. We’d both still be boys by Maasai standards: haven’t killed a lion yet.

[–]Realityinmyhand 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

You can be a kid in one culture, but can be an adult if you simply move to a different location.

Sorry but this is mainly false. Adulthood is first and foremost a biological concept. There's a secondary social concept but it's only second to biology.

If you check the wikipedia article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult

Biologically, an adult is a human or other organism that has reached sexual maturity. In human context, the term adult additionally has meanings associated with social and legal concepts.

The biological part is first. It is the biological state, a precise one, from which the (adultered) social one is derived. But adulthood (like sex) is first and foremost a biological concept. You can't become sexually mature just by changing culture.

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the point he’s making is that if you’ve fully phsyciallt matured. You’re biologically an adult.

If being an adult in your given society means being expected to be financially responsible for yourself, that is a social construct akin to men don’t cry or girls like pink.

You can be physically an adult but not being finally independent therefore you are not an adult according social norms.

[–]Realityinmyhand 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh I understand the point he is trying to make.

It's just factually wrong. Being an adult means first and foremost being sexually mature. Now, after that, some human concept had to make some rules (laws and such things) and ofc they had to define an age which is the same for everyone.

But adulthood is a biological fact.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You can't become sexually mature just by changing culture.

I didn't say sexually mature. I said considered to be an adult. This distinction is my point: being sexually mature is a biological fact, but being an adult is a cultural opinion.

People don't all mature at the same rate. Biology is more complex than "everyone who's older than 21 is an adult". Age groups are just an cultural approximation that works for a large enough portion of society, but they don't accurately describe the sexual maturity of an individual.

There's no truly objective way of deciding who's an adult. Is it reaching a certain age? If so which age? Is it reaching sexual maturity, or is it emotional maturity? And how mature? Are you an adult if you can take on adult tasks and the associated responsibilities, if so how do you prove it?

You can certainly change if you are considered to be an adult if you simply move to a different culture. Just imagine you are 19 and everyone who's 18 and older is an adult in your culture, but then you move to a culture where everyone who's older than 21 is an adult. And even if you are above 21 you wouldn't be an adult in cultures that place it in observable and probable maturity (e.g. a rite of passage).

[–]Realityinmyhand 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I know what you said and I understood, just fine.

What I am saying is that your definition of adulthood is wrong. The definition of adulthood is a biological one, first and foremost and adulthood is defined by sexual maturity. That's why I said you can't became sexually mature (this means adult since it is the definition) by changing culture.

Read the first sentence of the wikipedia article about adulthood I linked.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This may have been a bad example based on translation issues, because in English we don't have different words for "biological adult" and "social adult". I think to make it more clear I should have made this distinction more clear.

So (for the sake of argument) let's say that "adultness" refers to the state of being a biological adult and "adulthood" to the time of life when one is expected to take responsibility for one's own actions and well-being: the state of being a social adult.

The social construct adulthood is based on the idea that people reach adultness, but while adultness is defined by biological facts, adulthood on the other hand is based on cultural factors. Your adultness stays the same no matter where you go, but adulthood depends on the culture you reside in.

And well even Wikipedia agrees that "social adult" is a social construct, even though this social construct is heavily based on "biological adult"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult

After the social construct of adolescence was created, adulthood split into two forms: biological adulthood and social adulthood. Thus, there are now two primary forms of adults: biological adults (people who have attained reproductive ability, are fertile, or who evidence secondary sex characteristics) and social adults (people who are recognized by their culture or law as being adults). Depending on the context, adult can indicate either definition.

While aging is an established biological process, the attainment of adulthood is social in its criteria.

Further evidence of adulthood as a social construction is illustrated by the changing criteria of adulthood over time. Historically, adulthood in the U.S. has rested on completing one’s education, moving away from the family of origin, and beginning one’s career. Other key historical criteria include entering a marriage and becoming a parent. These criteria are social and subjective; they are organized by gender, race, ethnicity, social class, among other key identity markers. As a result, particular populations feel adult earlier in the life course than do others.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Not in all respects. There are varying degrees of consistency in gender norms, even among cultures that do not have a history of influencing each other for long periods of time. That suggests an interaction between social and biological factors in gender.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

This doesn't debunk my claim though.

Race is a social construct even though it's based on skin color. Skin color is very real.

Age groups are a social construct even though they are based on puberty and maturity rates which are both real biological phenomena.

Gender is a social construct that's based on sexual dimorphism, but that doesn't mean that biological factors don't exist.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wasn’t trying to debunk your claim; I was merely clarifying that societal concepts of gender are at least significantly based on biological differences between the sexes, and as such, it’s silly to think what many feminists claim: that we can socially engineer gender norms however we want, virtually without limit.

This is very much like the whole nature/nurture debate. In the 80’s and 90’s, nurture was increasingly popular, and most social scientists were convinced personalities were mostly the product of social rearing. Since then though, biology has made a major comeback, and we now know that genes actually determine a great deal about people’s personalities.

Similarly, feminists are fond of favoriting the social elements of gender concepts, but they may well be ignoring major contributions of biology to those concepts.

So, when you say gender changes across cultures (and I’m assuming you mean gender norms here, not that a male might be considered a woman in another culture, which I’ve never heard of), I’m pointing out that they don’t all vary equally—some are pretty hard and fast.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 7 points8 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

Gender is clearly NOT created by society.

you are conflating sex and gender. the entire concept of gender outside of linguistics was invented by critical theorists to DESCRIBE the socially constructed aspects of SEX presentation fairly recently, it was just not entirely right about which aspects turn out to be 100% socially constructed and which turn out to be based in innate sex wiring. for example at its inception toy preference would have been thought to be 100% gender social construction, but if brain studies show its innate to sex then it simply moves to a "sex" difference, not a gender difference

the issue is NOT with the statement gende ris a social construct, thats a tautology, the issue is "what exactly constitutes 'gender' in the phrase gender is a social construct"

also, most peopel who even evoke the concept are blank slatists for HUMANS and wouldnt necessarily think monkey studies relevant to human gender study. the issue is whethe ror not you are dealing with a blank slatist when you encounter the phrase

there is nothign oversimplified about it, putting SEX differences into the GENDER differences basket UNDERsimplifies it

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 1 point2 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

"what exactly constitutes 'gender' in the phrase gender is a social construct"

What constitutes 'gender' in the phrase 'gender is a social construct' are gendered expressions which are heavily influenced by hormones.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 6 points7 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

SOME are, some arent thats LITERALLY what my post was just about

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (26 children) | Copy Link

When you say "gender is a social construct" you are implying the expressions of that gender is created by society; not only gender itself.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 5 points6 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

yes, expressions of GENDER are created by "society", boys wear blue and girls wear pink is 100% socially constructed. women wear skirts and men wear pants is 100% socially constucted. men have short hair and women hav elong hair is 100% socially constructed etc etc etc

did you literally not read what i wrote again

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (24 children) | Copy Link

yes, expressions of GENDER are created by "society"

No. Expressions of gender ARE NOT created by society.

The differences in male and female:

sexual preference, physical aggression, profiles of personality traits and interests, individual personalty traits and intelligence..

..all can be classified as gendered expressions with biological influences.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 3 points4 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

sexual preference, physical aggression, profiles of personality traits and interests, individual personalty traits and intelligence..

those are sex differences, gender is performative. you keep pretendign that because SOME pepel mischaractize SOME sex differences as GENDER differences that are constructed it means NO gender differences are constructed

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here -1 points0 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

those are sex differences, gender is performative

The performative differences in sex are influenced in part by hormones. Therefore, it cannot be described as CREATED by society.

[–]GridReXXThe "XX" in my name means I'M A WOMAN 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I actually get what you’re saying.

I do think for most people most organic “gender expression” is born out of natural biological / physiological/ hormonal etc differences between the sexes.

Yes certain performative aspects are exacerbated due to societal engineering, but even then societal norms tend often to be born out of and fomented as a result of natural proclivities.

Essentially if you took 100 boys and 100 girls and raised them with the color green and unisex clothes and unisex toys and unisex activities, I’m not convinced the result is going to be 200 androgynous adults.

For the sizable majority of that 200, the cis-maleness and cis-femaleness is going to jump out regardless.

At the end of the day It’s clear “gender” is some combination of biology and socialization. I think you want to debate did the chicken 🐓 or egg 🥚 come first?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I actually get what you’re saying.

I mean, I'm just saying what the biologists are saying in the OP lol

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I’d like to see that experiment done.

But no it’s not a combination. Your Sex is biological, your gender is a social construct. There is overlap between the two for sure but gender is the expectation of how men and women will present and behave, sometimes influenced by biology, sometimes dictated by what is convenient for society.

I find it odd that for a sub of people who are so quick to claim that women act the way we do because we’re encouraged to do so by society are at the same time so dismissive of gender as a societal construct. More cognitive dissonance.

Not you. .

[–]Yu4nghydr4 -1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

There was a time when pink was for boys and blue for girls. But even in this I see nature not social conditioning, the take away being that the sexes will always partition themselves, if green is for boys orange will be for girls

The colors change but the division remains

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

the divisions are part of human nature yes, they arent part of gendered natured or derive from sex in the way gender is a social construct contemplates

[–]damaskrose1 points [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

the sexes will always partition themselves, if green is for boys orange will be for girls

True but I think it's kinda the opposite: "if orange is for girls, green will be for boys." There's this phenomena called gender pollution - basically when something becomes popular with women, men don't want anything to do with it anymore. The reverse doesn't happen; women won't avoid something just because men like it, and in fact women often copy trends that were started by and for men. This is part of why women's fashion - or even femininity in general - has become more varied and permissive over time, but men's hasn't.

[–]Yu4nghydr4 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Because women respond more to masculinity men’s fashion will always be more rigid

[–]damaskrose1 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Similarly there's not a lot of incentive for women to stay feminine, as masculine women are often rewarded romantically and financially.

[–]Yu4nghydr4 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

? I see feminine women better rewarded

Ultra feminine girls I know usually get to goof around at working any job until they feel like being a Sahw or sahm, then daddy carries

Masculine women usually stressed because they work, raise the children and direct the house hold while the guy jerks to porn and plays video games in his spare time

[–]damaskrose2 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Feminine women get pumped and dumped, masculine women become wives. This is one of those "trust their actions not their words" situations. Men say they want feminine women, but they hang out with masculine women and make fun of feminine women behind their backs.

[–]poppy_blu 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That explains why Tom Brady wifed Giselle.

[–]Yu4nghydr4 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Modern feminine women are whores for free things, they’re not getting pumped and dumped they’re practicing serial monogamy

[–]TimWestwood1 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What a completely generalized and stupid statement. P.S. the site you linked also talks about horoscopes LMAO

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but what it does suggest is that people like James Damore may well be right that male brains are actually more adept at certain cognitive skills and vice versa.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

yes i know, im not sure what i said that youre addressing

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not specifically addressing anything you said, just pointing out that something people who take the social constructionist view of gender often deny—that James Damore had a point—is supported by this research.

[–]poppy_blu 3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

He said women are too neurotic to be engineers. Cause anyone who hangs out on this sub knows male engineers aren't neurotic.

You and I both know he didn't get fired because of "evil feminists leftist suppression of biotroofs," he got fired because he criticized management in front of the entire company.

Before you argue with me, go to to work tomorrow, send an email to your entire company saying that your CEO and his/her senior management team are misguided, authoritarian and wrong.

Then call me from the unemployment line.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

He said women are too neurotic to be engineers. Cause anyone who hangs out on this sub knows male engineers aren't neurotic.

No he said they are higher in trait neuroticism on average, which is a fact. There's even a section on how to better help women in STEM based on the literature.

You and I both know he didn't get fired because of "evil feminists leftist suppression of biotroofs," he got fired because he criticized management in front of the entire company.

No, the memo had been floating around for a month, his supervisors didn't do anything until it got leaked and all his citations were removed to make him look like a bigot.

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

He was fired for violating the code of conduct because he chose to go about it poorly. Documented fact that he has never denied.

Would it have killed him to send an email directly to the CEO saying "I have some concerns about the diversity initiative and some ideas for how it might work better, can I get a meeting with you?"

That's how a professional handles their job.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

They asked him to comment on their diversity and anti-bias programs. His essay was the comment. They literally fired him for input they asked for.

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

They did not ask him to send a screed to the entire company with discriminatory language questioning the motives of management.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It wasn't to the entire company. It was to the managers handling the training. It wasn't a screed, I've read the whole thing, it analyzed why women may struggle in the stem departments and then provided advice to improve outcomes.

[–]poppy_blu 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

He sent it to a broad internal email list (the people handling the training were not employees but outside consultants weren't they not?) maybe it didn't include every single person who gets a pay check from google (the janitor probably didn't get it) but he circulated it widely and he addressed it to senior management.

As I said, if you think what he did wasn't wrong, go to work tomorrow and do the same thing and see how long you have a job.

And you of course, you ignored my question:

Would it have killed him to send an email directly to the CEO saying "I have some concerns about the diversity initiative and some ideas for how it might work better, can I get a meeting with you?"

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My boss and I talk politics plenty, but then again we both lean conservative.

Would it have killed him to send an email directly to the CEO saying "I have some concerns about the diversity initiative and some ideas for how it might work better, can I get a meeting with you?"

No, it wouldn't have.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

He said women are too neurotic to be engineers. Cause anyone who hangs out on this sub knows male engineers aren't neurotic.

No, he didn't, that's a complete dishonest characterization of what he wrote, which was about certain recognized personality characteristics that women have been shown to be higher in than men, potentially influencing their decisions not to go into the tech world as opposed to other careers.

You and I both know he didn't get fired because of "evil feminists leftist suppression of biotroofs," he got fired because he criticized management in front of the entire company.

No, he was fired, because his statements and views were ones that went against his bosses' politics, and your mocking characterization of that fact doesn't make it any less true. He was fired, because he didn't fit in at the culture of the company, which is highly liberal, and yes, highly feminist-sympathetic if not outright feminist.

Before you argue with me, go to to work tomorrow, send an email to your entire company saying that your CEO and his/her senior management team are misguided, authoritarian and wrong.

Google had already asked its employees for feedback, which he was providing. They just didn't expect anyone to say what he did. They fired him over the content of what he wrote, not the impropriety, because it wasn't improper. If someone had written something similar in structure and tone, but it had the right politics, it would have been fine, even if it did critique the entire company.

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

So he did the right thing? Hes a martyr for free speech?

If this had been a black women writing a similar memo/critique about management and including a “scientific” critique of white men and she distributed it in the same way and she was fired, you’d support her? Because she has a right to free speech?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists write less scientific critiques of men on a daily basis and the mainstream media laps it up and prints it like it's gospel. Don't talk to me like I don't know what it's like to be part of a group that's roundly criticized and derided in society; white men are society's chosen scapegoat for every social ill in existence these days.

I think people like Damore should be able to question the narrative that is being shoved down everyone's throats these days, by people who say they want to have a "conversation" about these topics, but then publicly shame and excoriate anyone who disagrees with them.

Would I like hearing a black person say things I felt were racist about whites or a woman say things I felt were sexist about men? Of course not. But I wouldn't want them to lose their jobs just for saying it. I don't want to live in a world wherein some people don't feel it's safe to speak their minds, because they might lose their job or worse. That's not freedom, and people can go on as long as they want about it not being a violation of free speech, because the government isn't involved; the government isn't the only power structure that matters.

So, yeah, I suppose I do see him as a martyr for free speech in a sense.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Social construction of gender is not about "creating gender" in the way you present it.

The wikipedia article social construction of gender says the following (references in quotes are not reproduced here and can be found on wikipedia):

The social construction of gender is a notion in feminism and sociology about the operation of gender and gender differences in societies. According to this view, society and culture create gender roles, and these roles are prescribed as ideal or appropriate behavior for a person of that specific sex.

The phrase refers specifically to the operation of gender within society and not the creation of gender. Gender roles are created by society. Creation of gender itself is not considered "social construction of gender". Furthermore "gender" is understood to mean "gender roles" within the context of the sex/gender academic deconstruction that the phrase inhabits:

Gender, according to West and Zimmerman, is not a personal trait; it is "an emergent feature of social situations: both as an outcome of and a rationale for various social arrangements, and as a means of legitimating one of the most fundamental divisions of society." Historically, the term gender was adopted as means of distinguishing between biological sex and socialized aspects of femininity and masculinity.

So it is clear that within the field of feminism and sociology, biological sex is excluded from the meaning of social construction of gender. Your view of gender is too broad to capture the nuance of the shop talk.

In your alternate semantics it's not the definition of "create" that matters, it's the definition of "gender". In other words using your terminology "gender is a social construct" should be translated as "gender roles are social constructs".

I look forward to your totally good faith gold star response.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

According to your link:

Some supporters of this idea argue that the differences in behavior between men and women are entirely social conventions, whereas others believe that behavior is influenced by universal biological factors to varying degrees, with social conventions having a major effect on gendered behavior.

I am arguing against the view that the differences in behavior between men and women are entirely social conventions.

Calling gender a "social construct" implies that the differences in behavior between men and women are created by social conventions; like the definition states in the dictionary, not the feminist link you gave me.

However, according to the feminist paper you cited:

Gender refers to those social, cultural, and psychological traits linked to males and females through particular social contexts.

These social, cultural and psychological traits are, in part, influenced by hormones. Therefore, they cannot be described as CREATED by social conventions.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

🌟

[–]CyJackX 5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It feels like this argument is pretty semantic. If you admit that certain behavior is partially social and partially biological, isn't it as simple as redefining gender as that which is social and sex as that which is biological?

If a new word was made up for it instead of redefining gender, wouldn't there be no issue? It seems to me that it's an argument of wordchoice with a social implication but not an indictment of the idea itself.

[–]shoup88Report me bitch 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

That is what gender has always meant. The word was invented to differentiate the cultural aspects of gender from biological sex.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Actually it just meant "genre" and was adapted by sexologists to explain trans people. It existed way before the 60s and 70s.

[–]shoup88Report me bitch 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

How did it explain trans people if not by differentiating between biological sex differences, and other differences related to men vs women?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm disagreeing with the word "invented", because the term existed for a long time with the meaning "genre". Everything else is fine.

[–]shoup88Report me bitch 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I wasn’t speaking to academic standards, but more casually. I’m aware it wasn’t “invented”, but simply explaining that OP is not making up some new definition.

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman 6 points7 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

I love the way that we assume there is no impact of socialisation in primates, like "Well obviously if it happens in animals it must be biological". Why?

The original 'primates and toy preference' study is pretty funny, actually. Because they classified a cooking pot as a girl-type toy related to nurturing. Like.... I don't know if primates have social constructs, but I'm pretty sure they don't know what a fucking cooking pan is for.

The issue with studying 'not socially related' gender differences in humans (or really in anything) is.... there is no control group. Anyone that says they controlled for social factors is, to put it bluntly, a liar. Like "They're super progressive in Sweden but they still go for gendered toys". Because apparently a handful of more progressive discrimination policies negate the fact that girls and boys are still 'a thing'.

Also accepting a null hypothesis about a gender-inequality-index and toy preference study and declaring it 'This is an obvious example of how gender is inherently biological' is some serious bullshit. Which is probably why they won't let her teach at a real university (yes I went there).

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Wallen’s team offered the monkeys two categories of toys: “wheeled” and “plush”. The wheeled toys, intended to be masculine, included wagons and vehicles. The more feminine plush toys included Winnie the Pooh and Raggedy-Ann dolls.

They did not give them cooking pans lmao.

The issue with studying 'not socially related' gender differences in humans (or really in anything) is.... there is no control group. Anyone that says they controlled for social factors is, to put it bluntly, a liar. Like "They're super progressive in Sweden but they still go for gendered toys". Because apparently a handful of more progressive discrimination policies negate the fact that girls and boys are still 'a thing'.

I think my issue is that progressive types goes too far in the other direction, more than any biologist is willing to stand professionally. We can't prove it in a controlled setting. But that doesn't mean you can call gender a "social construct." It is also un-provable to be a "social construct" as well, and scientists are not agreeing with it on top of that. So really, there is no basis to call gender a "social construct" when even scientific consensus disagrees with that.

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman 1 point2 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

They did not give them cooking pans lmao.

I didn't say this study, I said one of the original studies that much of the later primate toy research is based on. I just thought it was funny.

So really, there is no basis to call gender a "social construct" when even scientific consensus disagrees with that

This is an incorrect statement.
So for example, I am a woman. For thousands of years, philosophers/doctors/scientists have been studying the differences between men and women. But if they were given my brain - either through a series of fMRI/PET scans or post-mortem just handed it - they would not be able to give a definitive answer as to whether I'm a man or a woman. They could make assumptions based on some groupings - for example women are generally smaller so their brains are generally smaller, so that would be a good one to go on, but then its far from universal, because there are big women and small men. But despite the chromosomal differences if they looked at the genes (ignoring intersex and trans people for ease of argument), there are zero structural neurological or psychological differences that have ever been found to be identifiable differences between men and women. Zero. Despite the fact that the brain is a learning thing and it wouldn't even mean 'that is biological' if they did. Yet people like to walk around saying that 'the scientific consensus is that gender has non sociological impact on psychology'. Its not. That is a lie.

I'm not even saying there isn't a difference. I'm just saying that anyone who says one has been found is either lying or bad at science.

Look at it this way -
We know that people of different genders are treated differently.
We know that these ways of being differently treated have a huge impact of behaviour, cognition, etc.
We don't know (we've looked, hard) that there are any differences in behaviour and psychology that go along with these groupings that are not to do with environmental influences and culture.
Therefore, if we look at a piece of information about how people of different genders are different, should we attribute it to social factors or inherent difference? The obvious answer is - if it is possible that this is attributable to the thing that we know is a thing, its probably that, compared to the thing that we have no reason to believe is a thing.
Yes neither is truly provable, but they are not equally valid hypothesis.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say this study, I said one of the original studies that much of the later primate toy research is based on. I just thought it was funny.

Not really too sure why you are talking about studies that are irrelevant.

But if they were given my brain - either through a series of fMRI/PET scans or post-mortem just handed it - they would not be able to give a definitive answer as to whether I'm a man or a woman.

It's not only about brain. You could easily tell your sex from a blood test of hormones.

Neurogeneticist Kevin Mitchell neatly sums up this argument in a tweet:

https://twitter.com/WiringTheBrain/status/951531827885420549/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E951531827885420549&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fqz.com%2F1190996%2Fscientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct%2F

You just are not on the side of scientific consensus. It is what it is.

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman 4 points5 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

You just are not on the side of scientific consensus. It is what it is.

You sent me a tweet by one scientist. Other scientists differ on this matter. He doesn't even say 'the consensus' he specifically gives HIS interpretation of the most current research.

The study isn't irrelevant, it is the first and one of the biggest studies into primate behaviour in this area. I mentioned it because it is the most funny. I also touched on the issues with the other research in that area but whatever.

My point is that your thread starting title is:

Gender is NOT a social construct

You then provided some evidence that MAY suggest not-socially-influenced differences in behaviour/cognition, but does not necessarily.
You then argued that you can't prove that gender is purely a social construct. This is true. But you can't prove that it is not, so the strong declarative nature of your original statement is undermined by your own point.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

You then provided some evidence that MAY suggest not-socially-influenced differences in behaviour/cognition, but does not necessarily.

All I have to do is provide evidence that behavioral differences are influenced by hormones. This is concluded in countless studies.

Gender is NOT a social construct because social constructs are created by social conventions. There is no evidence to suggest that gender is solely created by social conventions and piles of evidence to suggest otherwise. So much evidence that no scientific consensus is that gender is NOT a social construct. The evidence so strongly points to it being NOT a social construct that I am unaware of any scientists who say it is. Please link me one.

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman 2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

And hormones are influenced by environment. Also concluded by countless studies.
If you shoot me with a vial of testosterone.... do I become a man? When do I stop being a man? Are all my thoughts in that time going to be man thoughts?
If 'gender' is just differences in testosterone level, then that should be the case, no?

There is no evidence to suggest that gender is solely created by social conventions

There is loads of evidence in which it is suggested that social conventions influence gender presentation. There is zero evidence of gender presentation that isn't influenced by social conventions. So.....

The way I explain it to people sometimes is....
So, money is a social construct. I have some bits of paper with nothing on them, you have some bits of paper with £20 written on them. The difference between these bits of paper is purely a social contract - its all just paper. But tomorrow, you can go and get a slap up meal at a restaurant while I may starve, based on that social construct. That starving and satiation is real, and a life or death distinction. Never underestimate the power of a social construct.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Again, gender cannot be proven to be a social construct and there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is not; hence gender is NOT a social construct.

So, money is a social construct. I have some bits of paper with nothing on them

Money is an idea that is a social convention. Hormones are biological. You are presenting a false equivalence.

I don't have to prove that gender is 100% biological to claim that it's NOT a social construct.

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman 2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Hormones are biological. 'Gender' is not biological. You are confusing two things.

There is no evidence to truly suggest that it is not. I cannot stress that enough. We're in 2018 and there is no real evidence that is not explainable by the social construct model.

Being poor is not a biological fact. Being poor is just having less money, which is a social convention. Yet there are many physical and social realities that are related to being poor. Being hungry is biological, and being hungry is directly related to being poor. Money has a biological reality.

So for example.... lets say women have lower self confidence.
I can give you loads of studies that show social influences for how self confidence is developed.
You can give me no studies that show a truly non social locus for low self confidence in women.

You are the one that made a declarative statement, you are the one upon which the burden of proof lies.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Again, there is no evidence to claim the definitive statement that “gender is a social construct.” Because if it was, then it would be entirely created out of social convention.

We can measure and observe how hormonal differences influence behavior.

Again, you’re conflating money which is a social convention with something biological. Rich people can also be hungry lmao.

Do you agree that testosterone influences behavior? Because if you do, then gender is NOT a social construct.

Social constructs are CREATED by society. Gender is not fully CREATED by society. So it can’t be a social construct.

Your money analogy is a false equivalence. Both class and money are social conventions. They are ENTIRELY created by social conventions. There is no evidence to suggest gender is ENTIRELY created by social conventions.

[–]Realityinmyhand 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

you can't prove that it is not

In a discussion, it's not honest to ask someone to prove a negative.

You can't prove god doesn't exist. You can't prove no alien life exist. You can't prove...

You get the point. That's why burden of proof is on the one making the proposition. The same people that say "gender is a social construct" are the one that need to prove it. That's how science works.

[–]wub1234 8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It's not a social construct, and it's also not entirely biologically determined.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, agreed.

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Where do gender differences come from then?

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]wtknightGen X Slacker 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, I see what you’re trying to say. I thought you meant that neither nature nor nurture had any part to play at all.

[–]darudeboysandstormHaving Instagram makes you a thot 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

  1. the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

IDK if anyone bothered to google this, but if we go by our google gods master brain then we can now clearly see that in fact gender is the social construct version of sex (typically).

It's just a word folks, all that really matters is people arent being judged for their fucked up ways of living in this fucked up world and they arent punished for that fucked up shit as long as they keep it to themselves and those who consent to join in on the fun.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

A social difference would include the differences in aggression between the genders.

Do you believe testosterone has any influence in aggressive behaviors or any behavior?

[–]darudeboysandstormHaving Instagram makes you a thot 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Testosterone yes, I am not sure what makes everyone think one gender is more aggressive both genders are extremely violent as is human nature.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Okay. So if the social differences in men and women are influenced by biology, then you cannot call gender a “social construct”

[–]darudeboysandstormHaving Instagram makes you a thot 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

My comment was merely stating that, google defines gender as the state of being male or female typcially with reference to social and cultural differences. So with that definition, typically, are going to be social or cultural ie things of our own construct.

They may be influenced by biology, but not all social or cultural things are. The definition is literally giving you a lens to look at the concept of sex through.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes. It states the social behaviors of the sexes. Which are influenced by biology as studies show and scientists agree.

Behaviors that are influenced by biology cannot be described as a social construct.

[–]darudeboysandstormHaving Instagram makes you a thot 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Biology and...... environment, guess its a 50/50 half what we made half what we were given.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes I agree it’s both. Because it is both (at whatever percentage) it is not ENTIRELY socially constructed. Therefore, gender cannot be described as a ‘social construct.’ This is why scientists don’t classify gender as a social construct.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The universal trend for men to be more violent, as judged by crime statistics.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 3 points4 points  (44 children) | Copy Link

"Gender is a social construct" is not the same as "someones gender identity is socially constructed" or "someones gender expressions are socially constructed".

Just because concepts are related to each other doesn't mean they are the same. You didn't debunk anything because you only debunked that gender expressions are based on biological facts, but you didn't debunk the fact that gender is a social construct.

Race is a social construct that's based on skin color, but that doesn't mean that skin color is socially constructed just because those two are related to each other. And no matter how often you point out that skin color is determined by genetics it simply doesn't change anything about the fact that race is a social construct.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 1 point2 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

gender expressions are based on biological facts

"Gender" includes gender expression, gender identity and biological sex.

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity

"Gender" may include biological sex, sex-based social structures, or gender identity.

Something that is based on biological facts, cannot be CREATED by society by definition.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 3 points4 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Something that is based on biological facts, cannot be CREATED by society by definition.

Why not? I seriously don't understand how an idea that's based on something real is no longer an idea just because it's based on something real. There's a difference between the complex thing those ideas are based on and the ideas themselves.

Age groups are based on biological facts. Puberty and maturity are real things, yet "adulthood" is a social construct. Different societies simply have different ideas on how to decide who's an adult or even how many age groups there are. The fact that puberty is real doesn't make age groups any less of a social construct. Those labels are still just things that we invented to explain the complex biological reality, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

Race is based on skin color and ethnicity, yet race is a social construct, because your race is just a cultural opinion. An Italian can be white in one culture, but non-white in another. You can define race without defining the historical and cultural context first.

Gender is based on sexual dimorphism, yet it is still a social construct, because it refers to cultural ideas of what defines a man or a woman. Even though it's based on something real, those ideas are still just cultural opinions and your gender can change if you simply move to a culture that uses a different gender system.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here -1 points0 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Gender is based on sexual dimorphism, yet it is still a social construct, because it refers to cultural ideas of what defines a man or a woman.

No. Gender refers to gendered expressions which are highly influenced by hormones. Something that is influenced by biology cannot be described as CREATED by society.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 2 points3 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

You are talking about someones gender identity and gender expression, but I'm talking about gender.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here -1 points0 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Gender:

the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Behavioral traits, gender identity and gender expression are all included in the term 'gender.'

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 3 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

"associated" is the key word here. It's about cultural ideas, and well cultural ideas are simply ideas even if they are trying to describe real phenomena.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here -1 points0 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Yes. And they are associated partially out of biological differences. Hence, they cannot be described as CREATED by society.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Why not? Those associations are just ideas and opinions, they are never accurate descriptions of the things they are based on.

You've got to consider that there's a difference between an idea about some thing and that thing itself.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Something being classified by society is not the same thing as something being CREATED by society. They are associated because they are being classified, not because they are being CREATED.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Race is not a social construct and is more than just skin color. Doesn't mean we shouldn't treat everyone equally.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't mean we shouldn't treat everyone equally.

Actuallyyyyyy

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 0 points1 point  (22 children) | Copy Link

Race is not a social construct

aka "I don't even know what "X is a social construct" means nevertheless I disagree with all the academics that use it correctly".

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

IDK if I'll get in trouble for discussing it here, but there is plenty of evidence showing that races are different. One of the most documented is differences in IQ.

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 1 point2 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Don’t bring that bullshit in here. There are flaws with it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I never claimed that IQ tests were perfect. I claimed that people of different races tend to have different scores. If that offends you, you can find other evidence of races being different. Genetic disorders for example. Sickle cell disease comes to mind.

[–]THE_COLONIZERS 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

You do know the IQ test was used to prove that Western Europeans were better than everyone else and as a justification for poverty and discrimination... also if you ever saw test questions you'd understand why certain races score lower: you would need some sort of education to understand what's being asked of you. Also, not every culture puts the same emphasis on education nor are all educational facilities (even in the US) equitable so that puts certain groups at a disadvantage.

Slight biological variations definitely, but that'll probably faze out as modern technology finds ways to either make vaccine for everything or remove genetics traits from future offspring :/

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Jews and Asians tend to outperform Europeans, so I guess that kinda backfired for white supremacists. Why do racial differences persist when you control for other factors?

Science > political correctness https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

[–]THE_COLONIZERS 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

It does now, but when the test was developed around the time of mass migration of European immigrants the results (which were heavily skewed) showed that these groups consistently performed worse than White people. Also racial differences exist when we control these factors because we never actually controlled these factors. You can't possibly control every factor because everybody has lived a different life: the beauty of social sciences is that it's multifaceted. Again, there will always be things to consider when measuring things constructed by humans (is the test taker someone who is disabled, are they taking the test in a second language, or is this person just having a bad day, for example).

I don't think It's not science > political correctness. I think it's the hard sciences v. the social sciences and ignoring complexity v. acknowledging it. Hard sciences tend to be straight forward, social sciences require a lot more open-mindedness and awareness that some people are too uncomfortable with because it challenges their beliefs. Yes, I'm well aware that there are biological differences and I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. Nor do I think most people are solely arguing that race is purely social. Biology is just the basis of humans, other factors are the true driving points.

Okay yes, an example is hormones. We can't control them and they have a huge impact on humans. But what we're taught to do with those hormones--ignore them, punch a wall, watch porn, go out and sexually assault people--are based off of socially constructed things like culture.

TL;DR - It's impossible to control every factor unless we have a society that's homogeneous in virtually every way. Race is both a social construct and something that is tangible. Many people are not denying that, but rather arguing for others to acknowledge the social implications on race. The argument doesn't seem to be about science and political correctness, more of hard sciences v. social sciences and which one should be valued more.

Read "The Mismeasure of Man" if you're interested in learning how biology was used as a way to enforce racism.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

People say "race is a social construct" when it clearly has to do with genetics. If IQ tests bother you, you'll see a similar disparity on SAT, ACT, and MCAT scores. There are studies that attempt to control for outside factors on those tests, too.

People seem to have no problem believing in evolution until we suggest it affects our brains.

[–]Gnometard 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

How about the fact that a forensics expert could identify the race and gender of a skeleton?

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I was talking about IQ bullshit.

[–]officerkondoRedder Shade of Purple Man 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

It’s not. Go to Wikipedia, for Christ’s sake.

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

There are many rebuttals. Biased tests. Scarcity lowering IQs. And studies - like those of children of black GIs in Germany after WWII - that refute your claim. I don’t want to wade into this swamp, my man. But your “proof” is not as ironclad as you would like to think.

[–]officerkondoRedder Shade of Purple Man 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Can you please explain how Raven’s Progressive Matrices is biased? Do you say that cognitive scientists are wrong in their conclusion that general intelligence is highly heritable? Please see the article on the heritability of intelligence.

Did you know that people say there are “many rebuttals” to evolution?

[–]teramelosiscool 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

uh, p sure they could identify sex, not neccessarily gender. i.e. how tf would a forensic expert know if a person spent their life identifying as gender fluid and using the pronoun 'hen'?

[–]Lewd_Crude 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

There are differences between the races. Obviously skin color but also hormonal differences, skeletal differences, different facial features but more importantly susceptibility to certain diseases and conditions. I think the whole "race is just a social construct" is a pretty rediculous position akin to saying biological sex is a social construct. Ppl say it because they want to believe it's just skin deep because for some reason if you acknowledge that humans adapted differently to different environments you're a racist.

[–]aznphenix 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

"race is just a social construct"

It's more that what we define as 'race' isn't scientifically or biologically segregable, even if you can find on average some differences between 'races'.

[–]Lewd_Crude 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not true. Tell that to a forensics expert who can look at a skeleton and tell what race it is or the doctor warning blacks of the much higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, ashkenazi Jews of the much higher incidence of Tay-Sachs or whites of the much higher incidence of cystic fibrosis. Racial lines aren't perfect but the thought that races aren't "scientifically or biologically segregable" is more of a wish of how things ought to be than how things are. All races are human but that doesn't mean they aren't different.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer 6 points7 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

The very fact there is a gender identity which is not determined by biology completely disproves what you are saying, and also saying that gender is a social construct also does not imply that there are biological sex differences. Social constructs have an impact on peoples lives: race, money and language are all socially constructed but they are certainly real in their impacts and influential.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 2 points3 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society

Saying gender is a social construct means society CREATED gender differences.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It doesn't. Just like saying that race is a social construct doesn't mean that society created skin colors.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't.

Yes it does according to the definition of a "social construct."

Again, biologists do agree that race is a social construct. They don't believe gender is one though.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer 5 points6 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

The idea that certain colors, clothing items and cosmetic products are associated with masculinity or femininity is certainly a gender difference that is made up by a society and differs across space or time.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Again, gender differences are still not CREATED by society.

You're going to have to convince me that gender differences are created by society, in the same vein as religion is a social construct because of how it is created by society. Gender is not created by society to where it can be called a "social construction."

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer 4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

This is certainly an unassailable position because you seem to think that gender is the same thing as sex.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

No. I think that gender expressions are influenced in part by hormones. Therefore, gender cannot be CREATED by society.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer 3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

That belief is in no way contradictory to gender being a social construct.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes it is. Gender would have to be CREATED by society to be a “social construct.”

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

It was created by people to describe the difference between someone's biological sex and the gender identity they take on. The idea of a woman wearing a dress is a social construct, it has no biological determination, it could be influenced by it yes, but it is still committed to being relative.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Something influenced by biology is not CREATED by society.

[–]Yu4nghydr4 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, even though the attitudes and aesthetics change the permanent factor is that the sexes always separate naturally

[–]Lewd_Crude 1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Biological sex is not created by society. Universal physical and psychological differences between the sexes is not created by society either but the degree and quality to which these are expressed are determined by society which could be called gender roles. However most ppl incorrectly assume that because it's a social construct then you can identify with another gender and become a real woman or a real man. A chimp can wear clothes, get a job, be treated like a human etc but that doesn't make him human.

The only way someone can actually change their sex is through an operation and even then the technology is nowhere near close to there yet. Their are physiological and neurological differences between the sexes that aren't changed by the current surgery or hormones. Basically you would have to have a new body grown for you then operate on the brain to account for neurological differences and finally transfer the brain into the new body. That's going to be a long time from now.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

However most ppl incorrectly assume that because it's a social construct then you can identify with another gender and become a real woman or a real man. A chimp can wear clothes, get a job, be treated like a human etc but that doesn't make him human.

Personhood is a social construct, so depending on how a society constructs personhood this chimp could do those things and then become a person.

Gender is a social construct because biology doesn't tell us how we should classify people into gender roles, just like it doesn't give us exact guidelines on what exactly a person is.

Your gender simply isn't a universal fact, just like how "adult", "white", "person" and "moral" aren't universal facts either.

These classifications depend on the cultural context, therefore they are social constructs.

The only way someone can actually change their sex is through an operation and even then the technology is nowhere near close to there yet.

It's transgender, because they are fully aware that they aren't changing their sex.

But they are changing how society perceives them. As long as people don't know their chromosomes and birth sex they treat them according their preferred gender identity.

Sex refers to your chromones. Male and female refer to your sex. Your sex is a biological fact and won't change no matter where you go.

But gender refers to how society classifies you. Man and women (and two-spirit and any other gender that exists in cultures across the world) refer to your gender. Your gender can change if you simply move to a different location, because how society classifies you is just a cultural opinion.

Their are physiological and neurological differences between the sexes that aren't changed by the current surgery or hormones. Basically you would have to have a new body grown for you then operate on the brain to account for neurological differences and finally transfer the brain into the new body. That's going to be a long time from now.

But don't you think that sometimes something can go wrong during pregnancy? Like the wrong sexual hormones, or the wrong amount being present during early development or also bad receptors for those hormones?

Because transgender people evidently have a neurological makeup that aligns with what they claim to feel.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

Figure 2: Transgender women tend to have brain structures that resemble cisgender women, rather than cisgender men. Two sexually dimorphic (differing between men and women) areas of the brain are often compared between men and women. The bed nucleus of the stria terminalus (BSTc) and sexually dimorphic nucleus of transgender women are more similar to those of cisgender woman than to those of cisgender men, suggesting that the general brain structure of these women is in keeping with their gender identity.

In 1995 and 2000, two independent teams of researchers decided to examine a region of the brain called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) in trans- and cisgender men and women (Figure 2). The BSTc functions in anxiety, but is, on average, twice as large and twice as densely populated with cells in men compared to women. This sexual dimorphism is pretty robust, and though scientists don’t know why it exists, it appears to be a good marker of a “male” vs. “female” brain. Thus, these two studies sought to examine the brains of transgender individuals to figure out if their brains better resembled their assigned or chosen sex.

Interestingly, both teams discovered that male-to-female transgender women had a BSTc more closely resembling that of cisgender women than men in both size and cell density, and that female-to-male transgender men had BSTcs resembling cisgender men. These differences remained even after the scientists took into account the fact that many transgender men and women in their study were taking estrogen and testosterone during their transition by including cisgender men and women who were also on hormones not corresponding to their assigned biological sex (for a variety of medical reasons). These findings have since been confirmed and corroborated in other studies and other regions of the brain, including a region of the brain called the sexually dimorphic nucleus (Figure 2) that is believed to affect sexual behavior in animals.

It has been conclusively shown that hormone treatment can vastly affect the structure and composition of the brain; thus, several teams sought to characterize the brains of transgender men and women who had not yet undergone hormone treatment. Several studies confirmed previous findings, showing once more that transgender people appear to be born with brains more similar to gender with which they identify, rather than the one to which they were assigned.

Now the thing is that gender is a social construct. We in the western world have a binary gender system because we thought that the Christian God is infallible and thus anything that doesn't fit into two boxes is unnatural and wrong. But other cultures just accepted that biology is more complex and used gender systems that were more flexible and even gender systems with more than two genders.

Biology doesn't tell us that we have to address everyone who has XX chromosomes as woman and everyone who has XY as man. And biology doesn't tell us that intersex people have to be classified as one of both sex either. It's our western culture and Christian beliefs that tells us that we have to do it this binary and inflexible way, but neither biology nor science tell us that we have to continue to adhere to this gender system.

So even though they can't change their chromosomes it's still certainly possible that they can change if society recognizes them as being a man or woman.

[–]Lewd_Crude 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Personhood is a social construct, so depending on how a society constructs personhood this chimp could do those things and then become a person.

I didn't say person. Sure a chimp could have personhood but that doesn't change the fact that he isn't human. You could change the definition of human to accommodate chimps but that doesn't change the fact that chimps are biologically distinct.

Gender is a social construct because biology doesn't tell us how we should classify people into gender roles, just like it doesn't give us exact guidelines on what exactly a person is.

I didn't say gender wasn't a social construct. In fact it is but gender roles usually serve to codify our natural inclinations in a way that is beneficial or right for a specific society. It's a social construct but it doesn't come out of vacuum.

Your gender simply isn't a universal fact, just like how "adult", "white", "person" and "moral" aren't universal facts either.

I'm not arguing this. I'm arguing it's my opinion that society shouldn't treat these ppl with the gender they identify as. It's an opinion.

It's transgender, because they are fully aware that they aren't changing their sex.

They do not identify as trans first. They identify as female or male and make arguments for how they should be treated according to their preferences etc. I'd be fine with creating a third a fourth gender category with its own rules for post OP trans ppl but not ok with them taking man or woman.

But they are changing how society perceives them. As long as people don't know their chromosomes and birth sex they treat them according their preferred gender identity.

Right which I see as a problem.

...Your gender can change if you simply move to a different location, because how society classifies you is just a cultural opinion.

Your gender does not change. Your gender role changes slightly. With the exception of rare isolated island ppls there is a near universal gender split with pretty common values. But this why I'm ok with third and fourth genders as these have happened before in different societies.

But don't you think that sometimes something can go wrong during pregnancy? Like the wrong sexual hormones, or the wrong amount being present during early development or also bad receptors for those hormones?

Sure but I think that just would make them a less womanly woman or less manly man. I would need to see evidence that experts couldn't tell through a trans brain apart from the gender identify as.

So even though they can't change their chromosomes it's still certainly possible that they can change if society recognizes them as being a man or woman.

Right. I never said we couldn't do that. I just disagree with it.

[–]EGOtyst 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Not trying to attack, but you seem to have a firm grasp of your stance on this.

If gender is a social construct, what do the neurological similarities of a transgender female to a cisgender female matter?

Wouldn't those biological similarities shore up the OP's stance?

I.e. If the neurological similarities matter, then doesn't that mean the associated gender choice of the individual was biologically based?

Also, if gender is performative, what makes trans women a different classification than transvestites/drag queens?

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I.e. If the neurological similarities matter, then doesn't that mean the associated gender choice of the individual was biologically based?

This choice is based on biological factors, but "gender" and "gender identity" are still two different things.

Sex refers to your biology: male and female

Gender refers to your role in society: man and woman, masculinity and femininity.

Gender identity refers to your innate neurological makeup that governs which gender you feel suits you best.

[–]EGOtyst 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I can get on board with what your saying. There is a lot of semantic nuance, however, that just doesn't seem worthwhile.

Gender as a role in society is an asinine definition. I will agree with your previous points: many of the superficial constructs which apply themselves to "gendered" decisions are just that, superficial. Whether men wear dresses or pants is arbitrary.

However, to argue that there are not masculine/feminine traits that span across almost all cultures is just putting your head in the sand.

I think it can be safe to say that there are distinct gender characteristics that are biologically based, both chromosomal, hormonal and neurological (and obviously those three are interdependent), AS WELL AS gender characteristics that are socially created (e.g. clothing choices, color choices, etc).

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I can get on board with what your saying. There is a lot of semantic nuance, however, that just doesn't seem worthwhile.

Semantics are the whole point of the sex and gender distinction.

Gender as a role in society is an asinine definition.

That's how it's defined though. John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in order to talk about the way society understands and classifies people into gender roles independently from actual biological sex differences.

I will agree with your previous points: many of the superficial constructs which apply themselves to "gendered" decisions are just that, superficial. Whether men wear dresses or pants is arbitrary.

That's the point of the sex and gender distinction. Sex is about the biological reality, but gender is about such societal ideas.

It's a sex difference that men are generally taller and stronger, but it's a gender difference that men don't wear dresses.

However, to argue that there are not masculine/feminine traits that span across almost all cultures is just putting your head in the sand.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm not saying that gender identity or gender expression are entirely socially constructed.

What I'm saying is that what society associates with masculinity and femininity isn't the same as the biological reality even though those associations are often based on the biological reality.

For example it's a sex difference that males cry less due to higher levels of testosterone, but it's a cultural idea that men shouldn't cry.

I think it can be safe to say that there are distinct gender characteristics that are biologically based, both chromosomal, hormonal and neurological (and obviously those three are interdependent), AS WELL AS gender characteristics that are socially created (e.g. clothing choices, color choices, etc).

"gender is a social construct" is a tautology, because gender has been defined to refer to those socially created ideas.

Gender is a social construct, because it refers to the societal ideas of what it means to be a man or a woman.

It's like how age groups are a social construct even though age is a physical fact and puberty and maturity are biological facts, but age groups specifically refer to the way societies classify people while maturity stages refer to biological facts.

But "child" and "adult" are merely cultural classifications. There are biological differences between children and adults, but how we decide who's an adult or what we associate with adulthood are still just cultural opinions, even if those opinions are based on biological facts.

Talking about the societal aspect and the biological aspect as two different, but related things is really useful in all the social sciences. So whenever you hear "X is a social construct" what it means is "the definition of X is that it refers to sociocultural ideas". Those ideas can be based on real things, but there's no objective definition of "man" or "woman", "child" or "adult", "person", "family", etc. because those are cultural and not biological or scientific terms.

[–]EGOtyst 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your response spells this out in an excellent way. Thank you for the well metered and tempered discussion.

Biological sex: this one is simple. I don't think anyone who is actually looking to discuss this topic disagrees here very much. The people who throw out documented medical disorders are clearly just muddying the water.

I think a major problem in all of this, however, is your distinction between gender and gender identity. Based on your distinctions, gender is literally just the outwardly signaled markers of an arbitrary label, while gender identity is what gender you think you are. Gender Identity is subject to physiological/biological criteria that Gender, and the social definitions therein, are not subject to.

But that doesn't make sense. The number 1 defining criteria for a given gender IS the biological component. Even if it were/is a purely social construct, it is still rooted in the biological dichotomy. You cannot hand-wave in the fact that in come cultures, men can cry, and in some they can't, and use that to describe that gender is purely social constructed. Doing that ignores the fact that the largest criteria for determining gender, in the vast majority of the population, in ALL cultures, is the biological sex of the person.

I'm not pointing fingers, but that seems intellectually dishonest at worst, and just naive at best.

Allow us to look at another socially constructed group structure: political parties. These have literally no basis in biology. There are no facts associated with them. They are, quite literally, social constructs. To equate them with gender, and to disregard the biological association people make between sex and gender, is a hard pill to swallow.

Furthermore, saying that Gender is purely socially constructed, by definition, requires clear definitions of different Genders. I.e. defined social criteria for what constitutes being a specific gender. This is practically impossible.

For example it's a sex difference that males cry less due to higher levels of testosterone, but it's a cultural idea that men shouldn't cry.

That isn't true across all cultures, even in American culture. Never? What about when your kid dies? What about the Indian that releases a tear when the trash is thrown at his feet?

To argue that "Men never cry" is a defining cultural axiom for the socially constructed role of "Man" is asinine, because it necessitates the opposite be true: i.e. if you cry, you cease to be a man. But that is simply not the case.

To continue this point, if gender is socially constructed, there must be a laundry list of requirements for "Man", that differs across all societies. And, if you go from one culture to another, and do not meet the requirements, you cease to be a man. Hell, this concept would/does differ from person to person. It makes the entire label of gender one giant game of "No True Scotsman...". That is asinine. It goes so far as to make the concept of gender useless.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Furthermore, saying that Gender is purely socially constructed, by definition, requires clear definitions of different Genders. I.e. defined social criteria for what constitutes being a specific gender. This is practically impossible.

It's a social construct; it's not possible to give a clear definitions because it's defined by all the sociocultural ideas about it that float around. You can give an approximate definition of the dominant ideas, but not without specifying the historical and cultural context.

You can give an exact definition of sex, because it's defined in clear scientific terms, but you can't give an exact definition of gender because ideas simply aren't as tangible as chromones or sexual organs.

That's like the whole point. You can say that it's a fact that XY chromosomes are male, but you can't say that it's a fact that there are only two genders, that every male is a man or that men shouldn't cry, because those labels, standards and associations are merely cultural opinions.

For example it's a sex difference that males cry less due to higher levels of testosterone, but it's a cultural idea that men shouldn't cry.

That isn't true across all cultures, even in American culture. Never? What about when your kid dies? What about the Indian that releases a tear when the trash is thrown at his feet?

"but it's a cultural idea" implies "it's not true across all cultures"

To argue that "Men never cry" is a defining cultural axiom for the socially constructed role of "Man" is asinine, because it necessitates the opposite be true: i.e. if you cry, you cease to be a man. But that is simply not the case.

Tone down the hyperbole.

To continue this point, if gender is socially constructed, there must be a laundry list of requirements for "Man", that differs across all societies. And, if you go from one culture to another, and do not meet the requirements, you cease to be a man. Hell, this concept would/does differ from person to person. It makes the entire label of gender one giant game of "No True Scotsman...". That is asinine. It goes so far as to make the concept of gender useless.

This is exactly what makes it useful. It's a term that's primarily used by sociologists and anthropologists to specifically talk about those different laundry lists.

Like let's say an anthropologist visits a Native American tribe and asks all women to go into one corner and all men in another, but some biological males are in the woman corner and some biological females are in the man corner. And one person stands around in the middle without knowing where to go.

The naive solution would be to tell them that they did it wrong, but the smart solution is to accept that they have a different gender system and then try to understand their cultural perspective.

It's a social construct and therefore there doesn't exist a clear and objective definition of what a man is, but that's exactly what makes it an interesting topic to study.

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What if you just stuck existing brain into lab grown body?

[–]Lewd_Crude 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then they would have a body that was one sex and a brain that was another.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 1 point2 points  (57 children) | Copy Link

The claim "gender is a social construct" is tautological as gender is typically defined as the cultural interpretation of sex. So while valid, under these definitions it comes across vacuous.

[–][deleted]  (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Well it's arguably not sex itself but factors associated with it (prenatal hormones, gonads, cultural practice, etc). We see folks who dont fit our assumptions about gender based on these very factors

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

If they arose solely as a product of chromosomes we would presumably see more uniformity than we see now.

You're talking about the biological matters, but the fact is controlling for these things to see how much each actually shapes behaviour is difficult. Most traits can be hugely impacted by either nature or nurture.

[–][deleted]  (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not doubting the trends. Proving that these are purely caused by chromosomes rather than other factors is not possible without more control of the variables though. You're arguing from correlation

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Linguistic traditions, culinary traditions, religious traditions. Regions which share these tend to be more similar in terms of gender construction than those which do not. One example is how groups believed to have come to N America via Bering Strait tend to be more similar in their looser gender expectations than other groups.

The hormone theory seems misguided. Many speculated that African Americans have more testosterone and then tried to extrapolate about their behaviours, yet in various samples its actually been found that they have higher estrogen, and thjs is consistent with their increased risk of breast cancer.

Without better controls the view is far from conclusive

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (46 children) | Copy Link

The cultural interpretation of sex is based in part on personality differences influenced by hormones.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 0 points1 point  (45 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure you can generalize that to entire populations which share these cultures.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (44 children) | Copy Link

Personality differences influenced by hormones are absolutely cross-culture.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 0 points1 point  (43 children) | Copy Link

We're talking about within cultures. I don't think data exists to say "Well gender looks like this in China because of this specific hormone profile, whereas in Mexico it differs and takes this shape because of that hormone profile". Not only would such an argument require we have a generalizable hormone profile for these cultures, but it would also depend on some kind of evidence which could suggest how exactly various hormone levels impact cultural interpretations of sex. I don't think we have that data.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (42 children) | Copy Link

No that’s not my argument. My argument is that gender differences are influenced by hormones and this is observed cross-culturally.

Chinese men are still more aggressive than Chinese women. And Mexican men are still more aggressive than Mexican women.

These gendered differences are influenced by testosterone.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 0 points1 point  (41 children) | Copy Link

Mead's work on tribes in Africa and S. America has shown there are counterexamples to those cases, despite this longstanding belief that testosterone always produces these patterns.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (40 children) | Copy Link

Her work has been discredited as far as I can tell. She was heavily criticized for reporting findings only supporting what she set out to do.

It’s not that testosterone always produces these actions. That was never my claim. My claim is that hormones influence behavior.

Do you agree that hormones influence behavior?

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 0 points1 point  (39 children) | Copy Link

Her entire body of work? Where did you hear this?

Of course hormones influence behaviour, but they also produce different effects for different people, which makes generalizations difficult. There are logs from steroid users all over the internet which document this. Transgender folks undergoing hormone therapy also describe shifts in their thinking and behaviour. These experiences often lack cohesion and uniformity, though.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (38 children) | Copy Link

If hormones influence behavior, then how can gender expressions be CREATED by social conventions? Like the scientists state above in the OP, no professional biologist believes that gender is purely a social construct.

Gender cannot be CREATED by society if it has biological components.

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think anyone says gender or sex or whatever is purely a social construct.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

OP's position is that Merriam-Webster's definition of social construct requires that society manufactures gender from nothing.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well that comes off as silly to me.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's obviously not my position. My position is the same as the biologists in the OP.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq. 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then argue to weka about it.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Those are gender roles, not gender.

And if you are so inclined to look for WHO it was you can search my comment history from this morning and yesterday. I don't think it's relevant to the discussion here though.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Groundbreaking

[–]sadomasochristNo pull out game 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why bother arguing with people who form facts from feelings and Olympic grade mental gymnastics?

Even a Walmart cashier understands men and women are innately different and gender identification is almost perfectly uniform to sex.

Only the mentally ill, idealogs and the ill informed have trouble with this. Significant minority that should be ignored and ridiculed.

[–]rathyAro 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not convinced this has anything to do with PPD. All that matters here is that there are sex differences, which I think everyone would agree there are.

[–]newName543456went volcel 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I am not sure, what is classifying something as a "social construct" supposed to achieve anymore. Even if we assume that, progressive ideology doesn't seem to follow from that in any shape or form, leaving its postulates as dogmas. Then again, progressive ideology was always at odds with logic.

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

/u/Mr_Smoogs why is it so important for you to believe that gender is not a social construct? Even if it were true, why would it matter? Why do you think we should care?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why does any of it matter? Both of us are in relationships and none of this should matter. It's all in good fun, silly head.

[–]poppy_blu 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not sure how it would matter in a relationship either.

[–]Ak_Float_FlyerMGTOW 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Gender" was mostly a term of linguistics until the 1970s, when feminists started pushing for its use to describe the identity aspects of sex. They were so successful at getting the term accepted that "gender" has almost replaced "sex" expect to describe a person's physical layout. But that is not correct.

Sex is not a social construct, but gender is not sex. To use the term is to accept the concept.

[–]THE_COLONIZERS 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Makes CMV post, stands adamantly beside original position and fails to even appear to be open-minded... this should be tagged 'Debate'.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Does it really matter if it is a social construct?

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

It’s ultimately irrelevant and entirely based on the culture. Scientific theory is worthless in the face of social manifestation.

Until science has the vocabulary to explain why some people are homosexual or why some people prefer blue over green, it’s all literally just opinion and either anecdotal or environmental.

Example: I’m a transgender man. There’s plenty of people that will drop into a boneless heap of pedantic wailing that it’s impossible to be transgender because of something-something yYy cHrOmZome or whatever, but it’s ultimately irrelevant, because after years of hormone replacement therapy and some minor chest surgery, I’m visually identified in society as a man. Beard, muscular frame, deep voice ect. I have all the proper look-walk-quacks - ie recognizable “social constructs” of maleness - and thus I am treated with all the expectations and benefits and crummy downsides of being a man in society.

Effectively, I live the life of a man. That’s what is meant by “gender is a social construct”. It’s that the expectations of what society perceives as a gender LITERALLY DECIDES what is gendered.

[–]LUClENSociology of Sex &Courtship 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Until science has the vocabulary to explain why some people are homosexual

Prenatal androgen exposure is the prevailing theory atm iiuc

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Hmm: so you believe in a sort of identification-perception theory: identify as a man, be perceived as a man, you ARE a man. Interesting! If you look enough like a duck and quack enough like a duck...

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

I mean, that and a few decades of dysphoria and dissociation lol. It’s not like play pretend in a costume. I actually had a huge problem understanding and recognized my body as my own. This probably is one of the many reasons I ended up asexual, I was a huge late bloomer. Like. 28 years late.

It’s a much larger dialogue about identity, obvs. But for all practical purposes, yeah, it’s pretty much that easy. At least in terms of altering one’s “social identity”. How we are perceived is, essentially, what we are identified as.

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Gravel: my condolences. Do you believe, as I do, that transgenderism is a birth defect?

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I mean. In the way that all expressions of personality are mild versions of personality disorders lol. At this point, that question is also irrelevant; who I am is comprised of the stimulation I uniquely processed and formed conclusions about over my life. If I were born a natal male, I wouldn’t have incubated into the person that I am (and am content to be!) So I’d suggest that to be a “non-defective male”, I would inherently be a “defective Gravel” lol.

Edit: I can’t say I wouldn’t have loved to have been born in a correctly constructed body. I come from Danish stock - most of our menfolk are 6’5 D:!! Meanwhile, going through formative puberty on estrogen only for me to 5’6 😭

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Average Danish male height is 6’0’. You wuz robbed, but of six inches, not a foot! Otherwise, there would be lots of Danish basketball players.

My “transgender as birth defect” argument stems from the fact that transgender people suffer from dysphoria. This causes pain and suffering, even in a perfectly enlightened society with present day medical technology. Glad you are feeling better though!

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I see where you're coming from with that.

It seems as though conversations like "is transgenderism a mental disorder" and "is transgenderism a birth defect" often cause more distraction than understanding (a lot like the "Do you think being gay is a choice" or "what is the fundamental difference between men and women" wormholes). People on both sides tend to get caught up on the words "disorder" and "defect" and suddenly one side is crying into their hands that people are calling them defective and the other side is banning transgender people from the military.

That's all kind of my big cranky disclaimer acknowledging the complexity of the issue... because I'm not personally opposed to calling whatever my condition is a genetic disorder, nah. In that some gene that should have switched to 'male hormone' somehow got switched to 'female', when all the rest switched correctly.

And thanks~.

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean, I can understand the transgender ban. They disqualify people for lots of shit, like eczema, ADHD, and type 1 diabetes. Transgender people are dependent on hormones, for one. However: the way the Trump administration handled things was wrong. They should have let the transgender people already in the military stay and stopped accepting new ones.

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

They also did nothing to control the narrative as to why. I now have people on the right saying trans people were banned because they’re mentally disturbed... obviously by the evidence that they “want to be the opposite gender”. This is a dangerous narrative to introduce into the work force.

If they think being trans is a sign of someone who’s mental health is a liability, will my job be next? It’s not a warzone, but it’s certainly high-stress. I deal with suicide and fighting and have mopped a lot of bloody floors. Is my “disorder” an indicator that I’m less reliable in a tense situation? (Obviously not.)

[–]SkookumTreeWhere do you want the ambulances? 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No. ADA rules apply to civilian jobs. They have to let type 1 diabetics, people with a single bout of eczema at 17, and people with ADHD at least have a shot: no blanket ban allowed. It’s not the military. But there’s a lot of shit that Uncle Sam doesn’t want in the military.

I will give you that the right has engaged in more than a little assholery with respect to trans issues.

[–]thereddespair -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

you got peepee or vegene, life can be simple. but like so many things, its not about the truth, its whats perceived that counts more.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter