• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

[RD] Gender is a social construct.

Status
Not open for further replies.
There have been a few posters in the past who have claimed that racism doesn't exist. They would also only show up in threads on racial injustice to loudly talk about how there is nothing worthwhile here. When asked what the alternative explanation for why these very non-racist things occurred, they would just shrug and deem them inexplicable, but very natural and normal.

So I sort of have this rule of thumb of looking to see if someone uses their sincerely held belief to advocate for people or to shut down conversation. Its stupid because the utility of a thing isn't necessarily linked to its truth value, but it does at least let you detect people intent on wasting time.
 
This kind of attide where some people think your prejudice and/or ignorant because you have your own beliefs on things really stinks and does not male for a good environment for conversation.
Speaking neutrally: A belief system can be based on prejudice and/or ignorance.

Speaking non-neutrally: I have followed this discussion closely. I've found that, at least the way you have described your beliefs so far, your comments could be offensive to transgender folk. And you are having discourse with at least four transgender individuals that I know of. As of now, I don't believe you have been discussing the topic in good faith. I am more than welcome for you to disabuse me of that notion in friendly discourse.
 
The either-or dichotomy is there for a very good reason in any system which can provide a proven conclusion. The reason is that if things can be both a and not a, at the same time and in the same way, then nothing follows from this.
This is known by many names, eg "law of excluded middle", and is often attributed to Aristotle (because he entirely explicitly stated it, as well as examined it as a necessary reduction).
More directly, in this topic (since obviously it doesn't just apply here), it means that while you can think gender is both innate and not innate, you should at least understand such a position will disable any way of backing a claim about gender.
Perhaps backing claims on this was already impossible, but even if it wasn't, such a stance makes it certainly impossible.

Should it matter? Not to the individual. But it takes away aspirations of formalized, agreed upon views, as in law or other communal systems.
Everyone, past some level, operates in a personal pool of ambiguity. No one can turn that into an argument within a shared system. It's how people continue living despite having incompatible views. It's why you wouldn't self-combust if you honestly thought the Taylor series is a show about balloons.

I haven’t violated the principle of the excluded middle. The answer to the statement “it is either entirely a social construct or it is entirely the result of a female brain in a male body” is false. It is no different than someone holding out a mushroom and saying “this is either a plant or an animal”
 
Apologies…coming to this late…so not read through 10 pages and may have been covered.

Is it a social construct, or a linguistic debate? To me it comes back to @Cloud_Strife’s point of ‘is a trans woman a woman’?

Well clearly not in the scientific sense of the word woman. But then the debate is really, what does the word women mean?

This debate wouldn’t matter much, except we already use this word (and associated words) a lot. Eg. Women’s sports, girls schools, mothers

So we have to decide if we are changing the definition of woman, whether these other uses are for the old definition or the new definition. And there in lies the battleground.

In my view, might be easier to stick with the old definition.
 
Apologies…coming to this late…so not read through 10 pages and may have been covered.

Is it a social construct, or a linguistic debate? To me it comes back to @Cloud_Strife’s point of ‘is a trans woman a woman’?

Well clearly not in the scientific sense of the word woman. But then the debate is really, what does the word women mean?

This debate wouldn’t matter much, except we already use this word (and associated words) a lot. Eg. Women’s sports, girls schools, mothers

So we have to decide if we are changing the definition of woman, whether these other uses are for the old definition or the new definition. And there in lies the battleground.

In my view, might be easier to stick with the old definition.

What is a woman in the “scientific sense?” How is this “scientific” sense applicable to everyday usage?
 
What is a woman in the “scientific sense?” How is this “scientific” sense applicable to everyday usage?
I’m no expert but ‘xy chromosomes’ or ‘born with a penis’ would be most people’s go to for a man (and the reverse for women).

‘Born with a vagina’ and ‘woman’ are synonymous for most people, so altering the definition of woman to include others is a change.

How do you see it differently?

Or to pose it differently, an illustration of why i think it’s a linguistic debate.

If ‘Women’s sports’ were renamed ‘Female at birth sports’ (a bit clunky I agree) would you be fine with trans women being excluded?

The point is all about ‘what is a woman?’ (Or a man for that matter)
 
I like how you present relationships inside a nuanced spectrum.
Clearly a better description of (sexual?) reality than other stereotypes.

Yet I fail to understand how "gender" applies (in society) outside of intimate relations.

Does "gender" matter in other kind of rapports?
How so? What are the perceptible characteristics showing a masculine or feminine orientation?

I can't think of anywhere in society where "gender" (why the quote marks?) has to apply. It currently does for sports, which seems reasonable. It does for public bathrooms, which can be argued. What else?

I don't think there are any characteristics that are inherently masc or fem, personally. They've all come via society.
 
Or to pose it differently, an illustration of why i think it’s a linguistic debate.

If ‘Women’s sports’ were renamed ‘Female at birth sports’ (a bit clunky I agree) would you be fine with trans women being excluded?

The point is all about ‘what is a woman?’ (Or a man for that matter)

You realize this is still effectively telling trans women that they aren't women and that trans men aren't men, right
 
I’m no expert but ‘xy chromosomes’ or ‘born with a penis’ would be most people’s go to for a man (and the reverse for women).

‘Born with a vagina’ and ‘woman’ are synonymous for most people, so altering the definition of woman to include others is a change.

How do you see it differently?

What is the ratio, would you say, of people you see or interact with on any give day whom you explicitly or implicitly apply a gender to, to the amount of those people whose genitals or chromosomes you’ve empirically confirmed?

Put another way, if it’s a matter of genitals or chromosomes, why am I exclusively referred to as miss or ma’am in my day-to-day life?

Hell, I don’t even know whether my own chromosomes are XY, XX, or something else
 
What is the ratio, would you say, of people you see or interact with every day whom you explicitly or implicitly apply a gender to, to the amount of those people whose genitals or chromosomes you’ve empirically confirmed?

Put another way, if it’s a matter of genitals or chromosomes, why am I exclusively referred to as miss or ma’am in my day-to-day life?

And how does @Nick723 account for the fact that cis women are routinely mistaken for cis men and vice versa?
 
I haven’t violated the principle of the excluded middle. The answer to the statement “it is either entirely a social construct or it is entirely the result of a female brain in a male body” is false. It is no different than someone holding out a mushroom and saying “this is either a plant or an animal”
This won't cut it, since using a mixture as your basis makes you have to define the mixture. And with current tech, this is literally impossible to back as valid, regardless of the level of detail the theory goes into.
For the simplest analogue, think of the instant mayhem and collapse of statements about integers, to be caused if someone argued that their use of 1 is different to another person's. It'd have value only if it was based on a proven system where it works, which itself ultimately would need to be non-personal, thus rest on communal agreement at specifics. Again, with current tech, it's not going to be provable (it's an open question even if it can be in the future, but we don't even need to deal with that), thus not going to be communal.
 
Last edited:
I’m no expert but ‘xy chromosomes’ or ‘born with a penis’ would be most people’s go to for a man (and the reverse for women).

‘Born with a vagina’ and ‘woman’ are synonymous for most people, so altering the definition of woman to include others is a change.

How do you see it differently?

Science is not limited to studying chromasomes or genitals. It also covers, for example, the study of the mind. So someone who's mind is that of a womans is every bit as "scientifically" a woman as one who's chromasomes or genitals are those of a woman.

If you wanted to say that trans women are not chromasomally women, then, I guess that would be accurate, though I can't see what relevance that would have to they way people should be treated. But to say they aren't women in a scientific sense is just plain wrong.
 
You realize this is still effectively telling trans women that they aren't women and that trans men aren't men, right
My point is that to know whether I agree or disagree with that statement entirely depends on your definition of woman and man.

What is the ratio, would you say, of people you see or interact with on any give day whom you explicitly or implicitly apply a gender to, to the amount of those people whose genitals or chromosomes you’ve empirically confirmed?

Put another way, if it’s a matter of genitals or chromosomes, why am I exclusively referred to as miss or ma’am in my day-to-day life?

Hell, I don’t even know whether my own chromosomes are XY, XX, or something else
I assume whether someone is a man or a women by looking at them. That doesn’t mean I get it correct, and I have no way of knowing if I’m right. Almost all the time, it doesn’t matter if I’m right or wrong, and if I get it wrong the person will correct me.

As such, I assume people refer to you like so because you look and sound like a woman? I’m not sure I follow what your point is here? Are you saying that if you look like a woman, that is the definition of a woman?

And how does @Nick723 account for the fact that cis women are routinely mistaken for cis men and vice versa?
‘Mistaken’ seems to be the key word here?

Science is not limited to studying chromasomes or genitals. It also covers, for example, the study of the mind. So someone who's mind is that of a womans is every bit as "scientifically" a woman as one who's chromasomes or genitals are those of a woman.

If you wanted to say that trans women are not chromasomally women, then, I guess that would be accurate, though I can't see what relevance that would have to they way people should be treated. But to say they aren't women in a scientific sense is just plain wrong.
I’m sorry but I don’t think this is correct.
 
Does "gender" matter in other kind of rapports?
How so? What are the perceptible characteristics showing a masculine or feminine orientation?
I mean isn’t that self-evident? We live in a society where people are treated differently according to their gender.
 
Is it a social construct, or a linguistic debate? To me it comes back to @Cloud_Strife’s point of ‘is a trans woman a woman’?
More a question of whether it matters. If "woman" is a concept that is invented for the purposes of enforcing gender norms. Like once you get away from the physical biology of reproduction, "woman" should have no different meaning than "man". As I said countless times during this thread if gender is only a social construct, than "transgender" doesn't make sense as a concept.

Like you say you're a "woman" but you do all the gender norm stuff for a "man". You are still allowed to call yourself a "woman" if you want to no matter what your genitalia is. It becomes only a label to gain or change. It becomes a identity you choose with no biological bases. If you want to say your a "ning" and "nings" put toilet paper overhand verses the "nong" you were born as who put toilet paper underhand on the roll. Like whatever, just a arbitrary packaging of life preferences. Like what you like, do as you like. Up to and including doing plastic surgery to get yourself whatever physical traits a "ning" would have. But if say to others that "ning" has a particular pronoun they must be referred to or you are "disrespecting them" no, you are pushing your beliefs onto other people.

Especially when I say I refer to everyone with a gender neutral pronoun (trans or otherwise) and get jerks accusing me of bigotry while failing to grasp the basic concept of a neutral term despite my explaining it. As I said before it would be like accusing someone of misgendering someone because they called someone a "doctor"
So we have to decide if we are changing the definition of woman, whether these other uses are for the old definition or the new definition. And there in lies the battleground.
It doesn't need a definition in the first place as the concept isn't particularly useful outside of telling people how they should live, unless we are talking about reproduction.
 
I mean isn’t that self-evident? We live in a society where people are treated differently according to their gender.
It's only one of the factors on account of which you are treated differently - and very arguably not near the top factor.
Other notable ones include if you are rich/poor, degree and market value of your education and how good you look. There are also racial reasons, language reasons (access etc), age, intelligence and so on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom